A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Unsecure Communities « Back to Story
Showing 5 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
I listened to Ammiano pressing this bill on NPR, it was disturbing to say the least. He argued that this bill will actually make us safer.
Here are the felons, illegally present in the US, that cannot be held by the jail to be handed over to the feds: possession or distribution of child porn, all theives, possession or detonation of a destructive device (unless done with an intent to kill), all drug dealers (except to minors), all misdemeanants, vehicle theives, all domestic abusers, every burglar (except residential burglars), felons in poss of guns, most gang members, drunk drivers, those who attack the police (so long as it was not with a deadly weapon), every person who runs from the police in a car, and every person who actually committed a serious or violent felony as defined in the Penal Code but successfully plea bargained it down to something else. This is true no matter how many crimes the person committed that is not serious or violent. Have 20 prior felonies, no matter, so long as it is not serious of violent. Just release even if the feds have issued a detainer.
All this to improve the TRUST of the community that these criminals are drawn from (the reality is that most criminals victimize their neighbors because that is where they spend their time). The saddest part was listening to the advocates, specifically the Asian Law Caucus personnel fanning the flames of alleged racial profiling by police by telling their constituents that there is a risk of deportation if they report crime as a witness. False and disgusting. Their anecdote to support such nonsense failed to identify the reason the person was placed in removal proceedings is because she was actually arrested for domestic abuse and she had a record with ICE. Even then ICE had the authority to, and probably will dismiss her removal petition if she is as innocent as the ALC suggested.
I'm an American living overseas in Korea. Korea has a very straightforward policy on immigrants: "You, immigrant, are here to help us. The moment you deviate from that, your feet won't touch until you land outside the country, never to return."
I have no problem with this policy. Koreans think Korea should be for Koreans, put Koreans first in all endeavors, and use the national immigration policy strictly to help Korea.
Their approach works. Foreigners here are a big aid to them and very seldom do they cause trouble. Any foreigner who does cause trouble, such as running afoul of the law, generally only does it once. Consequently, there isn't a lot of friction between the foreigners and the Koreans.
No one seems to think that the Korean immigration policy has anything wrong with it. Their policy of using immigration to help their nation seems to be perfectly well understood as logical, good sense.
Why is the United States doing the same thing considered bad and racist?
California liberals have a serious case of Arizona-envy. Secretly, they want to be us.
More foolishness from Democratic fools. California is on a race to the bottom, but we know from Detroit that for Democrats the bottom is very far down indeed.
California = lost cause. In pace requiescat.
Great article. One more reason Californians are fleeing the state. Unfortunately, it will have to hit bottom before things begin to change.