This Last Week's Poll

This Last Week's Poll question, Sanctuary Cities are...

Safer than others 0%

A good idea 0%

An idea whose time has come & gone 8%

Responsible for the death of Kate Steinle 50%

In violation of Federal Law 75%




Evidence once again that Proof Positive readers are sane thoughtful individuals.


Multiple choices and Obama's crack budget office accountants may account for totals greater than 100%

Thank you for your participation!
Not a scientific poll. Respondents are self selecting. Questions are drawn from fortune cookies, hieroglyphics and tomorrow’s New York Times.

Please make your opinion known in this week's poll.

"Is San Francisco's Sanctuary Policy a License to Kill?"

The headline of this post, "Is San Francisco's Sanctuary Policy a License to Kill?", and the dead tree editorial I took it from, might seem to be a bit hyperbolic, or extreme. Until you consider when it was published: December 5, 2012.

Debra Saunders wrote a piece on the appalling regularity that illegal aliens* are involved in fatal car crashes, highlighting the death of a motorcyclist, Drew Rosenberg, who was hit by an illegal alien, driving without a license, who then proceeded to back over the victim's body.

Saunders notes:

This sanctuary city has been so eager to protect illegal immigrants who cannot obtain California drivers' licenses (written in 2012) that in 2009, then Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that the city would no longer impound the cars of unlicensed drivers automatically.

The law** was written that unlicensed drivers, all of them, without exception, as a deterrent, should forfeit their vehicles as a result of their lawlessness. However, in their magnanimousness, San Francisco decided that while confiscation of cars from pallid people without licenses was perfectly just, some accommodation needed to be made for those among us without the proper documentation, thus, a "Get out of Jail & Keep Your Car" card for those unable to obtain Green cards.

But, hey! In for a penny, in for a pound. SF was already in violation of federal law in shielding illegal aliens, why not violate state law as well, to shield them from the consequences of their actions.

Saunders then went on to detail the various organizations rallying to the defense of illegals - all the usual suspects-, but then, in her naivete, she suggests that illegal aliens who use vehicles to kill somebody should be deported.

I say naivete, because we now know, from the example of Francisco Sanchez, that deportation is not a deterrent, not when we have a revolving door on the border. The most pressing issue we have with illegal immigration is not the status of those who are already here, but slowing and deterring as much as humanly possible, the entry and reentry of undesirable persons of every race and color.



*non citizens who enter the country illegally, for those of you who have trouble grasping the concept of "illegal"
**law: that thing which is supposed to be binding upon everyone without exception when it comes to, say, Obamacare and gay marriage, but is totally optional for discriminating liberal municipalities who, to quote Ms. Saunders once again,

"...care more about people who break the law than the law abiding public."

Straight Talk from Judge Jeanine on Sanctuary Cities

Insert Foot in Mouth Here: David Axelrod on Arizona Illegal Immigration law

Border enforcement from Obama is about is believable as David Axelrod's comb-over.

by the Left Coast Rebel

The Hill has this from Chicago-criminal David Axelrod (and Obama senior adviser). My analysis in bold:

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod on Sunday defended the administration's lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law, saying state laws such as the controversial one in the border state "dillute" federal efforts to secure the border.

The Federal government has refused to enforce Federal border laws on the books. The obvious here being massive voting blocs that illegals represent, cheap labor and a demographic conducive to the Leviathan.

"One of our concerns about this law is it will divert our effort to go after criminals," Axelrod said on "Fox News Sunday."

If the Feds were to 'go after' criminals, they would seal the border and deport criminal illegals that overcrowd our prison systems. Anyone that thinks that the Feds are seriously going after the criminal-border element is a lunatic.

"We can't have a patchwork of 50 states developing their own immigration policy," he added. Axelrod defended the federal government's efforts on illegal immigration. "No administration has been tougher on enforcement, no administration has gone after the employers the way we have," he said.

Ok, so then why are you and your cronies mum about 'sanctuary cities' such as San Francisco that are in direct violation of Federal immigration law? Did you know that there are dozens of sanctuary cities in California alone, all in direct violation of Federal law?

Exit question - Why haven't the Feds sued those cities? Why have they allowed the 'patchwork of cities' that are breaking the law? Why? Selective law application like this from the White House is what third world regimes are made of.

Remember in November and never forget. Via Memeorandum.