Let me start by saying I am happy Trump is up in the polls because the media keeps telling people they should not like Trump since he's racist (not really) and disrespectful (maybe blunt with a hint of disrespectful) and a blow hard. People are reacting inversely to the media dictates. I love that. And Donald Trump so far is really only putting the boots to issues that the GOP 'nobility' have been refusing to address. John McCain is a squish and has done more for liberal Democrats than he has for conservatives, for the sake of stroking his own ego apparently. Lindsey Graham is a RINO, in South Carolina no less, a state that surely could proffer a more conservative senator. So Trump fighting back against them is a good thing. And illegal immigration IS a problem. He's creating discussions.
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."