LIberals protect drug dealers and give them a flight home.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I know its not all liberals, but the loonies in San Francisco sure dont mind violating federal laws or making the drug problems worse...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/06/28/MNCU111QM7.DTL

Quote:

San Francisco juvenile probation officials - citing the city's immigrant sanctuary status - are protecting Honduran youths caught dealing crack cocaine from possible federal deportation and have given some offenders a city-paid flight home with carte blanche to return.

Quote:

San Francisco juvenile authorities have been grappling for several years with an influx of young Honduran immigrants dealing crack in the Mission District and Tenderloin.

Those who are arrested routinely say they are minors, but police suspect that many are actually adults, living communally in Oakland and other cities at the behest of drug traffickers who claim to be their relatives.

Nonetheless, city authorities have typically accepted the suspects' stories and handled the cases in Juvenile Court, where proceedings are often shielded from public scrutiny.

Quote:

San Francisco police doubt that many of the young Hondurans they arrest on drug charges are even juveniles.

Police can report suspected adult illegal immigrants to federal authorities if they commit a crime, said Capt. Tim Hettrich, until recently the head of the narcotics unit.

So immigrant drug dealers "pass themselves off as juveniles, with a three-day growth of beard and everything else. It's frustrating," he said.

"Some of them have been arrested four or five times," Hettrich said. "That is one of the big problems with being a city of sanctuary."

He scoffed at San Francisco's strategy of returning the offenders to their home country. "They probably get the round trip and the next day, they will be right back here," Hettrich said.

This is a perfect example of the "loony left" in action.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,276 • Replies: 22

No top replies

Why would American citizens, professional social workers whose job it is to improve the quality of life in the city choose to help these kids?

Why would elected local governments, supported by the citizens, avoid working with a Federal Agency that barges into their cities without an consideration of their values or concerns?

Let me give you a clue MysteryMan.

Those of us not blinded by knee-jerk hatred can see the whole story. The current immigration policy, fueled by the right wing, features kids being put in jail, American citizens being deported (since if your face looks too dark, you are guilty until proven innocent), nursing infants being taken from their mother (painful for both mother and baby), US citizens being forced to foster care.

It is not only cities and local governments that are opposing the extreme policies enforced by the ICE... it is civil rights groups, churches and citizens.

When we have a sane immigration policy-- one that truly meets the needs and respects the values of the country without relying on cruelty backed by right wing hate and fear... then we can work together to solve the real problems.

In spite of your reflexive dislike of them Liberals are human beings too.

0 Replies

I can only assume you have some facts to back up that outrageous claim.

0 Replies

Let's ask a hypothetical question...

A 13 year old kid is recruited (i.e. enslaved) by a drug gang working to feed America's drug habit. He may have no meaningful adult support at home and no one to act as guardian.

This kid is picked up by local police and sent to social services.

If you were a social worker... what would you do with this child? Is dropping a 13 year old in a Central American city without doing anything to make sure he is taken care of really an option?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I can only assume you have some facts to back up that outrageous claim.

Which would you like me to back up?

0 Replies

Kids being put in prison...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlkKhoL8LDY

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I can only assume you have some facts to back up that outrageous claim.

Which would you like me to back up?

"In spite of your reflexive dislike of them Liberals are human beings too."

Outrageous.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Let's ask a hypothetical question...

A 13 year old kid is recruited (i.e. enslaved) by a drug gang working to feed America's drug habit. He may have no meaningful adult support at home and no one to act as guardian.

This kid is picked up by local police and sent to social services.

If you were a social worker... what would you do with this child? Is dropping a 13 year old in a Central American city without doing anything to make sure he is taken care of really an option?

Yes. It is an option.

0 Replies

It isn't an option to me, nor is it an option to the good people of San Francisco.

The ICE thugs can go to hell.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

It isn't an option to me, nor is it an option to the good people of San Francisco.

The ICE thugs can go to hell.

Then let the fine citizens of SF bear the full cost of their decisions. Do not look at the federal Govt and Federal Taxpayers to finance their decisions.

0 Replies

woiyo wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
It isn't an option to me, nor is it an option to the good people of San Francisco.

The ICE thugs can go to hell.

Then let the fine citizens of SF bear the full cost of their decisions. Do not look at the federal Govt and Federal Taxpayers to finance their decisions.

You mean like that brilliant decision to invade a, make that two sovereign nations, spend, guess how many billions, Woiyo. "Reality, Earth" give me a break.

0 Replies

Re: LIberals protect drug dealers and give them a flight hom
LIberals protect drug dealers and give them a flight home.

mysteryman wrote:

I know its not all liberals,

This is a perfect example of the "loony left" in action.

'Nuff said!

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Let's ask a hypothetical question...

A 13 year old kid is recruited (i.e. enslaved) by a drug gang working to feed America's drug habit. He may have no meaningful adult support at home and no one to act as guardian.

This kid is picked up by local police and sent to social services.

If you were a social worker... what would you do with this child? Is dropping a 13 year old in a Central American city without doing anything to make sure he is taken care of really an option?

As you've pointed out, yours is a hypothetical and no more or less plausible than Honduran drug traffickers posing as juveniles, or vicious young punks willingly operating as agents for drug cartels.

"America's drug habit" is an interesting turn of phrase, and I can't help but reading into it an accusation. Obviously America doesn't have a drug habit and this sort of generalization is usually something you would protest. But who does have drug habits in America?

Sure there are some wealthy dope-heads, but they tend be the sort who agree with your point of view on this issue. Come to think of it, most dope-heads probably agree with your opinion.

OK, there are a few Wall Street coke-heads, but they, like their peers in the entertainment industry hardly comprise the bulk of "America's Drug Habit."

So who is left?

The very people who you seem to feel warrant exceptional concern?

Poor Americans?

Disproportionately, American minorities?

American children "enslaved" by drug dealers?

Do you really think SF Social Services is doing more than dropping these "kids" in a "Central American City?" If they are, then they are expending city resources on people who are not citizens of SF, California, or the US.

If these social workers are employed by SF, then I guess it's up to the SF taxpayers to determine in they are OK with their civil servants serving illegal aliens. If they are employed by the state of California, then it's up to more than the citizens of SF.

The notion of a "Sanctuary City" is counter to the premise of our system of government, but let's assume it is just fine from the standpoint of citizens of a city defying the greater government's authority in order to abide by what they believe to be right - civil disobedience.

Gandhi and King, in particular, were more than prepared to accept the civil consequences of civil disobedience; are the citizens of San Francisco?

This is the point woiyo rightly makes.

SF wishes to claim some sense of sanctimonious glory by defying federal law. So be it. Is SF prepared to forego all funding by the federal government which they defy?

The answer is clearly no, and so there is no measure of responsibility to their childlike defiance.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

woiyo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
It isn't an option to me, nor is it an option to the good people of San Francisco.

The ICE thugs can go to hell.

Then let the fine citizens of SF bear the full cost of their decisions. Do not look at the federal Govt and Federal Taxpayers to finance their decisions.

You mean like that brilliant decision to invade a, make that two sovereign nations, spend, guess how many billions, Woiyo. "Reality, Earth" give me a break.

You need medication, not a break. I am not really sure what you are saying since you are unable to construct a meaningful sentence.

However, trying to "interpret" your gibberish, I think my point is quite clear. If the City of SF wants to create their own immigration policy, they should be free to do so. However, they should not expect the Federal Taxpayers to support their decisions relative to the costs associated with that decision.

How that relates to a foreign policy matter can only be clear in you scrambled little mind.

0 Replies

So what some of you seem to be saying is that its OK for SF to send drug dealers back to Central America, even though the cops KNOW that they are sending drug dealers home.
Of course, the city is also allowing them to come back.

If the loony left that runs SF wants to do that, they should not expect the US taxpayers to pay for it.
And if they want to ignore federal law, the city should also lose EVERY PENNY of federal money they now get.

0 Replies

Shouldn't that also mean that the US taxpayers who live in SF. who will not be getting services (simply because they rejected Federal interference) should be able to stop paying taxes?

By the way, lots of us US taxpayers in Cambridge, MA and Hartford CT and New York NY (and many other cities) feel the same way.

When does the US government start listening to the local governments and people who don't want this ridiculous enforcement-only policy that the Bush government, backed by right wing extremists, are jamming down our throats.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So what some of you seem to be saying is that its OK for SF to send drug dealers back to Central America, even though the cops KNOW that they are sending drug dealers home.
Of course, the city is also allowing them to come back.

I didn't realize it was SF that was responsible for protecting our borders. Why am I paying for immigration and border patrol if they can't stop anyone at the border or the airport before they get to SF? Yeah.. it's the local officials that take my passport whenever I come back into the country.

C'mon MM. Even you have to know who is responsible for people coming into the country and it is NOT SF.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Shouldn't that also mean that the US taxpayers who live in SF. who will not be getting services (simply because they rejected Federal interference) should be able to stop paying taxes?

By the way, lots of us US taxpayers in Cambridge, MA and Hartford CT and New York NY (and many other cities) feel the same way.

When does the US government start listening to the local governments and people who don't want this ridiculous enforcement-only policy that the Bush government, backed by right wing extremists, are jamming down our throats.

Sure, you can stop paying taxes.
Then all federally funded roads leading into those cities will be blocked, all federal money spent on law enforcement, schools, and all other services will be stopped so that you lose those services, you will not be allowed to get any type of passport because that is a federal function, you will not be allowed to use federally funded roads to travel outside your town, you will not recieve any type of federal help at all.
Are you willing to go that far?

Are you also saying that its wrong to enforce the law?

0 Replies

What I am saying, Mysteryman, is that the Federal Government is supposed to be working for the good of US taxpayers, not against it.

Immigration law is unworkable and needs to be changed. Politically motivated enforcement for the sake of enforcement, done in a way that hurts US cities and is opposed by local citizens and governments (and even local law enforcement) is a bad thing.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

What I am saying, Mysteryman, is that the Federal Government is supposed to be working for the good of US taxpayers, not against it.

So how is arresting and deporting illegal aliens and drug dealers not good for the taxpayer?

Immigration law is unworkable and needs to be changed. Politically motivated enforcement for the sake of enforcement, done in a way that hurts US cities and is opposed by local citizens and governments (and even local law enforcement) is a bad thing.

I agree that immigration law needs to be changed, but it hasnt happened yet.
IMHO, the law needs to be changed so that ANY illegal convicted of a crime will be automatically deported.
It also needs to be changed so that illegals here now will also be deported.
But we have had this discussion before.

SF and other cities are ignoring federal immigration law and are allowing drug dealers to return home without prosecution, even when they are arrested with drugs on them.
If they are here illegally, they MUST be prosecuted and be deported and not allowed to return.

By refusing to follow the federal law, those cities should not be given any federal funds or allowed to benefit from any federal program.

Parados said...

Quote:

I didn't realize it was SF that was responsible for protecting our borders. Why am I paying for immigration and border patrol if they can't stop anyone at the border or the airport before they get to SF? Yeah.. it's the local officials that take my passport whenever I come back into the country.

C'mon MM. Even you have to know who is responsible for people coming into the country and it is NOT SF.

I am not saying its up to local authorities to enforce the federal law by themselves.
I am saying that if a local cop arrests someone that they KNOW is here illegally, or if they KNOW that a foreign citizen is committing a felony, then they should abide by the federal regs and arrest that person, not just send them home with a free ticket.

0 Replies

LIberals protect drug dealers and give them a flight home.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know