Sanctuary City, Another Liberal Contradiction

By | July 9, 2015 | 0 Comments

 

Kathryn Steinle: No sanctuary for her

Consistency is a trait we strive for, but do not always achieve. I may be biased, but it seems to me that liberals achieve it less often than conservatives. What is more, liberals do not seem even to try to achieve it. Rather, they revel in their inconsistency, seeing it as evidence of their adaptability and open-mindedness. Perhaps they forget the old adage that the purpose of an open mind is that eventually it will close on something.
Sanctuary city vs. safe city.
Like some other liberal enclaves, San Francisco declared itself a “sanctuary city,” so that illegal immigrants would be reported to Immigration only if they commit violent felonies. The supremacy of federal law is a concept that seems to have eluded San Francisco officials, who approved this popular and “humane” program. In fact, in the last 18 months, more than 10,000 illegal immigrants have been released from custody in California without immigration officials being notified.
How well this program works was recently illustrated with striking clarity. A namesake of the city, Francisco Sanchez, age 45, is an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times. If you are deported and return, you have committed a felony, so Sanchez was guilty of four felonies before he even got started.
Not satisfied, he then accumulated at least four arrests on drug charges in three states. Sanchez stated that he came to San Francisco because he knew it was a sanctuary city, and he would not be deported again. He was correct. He was arrested again (a fifth time) on drug charges, and Immigration put a hold on him, so he could be deported again when he was released from jail.
But San Francisco authorities followed their policy and refused to honor the hold, because Sanchez had not committed a violent felony. Sanchez was released, and obligingly proceeded to commit a violent felony. He shot 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle, who died in her father’s arms at a tourist attraction on Pier 14. She had worked for a medical technology company. Of course, Sanchez will not receive the death penalty, because California no longer has one.
Her last words were, “Dad, help me, help me.” But her dad couldn’t help her. It was up to us to help her by keeping the streets as safe as possible. We didn’t. We used up all our sympathy on those who don’t deserve it, leaving none for those who do deserve it.
To summarize: A city can be a sanctuary for law-abiding citizens or for criminals, but not for both.
Death penalty vs. assisted suicide.
In my state of California, the death penalty has been on hold since a federal judge declared that it was subject to error and “terribly painful.” No, what’s terribly painful is waking up each morning for the rest of your life, and knowing that you will never see your loved one or friend again, at least not in this world, while the murderer will sleep in a warm bed, eat three meals a day, watch TV, and enjoy human interaction.
In 2006 a federal district court judge (the lowest level of federal judge) decided that lethal injection, the way we euthanize beloved dogs and cats, is “terribly painful.” The obvious inconsistency was not at all obvious to opponents of the death penalty. This one judge overruled the voters of California, who voted 52-48 for retaining the death penalty. His decision was never appealed, because California officials are opposed to the death penalty. The officials see their duty as advancing their own agenda, not as serving the people they are sworn to serve.
And so, since 2006, California’s death row has increased until it now holds 751 convicted murderers. Meanwhile, state officials pretend to be arguing about a new protocol for lethal injection, one that will satisfy the federal judge, when everyone knows that both they and the judge will never agree on a protocol – because they both oppose capital punishment in the first place.
To add to the irony, the U.S. Supreme Court recently approved a method of lethal injection. I await with bated breath the argument – which is sure to come – that California must obey the lone district court judge and ignore the Supreme Court. The twisted logic will no doubt put pretzels to shame.
But the final irony is this. Many of the people who oppose capital punishment, claiming that lethal injection is “terribly painful” and prone to error, are the same people who now favor legalizing assisted suicide. That is, they favor a physician giving a patient sedative tablets – which will be more difficult to administer, and less certain in action, than lethal injection. The California Senate just approved such a law.
To summarize:

● Lethal injection is uncertain and “terribly painful,” but assisting the suicide of human beings is permissible, even laudable.

● We claim to have a representative form of government, but officials are free to pursue their own agenda and ignore the vote of the people.

● Decisions of the U.S. Supreme court are “the law of the land” and must be obeyed immediately when it comes to same-sex marriage, but the decisions are questionable and may be put on hold, or ignored entirely, when it comes to capital punishment.

● Human life is precious when it comes to convicted murderers, but human life is disposable when it comes to the disabled, the sick, the elderly, the depressed, or the inconvenient.

● “Thou shalt not kill” must be taken literally when it comes to executing convicted murderers, the war on terrorism, or self-defense against violent criminals. But it can be ignored entirely when it comes to the disabled, the sick, the elderly, the depressed, or the inconvenient. (In fact, this is a mistranslation. The original Hebrew reads, “Do not murder.”)

Immigration vs. drug laws.
Arizona was dissatisfied with lax federal enforcement of immigration laws, so it enacted a state law mirroring federal law. But the U.S. Supreme Court threw out most of the Arizona law, declaring that only the federal government can enforce federal law, which takes precedence over state law.
Meanwhile, more states are legalizing medical marijuana, and now recreational marijuana as well. However, federal law still classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance – that is, forbidden except for rigidly controlled research. But the DEA and federal courts look the other way. In this case, state law takes precedence over federal law.
To summarize: The law is whatever we – the self-anointed elite – say it is, neither more nor less. (Apologies to Humpty Dumpty.)
ObamaCare vs. ObamaCare.
In its first 5-4 decision upholding ObamaCare, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that it is a tax, and therefore the law is constitutional, because the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes. This was despite the fact that when the bill was pending, both the administration and its congressional backers insisted it was not a tax.
And now, in its second 6-3 decision upholding ObamaCare, the Court declared that insurance exchanges “established by the states” really means “established by the states or the federal government.” The Court’s majority was moved to make this assertion because it concluded that this was the intent of those who wrote the bill, and the wording was merely a misprint. However, Prof. Jonathan Gruber, one of the bill’s chief architects – if not the chief architect – declared that the wording was accurate, because the intent was to put political pressure on state governors to establish exchanges.
To summarize: The facts are whatever we – the self-anointed elite – say they are, neither more nor less. (Further apologies to Humpty Dumpty.)
The bottom line:
Consistency? We don’t need no stinkin’ consistency. We’re liberals! We do whatever will advance our agenda, and we call it “the Constitution” or “the law.” Then everyone must go along with our vision of utopia, even though we are actually producing a dystopia in which it is dangerous for a young woman to walk with her father at a tourist attraction. But we mean well, don’t we?

Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com

No Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Social Widgets powered by AB-WebLog.com.