Saturday, December 09, 2017

Stomp on sanctuary cities

The percentages of bay area respondents familiar with the case who say the verdict in the Steinle case was "wrong", by race (N = 457):

In total, more than two-in-three residents (69.1%) don't like the decision.

Keep in mind this poll was taken among residents of San Francisco, where the economic and educational disparities among racial groups are larger but the political disparities narrower than in nearly all the rest of the country.

The left can gloat as much as it wants about the Steinle verdict, but trashing it is a populist issue. Trump has a knack for identifying things that are simultaneously 'controversial' and popular--very often more popular than he is:

Even in a deep blue urban SWPL stronghold like San Francisco, sanctuary accomplice city status gets mixed reviews. Nearly half of denizens don't favor subverting national sovereignty in this way ("unsure" responses are excluded; N = 650):

Soy boys and buggers though they be, San Francisco's white men still tend to be the city's least treasonous group.

If only half the population in accomplice cities support their cities being an accomplices, there's a huge vulnerability to be exploited. Hell, even Bugman (R, VA) grasped as much.

Bringing accomplice cities to heel is something the Trump administration needs to be pursuing intensely. Puttering around with half-percentage reductions in federal funding is the first step in a miles-long chase.


IHTG said...

Op-ed by Trump's Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Lee Cissna:

DissidentRight said...

A man who asks permission to enter your country should expect to be treated with dignity. A man who sneaks into your country to hurt people should expect to be shot on sight. Criminal illegals occupy roughly the same moral plane as rogue enemy soldiers and war criminals, and the justice system's usual protections for the accused should be relaxed in their case.

If you want our legal protections, enter the country legally.

Audacious Epigone said...


It's the lowest-hanging fruit in the National Question orchard but the bipartisan political class has refused to pick it for decades. Encouraging (if blindingly obvious).

Dissident Right,

A certain country's leader refers to them as "illegal infiltrators". It gets closer to their essence than the Orwellian tossed around here--undocumented migrant, asylum seeker, etc.

The Z Blog said...

Trump knows that "controversial" is media-speak for popular outside the confines of the Left. One of the fun things about watching him the campaign was when a reporter would bring up "his controversial statements" and Trump would never acknowledge that they were controversial in the least. Most pols immediately concede the point and then try to explain. Trump would just carry on like he was on the side of the vast majority. The interviewer would begin to blink quickly, always an indication of confusion and disconfirmation.

Audacious Epigone said...


It's what is so endearing about him. Even as he comes up short legislatively, we know we'll get another 3-7 years of him torching the media.

Black Death said...

All I know about the Steinle case is what I read on the Internet, so there may be factors that have not been brought out. Zarate was clearly innocent of first or second degree murder, but how he escaped conviction for involuntary manslaughter is a mystery to me.

Audacious Epigone said...

Black Death,

The weapons possession charge was entirely related to previous crime. Had it not been for his felonious past, he would not have been convicted of *anything* despite admitting to causing the gun to fire and kill Steinle.

Dan said...

I don't know what the Steinle verdict tells us about sanctuary cities versus what it tells us about our jury system and defense attorneys.

I say this because I just watched the video of the police officer in Az that shot the guy crawling around on the ground.

The victim was desperately playing a complicated game of 'Simon Says' for his life, submitting in every way he knew how, until he accidentally touched his pants and then was filled with lead. That movement looked at in isolation made it seem almost justifiable, but the dude had already totally obeyed tons of instructions, submitted and was crying like a girl. They had could have cuffed him much sooner. You'd think that once a guy lays flat on his face arms outstretched, the arrest would be over, but that was just the beginning.

He was acquitted after the jury watched the video even of accidental manslaughter.

It leads me to conclude that there is something wrong with jury trials. The defense attorney convinces the jury that if there is so much as a single argument in defense, that is doubt and you must acquit.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

if there's anything Zarate is guilty of - its guilty of being a fucktard. Bringing an illegal gun to shoot geese in an urban setting? Even for an aztec this dude is dumb.

Audacious Epigone said...


Yeah, that video looks pretty bad. Compliance was his way out, but dumb or drugged up people--especially with adrenaline in the mix--are often incapable of following basic instructions.

IHTG said...

AE: Cissna is really good and more people should be aware of him:

In general, the Trump administration doesn't get enough props for its action on immigration enforcement, and its rebuilding of the immigration enforcement apparatus. It's dull, day-to-day stuff, but real work is being done.

Packers Movers Hyderabad said...

I loved this one. It has given me courage to try scarier things. I tend to steer clear of them but not anymore.
Packers And Movers Hyderabad