Posts Tagged ‘LOS ANGELES’


In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on April 15, 2019 at 12:06 am

President Donald J. Trump is vigorously pursuing his own solution to illegal immigration: A massive, impenetrable wall along the U.S.-Mexican border. 

And Democrats in the House of Representatives are just as vigorously rejecting it.

So Trump is raising the stakes—and threatening to send countless numbers of illegal aliens to “sanctuary cities” that defy United States immigration laws.

Among those 31 “sanctuary cities”: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine.

These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that forbid municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce Federal immigration laws. This usually means forbidding police or municipal employees to inquire about people’s immigration status.  

On April 12, Trump tweeted: “Due to the fact that Democrats are unwilling to change our very dangerous immigration laws, we are indeed, as reported, giving strong considerations to placing Illegal Immigrants in Sanctuary Cities only. The Radical Left always seems to have an Open Borders, Open Arms policy—so this should make them very happy!”

Related image

Donald Trump

One of the cities Trump intends to target is San Francisco—the district of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. 

Reacting to this news, Pelosi’s spokeswoman, Ashley Etienne said in a statement: “The extent of this administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated. Using human beings—including little children—as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable.”

Undoubtedly Pelosi realizes the anger she would face among her constituents if they found themselves flooded by tens of thousands of illegal aliens making demands on already stretched housing, schools and hospitals. 

Nancy Pelosi 2012.jpg

Nancy Pelosi

Since these aliens come from Central America, Spanish—not English—is their only language. Which means their children would have to be given costly ESL assistance throughout their schooling.

And since most of these people have only rudimentary skills, they would require massive public assistance. And this in a city already plagued by 7,500 to 12,000 “homeless.” 

On April 11, the Washington Post had reported that the Trump administration proposed last November and again in February to send  illegal aliens to “sanctuary cities.” 

The White House and Department of Homeland Security claimed that the proposal was no longer being considered.

Then, on April 12, in a White House meeting with reporters, Trump contradicted those denials: “We might as well do what they always say they want. We will bring the illegal—I call them the illegals, they came across the border illegally—we will bring them to sanctuary city areas and let that particular area take care of it, whether it is a state or whatever it might be.”

Trump never held public office before reaching the White House. But, as a businessman, he well knows how to appeal to people’s greed and selfishness. 

Related image

By flooding “sanctuary cities” with tens of thousands of illegal aliens, Trump will quickly drive a wedge between ardent liberals such as Nancy Pelosi and their constituents.

In short: The beautiful “every-man-is-my-brother” theories of liberal politicians are about to slam head-on into the ugliness of real-world needs and wants.

This is, in fact, now taking place in Tijuana, Mexico.

In November, 2018, Trump deployed the United States military and closed the U.S.-Mexico border to prevent a 5,000-member Central American caravan from entering the country.

By November 19, migrants had begun piling up in Tijuana, which borders San Diego.

Suddenly, Tijuana became increasingly overcrowded. And its residents began carrying signs reading “No illegals,” “No to the invasion” and “Mexico First.” And marching in the streets wearing Mexico’s red, white and green national soccer jersey and vigorously waving Mexican flags.

“We want the caravan to go; they are invading us,” said Patricia Reyes, a 62-year-old protester. “They should have come into Mexico correctly, legally, but they came in like animals.”

When legal citizens—whether Mexican or Americancan’t obtain the government services they have been used to getting, they quickly become enraged. 

At first, many—perhaps most—of those living in “sanctuary cities” will vigorously support their elected officials in refusing to knuckle under.

But as time passes, public needs will go unmet while local monies become increasingly strained. 

First, legal citizens will rage at the local officials of these cities responsible for “sanctuary” policies. Then they will focus their anger on the illegal aliens being protected by those civic officials.

They will increasingly demand that their elected officials to cooperate with Federal immigration agents.

As tensions rise, so will demands for the election of new mayors and supervisors. And the chief demand of those voters will be: “Turn over the illegal aliens and restore our public services!” 

Some citizens will almost certainly take out their anger on anyone who even looks Hispanic, let alone speaks only Spanish.

And those citizens who feel conscience-torn by demanding an end to “sanctuary cities” will console themselves with this literal truth: Illegal immigration is against the law—and local officials have a sworn duty to obey the law at all levels—including those laws they don’t agree with.


In Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary, Uncategorized on January 17, 2013 at 12:01 am

On November 6, 2012, Americans overwhelmingly re-elected Barack Obama as President of the United States.

And on the same date, Americans in Colorado and Washington state overwhelmingly voted to decriminalize and regulate the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by adults over 21.

But at the Federal level, marijuana remains a prohibited, Schedule 1 drug.

And the Justice Department–seeing these initiatives as a direct challenge to its authority–are considering taking legal action against those states.

Among their weapons: Federal asset forfeiture laws which allow the Justice Department to seize properties used to facilitate violations of Federal anti-drug laws.

Prosecutors and case-agents view the seizing of drug-related properties as crucial to eliminating the financial clout of drug-dealing operations.

There is an additional incentive for local and State law enforcement agencies to seize properties involved in drug-law violations: They are allowed to keep some of the proceeds once the property has been sold.

Thus, financially-strapped police agencies have found pursuing drug-law crimes a great way to fill their coffers.

Nonsmoking tenants in apartment buildings who do not wish to inhale the cancerous fumes of marijuana smokers will likely find their options limited.

In San Francisco, landlords can ban smoking from common areas of their apartment buildings–such as the lobby and hallways. But if a tenant wants to toak up in his unit and that stench enters another apartment, city laws do not provide for a remedy.

In most cities and states, apartment residents will face a bitter truth: The legal system has not yet caught up with the scientific realities of the carcinogenic properties of tobacco–or marijuana–smoke.

This is comparable to the situation existing 25 years ago, when people could openly smoke in Federal buildings across the nation.  And when restaurants offered “non-smoking” sections–which were often polluted with the smoke of cigarettes, pipes and even cigars.

Over time, the law finally caught up with the lethal realities of secondhand tobacco smoke.  Unfortunately, it has not yet caught up with the equally lethal realities of secondhand marijuana smoke.

But a two-step remedy does lie at hand–for both nonsmoking tenants and cash-strapped Federal agencies:

First: If the Federal Drug Enforcement Administration finds widespread drug-abuse occurring within an apartment complex, it should arrest the tenants involved.

Second, more importantly, the Justice Department should levy a punitively large fine against the landlord on whose property these violations occurred.

The results of such a policy would be as follows:

  1. The violators of Federal anti-narcotics laws will be immediately put out of business.
  2. The revenues from the fine(s) can be divided between (1) financing future law enforcement efforts; and (2) financing the workings of Federal agencies generally.
  3. Thus, the Government can generate untold and desperately-needed revenues—without making itself politically vulnerable to the charge of raising taxes. Only law-ignoring landlords and their drug-dealing tenants will protest the enforcement of such fines.
  4. In San Francisco alone, more than two-thirds of its residents are renters.  Multiply the number of apartment complexes that exist just in this small city by the number that exist in larger ones—such as Los Angeles and New York—and you can easily imagine the revenues to be generated.
  5. Landlords who are assessed such fines will be served unmistakable notice that passively tolerating violations of Federal narcotics laws is no longer in their best interests.
  6. They, in turn, will take a far more pro-active approach to combing known drug-dealers and –abusers from their rolls of tenants.
  7. This, in turn, will make their complexes far safer for their law-abiding tenants.
  8. The Federal Government need not burden itself with assuming custody of such properties. Since landlords live essentially for their wallets, the levying of massive fines against them will send a message they cannot/will not dare ignore in the future.
  9. If the Federal Government chooses to seize apartment complexes found in violation of Federal anti-drug laws, it can strip the current owners of those properties and re-sell the complexes—as it now sells other properties bought with drug-tainted monies.
  10. Presumably the new owners of those properties will take warning from the successful prosecution of the previous owners.

Conventional remedies are useless against unconventional law-breakers.

By simply putting the onus on landlords to police their own buildings, the Justice Department can, in one stroke, accomplish a series of worthwhile goals on behalf of:

  • law-abiding tenants;
  • itself;
  • the Federal Government generally; and
  • those Americans served by its agencies.
%d bloggers like this: