A
threatened lawsuit from illegal Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno, 33, for “wrongful
arrest” has compelled local officials to pay him $190,000! This appalling
decision gives the words of acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Thomas D. Homan, deeper resonance:
“Sanctuary cities, in my
opinion, are un-American. … They're a sanctuary city, they're proud of it.”
Ah, San Francisco,
represented by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
Recall, her stomping grounds
were made infamous by the July 1, 2015 slaying of 32-year-old Kate Steinle.
Walking along Pier 14 with her father, Ms. Steinle was struck in the back by a
ricocheting bullet from a stolen gun in the hands of an illegal, Juan Francisco
López-Sánchez: a felon with 7 convictions and 5 deportations. López-Sánchez had
been in the custody of the San Francisco Sheriff on drug charges when ICE
issued a detainer for him. Instead of turning him over as federal law demanded,
this convicted criminal was set free—and an innocent lost her life.
Over two years later, things
have evolved from the tragic to the farcical.
Today, San Francisco is
apparently so “proud” of their ongoing sanctuary status, they're paying Señor
Figueroa-Zarceno six figures for not living up to their federal law-violating
“principles”! For context, back in December 2015,
Figueroa-Zarceno informed police about his stolen vehicle. That caused
them to become aware of his DUI conviction and an order for deportation to his
home country of El Salvador. Reporting the theft of
his vehicle ironically led to his arrest and two month incarceration. Yet,
given San Francisco’s sanctuary policies, this outcome was illegal. Per the
1989 “City and County of Refuge” Ordinance (also known as the Sanctuary
Ordinance):
“City
employees [are prohibited] from using City funds or resources to assist
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal
immigration law.”
Hence,
for complying with federal law—that importantly supersedes local statutes—San
Francisco obliged itself to pay Figueroa-Zarceno from the taxpayer till. What's
more absurd: that this two-faced “victim” claims “what happened to [him] was
very unfair and it was an injustice,” or cutting him a large government check
for his “inconvenience”? Indeed, this outrageous settlement illustrates the
schizophrenic nature of sanctuary policies for law enforcement. Which do they
honor? The conflicting city policy or the federal mandate? Siding with the
former means releasing often violent offenders or risking similar payouts.
Hypocritical
Democrats falsely justify sanctuary cities by advocating the straw man argument
of “tolerance and multiculturalism”. In truth, Democrats promote these lawless
enclaves—populated by illegals and criminals—precisely because these same
illegitimate groups overwhelmingly support them politically! As a case and
point, is California Political Review's “Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They
Vote”. Tellingly, 80% of noncitizens back Democrats. Therefore, progressives
shield these lawbreaking foreigners because their political prospects are tied
to them.
For
this safely ensconced ruling elite, what do they care about perpetuating a
dangerous environment? Another Democratic-run urban jungle—like America's
murder capital, Chicago—leaps to mind. Former Obama flunky Rahm Emanuel
parrots, “We want you to come to Chicago if you believe in the American dream.”
What of the unrealized dreams of the 423 fatalities—recorded there in 2017, so
far—Mister Mayor? What of this unending nightmare Democrats
universally condone, and encourage? Undocumented aliens hide in plain sight while citizens cower from shadowy,
un-American threats to life and limb.
This
discrepancy is most clearly seen in San Francisco's disbursement of money to
“injured” parties. While illegal Figueroa-Zarceno will be quickly paid for his
trouble, last January U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero dismissed the wrongful
death suit filed against San Francisco, and then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, by
Kate Steinle's family. (The lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management—the
source of the López-Sánchez's stolen firearm from an agent's car—is
proceeding.) In essence, city leaders have negated a citizen's constitutional
rights, Kate's, while championing the “rights” of a foreign squatter? What an
Orwellian result! In the final analysis, which group demonstrates more contempt
for America? Liberals who run San Francisco or illegals who inhabit it?
Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976
http://newstex.aci.info/authors/15977720f5100100002
No comments:
Post a Comment