SF Pays Illegal To Stay

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 Home for Drunk Illegal

“We are devastated. My children are crying, but we know there's nothing more we can do.” – “victim” Giovani Jimenez of Fredericksburg, VA

Like her “devastated” hubby—Virginia squatter Wendy Uruchi Contreras, 33—is illegal. Apparently, this menace can't go from point 'A' to point 'B' without violating numerous American laws. For her misdeeds, this sauced Spaniard—ironically an immigrant rights activist for CASA—inadvertently turned the spotlight of hypocrisy on herself. Thus, her own undocumented status was exposed. She was arrested last year, pleaded guilty to DUI, and is subsequently being held in custody. Today, her deportation is imminent. Sorry Charlie: too bad, so sad! Welcome to Trump's America.

Is it any wonder why this lawbreaker couldn't get the laws of this land to suddenly work for her? After an overlong six-month process (including denied last-ditch appeals), Uruchi is to be repatriated to Madrid forthwith. (Symbolically, an appropriate capper to Donald Trump's rapid-fire first week as a newly minted law and order president. Happily, like Ronald Reagan, but on steroids!)

Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth in casa de Uruchi-Jimenez. One feels a measure of sympathy for their American-born children, Alex, 13, and Lucia, 7. Yet, overriding this consideration is the fact that both parents intentionally flouted our legal immigration process. The couple then chose to procreate. A ripple effect of poor choices, ultimately resulting in this family's geographic dissolution. Still, the cause—and the fault—remains squarely with them.

Knee-jerk liberals make the contrived argument that America's immigration laws are draconian: “anti-family unity” or somehow contrary to the “best interests of children”. Well, what if this lead-footed lush had killed someone else's child? Such an act would permanently—and irrevocably—end another person's God-given right to exist; shattering that family's unity. What of the rights of law-abiding citizens—our innocents and their loved ones?

For eight years, golfing ex-president Obama turned a blind eye. Even worse, he abetted the rising body count (exemplified by record-breaking Chicago: the nation's murder capitol for five years of his presidency). A cause of this disgrace was highlighted in Mr. Trump's August 2016 speech in Phoenix:

“Since 2013 alone, the Obama administration has allowed 300,000 criminal aliens to return back into United States communities. These are individuals encountered or identified by ICE, but who were not detained or processed for deportation because it wouldn’t have been politically correct.”

So much for longstanding progressive “sympathy” for actual victims of illegals' crimes like Kate Steinle. Cry baby ideologues make subject-changing excuses for them by demonizing the rest of us as “intolerant”. Therefore, these “do-gooders”—philosophically twisted like pretzels around their own axles—are not to be believed, or trusted. For they are destructive harbingers of leftist chaos: advocating the twin scourges of open borders and illegals' illusory rights. Indeed, the characteristic defining the polarized Obama years was their subversive efforts to aid the torrent of violence, drugs and lawlessness.

Our democratically-created laws are fair. They have one purpose: to preserve life. Within our sovereign boundaries, they protect men, women—and most of all—children. The heartbreaking number murdered at the hands of this invading underclass is unknown.

In 2002, Uruchi arrived on a 90-day visa waiver program. So, she's already been a de facto criminal for fifteen years. Moreover, by what right did this speeding drunkard endanger public safety in 2016? Someone with neither legal standing nor moral fiber has no automatic right to reside in our country. Naturally, her brood is exempt from her wrongdoing. They can return here when they reach maturity. As adults and legal citizens, America will graciously extend them the welcome mat.

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