All lawbreakers, please come to San Francisco

Last night, I was discussing with my mother the British woman I met in Florida who said that the situation in England, vis a vis Muslims, is much worse than even the papers describe. Aside from pointing to political correctness as the culprit, I also also laid the blame, as did the British woman, on Britain’s unlimited immigration problem, hatched at Oxbridge and imposed on the rest of the nation. My kids, who were listening, asked what unlimited immigration meant.

I explained to them that it’s healthy for a country to take in new people, because it brings in new ideas and new energy. However, I said that a country should be able to control how many come in, and should be able to ensure that the people are healthy and are not criminals. They looked blank. I sought an analogy. Imagine, I said, if we went into downtown San Francisco and announced that anybody who wanted could come and live in our house. All they had to do was show up. And imagine, I said, that the ones who showed up were drug addicts and crazy people and criminals, as well as some nice people. Their eyes widened. I went on to explain, and they agreed, that within minutes of this policy, our house would be trashed, stinky, and minus all its nice stuff. They agreed that a country, just like a homeowner, ought to have (and exercise) control over those whom it invites in.

Why does this involve San Francisco? Because I just read today that San Francisco, in violation of federal law, is again inviting criminals into its borders and to use up taxpayer funded resources:

San Francisco’s “sanctuary” policy for illegal immigrants, which has drawn sharp criticism from conservatives, will be promoted in an advertisement campaign complete with multilanguage brochures and radio and TV public service announcements.

The city-funded outreach campaign is expected to roll out this spring and build on San Francisco’s response to last year’s federal immigration raids, which city officials said scared undocumented immigrants into not accessing city services, reporting crimes or sending children to school.

City officials Wednesday were not able to provide The Examiner with a cost breakdown for the campaign.

“We have worked with the Board of Supervisors, Department of Public Health, labor and immigrant rights groups to create a city government-wide public awareness campaign so that immigrants know The City won’t target them for using city services,” said Nathan Ballard, Mayor Gavin Newsom’s spokesman.

[snip]

Supervisor Tom Ammiano, who is working on the planned outreach campaign to undocumented immigrants, said it will ensure “a lot of deserving people” take advantage of city services. “To me, it’s a logical follow-through.”

Boy, am I glad I don’t live in San Francisco anymore. It would drive me into a frenzy to know that my money was being used to turn the City into a haven for criminals. (And I do believe that all illegal aliens, even if they’re not violent or criminally negligent, are criminals because, by definition, they’ve broken the law.)

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Zhombre

    THE DREAM

    If you’re going to San Francisco
    Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
    If you’re going to San Francisco
    You’re gonna meet some gentle people there

    For those who come to San Francisco
    Summertime will be a love-in there
    In the streets of San Francisco
    Gentle people with flowers in their hair

    — Scott McKenzie

    THE REALITY

    “Puto grocero, tus chingoa de pelo nos soplan en la cocina!”

    — William S. Burroughs

  • Gringo

    Zhombre: I also thought of the McKenzie song, but I was not aware of the Burroughs quote.

    For the liberal of San Francisco and other places, evil is not personal, but institutional. Moreover, evil is the OTHER: the bad institutions, the rightwingnuts. They cannot even consider the possibility that THEY can do evil. ‘Tis impossible, for they are liberals. ‘Tis impossible, for evil comes from bad institutions, not from well-intentioned persons.

    For those of us who are of a more conservative bent, evil and shortcomings are inherent to the human condition. While success is possible for the human condition, shortcomings are all too common, perhaps summed up as “Life is just one damned thing after another.” We therefore evaluate each personal and institutional act with the following question: to what degree may it make things better? To what degree may it make things worse? Humans and the institutions that humans create are a balance of good and evil, of success and of shortcomings. Liberals are more inclined to say good individual, bad institution, without considering: who was it that created the institutions?

    Liberals are less aware of the successes of the present, and of the possible shortcomings of trying to “change” the present, than are conservatives.

    Enough rambling.

    Let us wear some flowers in our hair!

  • Ymarsakar

    Without free will, evil and good become nothing but political slogans to be used to gain temporary political advantage.

    Whether Democrats use it or not, doesn’t really matter since they don’t see people as having free will. Without free will, there can only be one kind of good and one kind of evil, given that individuals are no longer allowed to make judgements concerning real life situations occuring to real life people.

    When a person sees an act of injustice, it is only through the exercise of his free will that he feels satisfaction or anger. Without it, who are we to decide that what Saddam did was evil and what Bush did was good? Might as well let somebody up top tell us what is good or not. And that’s exactly what fake liberals do, which also explains why their members can so easily shift from complaining about the inequality of women in Afghanistan pre 9/11 and then complaining about the Bush war machine in Afghanistan post 9/11.

    Their judgements aren’t operating on their conscience or what they see. Their sense of right and wrong are given to them, not decisions they themselves make.

  • Danny Lemieux

    This get’s back to the “angels and demons” dualism of Man’s nature, YM. Because the Left blames societal institutions for the existence of “evil”, they become blind to their own capacity for evil. All you have to do is listen to how completely blind people like Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden and other icons of the Left are to all the evil that they have enables. They cannot imagine that they are anything but good. I suspect that Hillary and Obama fall in the same category.

    “When we would pursue virtues to their extremes on either side, vices present themselves, which insinuate themselves insensibly there, in their insensible journey towards the infinitely little; and vices present themselves in a crowd towards the infinitely great, so that we lose ourselves in them and no longer see virtues. We find fault with perfection itself. ” – Blaise Pascal.

  • Ymarsakar

    I don’t think Hillary or Obama considers Goodness the way I would. For one thing, they see certain things as being wrong with this country that I see as being right about this country. Thus, metaphysically speaking, we are on diametrically opposite sides.

    There’s a certain point past where it goes from simple political disagreement, which is healthy to a nation, to Benedict Arnold and the Civil War. Those weren’t just political disagreements, you know.

  • Danny Lemieux

    By the way, I confess that I really don’t edit well at all, especially before I have had my first full mug of coffee in the morning.