Sanctuary Cities Under Fire After San Francisco Murders

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The scene repeats itself daily on city streets: a driver gets stuck bumper to bumper, blocking an intersection and preventing another car from turning left.

But authorities say that was enough to cause Edwin Ramos to unload an AK-47 assault weapon on a man and his two sons, killing them.

The deaths immediately drew public outrage, which intensified when authorities revealed that Ramos, 21, is an illegal immigrant who managed to avoid deportation despite previous brushes with the law.

The case has put San Francisco's liberal politics to the test, setting off a debate over its sanctuary law that shields undocumented immigrants from deportation.

On Wednesday, Ramos pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder in the deaths of Anthony Bologna, 49, and his sons, Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16. Bologna and his older son died in the intersection on June 22. His younger son succumbed to his injuries days later.

Shortly after that, police arrested Ramos, a native of El Salvador and reputed member of the Mara Salvatrucha gang, known as MS-13. Investigators believe he was the gunman, though two other men were seen in the car with him.

The heinousness of the deaths has put pressure on San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris to seek the death penalty against Ramos. Harris, who campaigned on an anti-death penalty platform and has never pursued capital punishment during her more than four years in office, has declined to say exactly how she intends to proceed.

"This case has been charged as a special circumstance case," making it eligible for the death penalty, spokeswoman Erica Derryck said. "No additional announcement has been made about this aspect of the charging."

Ramos' attorney, Robert Amparan, said his client was not the shooter. "They have the wrong person," he said.

Amparan declined to discuss details of the case, but he denied his client was involved in gang activity and said Ramos entered the country legally. Federal authorities contend Ramos is undocumented.

The victims' family learned that Ramos had been arrested at least three times before the shooting and evaded deportation, largely because of San Francisco's sanctuary status.

The policy, adopted in 1989 by the city's elected Board of Supervisors, bars local officials from cooperating with federal authorities in their efforts to deport illegal immigrants.

Officials in the juvenile offenders agency interpreted the law to also shield underage felons from deportation by refusing to report undocumented ones. Mayor Gavin Newsom said he rescinded the policy regarding juvenile offenders after learning about it in May.

The Bolognas' relatives say Ramos apparently benefited from the policy when he reportedly was convicted twice of felonies in 2003 and 2004 but never was turned over for deportation.

"All San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance has done is bring violence and death to this once-great city," said Frank Kennedy, who is married to Anthony Bologna's sister.

Kennedy called for an investigation of the sanctuary policy and demanded "prosecutions for violating the law."

Meanwhile, local and federal authorities are pointing fingers at each other over Ramos' most recent arrest before the shooting.

Ramos was arrested in late March with another man after police discovered a gun used in a double homicide in the car Ramos was driving.

The district attorney's office decided not to file charges against Ramos, and he was released April 2 even though he was in the process of being deported after his application for legal residence was denied, according to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

San Francisco Sheriff's Department spokesman Eileen Hirst said jail officials faxed ICE on March 30 asking if Ramos should remain jailed. Ramos was freed after Hirst said immigration officials didn't respond.

ICE spokesman Timothy Counts said his agency did not receive word of Ramos' arrest in March. He said the only communication received about Ramos was an "electronic message" from the sheriff's department three hours after his release.

The case has garnered national attention, leading U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., and an anti-immigration group called Californians for Population Stabilization to ask the U.S. Department of Justice to take over, alleging San Francisco authorities have mishandled it.

"Because San Francisco's political leaders have already demonstrated their willingness to act in flagrant violation of federal law, I do not believe that local judicial institutions can be trusted to fairly try the case or mete out an appropriate punishment," Tancredo said in a letter sent Tuesday to U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey.

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said he was unaware of the case and the congressman's request. Miller said the attorney general routinely responds privately to such requests.

Diana Hull, president of Californians for Population Stabilization, called on about a dozen cities nationwide with similar sanctuary policies to end those programs.

"We need to remember always that a death-dealing policy like 'sanctuary' hides behind the false mantle of compassion," Hull said.

Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for San Francisco's mayor, said city officials were wrong to shield undocumented, juvenile felons from federal immigration authorities.

"The sanctuary program was never intended to shield felons," Ballard said. "The policy was inappropriate."

However, Newsom "still supports the worthwhile aims of denying the federal government" assistance in deporting otherwise law-abiding undocumented residents, he said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080724/D9246MRG1.html


Thoughts?
 
1. It should be easier to immigrate to America. Not a felon (for things like murder, rape, drug dealing, etc. as opposed to having an unpopular opinion) and willing to work? Come on in.
2. If you're an illegal, you should be shipped back to your home country the first time with 100% body weight, the second time with 90% body weight, ... and the tenth time with a small card delivered to the person's next of kin stating won't make it back for an eleventh time.
3. The vast majority of illegals follow the laws of the land except for that whole border jumping thing.
4. Not cooperating with an investigation gets you and me in the clink for obstruction of justice. It should apply to sanctuary city workers.
 
That this involves an MS-13 member, and not just another humdrum "dey tuk ur juuubs" immigrant, makes this a far more complicated case than whether or not sanctuary cities should be abolished.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That this involves an MS-13 member, and not just another humdrum "dey tuk ur juuubs" immigrant, makes this a far more complicated case than whether or not sanctuary cities should be abolished.[/QUOTE]


It shouldn't be more complicated. He was arrested several times wasn't deported because SF doesn't play that game.
 
While I strongly agree with FOC that legal immigration should be much easier, illegal immigration should be stamped out through all reasonable means. And sanctuary cities should be denied all federal and state money until they change their anti-law-and-order policies.
 
In response I heard the Gov has come up with a shocking new policy

RunningMan.jpg
 
The sickening thing is that he was allowed to stay despite the fact that he was illegally in the country and still had the nerve to gun down a family.
 
For some reason, when I read the topic title, I thought you were talking about Deep Space Nine.

I really, really need to get out more.

Regardless, there's more at stake here than the fact that he was an illegal. Question instead the kind of circumstances which would give a double felon and known gang member the opportunity to drive around with automatic weapons with the obvious intent to use them.

I mean, deported? He's a MULTIPLE fuckING FELON. We have places for them. Places with bars on the windows. So the question that really arises is as to what the city's really doing about its gang problem more than anything else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Magus8472']

I mean, deported? He's a MULTIPLE fuckING FELON. We have places for them. Places with bars on the windows. So the question that really arises is as to what the city's really doing about its gang problem more than anything else.[/QUOTE]

Well much of the uproar (most in fact) is around the fact that we he wasn't deported the first time he was convicted. The point is he never should have been given the opportunity to commit a crime in this country a second time.


The only problem with deportation is... say you have an illegal that is arrested for a felony. If you deport them, whether it's before or after a prison sentence, what's to keep them within their own country. It's just another one of those things where nobody is going to be happy with the solution, whatever that may be.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Well much of the uproar (most in fact) is around the fact that we he wasn't deported the first time he was convicted. The point is he never should have been given the opportunity to commit a crime in this country a second time.


The only problem with deportation is... say you have an illegal that is arrested for a felony. If you deport them, whether it's before or after a prison sentence, what's to keep them within their own country. It's just another one of those things where nobody is going to be happy with the solution, whatever that may be.[/quote]

I think a reasonable way to handle this would be through tariffs.

Let's say we spend $50K a year to house a felon from say, ... Mexico.

Mexico ships goods to this country.

Before those goods can reach the marketplace, the felon must be paid for or Mexico must pay for his return.

It would be like legalized ransoming.

Better yet, the entire country could become a prison for the world like Australia was for England.
 
Or we could go for the radical approach and treat every illegal in the country as a foreign invader. We have more illegals in our country than we have troops in Iraq. We're considered a foreign invading force there so can we consider them as a foreign invading force here and retaliate as necessary?

*Joe Horn for President*

I personally think if you have been here for 5+ years, and can document you paid taxes those 5 years, then you should be given a speedy ticket to a green card as long as you can pass a basic intelligence test in English.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']Well much of the uproar (most in fact) is around the fact that we he wasn't deported the first time he was convicted. The point is he never should have been given the opportunity to commit a crime in this country a second time.[/QUOTE]

True, and that's certainly the driving force behind the media attention, but it's only part and parcel of the larger issue of why he had such an opportunity.
 
C'mon guys, it's San Francisco.....

I mean really....

If it were any other city this would be news, but seriously..... would you expect anything else from San Francisco?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']C'mon guys, it's San Francisco.....

I mean really....

If it were any other city this would be news, but seriously..... would you expect anything else from San Francisco?[/quote]

There was the lil' black kid (I think 13) who was gunned down in Los Angeles not too long ago by an illegal alien gang member who was also in police custody. That didn't get as much uproar though. So no... if this was in any other city it would be washed away as trivial complaints.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']While I strongly agree with FOC that legal immigration should be much easier, illegal immigration should be stamped out through all reasonable means. And sanctuary cities should be denied all federal and state money until they change their anti-law-and-order policies.[/QUOTE]

This.

Amnesties just lower peoples' respect for the law.


[quote name='usickenme']"sanctuary city" is code for "I listen to right-wing nut jobs on the radio"[/QUOTE]

You suck ass.
 
[quote name='usickenme']"sanctuary city" is code for "I listen to right-wing nut jobs on the radio"[/QUOTE]

sanctuary city is the common term used by conservatives, liberals, and the media.
 
[quote name='Liquid 2']Amnesties just lower peoples' respect for the law.[/quote]

I wasn't suggesting amnesties. I was suggesting that people here illegally should be removed or ransomed back to their native lands and any nonfelons outside the country be allowed to enter if they're willing to work for their daily bread.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I wasn't suggesting amnesties. I was suggesting that people here illegally should be removed or ransomed back to their native lands and any nonfelons outside the country be allowed to enter if they're willing to work for their daily bread.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about "any" person who wants to come coming all at once, but generally, yeah.

- people waiting to come here legally who have no criminal record wait in some cases over 20 years
- legal immigration is at historically low levels
- illegal immigration is rampant and completely uncontrolled, causing many societal problems
- along with illegal immigration we get drug running, people trafficking and gangs like MS-13 enriching themselves

What's wrong with this picture? Why have our politicians completely and utterly failed in the last 20-30 years to create a common-sense immigration policy that favors those who follow the rules over those who break them? Sounds a lot like our energy policy...
 
As someone who just dropped $600 to INS i'm abit one sided on this topic, but I doubt those in washington will do anything. When the companies that are making millions off of the cheap labor that illegal immigration provides are filling the pockets of those that legislate on illegal immigration, it makes sense nothing has been done.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I wasn't suggesting amnesties. I was suggesting that people here illegally should be removed or ransomed back to their native lands and any nonfelons outside the country be allowed to enter if they're willing to work for their daily bread.[/QUOTE]

That statement was agreeing with you...(although I don't think anyone should be let in; there should be a screening process).
 
[quote name='homeland']As someone who just dropped $600 to INS i'm abit one sided on this topic, but I doubt those in washington will do anything. When the companies that are making millions off of the cheap labor that illegal immigration provides are filling the pockets of those that legislate on illegal immigration, it makes sense nothing has been done.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Republicans don't want to hurt their business friends, while Democrats enjoy the advantage of new voters more likely to vote for them. Once more our two-party system bites us in the ass.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Exactly. Republicans don't want to hurt their business friends, while Democrats enjoy the advantage of new voters more likely to vote for them. Once more our two-party system bites us in the ass.[/quote]

I know what you're talking about, but how do they vote? Can an illegal immigrant register? Or do you just mean their descendants?
 
[quote name='SpazX']I know what you're talking about, but how do they vote? Can an illegal immigrant register? Or do you just mean their descendants?[/QUOTE]

Some vote illegally, and yes, Democrats feel their descendants will be an electoral advantage.
 
[quote name='homeland']As someone who just dropped $600 to INS i'm abit one sided on this topic, but I doubt those in washington will do anything. When the companies that are making millions off of the cheap labor that illegal immigration provides are filling the pockets of those that legislate on illegal immigration, it makes sense nothing has been done.[/QUOTE]

Strange, I thought the cheap labor was provided by keeping them in Latin America.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Strange, I thought the cheap labor was provided by keeping them in Latin America.[/QUOTE]
Take a look at the meat packing and agriculture industries, they're rampant with illegals. They pay them very little, and there is no recourse if, say, they're injured or forced to work unpaid overtime. Their employer has complete control.

Employers of illegal immigrants need to be punished severely enough to deter others from hiring illegals, there will be little reason for regular people to enter the country illegally if they are unable to work.

I would like to see an easier process for people who want to be Americans, that can speak English and have the ability to support themselves financially. Let those people in immediately. If you just want to be a foreigner working in America temporarily, unless you're a scientist or a baseball player or something, we don't need you. If you can't speak the language or can't get a job here, we don't need you.

The argument that there are jobs that Americans won't do is a myth. They just won't do them for nothing. Their desire to fill those positions with minimum wage (or less) workers is just as unlikely as finding doctors and lawyers that'll work for that much. They just don't want to pay the market rate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dafoomie']Take a look at the meat packing and agriculture industries, they're rampant with illegals. They pay them very little, and there is no recourse if, say, they're injured or forced to work unpaid overtime. Their employer has complete control.[/QUOTE]

Makes sense.

Employers of illegal immigrants need to be punished severely enough to deter others from hiring illegals, there will be little reason for regular people to enter the country illegally if they are unable to work.

Perhaps, but making the trek from Central/Latin America isn't necessarily a wholly rational act. With poverty rates being what they are (i.e. not falling as fast as they should be), it seems as though these sorts of decisions are being made on faith, something which isn't going to be dispelled any time soon.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Perhaps, but making the trek from Central/Latin America isn't necessarily a wholly rational act. With poverty rates being what they are (i.e. not falling as fast as they should be), it seems as though these sorts of decisions are being made on faith, something which isn't going to be dispelled any time soon.[/QUOTE]
They'll get the message when their friends and family who have left aren't able to send money back. They'll get the message from people who are deported back. And if they're unable to find work and want to go home, they can just allow themselves to be deported.

Their sending money out of the country has a big effect on our economy. Remittances are Mexico's largest source of foreign income, more than oil or agriculture. Effectively their biggest export is cheap laborers.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Take a look at the meat packing and agriculture industries, they're rampant with illegals. They pay them very little, and there is no recourse if, say, they're injured or forced to work unpaid overtime. Their employer has complete control.

Employers of illegal immigrants need to be punished severely enough to deter others from hiring illegals, there will be little reason for regular people to enter the country illegally if they are unable to work.

I would like to see an easier process for people who want to be Americans, that can speak English and have the ability to support themselves financially. Let those people in immediately. If you just want to be a foreigner working in America temporarily, unless you're a scientist or a baseball player or something, we don't need you. If you can't speak the language or can't get a job here, we don't need you.

The argument that there are jobs that Americans won't do is a myth. They just won't do them for nothing. Their desire to fill those positions with minimum wage (or less) workers is just as unlikely as finding doctors and lawyers that'll work for that much. They just don't want to pay the market rate.[/QUOTE]

Excellent post. People should realize this is a human rights issue as well as just an economic one. A lot of these folks have no workplace rights at all that the rest of us enjoy, such as not being forced to work overtime, or for less than minimum wage, or made to work in hazardous work conditions. Some illegals have even been treated more or less as slaves to work in people's houses on threat of being reported to the INS and deported.
 
[quote name='NeoFrank1']How did he have an AK-47?[/QUOTE]

Because gun control only controls guns for people who obey the law.

But that's another thread...
 
bread's done
Back
Top