Democrat 2020 candidate Joe [...]]]>
Democrat 2020 candidate Joe Biden recently demanded that TV networks stop booking Rudy Giuliani which gives a hint about what sort of president he would be regarding the First Amendment.
Similarly, D-candidate Kamala Harris has called for Twitter to suspend the president’s account because of his tweets against the mysterious unnamed “whistleblower” who has accused him of impeachable acts.
These Democrats are picky about the sort of speech they would permit.
On Monday, Tucker Carlson discussed the decision of New York City to ban certain words and phrases — one being “illegal alien” which is the correct legal term. Badthink persons who utter the truth about foreign invaders will be punished severely with a quarter-million-dollar fine.
As Tucker observed, “This is how it begins” — fascism, that is.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: New York City is a sanctuary city and that means federal immigration law is ignored there, so the officials do their best to protect illegal aliens, even the criminals from deportation.
New York has created its own category of immigration laws that target not people who are here illegally, but people who are born here like you.
For example, a new decree from the New York Human Rights Commission says that ordinary people can be fined up to a quarter of a million dollars if they use language that illegal immigrants don’t like.
Some of the banned words include asking employees to speak English, threatening to call ICE on illegal building tenants or even using the phrase “illegal alien” which is an official U.S. government phrase, by the way, in a quote, “derogatory way.”
Seth Barron is Associate Editor at City Journal. He joins us tonight.
Seth, the First Amendment, I think it’s right in there in the Bill of Rights. But it’s not operative in the biggest city in the country now?
EDITOR SETH BARRON: Well, it’s still there. But you know, they’re working on it, Tucker. They are working on it.
As you know, the left, they want to control language, because if you can control language, you can control thought, you can control behavior. Now, technically speaking, the new guidance that the Human Rights Commission put out really pertains mostly to, you know, housing, employment and public accommodations. But that’s not how they’ve put it out there.
They have put it out, as you said that using the word “illegal alien”, in a very broad context, is illegal and could get you fined.
CARLSON: But I don’t understand. I mean, how can — I mean, the First Amendment has been interpreted repeatedly by the Supreme Court and definitively in 1967 to protect all speech, except imminent calls to violence. So how in the world does New York get around that?
BARRON: Well, they would say that this is implicit discrimination. So if you’re an employer, and you want to, you know, make sure that your employees or applicants are truly citizens, or truly have work authorization that that would be a kind of a disparate impact.
It’s a wide ranging assault, I will agree with you there.
CARLSON: It’s fascism. So what if I take the train up to New York tomorrow and just stand in Times Square with a bullhorn using the phrase “illegal alien”?
BARRON: That would probably actually get you in trouble because part of the law does cover — I can’t remember exactly what the term, it is like threatening intent or something, basically, discriminatory intent. So yes, if you’re posing any kind — if someone could interpret that as a threat to their safety or a threat of violence, then you could get in trouble.
CARLSON: Right. So this is how it begins. The left conflating speech with violence. I don’t agree with what you’re saying, therefore, I feel threatened, therefore, you’re not allowed to exercise your First Amendment right. I mean, that’s authoritarian.
BARRON: You’ve heard the Drop the I Word campaign. I mean, this has been going on for a while and they have been pushing it. They want the word “illegal alien” stricken from vocabulary, even though as you pointed out, it’s part of the Federal Code.
CARLSON: We should fight this and I don’t care if every HR department in every big company in America signs onto this, which of course they will, we should fight back. Because what’s at stake here is the most basic of all freedoms, which is the freedom to think what you want.
BARRON: Agreed.
CARLSON: Yes. Agreed. Seth, great to see you tonight. Thank you.
Now we see the Democrat allegiance extend toward persons ordered by the court system to be deported, even though some are criminals and gangsters. Protecting public safety [...]]]>
Now we see the Democrat allegiance extend toward persons ordered by the court system to be deported, even though some are criminals and gangsters. Protecting public safety used to be a bipartisan value of public officials, but that has gone by the wayside in the left’s rush toward globalist lawlessness.
One example has been Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who as Speaker of the House has been leading the pack in fighting lawful deportations of foreigners who have exhausted all their options in the American legal system. Some have criminal convictions.
During Pelosi’s weekly press conference on July 11 (transcript), she encouraged aliens to refuse to open the door to federal officers who are there to enforce the law.
Families belong together. Every person in America has rights. These families are hardworking Members of our communities and our country. This brutal action will terrorize children and tear families apart.
At the events that I’ve been going to, recently in Queens and other places – but the Queens one was specifically geared to the Census, and then the raids emerged as part of that discussion – I read them this card: An ICE deportation warrant is not the same as a search warrant. If that is the only document ICE brings to a home raid, agents do not have the legal right to enter a home. If ICE agents don’t have a warrant signed by a judge, a person may refuse to open the door and let them in. An administrative order of removal from ICE or immigration authorities is simply not enough.
Families belong together. Everyone in our country has rights. Many of these families are mixed-status families. We hope the President – we pray that the President will think about this, I would say ‘again.’ Hopefully it’s ‘again.’
In the same presser, Pelosi called President Trump “heartless” for enforcing the law, even though The Hill recently headlined, Trump deporting immigrants at slower pace than Obama: report. The sainted Obama and hated Trump certainly get scored differently by Democrats and their assistants in the press.
All this immigration lawlessness comes with a human cost. Kate Steinle was shot dead in Speaker Pelosi’s district as the young woman strolled with her father on a popular San Francisco pier in 2015.
The illegal alien shooter Francisco Sanchez had been deported several times but said in a jailhouse interview that he returned repeatedly to San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city where he would not be pursued by immigration officials.
Three members of the Bologna family (shown below) were murdered by an illegal alien gangster in 2008, also due to San Francisco’s permissive immigration enforcement.
Yet even with all this blood on her hands, Speaker Pelosi is campaigning for more immigration lawlessness.
]]>The pictures are reflected in a report published earlier this month finding that L.A.’s homelessness is [...]]]>
The pictures are reflected in a report published earlier this month finding that L.A.’s homelessness is the second worst in the nation, with New York scoring the number one spot.
I reported two years ago about the increasing hispanic homelessness as noted in the Los Angeles Times. So importing millions of unskilled unemployable foreigners has added to the homeless problem as well.
Tucker alluded to excessive immigration in his observations on Los Angeles homelessness.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: The footage on your screen, the picture you’re looking at right there was shot by one of our producers last week. We were out in California all week in Los Angeles, supposedly one of the richest cities in the world, and in some ways it is.
But the video you are watching shows something else — Californian’s poor, meandering trash-filled streets, right in the middle of the city, right in downtown. Block after block, homeless encampments along the sidewalks and blanketing downtown L.A.
The footage you are watching starts at Fifth Street and San Pedro and goes west — again, block after block, tent after tent. This is how the poor spend Easter Sunday in California. They weren’t clustered on one side of a single road either, it wasn’t just like skid row: it was like many skid rows. He drove down three completely different blocks and the camps just continued. It was like Tegucigalpa or Port-au-Prince but it’s not; it’s America’s second-largest city.
The encampments begin just two blocks away from Little Tokyo, one of L.A.’s major tourist destinations. Nearby apartments rent for 3500 bucks a month.
You might be wondering, with so many people priced out of local housing, few people are literally living in RVs, miles of RVs parked along the street that you are watching here. They are in tents. Why wouldn’t local leaders want to slow or stop the flow of new arrivals to get prices under control, to open up new housing?
They are doing the opposite. L.A. is a sanctuary city in a sanctuary state. Every politician there with any ambition will denounce our border as an atrocity and immigration enforcement as an abomination. The poor in California are an afterthought, one of the reasons why they are multiplying. That’s why when California Governor Gavin Newsom tried to fight poverty last week, he flew to another country to do it, El Salvador. The same people who want no limits on people moving here can’t even house the people who already live here. It tells you a lot.
Below, five-times deported illegal alien Mexican Jose Ines Garcia [...]]]>
Below, five-times deported illegal alien Mexican Jose Ines Garcia Zarate (left) shot and killed Kate Steinle as she strolled on a San Francisco pier with her father, but the killer was found not guilty in her death.
On Friday, Zarate’s attorney Matt Gonzalez discussed why he believed the federal prosecution was “vindictive” with Martha MacCallum on Fox News. He thought the killer’s immigration status was meaningless and did not grasp that Kate Steinle would still be alive if Zarate had been deported rather than released by the sanctuary city San Francisco.
Lawyer Matt Gonzalez comforts his client, the admitted killer of Kate Steinle.
Most people outside California may be unaware that Matt Gonzalez is not an ordinary public defender. On the contrary, he has a long history of far left activism and has been quite a fixture in San Francisco politics. He was a member of the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors starting in 2000 and was president of the Board. He ran as the Green Party candidate for mayor of the city in 2003 but lost to Democrat Gavin Newsom. When Ralph Nader ran for president in 2008, Gonzalez was his vice presidential candidate. He was appointed to be the chief attorney in the Public Defender’s Office in 2011.
So it’s likely that Gonzalez will parlay the publicity he got in this trial into another political effort. He will certainly be seen as the hero of the sanctuary movement and a defender of illegal alien criminals against the hated Trump and others who believe in law and sovereignty. Who knows how far Gonzalez may go with such credentials?
]]>
But those with any memory (or honesty) recalls the triple murder of the Bologna family in 2008 by an illegal alien thug who was not deported despite having a criminal record in San Francisco. The shooter, Salvadoran Edwin Ramos was clearly a dangerous character, a known gang member who had earlier been arrested for assaulting a passenger on a bus and attempting a robbery of a pregnant woman, yet he was not deported because San Francisco shielded him.
All of these violent deaths were preventable crimes had San Francisco co-operated with the feds on immigration enforcement, but the liberals running the city think they know better.
Below, Tony Bologna and his two sons were shot to death by an MS-13 gangster a short distance from their home in San Francisco as they returned from a family picnic.
The San Francisco Chronicle poked some memories on Sunday, when a front-page story reminded readers of the Bologna deaths. The writer, Vivian Ho, is a court reporter with experience with murder cases. She appeared numerous times on LA’s John and Ken Show to discuss the case with the radio hosts who have a strong interest in immigration enforcement.
]]>Kate Steinle case: After crimes by immigrants, families see pain politicized, By Vivian Ho, San Francisco Chronicle, December 9, 2017
Before the Steinles, there were the Bolognas. On a cool summer day in 2008, the San Francisco family was torn apart by a senseless act that thrust the city and its immigration policies into the national spotlight.
A little more than seven years before Kate Steinle was fatally shot on Pier 14, Danielle Bologna lost her husband and two of her sons in a mistaken-identity gang hit by an MS-13 member who had been shielded from deportation twice by city juvenile justice officials relying on San Francisco’s sanctuary laws.
The cases ended differently, with the MS-13 killer sent to prison for life and the homeless undocumented immigrant accused of shooting Steinle acquitted Nov. 30 of murder and manslaughter charges after saying he had fired accidentally.
But both families had to deal with an aftermath in which the tragedies stopped being solely their own, in which their pain became a talking point in the tempestuous debate over U.S. immigration, in which they had a loud voice but in a conversation they couldn’t control.
“I felt like my family was just nothing,” Bologna, 57, told The Chronicle in a recent interview. “No one even really cared, though they liked to blame each other for this or that. And I was just left trying to make the best for my two surviving children.”
(Continues)
Below, the accused Mexican illegal (left), earlier known by the alias Francisco Sanchez, admitted in a jailhouse confession that he shot Kate Steinle as she strolled on a popular San Francisco pier with her [...]]]>
Below, the accused Mexican illegal (left), earlier known by the alias Francisco Sanchez, admitted in a jailhouse confession that he shot Kate Steinle as she strolled on a popular San Francisco pier with her father.
The shooter is now addressed by the name Jose Ines Garcia Zarate and had been deported five times as a convicted felon. Authorities released him from a San Francisco jail several weeks before the shooting rather than contact ICE so he could be deported. The city’s sanctuary policy dictated no cooperation with the feds on immigration enforcement which allowed the Mexican to remain in the city and kill.
Even with the history of carnage, which includes the murders of three members of the Bologna family by an illegal alien gangster, San Francisco remain stuck on its dangerous sanctuary policy which puts diversity fawning ahead of public safety.
]]>As San Francisco trial opens in killing of Kate Steinle, prosecutor says, ‘He meant to shoot’, SFgate.com, October 23, 2017
The San Francisco murder case that ignited a national debate over immigration policy went to trial Monday with attorneys sparring not over politics but the case’s central legal question — whether the killer of Kate Steinle on Pier 14 intended to fire in her direction or accidentally shot a gun he said he found under a bench.
A city prosecutor said in her opening statement that Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, brought the stolen pistol to the waterfront location, pointed it toward Steinle and pulled the trigger on July 1, 2015.
The public defender representing the Mexican citizen said he found the gun in a T-shirt on the pier moments before the shooting, and that after he unwrapped the bundle the gun discharged a bullet that ricocheted off the concrete and struck Steinle in the back.
By the afternoon, the trial’s first witness introduced the Steinle family’s heartbreak into the courtroom. The victim’s father spoke of the confusion he felt as his daughter spoke her final words: “Help me, Dad.”
The trial in front of Superior Court Judge Samuel Feng opened to broad interest fueled by the political firestorm that followed it. Garcia Zarate, who was homeless and had a record of drug crimes, was wanted for deportation by federal agents when his San Francisco jailers set him free 2½ months before the shooting under the city’s sanctuary laws.
But the job of the jury sitting at the Hall of Justice is to put aside those politics. It is Garcia Zarate’s intentions on the day he killed Steinle that could mean the difference between a conviction for second-degree murder or manslaughter, or an acquittal. [. . .]
Before the shooting, Garcia Zarate had been on track for a sixth deportation after serving 46 months in prison for felony re-entry into the country. But his course changed when he was transferred from federal custody to San Francisco jail in March 2015 on an old warrant alleging he fled marijuana charges in 1995.
When city prosecutors discharged the case, the Sheriff’s Department released Garcia Zarate despite a federal request to hold him for deportation. Then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi cited the city’s sanctuary policies, which limit local cooperation with immigration enforcement and seek to encourage undocumented people to feel comfortable having a relationship with city agencies.
(Continues)
It’s not like Portland is a crime-free paradise where normal policing can be [...]]]>
It’s not like Portland is a crime-free paradise where normal policing can be disregarded: Sessions noted the uptick of violence, that between 2013 and 2015, the city saw an increase in homicides of more than 140 percent.
Nevertheless, Portland instituted a criminal-protecting sanctuary policy in March.
It didn’t take long for a habitual criminal protected by the Portland’s sanctuary to engage in a horrific crime: in July Sergio Jose Martinez, who had been deported 20 times, raped a 65-year-old woman after crawling through the window of her home. Portland authorities had released him onto the streets in the previous December despite receiving a detainer from ICE.
Fox News’ Jesse Watters provided some important details:
Thirty-one-year-old Mexican national Sergio Jose Martinez has been on a path of destruction in Portland, Oregon, a notorious sanctuary city. Martinez has been arrested 13 times since 2008 in Oregon alone. His rap sheet includes car theft, hit-and-run, criminal trespassing, meth possession, reckless endangerment, burglary and shoplifting. He has criminal convictions in California too, including burglary, battery, theft and obstructing a police officer. The man is described as a transient with a daily meth habit. He has been deported — you ready? — 20 times with at least five probation violations from re-entering.
Despite a rap sheet this troubling, Martinez was still waltzing around Northeast Portland on July 24th. This is when his latest crime spree began. Here are the sickening allegations: Martinez, armed with a knife, entered a woman’s home through an open window, used scarves and socks to blindfold her, gag her and tie her up before sexually assaulting her, punching her and slamming her head into the wood floor. . .
Below, Sergio Jose Martinez, the Mexican criminal enabled by Portland’s sanctuary policy to do more violent crime.
This was some of the background to the Sessions speech, and he mentioned the Martinez case along with several others.
The attorney general starts speaking at around three minutes in the following video:
]]>Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks to Federal Law Enforcement Authorities About Sanctuary Cities, Portland, OR ~ Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Remarks as prepared for delivery
Thank you for that kind introduction. It is an honor to be here with you all – with the selfless and courageous men and women of law enforcement. President Trump and this Department of Justice understand your mission. He has directed us to support that mission and support you.
As a former federal prosecutor, for 14 years, I was blessed to work every day with federal, state, and local law enforcement. And there is nothing I am more proud of than what we accomplished together.
We are in the midst of a multi-front battle: an increase in violent crime, a rise in vicious gang activity, an opioid epidemic that it is taking an American life every ten minutes, and threats from terrorism—combined with a culture in which family and discipline seem to be eroding further and a disturbing disrespect for the rule of law.
After decreasing for over 20 years because of the hard but necessary work our country started in the 1980s, violent crime is back. The murder rate surged nearly 11 percent nationwide in 2015 – the largest increase since 1968. Per capita homicide rates are up in 27 of our 35 largest cities.
And Portland is not immune to these problems. Between 2013 and 2015, the city saw an increase in homicides of more than 140 percent. In 2015, Portland Police received more than 180 calls related to gangs, including shootings, stabbings, and assaults – the highest number since they began recording that number nearly 20 years ago, and almost double the count from 2014.
You know the tragic consequences of crime all too well.
You know the story of 17-year-old Jose Morales, who was shot and killed with a rifle, allegedly at the hands of local gang members in Gresham.
Or the story of the 17-year-old from Vancouver who was murdered in the middle of the day in Holladay Park. They had their whole lives ahead of them—lives that we and their loved ones will never get to see.
The fundamental duty of this government is to protect the safety and the rights of its citizens. President Trump is a law and order President.
One of his first executive orders was to back our police and another was to reduce crime in America. That is our goal. That is your goal. We must not cave to rising crime. Working together, with professionalism and dedication we can begin to turn this pernicious trend.
To get on the right track, there are a number of things we must fix. A key concern is that some jurisdictions have undertaken to undo our immigration laws through so-called “sanctuary policies.”
Such policies undermine the moral authority of law and undermine the safety of the jurisdictions that adopt them.
In Portland and all over Oregon, here’s how it works right now: once the police arrest an illegal alien and charge him with a crime, they fingerprint him and book him into their jail.
When federal immigration authorities learn that this criminal alien is in a jurisdiction’s custody, our ICE officers issue a detainer request accompanied by a civil arrest warrant and ask the city to either notify them before they release the criminal or to hold the criminal alien long enough to transfer him to federal custody in a safe setting.
But political leaders have directed state and local officers to refuse these requests. Cooperation has been a key element in informed crime fighting for decades.
The result is that police are forced to release the criminal alien back into the community without regard to the seriousness of his crimes or the length of his rap sheet. Think about that: Police may be forced to release pedophiles, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, and arsonists back into the communities where they had no right to be in the first place. They should according to law and common sense be processed and deported.
These policies hinder the work of federal law enforcement; they’re contrary to the rule of law, and they have serious consequences for the law-abiding residents of Oregon.
Just two months ago, an alleged illegal alien named Sergio Martinez was arrested in Portland.
Martinez had been deported at least 20 times, and police reports show that he was arrested at least 10 times just this year – accused of everything from possessing drugs to stealing a car.
Federal immigration authorities properly lodged a detainer against Martinez just a few months before, asking to be notified when he was set to be released. But authorities in Oregon refused.
According to the allegations, Martinez then broke into the home of a 65-year-old Portland woman by crawling through her bedroom window. Once inside, he reportedly forced her to the ground, used scarves and socks to blindfold, bind, and gag her, and then raped her and slammed her head into the wooden floor.
These policies do far greater damage than many understand. At its root, they are a rejection of our immigration laws and a declaration of open borders.
These lawless policies do more than shield individual criminal illegal aliens – they also shelter lethal gangs like the Latin Kings and MS-13.
These predators thrive when crime is not met with consequences. This state of lawlessness allows gangs to smuggle guns, drugs, and even humans across borders and around cities and communities.
That makes a sanctuary city a trafficker, smuggler, or gang member’s best friend.
I’m sure many of you are familiar with the case of Kate Steinle. She was just 32 years old when she was murdered in cold blood as she walked a pier in San Francisco with her father. Her alleged murderer is an illegal alien who had been deported five times.
In fact, he admitted that one reason he was there that day was that he knew the city had these policies in place.
And just in the last week, 23-year old Abel Esquivel, a popular community volunteer who mentored young people in his San Francisco neighborhood, was allegedly shot to death by two illegal aliens attempting to rob him after he left work.
About three weeks earlier, one of his alleged killers was arrested for an alleged battery, and, despite a detainer request from ICE, he was released. One of the other defendants in the murder case also had an ICE detainer request for him when he was arrested back in May for illegal possession of marijuana and brass knuckles. Both requests were ignored. Both walked free.
And because of these policies and in the face of all common sense, Abel was gunned down in the street by two people who never should have been there.
Sadly, after these tragic cases, the legislature in California—where these tragedies occurred—has now passed legislation to further limit law enforcement cooperation with immigration enforcement.
It is an unconscionable reaction to Mr. Esquivel’s murder to put into law the very policies that got him killed.
They will say that forcing police officers to release criminal aliens back onto the streets will somehow increase community trust. But that does not make sense to me. Would releasing someone who had been arrested 10 times this year into your community give you more confidence in law enforcement?
Would learning that your local district attorney actually charges illegal aliens with less serious crimes to evade federal deportation make you believe they are trying to make your neighborhood safer? Would forcing federal officers to track down criminal aliens on your street instead of safely in the jails make you believe we value your community?
And we all know law enforcement is not the problem.
You risk your lives each day in service of the law and the people you protect.
The problem is the policies that tie your hands. Sanctuary policies endanger us all, and especially the federal immigration officers who are forced to pursue criminal aliens outside of jails and prisons.
Yet, rather than reconsider their policies, these sanctuary jurisdictions feign outrage when they lose federal funds as a direct result of actions designed to nullify plain federal law. Some, including Portland, have even decided to sue this administration so that they can keep receiving taxpayer-funded grants while continuing to impede federal immigration enforcement.
These grants are not an entitlement. We strive to help state and local law enforcement.
But we cannot continue giving such federal grants to cities that actively undermine the safety of federal law officers and actively frustrate efforts to reduce crime in their own cities.
Our duty to protect public safety and protect taxpayer dollars and I plan to fulfill that duty.
The vast majority of Americans oppose “sanctuary” policies. According to one poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that cities should turn over criminal aliens to immigration officials. A poll taken earlier this month of swing-state voters found the same thing: 77 percent support denying federal funds to sanctuary cities.
The American people are not asking too much, and neither is the Department of Justice. Federal law enforcement wants to work with our partners at the state and local level. We want to keep our citizens safe.
And to win this multi-front war against rising crime, we need to use every lawful tool we have. And we need to eliminate all bad policies.
So I urge the city of Portland, the state of Oregon, and every “sanctuary” jurisdiction to reconsider.
And I urge Governor Brown not to sign this law that is in front of him. The bill risks the safety of good law enforcement officers and the safety of the neighborhoods that need their protection the most. There are lives and livelihoods at stake.
Together, we can make our country safer for all our residents—–native born and lawful immigrant alike.
The Department of Justice will not concede a single block or street corner in the United States to lawlessness or crime. Nor will we tolerate the loss of innocent life because a handful of jurisdictions believe they are above the law.
And I know that the Acting ICE Director, Tom Homan, will work tirelessly with his men and women to track down and find these criminal aliens—wherever they may be.
The American people rightly want a lawful immigration system that keeps us safe and serves the national interest.
U.S. Attorney Billy Williams has been eloquent about sanctuary policies: If we’re going to make this community safer, then we have to work together. Cooperation between law enforcement works. It saves lives.
And so to all the law enforcement here— – federal, state, and local— – thank you for all that you do. President Trump is grateful, I am grateful, and the entire Department of Justice is grateful for your service. We have your back and you have our thanks.
Thank you, and God bless you.
Jesse Watters gave a brief rundown of the crime details from Portland:
JESSE WATTERS: [...]]]>
Jesse Watters gave a brief rundown of the crime details from Portland:
JESSE WATTERS: The vicious consequences of illegal immigration — that is the subject of tonight’s Watters’ Word. Viewer warning: what I’m about to tell you is highly disturbing and will make you angry. Thirty-one-year-old Mexican national Sergio Jose Martinez has been on a path of destruction in Portland, Oregon, a notorious sanctuary city.
Martinez has been arrested 13 times since 2008 in Oregon alone. His rap sheet includes car theft, hit-and-run, criminal trespassing, meth possession, reckless endangerment, burglary and shoplifting. He has criminal convictions in California too, including burglary, battery, theft and obstructing a police officer. The man is described as a transient with a daily meth habit. He has been deported — you ready? — 20 times with at least five probation violations from re-entering.
Despite a rap sheet this troubling, Martinez was still waltzing around Northeast Portland on July 24th. This is when his latest crime spree began. Here are the sickening allegations: Martinez, armed with a knife, entered a woman’s home through an open window, used scarves and socks to blindfold her, gag her and tie her up before sexually assaulting her, punching her and slamming her head into the wood floor.
Martinez then stole her car in search of a new victim. Then he waited in a dark corner of a parking garage as a woman approached. He threatened to kill her and forced her into her car at knifepoint. The woman tried to escape, but he tackled her and slammed her head into the ground. Once she screamed, Martinez ran, and was caught by police, carrying a knife and stolen items from both victims.
Martinez was high on meth at the time of the attacks he’s been charged with 13 felonies including burglary, sodomy, sexual abuse, robbery and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. He remains in jail with bail set at more than two million dollars.
An ICE spokesman says that he is quote looking into Martinez’s cases, which tells me that Portland police haven’t even been talking to ICE. The Multnomah County Sheriff says the county is “. . .not responsible for enforcing federal immigration policy…. The Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office does not hold persons in jail based upon their immigration status.”
So apparently authorities in Portland Oregon and Multnomah county have no problem protecting monsters like this. The sheriff and the Portland mayor should explain to the victims faces why Martinez was roaming the streets. This is exactly why sanctuary city should be defunded and Kate’s Law should be the law of the land.
The Daily Mail has a thorough report on the crime (Illegal Mexican immigrant, 31, who was deported TWENTY times ‘rapes woman, 65, at knife-point’ just months after Portland released him from jail under ‘sanctuary’ policy) that helpfully included a photo of the victim’s street:
Even living on a pleasant, tree-lined street is no guarantee of safety in sanctuary city Portland, where serial foreign criminals are allowed to run free.
Finally, here’s the accused Mexican, Sergio Jose Martinez — can we get a real prosecutor for this case in Portland??
Mayor Newsom certainly didn’t seemed concerned with American job loss when the cause was illegal immigration — in fact, he actively promoted it. In 2008, he spent $83,000 for an ad campaign to inform illegal alien job thieves that they would have safe access to city services in San Francisco and would not be arrested by the SFPD for any crime this side of murder. Of course, advertising a generous sanctuary policy functions as a magnet to unlawful foreigners who come to rip off jobs that belong to citizens according to law.
Below, in 2008, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom held a press conference to announce new anti-gun initiatives. The Chief of Police Heather Fong is also pictured.
The automation threat to employment needs to be discussed by the political class, which isn’t happening in Washington. Newsom is not the brightest light in the liberal galaxy, but his gubernatorial candidacy and issues will get media coverage just because it’s California. Also, the idea of a universal basic income as proposed by some techies is a better fit for Democrats, since dispensing free stuff is what they like to do.
Republicans just seem flummoxed about how to cope with automation generally and avoid it if they have a clue. Hint: ending immigration as an obsolete government policy for the jobless automated future would be a good place to start.
]]>California’s would-be governor prepares for battle against job-killing robots, Guardian, June 5, 2017
Gavin Newsom has been waiting in the wings for years as lieutenant governor. Now his campaign to lead the state is taking on its golden industry: tech
The graduating computer science students at the University of California at Berkeley had just finished chuckling at a joke about fleets of “Google buses, Facebook shuttles and Uber-copters” lining up to whisk them them to elite jobs in Silicon Valley. The commencement ceremony for a cohort of students who, one professor confided, were worth around $25bn was a feel-good affair.
Until, that is, Gavin Newsom took to the lectern and burst the bubble.
The smooth-talking Democrat, and frontrunner to win California’s gubernatorial race next year, warned the students that the “plumbing of the world is radically changing”. The tech industry that would make them rich, Newsom declared, was also rendering millions of other people’s jobs obsolete and fueling enormous disparities in wealth. “Your job is to exercise your moral authority,” he said. “It is to do the kinds of things in life that can’t be downloaded.”
That is not the kind of message computer engineers tend to hear. But Newsom, who has been waiting in the wings as California’s lieutenant governor for the past seven years, has put the consequences of automation and the center of his campaign.
“This is code red, a firehose, a tsunami that’s coming our way,” he told the Guardian a few days after his commencement address at Berkeley. “We’re going to get rolled over unless we get ahead of this.” California, a crucible of technological transformation that is reshaping the world, could be on the cusp of the first major election to be dominated by a debate over what to do about robots.
It is a conversation that already feels overdue. San Francisco, the city where Newsom, 49, came to prominence as a two-term mayor, is a petri dish for technological advances and their social consequences. The novelty of seeing driverless cars on the roads wore off months ago, while delivery robots recently began patrolling the sidewalks.
San Francisco office workers can now grab lunch at a branch of Eatsa, a restaurant that boasts no waiters or cashiers, followed by a quick artisanal espresso at Cafe X, a coffee shop composed of a single robotic arm. Newsom has been concerned about the numerous startups seeking to disrupt the fast-food industry.
He frequently complains about Momentum Machines, a secretive San Francisco startup promising to transform the fast-food industry with robotic technology. The ambition, according to the company’s founder, is to “completely obviate” human workers.
“There’s an empathy gap,” Newsom said. “I really feel intensely that the tech community needs to begin not just to solve these business problems but to begin to solve societal problems with the same kind of disruptive energy that they put behind developing the latest app.”
But Newsom’s critics question whether he’s the politician to take on the tech industry. Caricatured by opponents as a business-friendly “Davos Democrat”, Newsom has a long record of support for gig-economy companies such as Uber and Lyft. One of his biggest sources of donations is Airbnb employees.
Newsom does not dispute that he has deep political connections in Silicon Valley, and refers to both Elon Musk and Mark Zuckeberg as friends. “I’ve grown up in and around this world. I could tell you 10 founders who I did their weddings, quite literally married them. Very, very close; a number of them are godparents to my kids.”
Newsom argues his close relationship with the titans of technology, and his dependence on their donations, makes him better placed than his rivals to challenge the industry. “I am probably the one person that can have that conversation,” he said. “Because I have the relationship.”
He says that while he respects technology, “I’m starting to appreciate the downsides more and more”. But in his own business, a conglomerate of restaurants, bars, hotels and wineries, Newsom said he is increasingly aware of the upsides of labor-saving technology.
His interview with the Guardian took place in Balboa Cafe, a Newsom-owned restaurant in the Marina district. One of his waitresses was within earshot when he remarked: “I think we’ll have some bartenders for a while, although I know for a fact they have robotic bar tending technology.”
One of his Napa vineyards, he added, recently started using a $50,000 German-made machine that utilizes sophisticated optical scanning technology to pick and sort grapes. He conceded that the machine was replacing human grape-pickers, who might not be able to find work elsewhere. “It’s their lives,” he said. “And that’s my point. I’m part of the problem.”
‘I don’t have the damn answer’
Precisely what to do about that problem is the issue that is vexing all politicians. For all the effort he has put into asking questions about automation, Newsom, by his own admission, is coming up short on answers.He is “not opposed” to universal basic income, an idea popular among Silicon Valley utopians that would see all citizens receive some kind of regular and unconditional payment, and is interested in a proposal from Bill Gates to tax companies when they replace humans with robots.
But Newsom said he was not ready to endorse either policy. Adopting politician-speak, he said his team was “starting to lean in to create the tenor of a policy approach” that will involve rethinking the education system and massive investment in apprenticeships.
Then he reverted to a more frank response. “I’m struggling to figure it out,” he said. “So I don’t have the damn answer.”
‘Temporary insanity’
Having spent seven years in the largely powerless role of lieutenant governor, in the shadow of his boss, Jerry Brown, Newsom is acutely aware that the first step to getting anything done will be winning what is expected to be a crowded and competitive race.One potential complicating factor is Newsom’s ex-wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, a Fox News pundit who many expect will become Donald Trump’s new White House press secretary.
Guilfoyle has made no secret of her wish to replace the beleaguered Sean Spicer, who beat her to the job back in January. Newsom shook his head at the thought of his ex-wife becoming the chief spokesperson for the Trump administration.
“Didn’t they just say it is not happening?” he said. “You think it could happen?”
The answer to that depends on who you ask. One recent report said Trump was “furious” at Guilfoyle for undermining Spicer, but the article appeared to be based on unnamed White House sources loyal to the press secretary.
Yet Trump is known to be an admirer of the telegenic TV personality. According to Guilfoyle, Trump phoned her on the morning he pulled out of the Paris climate accord, arguably the most momentous action of his presidency, to consult her on his decision.
Newsom said that while Guilfoyle’s transition from a one-time assistant district attorney of San Francisco to Trump’s translator-in-chief would make for a “fascinating” story, it would not distract him from challenging the Republican administration if elected governor.
“I know why you guys are writing about it. It’s totally fair game,” he said. “From San Francisco to Trump – it’s a good story.”
Yet it is not an especially good association for a Democrat in liberal California, and Newsom could find himself haunted by an embarrassing photograph of the couple in a posed embrace on the floor of a mansion. The image appeared in a 2004 issue of Harper’s Bazaar magazine, which declared the couple “The New Kennedys” (four months before they filed for divorce).
Newsom insisted “on my mother’s grave” that the picture had not been planned. It occurred after he was asked to sit down by the photographer, after which, he said, Guilfoyle arrived and “did the rest”.
“When that came out I was like: ‘fair game, on me, mental errors’,” he said. “Anything that could be said about that which mocks me is legit. I have no defense. You won’t see that again. Mea culpa. Temporary insanity. What can I say?”
Tucker Carlson interviewed the governor last week and asked him about the legislation. Gov. Abbott explained what it would do:
GREG ABBOTT: This law ensures [...]]]>
Tucker Carlson interviewed the governor last week and asked him about the legislation. Gov. Abbott explained what it would do:
GREG ABBOTT: This law ensures that we are going to ban sanctuary cities in the state of Texas and imposes civil penalties that can add up to more than $25,000 a day. It can impose jail time on officials who don’t follow the law and can lead to the removal of these public officials from their jobs, such as a sheriff like in Travis County who allowed sanctuary city policies to operate in Travis County.
That law sounds perfect. Every state should have one of those.
Abbott explained further:
What we’re talking about is going after those who have an ICE detainer request on them — someone who has already committed a crime, someone who’s proven themselves to be dangerous and someone who should not be on the streets.
Remember, Tucker there’s a tragedy that led to a lot of this, and that is Kate Steinle. People are forgetting about Kate Steinle and what happened, and the reason why she was killed was because in part of the sanctuary city policies of San Francisco. As governor of Texas, I cannot allow a San Francisco Kate Steinle situation to be repeated here. No governor, no law enforcement official anywhere should allow that type of tragedy to occur.
Certainly Kate Steinle is not the only innocent person killed by an illegal alien — far from it — but she has become the one American who is remembered as such.
Here’s the AP report about the signing:
]]>Texas governor signs anti-‘sanctuary city’ law, Associated Press, May 7, 2017
AUSTIN, Texas – Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has signed a law targeting so-called “sanctuary cities” that allows police to ask about a person’s immigration status and threatens sheriffs with jail if they don’t cooperate with federal authorities.
Republican Abbott on Sunday took the unusual step of signing the bill on Facebook with little advance notice. He said Texas residents expect lawmakers to “keep us safe.”
The bill cleared a final hurdle this week in the Republican-controlled Legislature over objections from Democrats and immigrant rights supporters who’ve packed the Texas Capitol. They call it a “show-me-your-papers” measure that will be used to discriminate against Latinos.
Every major police chief in Texas opposed the bill. Republicans say it is needed to ensure local jails honor requests from federal officials to keep dangerous offenders behind bars.