In light of the recent shooting in San Francisco and the circumstances surrounding it, I figured I would revisit what this county has seen with their sanctuary status and how we have continued to ignore the risks.
Most know that Santa Clara County is a sanctuary county. Many don’t know the sheriff is a supporter of this, even though she has spoken out, to a very small degree against it. The county has an ordinance that states even the worst of the worst shall not be held for Immigration. It doesn’t matter what your record, who you rape or kill, or if you hold a gun to a child’s head as you can see in the above link. Clearly you will walk.
The sheriff can however choose to call ICE for the most violent offenders. She can choose to put the public safety over the political pandering of her friends David Cortese, and the woman who was the deciding vote, Cindy Chavez. But her personnel are under strict orders they are not to do so. This is why I put incidents like this on her shoulders — ultimately the decision lies in her lap, and as sheriff that is where we want that decision to be. The problem is the person must be willing and competent enough to be trusted by everyone to make the right decision in each case.
Cortese and Chavez think that addressing violent criminals through their illegal immigration status is “federal overreaching” which is apparently far more offensive than dead women to our elected supervisors and sheriffs. I understand they don’t support the government telling them they must hold certain types of criminals for ICE, that choice should belong to us since congress refuses to update our immigration policies to the 21 century needs. What I don’t understand is why they would not take every measure they could possibly take to keep someone of our streets who would hold a gun to a child’s head though. You have a CHOICE to call ICE or not, and our sheriff chose not to allow that call to be made. Just as the sheriff of San Francisco County chose to release Francisco Sanchez despite an ICE requested hold in the event he should be cleared of charges.
So we as a county during the last election put all these people back in office and chose to ignore OUR lesson here with the death of Martha Casillas.
Now we see an another event in a bay area county, one that shouldn’t be any more shocking than the death of Martha Casillas, but the media has run with it in an entirely different manner — the murder of an innocent woman enjoying the day in San Francisco by a man who had no business on our streets and was let back on our streets by the San Francisco sheriff.
When do we stand up and take our safety back? When do we say, we will make every effort to work with the immigrant community — regardless of legal status — until a person commits a violent crime and then the social contract with that person is null and void. When do we free the immigrant community from being the curtain which violence can hide behind?
Do you think that the immigrant community wants to hide these people? Wants to be the excuse that these violent offenders can use at will? That they want to endure the attacks on their community every time WE choose to let one of these known violent offenders out on our streets before doing everything we can do? That they enjoy the degradation of their reputation when all they’re trying to do is work, live, and love like the rest of us?
Does the sheriff, Chavez and Cortese REALLY think that setting us up for our next incident is what any of us wants?
The shooting in San Francisco was a “randomly violent” event committed by a man who we knew had a history of violence. Why are our elected officials playing Russian roulette with our lives on the streets with people like this?
Is it not possible to have your sanctuary city and still refuse to allow egregious violence to circumvent the laws and continue to visit our families?