Sympathy Shouldn't Equal Sanctuary
No vacancy: San Francisco: a sanctuary city ["Alien Forces," Lauren Smiley, Feature, 11/18]. America: a sanctuary country. Where is this getting us? Is quality of life better for the legal inhabitants of the city (and country) as a result of all the illegals? No. Is quality of life better here when we increase the numbers of the impoverished, the gangs, and violence? No. (I'm not saying that just because residents are illegal, they are violent gang members.) What's the point of a sanctuary city? To provide a haven for those who've come here for a better life. But where does it end?
Is there any limit to the number of people the city or the country will provide sanctuary for? Why not allow everyone in the world who wants to flee oppression, violence, and/or poverty to live in S.F.? What kind of quality of life would we have if we just opened the gates? We can't possibly help out everyone who needs help.
It's sad to hear about people having to deal with horrible lives in other countries, but I don't think empathy should lead to an open-door policy. And just because someone has had a hard life doesn't mean he or she shouldn't be arrested and deported for selling crack (or committing other crimes) and being here illegally. Try that in France or any other country and see where it gets you. You sure wouldn't end up with a slap on the wrist, no matter what your sad story was.
Having reasonable immigration quotas works. Having open borders and a sanctuary policy brings down the quality of life for those who are here legally. Let's ask ourselves what kind of quality of life we, as San Franciscans, as Americans, want to have. Then figure out if sanctuary policies make sense.
Andio Ryan
San Francisco
Footloose and Laptop-Free
The inalienable right to party: I've been involved in the above-ground and underground electronic dance music scenes for almost 20 years. It was acid house back in my day, which morphed into raves and warehouse parties.
The police have targeted this scene ever since it started ["Laptops Behind Bars," Jennifer Maerz, Let's Get Killed, 11/18], and parties get shut down. It's just pathetic that the police seem to be obsessed with stopping young people having late-night fun by seizing their laptops when there are laptops being stolen out of homes and cars and at the airport every day. Whether the party is illegal is immaterial. The question that needs to be asked is whether the search and property seizure (from an attendee of the event, or from its organizer) is fundamentally unconstitutional. Police may impound a car from a drunk or unlicensed driver because that driver is potentially a threat to public safety. But I think a good constitutional lawyer needs to take on this issue, because this smacks of unconstitutional search and seizure to me.
Jack
Web comment
Snitch Blog Comment of the Week
In response to a post about the UC Berkeley student protests over increased fees: Students obviously live in a fantasy land. In a state that is hugely in debt, facing financial ruin, and laying off or cutting the wages of many government employees, they still think that same government should be footing the bill for their education. And if the state can't do it, then the federal government should pay. Thanks, kids, I've got my own financial issues to deal with without having to be taxed more to pay for your education. I'll just sit in the dark to save on electricity bills and drop down to two meals a day. These students need to suck it up and accept the reality that they live in a bankrupt welfare state, and the checks aren't rolling in like they used to. I would suggest they go out and get a job, but those don't exist anymore.
bondage
