Is good bad? So it would seem. Yes, the actions of Renee Good can only be characterized as sad, tragic, preventable, predictable and yes, STUPID! Why would a mother of three, leave her kids, travel to another city, stalk federal agents for several blocks and then try to run over the same federal agents? Spurred on by her transgender wife?
As tragic and stupid as Good’s decision making process was, it makes perfect sense for the left to capitalize upon it. Sure, didn’t Rham Emanuel famously say, “Never let a crisis go to waste?” While the attention is now on the lawlessness in Minneapolis and other cities, it has deflected from the massive fraud from which Minnesota officials now finds themselves accused of. Billions stolen from hungry children and put in the pockets of Somali pirates. Then when called out, it becomes a racial thing. You simply can’t make this up!
Can one only imagine if Good was not white and lesbian, but was black instead? Ya, people are reading this and nodding their heads up and down. Even BLM came out publicly and admitted as much. Of course, that makes sense, the mayhem, destruction of businesses burned to the ground, assaults, even murders which would have (and still could) ensued. Why is that?
For Democrats, Good served the role of useful idiot, becoming Rodney King and George Floyd all in one. In the meantime, Teheran burns to the ground with massive loss of life and not even a peep from the left. Why? Didn’t the left loose it during the war in Gaza, but crickets about freedom in Iran?
It’s because the liars which make up the left have selective memory and outrage. Ya, that’s right, they’ll protest on overpasses with flags and signs about a crazed lesbian “Mom” and domestic terrorist, but say nothing about tens of millions of people struggling for freedom. Maybe their searing hatred of Jews and Israel have something to do with it? You think?
God help us if this demented, satanic and sicko group of “activists” ever gains power again. Oh wait, they are in charge at all levels of California government!
60% of Democrat voters support the deportation of criminal aliens. 69% of Democrats support sanctuary cities. How can a majority support deportation and a majority support protecting from deportation? I think the answer is that Democrat voters like the sound of sanctuary city without knowing what that means. One could say idiotas utiles.
Everything and anything done by Trump is bad. When Trump deports an illegal alien it is bad but when Obama deports an illegal alien it is good. More generally, anything done by a Republican is bad. As conservatives we try to argue on the basis of facts but this is a mistake. The action is unimportant, party affiliation is everything. The Democrat party has not had a legitimate primary for a presidential candidate in ten years. Is this considered a threat to democracy by Democrats? It is absolutely undemocratic but for Trump to criticize media bias is the number one talking point demonstrating that Trump is a threat to Democracy. The left cannot be defeated with facts because facts don’t matter. They can only be defeated by force and Trump is the first leader we have had in a long time with the courage to fight the true threat to democracy, the Democrat party.
Thank you for reminding us of the dangerous and effective enemies within the United States who use our freedoms to destroy them. Easily persuaded, useful idiots abound to become the unwitting servants of foreign agents and foreign money aimed at destroying the strength of America and its cohesion as a democracy from within.
Aiding all this is the absolute negligence by both federal and state government agencies in ignoring, or failing to detect and stop, the massive and long-surviving theft and fraud in government services and subsidies amounting to many $billions, as in the example, now partially detected and exposed in Minnesota.
Why shouldn't every illegal alien be deported? If some illegal immigrants are allowed to stay is that fair to those trying to immigrate legally? Does it disadvantage and I would add actually insult those immigrants who respect our laws? There is a democratic process to change the law to open borders. Why does the Democrat party instead choose to ignore the law rather then use the democratic process to change it? The Democrat party likes to be called the Democratic party but nothing could be further from the truth, their behavior is that of an Undemocratic party.
Jeff, with both the Senate and House, it seems like this would be a prime time for Trump to completely revamp immigration law. Is that happening? I don't think 5 decades of immigration quagmire is solely the Dems fault.
The law does not need to be changed, just enforced. I think there has been a weak will to enforce our borders by both parties, I agree. For flagrant disregard of our immigration laws, the Biden administration has no peer. How would you revamp immigration law? The legal process to allow immigration can be streamlined if we want to allow more immigration. I do not believe it is a good idea to allow unvetted into the country.
That is so ignorant of reality. There have always been tweaks to immigration policy each year.
John's point is that there's a powerhouse of Republicans controlling everything in government, and they have an opportunity to do a major overhaul. Yet, they are just grandstanding, giving you the red meat that you want to consume and leaving this problem for them to not do a ****ing thing to. Talk about chicken shits.
Just a side note Dave but isn't " to not do" employing a split infinitive? While I have read in some manuals of style that objection to a split infinitive is a bugbear, I would still say that generally it is considered poor grammar. Possessing the self proclaimed triune curse of intelligence, writing ability and good looks invites picky criticism.
I am not saying that I am perfect; I do not always follow Strunk and White's Elements of Style. It has been a few decades since it was on my desk for reference.
Feisty today aren’t we. Adore your passion, it is so cute. And my point is that there is no need to change immigration law. We have a legal process for immigration. What would you change?
If there were no need, it would not be changed multiple times a year.
If there were no need, we would not be where we are.
I do not think you even understand the immigration legal process. There are reasons why immigration attorneys (not all, but most) are arguing for overhauls.
Don't you think we are in the situation we are in because of not enforcing existing immigration law? Immigration attorneys want each illegal to get a trial with a court appointed attorney of course. That means nothing. Yes I am stupid so educate me. I want 100% closed borders, deportation of 100% illegals and a legal process for immigration with a requirement to speak English. Immigrants should assimilate, want to be American and not live in communities where they do not speak English and wave the flag of the country they fled. Immigration is to benefit America not the immigrant. Diversity is not a strength it is a weakness. So share your vision of a better way. I am all ears.
Totally agree on not allowing unvetted into the country and the Biden admin allowed for the most porous border since there has been a care about letting folks across. But what about the DACA kids/adults? Has that mess been worked out? What about upping visa programmes and enforcement? Has that been worked out?
Enforcement first. Narrow down who is allowed in and what they bring to the party. Completely terminate chain immigration...aka family reunification. Assimilation has been a complete bust. Why is everything printed in English and Spanish both at the government level and commercially? Not speaking English equates to lower pay… Lower pay equates to more welfare payments a.k.a. having others pay for you. Enough… Actually, we are way past enough.
Congress has not ":reformed" immigration...the Left's euphemism for open borders because Americans, irrespective of political affiliation, do not want immigration expanded, but in fact, better controlled if not eliminated for the near term at least. Otherwise, Congress would have granted the wishes of the left. Even the left-wing Congress members know that they don't have a great deal of support among their own constituents for "immigration reform".
Obama deported 400k illegal immigrants by 2012. In many interviews he said it was because he had to follow the law.
The news media was even on his side and did ride alongs with ICE. No outcry there and he was "just following the law" as our ICE agents are doing.
The real problem should be on Biden and the Border Czar who let all this illegals in and did not vet any of them.They committed a crime and not ICE or Trump.
Along with the illegals are 200k Children,I believe, that have gone missing.
Have they been trafficked or sold into slavery. Many were found at the Cannabis Farm raid.
If Congress and Senate wrote all the laws for immigrants but are the ones attacking ICE and shouting cliche deragatory names at them,then what does it make them.
ICE are just following the laws.
In addition,A law was just passed last year unanimously by both sides, that a non citizen can be arrested for a DUI.
Folks "protecting their neighbors" claim that they aren't criminals. How do they know that? Have they checked their rap sheet to confirm.
When presented with other facts they don't want to hear it or look at it,instead go on the attack.
I don't know if it's years of SSIs, indoctrination, extreme narcissism,or a problem with authority that we have individuals who cannot respect authority.
Where do we go from here? The NGOs groups Indivisible for one keep being funneled money to provide for paid protesters and disruption in our communities.
What does it cost to the city when there are large protests. Trash cleanup,police services damage to buildings.
EVERY illegal should be deported, especially if they receive one dollar in taxpayer benefits. Schools, medical care, housing? Who’s paying these bills?
We expect to be held accountable to obey our laws. Why aren’t they supposed to be accountable our laws?
I distinctly recall the commenter above ignoring due process in Venezuela [the abduction of a soverign head of state, the attack of foreign military personnel] while also speaking of the need for "process" as it relates to rent control in Santa Barbara, urging "carefully consideration" and other frivolous things.
Is he not a useful idiot by his own standards - it seems he parrots a script of the modern conservative, operating not on principles but what best suits his personal desires depending on what does or doesn't affect him.
"Nick Koonce
Jan 6
Process, power, and selective outrage
If you think the Maduro grab is unique in its disregard for sovereignty or international norms, you have forgotten a long history of American and non‑American regime change operations. What is genuinely distinctive here is not the willingness to interfere in another country’s politics. It is the combination of two things at once:
A brutally honest strategic motive—energy and great‑power rivalry, not humanitarian uplift."
On rent control; "Whatever your position on rent control itself, we should be able to agree on this: emergency powers are a poor substitute for transparent process, especially when every seat on the dais is thinking about the next ballot, not just the next ordinance."
Outstanding and spot on Andy. The utter stupidity of the DEMOcRAT/left is mind numbing. Watching the swearing in of that imbecile woman as governor of Virginia makes me want to puke. Are the people of Virginia that uninformed and stupid? It's become obvious that DEMOcRAT/left finds the most incompetent and corrupt Toadstools to run for office. Tampon Timmy Walz, Kamel Harris, drooling pervert Joe Biden, Smiling ManDummy, and hundreds of others come to mind. Like I tell my wife every time we watch TDS infected leftist protesters screaming NAZI's at the ICE officers, "if they were Nazi's, you would all be dead protesters, gassed or executed".
Good One Caldwell… it’s obvious to some of us that were living through a color revolution propagated by the deep state, of which the Democrat party is a major player, and the Republican Party members are minor players. We are watching the last desperate growls of the dying uniparty. The deep state plays to attempt to rid themselves of Donald J Trump began in November 2016, the day he won the rigged election (with aid from US Mil?). The steaks are very high, one side wins, and the other one dies. Good triumphs over evil.
As for the upset caused by the insurrectionists, as always follow the money. George Soros, and his minions, attempted to take control. Rigging elections to install compromise prosecutors & pols across the land, targeting key large cities run by the D’s for decades as profit centers. Why? to ensure that the revolving door spins at a high rate to put the criminals back on the streets with little to no penalties. Team Trump had to spend the last six months, removing the high-level insurrectionist cells from these large cities, including many of the paramilitary-trained illegal aliens imported from places like Venezuela & the Congo. Add in the Gladio units that have been here for decades to keep the strategy of tension in place, and backed with the illegal corporate media to provide cover (run by the Democrat party with funding from US taxpayers via the back door at the CIA), and we have the ingredients for the civil war that they’re trying to touch off. [they] are scared and panicked. What does an animal do when trapped? Lash out & fight for life?
For those considering moving from our great state of California, please don’t, we will need your leadership in the coming months and years to right the ship & rebuild. Good news is we’re nearing the end of this wacky movie. End of lawfare, end of corporate media, end of crime and corruption, end of street warfare, end of control…
How do you capture a very DANGEROUS animal? Do you attack it from the front? Do you walk through the front door? Do you signal ahead of time you will be attacking? How do you distinguish between good and bad? Who do you trust to keep secrets? Who do you trust to complete the mission?
What a pile of horse pucky. Sorry, but you are ranting and throwing blame left and right with no real insight into the reality. Pure ideological bias and derangement Syndrome.
Burton H Boorhees, I would appreciate your insight on this. What is this reality you refer to? Should America disregard its own immigration law? Most voters support the deportation of criminal illegal aliens and many including myself support the deportation of all illegal aliens. How is this ideological bias and derangement? Educate us simple minded folks.
What would be wrong with simply arresting the "worst of the worst", for instance the way police arrest someone. Certainly Mr. Caldwell listed plenty of those people and i agree they need to be apprehended. Why do we also have to have masked and heavily armed men invading our streets and seemingly grabbing anyone they want off the street or sidewalk. Or now, I read, entering homes to grab people.
Have you read "Devil in the White City" by Eric Larsen? There are too many similarities. Not just ICE.
I think there have to be much better ways to apprehend and deport the "worst of the worst". I do not include people who crossed the border illegally and have been working and raising families here for years as "the worst of the worst". How is incarcerating them helping any of us?
Lunna: Please, enough with this "masked and heavily armed men" bull. Ice agents were not "masked" when they began this process, but after Antifa and the other useful idiots began posting their names, faces, and family members online, all the agents masked up. You would too.
It’s because of Sanctuary. Please talk to a county Sheriff, they will explain it to you.
Here’s an example: if they arrest a convicted murderer that has already served time and been deported, but came back illegally over the last four years. They are a felon, with a felony warrant. Say this person is picked up for a non violent offense here. The sheriff CANNOT coordinate with ICE. They must release this person and hope ICE saw fingerprints were done and can get to the jail parking lot in time to re-arrest them. If not, they have to go get them in the neighborhood.
If turnovers could happen, there wouldn’t be the need for the large force in the streets. But since sanctuary states have a policy to protect all illegals, ALL!, including rapists and murderers, ICE then has to come get them in neighborhoods. When they do they are met by activists attacking them.
So they are forced to come in full force to handle any situation, because they also have no backup from local authorities when things go south.
Put this in context. They executed a warrant here in July to rescue trafficked minors on the cannabis farms, and they were literally shot at and vehicles attacked in Camarillo, while our local politicians stood there siding with the rioters.
I don’t think any sane person wants a military style force in their neighborhoods, but sanctuary states are causing it. And the saddest part, is immigrant neighborhoods are the most victimized by these criminals. The Sheriff can’t even turn over prisoners in our jails.
I have met with multiple organizations here working with trafficked people. There are case workers working hundreds of cases in just east side Santa Barbara of trafficked minors. Does our local news report on that? Nope. Why not? Our local politicians refuse to focus on trafficking in persons, because then they also have to admit illegal immigration has serious criminal side effects. And they can’t get away from the narrative that everyone is a hard worker that we need here.
If someone’s only crime was crossing the border illegally, they are not being targeted. If they live with someone that has 5 DUI warrants and skipped court dates, they are at risk, because ICE is not doing selective enforcement.
Stop listening to the MSM. Go talk to a Sheriff. Go talk to a charity organization here trying to protect trafficked kids. Go talk to a counter narcotics or gang unit.
Also, in 12 months of enforcement across all the counties on the central coast (Ventura, SB, SLO) they have detained less than 800 people total. 300 of that on the cannabis farms in July. So this narrative that storm troopers are out taking thousands of people from their cars by profiling is also complete untruthful rhetoric.
Look at the amount of gymnastics required to arrive at your conclusion.
For your argument to work, all of the following must be true:
1. A person commits murder.
2. They are convicted and serve their sentence.
3. They are released after completing that sentence.
4. They are deported.
5. They then illegally re-enter the United States.
That entire chain has to occur before your scenario even exists.
And this is the foundation for arguing that ICE enforcement is somehow unjustified or excessive?
Now apply the same first three steps to a U.S. citizen.
If someone commits murder, serves their time, and is released, we accept—by law—that they have paid their debt to society. Until they commit another crime, they are free to live their life. In many states, they may even regain rights you would otherwise oppose, including firearm ownership.
So which is it?
Either:
You believe that once someone serves their sentence, they are free unless they reoffend, or
You believe that certain people should be treated as permanently suspect, even after completing their sentence.
You can’t argue both.
The only difference in your scenario is immigration status—not criminal behavior. And if that alone is the justification for perpetual enforcement, then the argument isn’t about public safety; it’s about redefining who is entitled to the rule of law.
That’s not a serious position, and it doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny.
What’s hard to comprehend? You don’t have to argue everything because you don’t like Trump.
- Not an American citizen that’s a murderer, rapist, child molester, drug dealer, etc
- Was removed from America by Obama or any other president
- Returned back to America illegally when Biden failed to care about borders while we were locked down in COVID with masks on.
- That makes a felon forever. Crossing the border back is another felony offense for a removal and convicted felon.
You are arguing about going to remove this person from a neighborhood here? YOU are doing the mental gymnastics. And now I can no longer take any of your comments on here seriously. I thought you might be a troll using AI to post these long rants, and now it’s confirmed without a doubt. Anyone that argues to keep illegal violent criminals in their country cannot be taken seriously.
I also highly suggest you go talk to a case worker and hear the stories of sex trafficked minors brought here in our own town, it’s appalling.
You’re still arguing against a position I never took.
At no point did I argue to “keep illegal violent criminals” in the country. That’s a straw man, and repeating it doesn’t make it true. Violent offenders should be prosecuted, imprisoned, and removed where the law allows. Full stop.
What I am challenging is the logic you’re using to justify enforcement tactics, not the legitimacy of enforcing the law itself.
Yes, unlawful re-entry after removal is a felony. That doesn’t convert someone into a permanent state of exception where constitutional norms, proportional enforcement, and due process no longer apply. We don’t apply that standard to citizens, and abandoning it for non-citizens is not a public-safety argument — it’s a status-based one.
You keep returning to the most extreme examples imaginable — murderers, rapists, traffickers — as if they define the entire enforcement universe. They don’t. Serious offenders are a subset, not the whole. When enforcement is framed and executed as if every undocumented person or every household is presumptively dangerous, the result is blunt force where precision is required.
Pointing out that blunt enforcement creates collateral damage is not “defending criminals.” It’s recognizing reality. Law enforcement itself acknowledges that community trust matters, that intelligence dries up when fear dominates, and that indiscriminate operations make it harder — not easier — to identify the worst actors.
As for the accusations about motive, Trump, or AI: those are distractions. I’m arguing from first principles — rule of law, proportionality, and equal application — not party loyalty. Dismissing disagreement as trolling is easier than engaging the substance, but it doesn’t advance the discussion.
We actually agree on more than you admit: trafficking is real, violent crime is real, and victims deserve protection. Where we differ is in whether invoking the worst cases justifies turning enforcement into a generalized show of force in residential neighborhoods, even when many of the people affected are not criminals at all.
That’s not mental gymnastics. That’s the difference between targeted enforcement and collective suspicion.
And that distinction matters — especially if the goal is fewer victims, not just louder rhetoric.
David, I’m not arguing for enforcement tactics. I’m explaining the rationale for where we are at to someone who asked why do we need a military force in our streets.
Again, no sane person wants a military force in their neighborhood. I’d prefer cooperation and coordination. I’d prefer a 9/11 never happens again because all agencies are sharing data on overstayed visas. I’d prefer H2A Visa red tape was reformed to make it easier for farmers based on their input and not politicians input. I’d prefer common sense on all of this. Unfortunately, it requires one party here to stop fighting for crime and say “we have self-inflicted problem.”
Yes, that is an issue with families but why didn't they get papers to become citizens and start the process. I believe people that are starting the process can't be deported
Lunna29: What don’t you understand about American law? If we break the law, we’re responsible for the consequences. If you are not lawfully within our borders, you are unlawfully here subject to deportation: the consequence. That’s clear to informed citizens and international travelers. Please consider national security; costs and budget deficits; American history, values, culture, and citizens. Citizens, taxpayers, workers have been taken advantage of too long. There’s a process for 2M+ to enter legally every year. Our country is being destroyed from within by ignorance.
Lunna. The law is not a smorgasbord from which you can pick and choose. Surely you understand the chaos you are seeing in the streets is 100% generated and funded by the lunatic left. It is no small coincidence that it's occurring in sanctuary cities which have collectively and actively blocked the proper enforcement of immigration law.
ICE officers have demonstrated a degree of patients and tolerance far beyond which should be expected. Frankly, they should be given much more latitude in responding to these seditious animals running around unchecked in places like Minneapolis.
If some immigrants being bad makes the lot bad, only fair to say the lot of americans are bad too - higher crime rate. It’s not hard to pull up a list of white american citizens who are pedophiles, murderers, etc
Undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than US citizens:
Perhaps we should be attending to the real issue like how companies dont seem to be paying their fair share in taxes instead of hurting innocent people who are seeking a better life and on the whole make america better off financially, and likely in diversity/entrepreneurship?
Corporations don’t seem to be paying their fair share of taxes
As I am currently sitting in Vienna and happened to walk around, noticing all the different restaurants around me, this topic by Andy seems comical. I have walked past Halal food, Serbian, Indian, Pakistani, and Italian food all on the same block. These are run by people who are from there. The irony of observing this area to his post is not lost.
The central flaw in Andy's argument is not passion or concern for public safety; it is statistical ignorance combined with selective outrage. Listing a dozen horrific crimes committed by illegal immigrants does not establish a broader truth about crime, immigration, or enforcement policy. It establishes only that crimes committed by non-citizens are being rhetorically weaponized, while the vastly larger body of comparable crimes committed by U.S. citizens is conveniently ignored.
Every violent crime is reprehensible. But public policy must be guided by scale, probability, and outcomes — not anecdotes. When crime data is examined at the population level, U.S. citizens commit violent and non-violent crimes at far higher absolute numbers and higher per-capita rates than undocumented immigrants. For every homicide, rape, or assault committed by an undocumented immigrant, there are many multiples of the same crime committed by U.S. citizens. This is not controversial; it is a simple consequence of both population size and offending rates.
The rant relies on a classic fallacy: selecting the worst possible cases, presenting them in isolation, and implying they are representative. They are not. If the same method were applied to U.S. citizens, one could produce daily lists of citizens convicted of rape, murder, child abuse, and trafficking — and the lists would be orders of magnitude longer. No serious person would argue that those lists justify militarized policing of entire neighborhoods populated by citizens. Yet that logic is accepted when immigration status is substituted for behavior.
This selective framing becomes even more misleading when non-violent crime is considered. The overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants have no criminal record at all, violent or otherwise. Many live decades without a single arrest. By contrast, non-violent crime rates among citizens — including drug offenses, DUIs, domestic violence, property crime, and fraud — dwarf those committed by undocumented immigrants. Ignoring this context allows fear to replace proportionality.
The sanctuary argument, as presented, also oversimplifies reality. Sanctuary policies do not “protect all illegals,” nor do they prevent arrests for criminal conduct. They primarily limit voluntary cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities for civil immigration violations. Local police still arrest, jail, and prosecute people for crimes — including undocumented immigrants. What sanctuary policies restrict is turning local jails into immigration detention facilities absent a judicial warrant. That distinction exists to preserve constitutional boundaries, not to shield violent offenders.
The claim that sanctuary policies force ICE into neighborhoods because sheriffs “cannot” cooperate also misstates the problem. ICE already has access to fingerprints, databases, warrants, and judicial processes. The operational choice to conduct large-scale street or residential operations is not dictated solely by sanctuary law; it is also a product of enforcement strategy, prioritization, and political signaling. When enforcement becomes indiscriminate rather than targeted, collateral fear rises — even among lawful residents and victims of crime.
The most troubling omission in the original post is its failure to acknowledge who suffers most when enforcement becomes blunt rather than precise. Immigrant neighborhoods are not protected by crime; they are disproportionately victimized by it. But they are also harmed when fear of enforcement drives victims and witnesses underground, making crimes harder to report and gangs harder to dismantle. This is not theoretical. Law enforcement leaders across jurisdictions have acknowledged that trust is a critical crime-fighting tool.
Finally, equating opposition to certain enforcement tactics with sympathy for criminals is intellectually dishonest. One can oppose violent crime, support deportation of serious offenders, and still reject the idea that anecdotal horror stories justify sweeping conclusions about millions of people. Public safety is not served by collapsing data into slogans or replacing analysis with outrage.
If the goal is fewer victims, fewer trafficked children, and fewer violent criminals on the streets, then enforcement must be focused, evidence-driven, and proportional. Cherry-picking crimes committed by a tiny subset of a population while ignoring the broader statistical reality does not advance safety. It advances fear — and fear has never been a sound basis for law.
Let me get this straight…your argument is there are citizens that are criminals, so non-citizens should be able to come here as they please and commit crimes here too?
And since local authorities can’t help coordinate enforcing the law in a more tactical manner, you don’t want the federal authorities to do it without them in a more blunt manner because it may cause fear, so everywhere should just stay lawless?
My argument is exactly what I wrote, not the position you’re trying to assign to me.
Any heinous act — rape, murder, trafficking, violent assault — is wrong, regardless of the offender’s citizenship status. The justice system exists to identify offenders, prosecute them, and impose consequences. That system should work consistently and lawfully.
What I reject is the idea that ICE should function as a military-style force conducting broad, aggressive operations to “get anyone,” whether their only offense is unlawful entry or whether they are connected to someone else suspected of a crime. That approach is neither proportional nor consistent with how we apply law enforcement in any other context.
This is not an argument for lawlessness. It is an argument for targeted, constitutional enforcement, the same standard we expect when dealing with U.S. citizens. Law enforcement should pursue people based on individual conduct and evidence, not status, proximity, or political pressure.
Framing the issue as “either total enforcement by any means or complete chaos” is a false choice. We can enforce the law, remove serious offenders, protect victims, and still reject tactics that treat entire communities as suspect or justify blunt-force operations that sweep far beyond their stated purpose.
That’s the argument. Nothing more — and nothing less.
Bergerson, (yawn) once again you’ve provided a long winded, boring, taxing diatribe as to why illegal immigration doesn’t negatively affect our safety. What a buzz kill on my Sunday afternoon! Okay, the research I’ve read indicates there is no statistical difference between sanctuary and non-sanctuary communities. Let’s say you’re correct and while you’re enjoying strudel and latte on the Mariahilfer Strasse, just imagine (if you can) the economic impact in terms of schools, healthcare and public services. I guess murder rates are lower for immigrants and not relevant in accordance with your own T-test unless it affects you personally? BTW, there is a growing movement for Australia, Italy, Hungary and Poland to leave the EU. Maybe because of the taxing strain on the social fabric?
Calling an argument “long-winded” isn’t a rebuttal; it’s an admission that engaging with the substance is inconvenient.
Notice what just happened. You shifted the discussion away from crime — the premise of Andy's original post — to generalized concerns about schools, healthcare, and public services. That pivot matters, because it quietly concedes the point you initially contested: crime statistics do not support the claim that undocumented immigrants make communities less safe, whether in sanctuary jurisdictions or elsewhere.
If you want to debate fiscal policy, infrastructure strain, or the allocation of public resources, that’s a different and legitimate conversation. But it is not the one Andy opened, and it is not advanced by cataloging the most grotesque crimes imaginable and implying they are representative.
You also mischaracterize my position again. I did not argue that murder rates are “not relevant unless they affect me personally.” I argued — explicitly — that public policy must be guided by population-level evidence, not anecdotes, precisely so it does not hinge on personal proximity or emotional reaction. That principle protects everyone, including you.
As for Europe: invoking Australia, Italy, Hungary, Poland, or the EU without context does not strengthen your case. Europe’s debates over migration involve different legal regimes, labor markets, welfare structures, border authorities, and asylum frameworks. Simply gesturing at “strain on the social fabric” without specificity is not analysis — it’s mood affiliation.
Even within Europe, countries with higher immigrant integration and legal labor pathways consistently outperform those that rely on exclusion and blunt enforcement. Again, nuance matters.
Finally, citing Heritage Foundation as definitive proof doesn’t resolve the issue. You already acknowledged that sanctuary versus non-sanctuary crime rates show no meaningful statistical difference. That undermines the core claim that sanctuary policies endanger public safety. Everything else you added is an attempt to move the goalposts after that realization. Remember, Heritage was also the framework for Obamacare.
We actually agree on one thing: immigration policy should account for economic capacity, service delivery, and long-term integration. Where we disagree is whether fear-based narratives, selective crime lists, and enforcement theatrics improve outcomes. They don’t.
You can argue for tighter borders, better funding, or reform without distorting crime data or dismissing proportional enforcement as naïve (wow, MS Word gave me the correct spelling). That’s all I’m asking for — coherence between claims and evidence.
Just saying.
PS. I am near the Schönbrunn Palace. I am here with my wife for the Vienna Philharmonic Ball.
"Hamas, a terrorist organization that can do no wrong even after massacring over 1,000 Israeli civilians"
You're poisoning the well Mr. Caldwell. The Pope, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Orthodox Patriarchs/Priests, as well as protestant ministers in the holy land have condemned Israeli military actions and have also not supported Hamas. Christians in the Holy Land have condemned the horrors of Israeli attacks, and there was an assassination of two Christian people by Israeli snipers outside the Holy Family Catholic Church - just because. Israel denied it, then said there were Hamas shooters in the area, and they just kept changing their story to absolve themselves of responsibility. Their names were Naheda and Samr Anton.
You conflate any legitimate criticism of Israel with support for Hamas, which is absurd. Why are you even running defence for Israel? What does this have to do with an "America First" agenda, or even Santa Barbara County specifically?
Is good bad? So it would seem. Yes, the actions of Renee Good can only be characterized as sad, tragic, preventable, predictable and yes, STUPID! Why would a mother of three, leave her kids, travel to another city, stalk federal agents for several blocks and then try to run over the same federal agents? Spurred on by her transgender wife?
As tragic and stupid as Good’s decision making process was, it makes perfect sense for the left to capitalize upon it. Sure, didn’t Rham Emanuel famously say, “Never let a crisis go to waste?” While the attention is now on the lawlessness in Minneapolis and other cities, it has deflected from the massive fraud from which Minnesota officials now finds themselves accused of. Billions stolen from hungry children and put in the pockets of Somali pirates. Then when called out, it becomes a racial thing. You simply can’t make this up!
Can one only imagine if Good was not white and lesbian, but was black instead? Ya, people are reading this and nodding their heads up and down. Even BLM came out publicly and admitted as much. Of course, that makes sense, the mayhem, destruction of businesses burned to the ground, assaults, even murders which would have (and still could) ensued. Why is that?
For Democrats, Good served the role of useful idiot, becoming Rodney King and George Floyd all in one. In the meantime, Teheran burns to the ground with massive loss of life and not even a peep from the left. Why? Didn’t the left loose it during the war in Gaza, but crickets about freedom in Iran?
It’s because the liars which make up the left have selective memory and outrage. Ya, that’s right, they’ll protest on overpasses with flags and signs about a crazed lesbian “Mom” and domestic terrorist, but say nothing about tens of millions of people struggling for freedom. Maybe their searing hatred of Jews and Israel have something to do with it? You think?
God help us if this demented, satanic and sicko group of “activists” ever gains power again. Oh wait, they are in charge at all levels of California government!
60% of Democrat voters support the deportation of criminal aliens. 69% of Democrats support sanctuary cities. How can a majority support deportation and a majority support protecting from deportation? I think the answer is that Democrat voters like the sound of sanctuary city without knowing what that means. One could say idiotas utiles.
LT got cut off....¿
Everything and anything done by Trump is bad. When Trump deports an illegal alien it is bad but when Obama deports an illegal alien it is good. More generally, anything done by a Republican is bad. As conservatives we try to argue on the basis of facts but this is a mistake. The action is unimportant, party affiliation is everything. The Democrat party has not had a legitimate primary for a presidential candidate in ten years. Is this considered a threat to democracy by Democrats? It is absolutely undemocratic but for Trump to criticize media bias is the number one talking point demonstrating that Trump is a threat to Democracy. The left cannot be defeated with facts because facts don’t matter. They can only be defeated by force and Trump is the first leader we have had in a long time with the courage to fight the true threat to democracy, the Democrat party.
They will protest anything even to become healthier at this point.
I believe it's a psychological issue at this point from years of brainwashing via media.
Even meathead said tds was affecting his mental health.
Checked into a facility.
But an addict cant stop
Himself from hating.
The kenyan imported 85M
Samalis. Guess he missed his
Neighbors.
Thank you for reminding us of the dangerous and effective enemies within the United States who use our freedoms to destroy them. Easily persuaded, useful idiots abound to become the unwitting servants of foreign agents and foreign money aimed at destroying the strength of America and its cohesion as a democracy from within.
Aiding all this is the absolute negligence by both federal and state government agencies in ignoring, or failing to detect and stop, the massive and long-surviving theft and fraud in government services and subsidies amounting to many $billions, as in the example, now partially detected and exposed in Minnesota.
Why shouldn't every illegal alien be deported? If some illegal immigrants are allowed to stay is that fair to those trying to immigrate legally? Does it disadvantage and I would add actually insult those immigrants who respect our laws? There is a democratic process to change the law to open borders. Why does the Democrat party instead choose to ignore the law rather then use the democratic process to change it? The Democrat party likes to be called the Democratic party but nothing could be further from the truth, their behavior is that of an Undemocratic party.
Jeff, with both the Senate and House, it seems like this would be a prime time for Trump to completely revamp immigration law. Is that happening? I don't think 5 decades of immigration quagmire is solely the Dems fault.
The law does not need to be changed, just enforced. I think there has been a weak will to enforce our borders by both parties, I agree. For flagrant disregard of our immigration laws, the Biden administration has no peer. How would you revamp immigration law? The legal process to allow immigration can be streamlined if we want to allow more immigration. I do not believe it is a good idea to allow unvetted into the country.
That is so ignorant of reality. There have always been tweaks to immigration policy each year.
John's point is that there's a powerhouse of Republicans controlling everything in government, and they have an opportunity to do a major overhaul. Yet, they are just grandstanding, giving you the red meat that you want to consume and leaving this problem for them to not do a ****ing thing to. Talk about chicken shits.
Just a side note Dave but isn't " to not do" employing a split infinitive? While I have read in some manuals of style that objection to a split infinitive is a bugbear, I would still say that generally it is considered poor grammar. Possessing the self proclaimed triune curse of intelligence, writing ability and good looks invites picky criticism.
I am not saying that I am perfect; I do not always follow Strunk and White's Elements of Style. It has been a few decades since it was on my desk for reference.
Feisty today aren’t we. Adore your passion, it is so cute. And my point is that there is no need to change immigration law. We have a legal process for immigration. What would you change?
Again, that is just @#$T^ stupid.
If there were no need, it would not be changed multiple times a year.
If there were no need, we would not be where we are.
I do not think you even understand the immigration legal process. There are reasons why immigration attorneys (not all, but most) are arguing for overhauls.
Enforcement. Strict enforcement of who is allowed to enter along with aggressive deportations.
Don't you think we are in the situation we are in because of not enforcing existing immigration law? Immigration attorneys want each illegal to get a trial with a court appointed attorney of course. That means nothing. Yes I am stupid so educate me. I want 100% closed borders, deportation of 100% illegals and a legal process for immigration with a requirement to speak English. Immigrants should assimilate, want to be American and not live in communities where they do not speak English and wave the flag of the country they fled. Immigration is to benefit America not the immigrant. Diversity is not a strength it is a weakness. So share your vision of a better way. I am all ears.
I get the feeling from
Your belligerent sophomoric
Tone that you voted for the
Drunken slaggert. No credibility here.
She and bedpan biden let the pervy thousands in!
Totally agree on not allowing unvetted into the country and the Biden admin allowed for the most porous border since there has been a care about letting folks across. But what about the DACA kids/adults? Has that mess been worked out? What about upping visa programmes and enforcement? Has that been worked out?
Enforcement first. Narrow down who is allowed in and what they bring to the party. Completely terminate chain immigration...aka family reunification. Assimilation has been a complete bust. Why is everything printed in English and Spanish both at the government level and commercially? Not speaking English equates to lower pay… Lower pay equates to more welfare payments a.k.a. having others pay for you. Enough… Actually, we are way past enough.
Congress has not ":reformed" immigration...the Left's euphemism for open borders because Americans, irrespective of political affiliation, do not want immigration expanded, but in fact, better controlled if not eliminated for the near term at least. Otherwise, Congress would have granted the wishes of the left. Even the left-wing Congress members know that they don't have a great deal of support among their own constituents for "immigration reform".
Obama deported 400k illegal immigrants by 2012. In many interviews he said it was because he had to follow the law.
The news media was even on his side and did ride alongs with ICE. No outcry there and he was "just following the law" as our ICE agents are doing.
The real problem should be on Biden and the Border Czar who let all this illegals in and did not vet any of them.They committed a crime and not ICE or Trump.
Along with the illegals are 200k Children,I believe, that have gone missing.
Have they been trafficked or sold into slavery. Many were found at the Cannabis Farm raid.
If Congress and Senate wrote all the laws for immigrants but are the ones attacking ICE and shouting cliche deragatory names at them,then what does it make them.
ICE are just following the laws.
In addition,A law was just passed last year unanimously by both sides, that a non citizen can be arrested for a DUI.
Folks "protecting their neighbors" claim that they aren't criminals. How do they know that? Have they checked their rap sheet to confirm.
When presented with other facts they don't want to hear it or look at it,instead go on the attack.
I don't know if it's years of SSIs, indoctrination, extreme narcissism,or a problem with authority that we have individuals who cannot respect authority.
Where do we go from here? The NGOs groups Indivisible for one keep being funneled money to provide for paid protesters and disruption in our communities.
What does it cost to the city when there are large protests. Trash cleanup,police services damage to buildings.
Let's see what 2026 brings.
EVERY illegal should be deported, especially if they receive one dollar in taxpayer benefits. Schools, medical care, housing? Who’s paying these bills?
We expect to be held accountable to obey our laws. Why aren’t they supposed to be accountable our laws?
In the spirit of Jeff Foxworthy, a few thoughts on our current ICE discourse:
If you think ICE is more dangerous than convicted rapists and killers they’re trying to deport…
you may be a useful idiot.
If you think “Abolish ICE” is a serious policy proposal but “enforce existing law” is fascism…
you may be a useful idiot.
If your outrage level is set to 11 for deportations, but a 12‑year‑old rape victim barely moves the needle…
you may be a useful idiot.
If you believe every viral video with zero context but roll your eyes at court records and rap sheets…
you may be a useful idiot.
If you trust anonymous Twitter threads more than judges’ sentencing documents…
you may be a useful idiot.
If you think “sanctuary city” means “safe space for everyone” instead of “revolving door for repeat felons”…
you may be a useful idiot.
If you’re convinced ICE is the Gestapo, but you’ve never once looked up who they actually arrested in your state…
you may be a useful idiot.
If you’re more offended by the term “illegal immigrant” than by the words “child rape conviction”…
you may be a useful idiot.
If you believe every protest is “grassroots” right up until the money trail leads to D.C. and foreign NGOs…
you may be a useful idiot.
If you think “lawfare” is a conspiracy theory, but also cheer every creative indictment of political opponents…
you may be a useful idiot.
If your free‑speech absolutism mysteriously vanishes whenever someone questions your preferred narrative…
you may be a useful idiot.
If you’re sure America is a police state but somehow still feel perfectly safe screaming at armed officers on camera…
you may be a useful idiot.
If you think George Soros is a myth but your favorite organization proudly thanks his foundations in the footer…
you may be a useful idiot.
I distinctly recall the commenter above ignoring due process in Venezuela [the abduction of a soverign head of state, the attack of foreign military personnel] while also speaking of the need for "process" as it relates to rent control in Santa Barbara, urging "carefully consideration" and other frivolous things.
Is he not a useful idiot by his own standards - it seems he parrots a script of the modern conservative, operating not on principles but what best suits his personal desires depending on what does or doesn't affect him.
"Nick Koonce
Jan 6
Process, power, and selective outrage
If you think the Maduro grab is unique in its disregard for sovereignty or international norms, you have forgotten a long history of American and non‑American regime change operations. What is genuinely distinctive here is not the willingness to interfere in another country’s politics. It is the combination of two things at once:
A brutally honest strategic motive—energy and great‑power rivalry, not humanitarian uplift."
On rent control; "Whatever your position on rent control itself, we should be able to agree on this: emergency powers are a poor substitute for transparent process, especially when every seat on the dais is thinking about the next ballot, not just the next ordinance."
How curious.
Thank you for writing. Your last sentence is most important!
Outstanding and spot on Andy. The utter stupidity of the DEMOcRAT/left is mind numbing. Watching the swearing in of that imbecile woman as governor of Virginia makes me want to puke. Are the people of Virginia that uninformed and stupid? It's become obvious that DEMOcRAT/left finds the most incompetent and corrupt Toadstools to run for office. Tampon Timmy Walz, Kamel Harris, drooling pervert Joe Biden, Smiling ManDummy, and hundreds of others come to mind. Like I tell my wife every time we watch TDS infected leftist protesters screaming NAZI's at the ICE officers, "if they were Nazi's, you would all be dead protesters, gassed or executed".
Good One Caldwell… it’s obvious to some of us that were living through a color revolution propagated by the deep state, of which the Democrat party is a major player, and the Republican Party members are minor players. We are watching the last desperate growls of the dying uniparty. The deep state plays to attempt to rid themselves of Donald J Trump began in November 2016, the day he won the rigged election (with aid from US Mil?). The steaks are very high, one side wins, and the other one dies. Good triumphs over evil.
As for the upset caused by the insurrectionists, as always follow the money. George Soros, and his minions, attempted to take control. Rigging elections to install compromise prosecutors & pols across the land, targeting key large cities run by the D’s for decades as profit centers. Why? to ensure that the revolving door spins at a high rate to put the criminals back on the streets with little to no penalties. Team Trump had to spend the last six months, removing the high-level insurrectionist cells from these large cities, including many of the paramilitary-trained illegal aliens imported from places like Venezuela & the Congo. Add in the Gladio units that have been here for decades to keep the strategy of tension in place, and backed with the illegal corporate media to provide cover (run by the Democrat party with funding from US taxpayers via the back door at the CIA), and we have the ingredients for the civil war that they’re trying to touch off. [they] are scared and panicked. What does an animal do when trapped? Lash out & fight for life?
For those considering moving from our great state of California, please don’t, we will need your leadership in the coming months and years to right the ship & rebuild. Good news is we’re nearing the end of this wacky movie. End of lawfare, end of corporate media, end of crime and corruption, end of street warfare, end of control…
How do you capture a very DANGEROUS animal? Do you attack it from the front? Do you walk through the front door? Do you signal ahead of time you will be attacking? How do you distinguish between good and bad? Who do you trust to keep secrets? Who do you trust to complete the mission?
What a pile of horse pucky. Sorry, but you are ranting and throwing blame left and right with no real insight into the reality. Pure ideological bias and derangement Syndrome.
Burton H Boorhees, I would appreciate your insight on this. What is this reality you refer to? Should America disregard its own immigration law? Most voters support the deportation of criminal illegal aliens and many including myself support the deportation of all illegal aliens. How is this ideological bias and derangement? Educate us simple minded folks.
Jeff Farton, Look at the rhetoric. There is rational discussion and there is ideological drivel.
Vapid response. Have you nothing to add?
What would be wrong with simply arresting the "worst of the worst", for instance the way police arrest someone. Certainly Mr. Caldwell listed plenty of those people and i agree they need to be apprehended. Why do we also have to have masked and heavily armed men invading our streets and seemingly grabbing anyone they want off the street or sidewalk. Or now, I read, entering homes to grab people.
Have you read "Devil in the White City" by Eric Larsen? There are too many similarities. Not just ICE.
I think there have to be much better ways to apprehend and deport the "worst of the worst". I do not include people who crossed the border illegally and have been working and raising families here for years as "the worst of the worst". How is incarcerating them helping any of us?
Lunna: Please, enough with this "masked and heavily armed men" bull. Ice agents were not "masked" when they began this process, but after Antifa and the other useful idiots began posting their names, faces, and family members online, all the agents masked up. You would too.
It’s because of Sanctuary. Please talk to a county Sheriff, they will explain it to you.
Here’s an example: if they arrest a convicted murderer that has already served time and been deported, but came back illegally over the last four years. They are a felon, with a felony warrant. Say this person is picked up for a non violent offense here. The sheriff CANNOT coordinate with ICE. They must release this person and hope ICE saw fingerprints were done and can get to the jail parking lot in time to re-arrest them. If not, they have to go get them in the neighborhood.
If turnovers could happen, there wouldn’t be the need for the large force in the streets. But since sanctuary states have a policy to protect all illegals, ALL!, including rapists and murderers, ICE then has to come get them in neighborhoods. When they do they are met by activists attacking them.
So they are forced to come in full force to handle any situation, because they also have no backup from local authorities when things go south.
Put this in context. They executed a warrant here in July to rescue trafficked minors on the cannabis farms, and they were literally shot at and vehicles attacked in Camarillo, while our local politicians stood there siding with the rioters.
I don’t think any sane person wants a military style force in their neighborhoods, but sanctuary states are causing it. And the saddest part, is immigrant neighborhoods are the most victimized by these criminals. The Sheriff can’t even turn over prisoners in our jails.
I have met with multiple organizations here working with trafficked people. There are case workers working hundreds of cases in just east side Santa Barbara of trafficked minors. Does our local news report on that? Nope. Why not? Our local politicians refuse to focus on trafficking in persons, because then they also have to admit illegal immigration has serious criminal side effects. And they can’t get away from the narrative that everyone is a hard worker that we need here.
If someone’s only crime was crossing the border illegally, they are not being targeted. If they live with someone that has 5 DUI warrants and skipped court dates, they are at risk, because ICE is not doing selective enforcement.
Stop listening to the MSM. Go talk to a Sheriff. Go talk to a charity organization here trying to protect trafficked kids. Go talk to a counter narcotics or gang unit.
Also, in 12 months of enforcement across all the counties on the central coast (Ventura, SB, SLO) they have detained less than 800 people total. 300 of that on the cannabis farms in July. So this narrative that storm troopers are out taking thousands of people from their cars by profiling is also complete untruthful rhetoric.
Spot on Bob.
Bob,
Look at the amount of gymnastics required to arrive at your conclusion.
For your argument to work, all of the following must be true:
1. A person commits murder.
2. They are convicted and serve their sentence.
3. They are released after completing that sentence.
4. They are deported.
5. They then illegally re-enter the United States.
That entire chain has to occur before your scenario even exists.
And this is the foundation for arguing that ICE enforcement is somehow unjustified or excessive?
Now apply the same first three steps to a U.S. citizen.
If someone commits murder, serves their time, and is released, we accept—by law—that they have paid their debt to society. Until they commit another crime, they are free to live their life. In many states, they may even regain rights you would otherwise oppose, including firearm ownership.
So which is it?
Either:
You believe that once someone serves their sentence, they are free unless they reoffend, or
You believe that certain people should be treated as permanently suspect, even after completing their sentence.
You can’t argue both.
The only difference in your scenario is immigration status—not criminal behavior. And if that alone is the justification for perpetual enforcement, then the argument isn’t about public safety; it’s about redefining who is entitled to the rule of law.
That’s not a serious position, and it doesn’t withstand even basic scrutiny.
What’s hard to comprehend? You don’t have to argue everything because you don’t like Trump.
- Not an American citizen that’s a murderer, rapist, child molester, drug dealer, etc
- Was removed from America by Obama or any other president
- Returned back to America illegally when Biden failed to care about borders while we were locked down in COVID with masks on.
- That makes a felon forever. Crossing the border back is another felony offense for a removal and convicted felon.
You are arguing about going to remove this person from a neighborhood here? YOU are doing the mental gymnastics. And now I can no longer take any of your comments on here seriously. I thought you might be a troll using AI to post these long rants, and now it’s confirmed without a doubt. Anyone that argues to keep illegal violent criminals in their country cannot be taken seriously.
I also highly suggest you go talk to a case worker and hear the stories of sex trafficked minors brought here in our own town, it’s appalling.
Bob,
You’re still arguing against a position I never took.
At no point did I argue to “keep illegal violent criminals” in the country. That’s a straw man, and repeating it doesn’t make it true. Violent offenders should be prosecuted, imprisoned, and removed where the law allows. Full stop.
What I am challenging is the logic you’re using to justify enforcement tactics, not the legitimacy of enforcing the law itself.
Yes, unlawful re-entry after removal is a felony. That doesn’t convert someone into a permanent state of exception where constitutional norms, proportional enforcement, and due process no longer apply. We don’t apply that standard to citizens, and abandoning it for non-citizens is not a public-safety argument — it’s a status-based one.
You keep returning to the most extreme examples imaginable — murderers, rapists, traffickers — as if they define the entire enforcement universe. They don’t. Serious offenders are a subset, not the whole. When enforcement is framed and executed as if every undocumented person or every household is presumptively dangerous, the result is blunt force where precision is required.
Pointing out that blunt enforcement creates collateral damage is not “defending criminals.” It’s recognizing reality. Law enforcement itself acknowledges that community trust matters, that intelligence dries up when fear dominates, and that indiscriminate operations make it harder — not easier — to identify the worst actors.
As for the accusations about motive, Trump, or AI: those are distractions. I’m arguing from first principles — rule of law, proportionality, and equal application — not party loyalty. Dismissing disagreement as trolling is easier than engaging the substance, but it doesn’t advance the discussion.
We actually agree on more than you admit: trafficking is real, violent crime is real, and victims deserve protection. Where we differ is in whether invoking the worst cases justifies turning enforcement into a generalized show of force in residential neighborhoods, even when many of the people affected are not criminals at all.
That’s not mental gymnastics. That’s the difference between targeted enforcement and collective suspicion.
And that distinction matters — especially if the goal is fewer victims, not just louder rhetoric.
David, I’m not arguing for enforcement tactics. I’m explaining the rationale for where we are at to someone who asked why do we need a military force in our streets.
Again, no sane person wants a military force in their neighborhood. I’d prefer cooperation and coordination. I’d prefer a 9/11 never happens again because all agencies are sharing data on overstayed visas. I’d prefer H2A Visa red tape was reformed to make it easier for farmers based on their input and not politicians input. I’d prefer common sense on all of this. Unfortunately, it requires one party here to stop fighting for crime and say “we have self-inflicted problem.”
Lunna29. You are part of the problem.
Yes, that is an issue with families but why didn't they get papers to become citizens and start the process. I believe people that are starting the process can't be deported
Also the Feds are providing 3k to self Deport.
Over 2 million have already self deported.
Lunna29: What don’t you understand about American law? If we break the law, we’re responsible for the consequences. If you are not lawfully within our borders, you are unlawfully here subject to deportation: the consequence. That’s clear to informed citizens and international travelers. Please consider national security; costs and budget deficits; American history, values, culture, and citizens. Citizens, taxpayers, workers have been taken advantage of too long. There’s a process for 2M+ to enter legally every year. Our country is being destroyed from within by ignorance.
Lunna. The law is not a smorgasbord from which you can pick and choose. Surely you understand the chaos you are seeing in the streets is 100% generated and funded by the lunatic left. It is no small coincidence that it's occurring in sanctuary cities which have collectively and actively blocked the proper enforcement of immigration law.
ICE officers have demonstrated a degree of patients and tolerance far beyond which should be expected. Frankly, they should be given much more latitude in responding to these seditious animals running around unchecked in places like Minneapolis.
Way to stand up to these stooges
Who caused the problem and now
Impede the clean up!
Carbajal impeded and doxed at his
Donor's pot farm in violation of federal
Code section 111.
Why hasn't he been charged?
I suspect his offices are also tracking
ICE when in SB. (Local City College
drama by the fringe left traitors)
Hey, Have you checked these facts?
If some immigrants being bad makes the lot bad, only fair to say the lot of americans are bad too - higher crime rate. It’s not hard to pull up a list of white american citizens who are pedophiles, murderers, etc
Undocumented immigrants have a lower crime rate than US citizens:
https://www.cato.org/blog/why-do-illegal-immigrants-have-low-crime-rate-twelve-possible-explanations
The fear that immigrants are "costing" the US seems unfounded
The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration
”This report concludes that immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S.” (NASEM National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine - https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/23550/the-economic-and-fiscal-consequences-of-immigration
Perhaps we should be attending to the real issue like how companies dont seem to be paying their fair share in taxes instead of hurting innocent people who are seeking a better life and on the whole make america better off financially, and likely in diversity/entrepreneurship?
Corporations don’t seem to be paying their fair share of taxes
https://itep.org/55-profitable-corporations-zero-corporate-tax/?utm_source=chatgpt.com
As I am currently sitting in Vienna and happened to walk around, noticing all the different restaurants around me, this topic by Andy seems comical. I have walked past Halal food, Serbian, Indian, Pakistani, and Italian food all on the same block. These are run by people who are from there. The irony of observing this area to his post is not lost.
The central flaw in Andy's argument is not passion or concern for public safety; it is statistical ignorance combined with selective outrage. Listing a dozen horrific crimes committed by illegal immigrants does not establish a broader truth about crime, immigration, or enforcement policy. It establishes only that crimes committed by non-citizens are being rhetorically weaponized, while the vastly larger body of comparable crimes committed by U.S. citizens is conveniently ignored.
Every violent crime is reprehensible. But public policy must be guided by scale, probability, and outcomes — not anecdotes. When crime data is examined at the population level, U.S. citizens commit violent and non-violent crimes at far higher absolute numbers and higher per-capita rates than undocumented immigrants. For every homicide, rape, or assault committed by an undocumented immigrant, there are many multiples of the same crime committed by U.S. citizens. This is not controversial; it is a simple consequence of both population size and offending rates.
The rant relies on a classic fallacy: selecting the worst possible cases, presenting them in isolation, and implying they are representative. They are not. If the same method were applied to U.S. citizens, one could produce daily lists of citizens convicted of rape, murder, child abuse, and trafficking — and the lists would be orders of magnitude longer. No serious person would argue that those lists justify militarized policing of entire neighborhoods populated by citizens. Yet that logic is accepted when immigration status is substituted for behavior.
This selective framing becomes even more misleading when non-violent crime is considered. The overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants have no criminal record at all, violent or otherwise. Many live decades without a single arrest. By contrast, non-violent crime rates among citizens — including drug offenses, DUIs, domestic violence, property crime, and fraud — dwarf those committed by undocumented immigrants. Ignoring this context allows fear to replace proportionality.
The sanctuary argument, as presented, also oversimplifies reality. Sanctuary policies do not “protect all illegals,” nor do they prevent arrests for criminal conduct. They primarily limit voluntary cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities for civil immigration violations. Local police still arrest, jail, and prosecute people for crimes — including undocumented immigrants. What sanctuary policies restrict is turning local jails into immigration detention facilities absent a judicial warrant. That distinction exists to preserve constitutional boundaries, not to shield violent offenders.
The claim that sanctuary policies force ICE into neighborhoods because sheriffs “cannot” cooperate also misstates the problem. ICE already has access to fingerprints, databases, warrants, and judicial processes. The operational choice to conduct large-scale street or residential operations is not dictated solely by sanctuary law; it is also a product of enforcement strategy, prioritization, and political signaling. When enforcement becomes indiscriminate rather than targeted, collateral fear rises — even among lawful residents and victims of crime.
The most troubling omission in the original post is its failure to acknowledge who suffers most when enforcement becomes blunt rather than precise. Immigrant neighborhoods are not protected by crime; they are disproportionately victimized by it. But they are also harmed when fear of enforcement drives victims and witnesses underground, making crimes harder to report and gangs harder to dismantle. This is not theoretical. Law enforcement leaders across jurisdictions have acknowledged that trust is a critical crime-fighting tool.
Finally, equating opposition to certain enforcement tactics with sympathy for criminals is intellectually dishonest. One can oppose violent crime, support deportation of serious offenders, and still reject the idea that anecdotal horror stories justify sweeping conclusions about millions of people. Public safety is not served by collapsing data into slogans or replacing analysis with outrage.
If the goal is fewer victims, fewer trafficked children, and fewer violent criminals on the streets, then enforcement must be focused, evidence-driven, and proportional. Cherry-picking crimes committed by a tiny subset of a population while ignoring the broader statistical reality does not advance safety. It advances fear — and fear has never been a sound basis for law.
Let me get this straight…your argument is there are citizens that are criminals, so non-citizens should be able to come here as they please and commit crimes here too?
And since local authorities can’t help coordinate enforcing the law in a more tactical manner, you don’t want the federal authorities to do it without them in a more blunt manner because it may cause fear, so everywhere should just stay lawless?
No.
My argument is exactly what I wrote, not the position you’re trying to assign to me.
Any heinous act — rape, murder, trafficking, violent assault — is wrong, regardless of the offender’s citizenship status. The justice system exists to identify offenders, prosecute them, and impose consequences. That system should work consistently and lawfully.
What I reject is the idea that ICE should function as a military-style force conducting broad, aggressive operations to “get anyone,” whether their only offense is unlawful entry or whether they are connected to someone else suspected of a crime. That approach is neither proportional nor consistent with how we apply law enforcement in any other context.
This is not an argument for lawlessness. It is an argument for targeted, constitutional enforcement, the same standard we expect when dealing with U.S. citizens. Law enforcement should pursue people based on individual conduct and evidence, not status, proximity, or political pressure.
Framing the issue as “either total enforcement by any means or complete chaos” is a false choice. We can enforce the law, remove serious offenders, protect victims, and still reject tactics that treat entire communities as suspect or justify blunt-force operations that sweep far beyond their stated purpose.
That’s the argument. Nothing more — and nothing less.
Yes David, but citizenship matters. We have to deal with our criminals, we don’t have to deal with the world’s criminals.
We live in a state that Heisman’s the federal government and leaves no choice.
Bergerson, (yawn) once again you’ve provided a long winded, boring, taxing diatribe as to why illegal immigration doesn’t negatively affect our safety. What a buzz kill on my Sunday afternoon! Okay, the research I’ve read indicates there is no statistical difference between sanctuary and non-sanctuary communities. Let’s say you’re correct and while you’re enjoying strudel and latte on the Mariahilfer Strasse, just imagine (if you can) the economic impact in terms of schools, healthcare and public services. I guess murder rates are lower for immigrants and not relevant in accordance with your own T-test unless it affects you personally? BTW, there is a growing movement for Australia, Italy, Hungary and Poland to leave the EU. Maybe because of the taxing strain on the social fabric?
Just saying.
https://www.heritage.org/border-security/commentary/sanctuary-cities-border-crisis-costs-and-rude-awakening-the-left
LT,
Calling an argument “long-winded” isn’t a rebuttal; it’s an admission that engaging with the substance is inconvenient.
Notice what just happened. You shifted the discussion away from crime — the premise of Andy's original post — to generalized concerns about schools, healthcare, and public services. That pivot matters, because it quietly concedes the point you initially contested: crime statistics do not support the claim that undocumented immigrants make communities less safe, whether in sanctuary jurisdictions or elsewhere.
If you want to debate fiscal policy, infrastructure strain, or the allocation of public resources, that’s a different and legitimate conversation. But it is not the one Andy opened, and it is not advanced by cataloging the most grotesque crimes imaginable and implying they are representative.
You also mischaracterize my position again. I did not argue that murder rates are “not relevant unless they affect me personally.” I argued — explicitly — that public policy must be guided by population-level evidence, not anecdotes, precisely so it does not hinge on personal proximity or emotional reaction. That principle protects everyone, including you.
As for Europe: invoking Australia, Italy, Hungary, Poland, or the EU without context does not strengthen your case. Europe’s debates over migration involve different legal regimes, labor markets, welfare structures, border authorities, and asylum frameworks. Simply gesturing at “strain on the social fabric” without specificity is not analysis — it’s mood affiliation.
Even within Europe, countries with higher immigrant integration and legal labor pathways consistently outperform those that rely on exclusion and blunt enforcement. Again, nuance matters.
Finally, citing Heritage Foundation as definitive proof doesn’t resolve the issue. You already acknowledged that sanctuary versus non-sanctuary crime rates show no meaningful statistical difference. That undermines the core claim that sanctuary policies endanger public safety. Everything else you added is an attempt to move the goalposts after that realization. Remember, Heritage was also the framework for Obamacare.
We actually agree on one thing: immigration policy should account for economic capacity, service delivery, and long-term integration. Where we disagree is whether fear-based narratives, selective crime lists, and enforcement theatrics improve outcomes. They don’t.
You can argue for tighter borders, better funding, or reform without distorting crime data or dismissing proportional enforcement as naïve (wow, MS Word gave me the correct spelling). That’s all I’m asking for — coherence between claims and evidence.
Just saying.
PS. I am near the Schönbrunn Palace. I am here with my wife for the Vienna Philharmonic Ball.
I realize it’s “anecdotal” but how about a dose of reality served up with your Wiener schnitzel?
Prost!
https://www.google.com/gasearch?q=recent%20murders%20by%20illegals&source=sh/x/gs/m2/5
"Hamas, a terrorist organization that can do no wrong even after massacring over 1,000 Israeli civilians"
You're poisoning the well Mr. Caldwell. The Pope, the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Orthodox Patriarchs/Priests, as well as protestant ministers in the holy land have condemned Israeli military actions and have also not supported Hamas. Christians in the Holy Land have condemned the horrors of Israeli attacks, and there was an assassination of two Christian people by Israeli snipers outside the Holy Family Catholic Church - just because. Israel denied it, then said there were Hamas shooters in the area, and they just kept changing their story to absolve themselves of responsibility. Their names were Naheda and Samr Anton.
You conflate any legitimate criticism of Israel with support for Hamas, which is absurd. Why are you even running defence for Israel? What does this have to do with an "America First" agenda, or even Santa Barbara County specifically?