Over the past week or two, one immigration story has captured the attention of the country.
Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old woman in San Francisco, was brutally murdered by an illegal alien who’d previously been deported five times. Killer Juan Lopez-Sanchez admitted to the deed, telling a local news outlet that he specifically chose to go to San Francisco because it’s a “sanctuary city” — meaning, it doesn’t enforce immigration laws.
The Department of Justice has allowed these cities to openly defy federal law, which makes me wonder whether Alabama can call itself a “sanctuary state” and refuse to recognize the legalization of gay marriage. Something tells me the Obama administration’s respect for local discretion only extends to open borders advocates.
Anyway, Sanchez says he killed the young woman while hopped up on sleeping pills he found in a trash can. Giving different versions of the story at various times, he first said he shot the gun at sea lions, and then said he accidentally discharged it three times in the direction of Ms. Steinle. Those explanations are difficult to take seriously, but whatever the case, as other countries look to assimilate only the best, brightest, and most morally upstanding into their ranks, we open our arms to convicted felons who scavenge in dumpsters for discarded prescription pills before shooting our neighbors to death.
[sharequote align=”center”]We open our arms to felons who scavenge for discarded prescription pills before shooting neighbors.[/sharequote]
One strategy is sensible, the other progressive. Mutually exclusive designations, as usual.
Nations that care about their culture, their future, and the safety of their citizens treat immigration with the sort of rigorous, mature, serious scrutiny it requires. But in this country, which is apparently being run by preschoolers in Velcro shoes, we toss law, order, rationality, borders, national security, human life, truth, and assimilation to the side on the grounds that the murderer sorting through your garbage might have happy dreams. The fact that he’s dreaming about getting high and “accidentally” slaughtering women is not relevant.
But I’m off on a tangent here. The story about Kathryn Steinle, an innocent woman who’d likely still be alive if not for progressive immigration policies, is not the important immigration-related story that’s so dominated our national conversation. It hasn’t gotten much coverage at all, outside of conservative outlets. What really shocked and appalled millions in our country was, of course, Donald Trump’s now infamous remark about illegals who “bring crime and drugs.” Because saying some illegals are murderers is far worse than illegals actually murdering, it turns out.
Trump’s accurate statements led to condemnations from every corner of society, including many of his henpecked competitors in the Republican presidential field. Trump faced financial penalties on top of the public scolding, getting fired by NBC and abandoned by his business partners. I’m not a Trump fan, and I doubt that he’s even particularly sincere in his “conservative” ideology — he’s been a Sugar Daddy for Hillary Clinton for years — but what he said is nonetheless correct. Interestingly, millions of the fragile snowflakes in our country were offended, but none could quite articulate the error in his assertions.
Illegals are bringing drugs and crime, aren’t they? Steinle’s murderer brought drugs, crime, and murder — the illegal alien trifecta — and he’s not alone.
The government itself assigns “threat levels” to the immigrant criminals it detains and subsequently releases, and a large portion of them are dangerous felons. In 2014, the illegals Immigration and Customs Enforcement released back into our population were responsible for a cumulative 80,000 criminal convictions. We’re talking about hundreds of murderers, sex offenders, and kidnappers, and thousands of drunk drivers.
Homeland Security reports that legal and illegal immigrants comprise some 20 percent of the prison and jail population in this country, and in some communities, particularly along the border, illegal immigrants alone make up over 20 percent. Going back earlier in the Obama reign, between 2008 and 2011, illegals released from custody committed 16,000 crimes, including over 100 sex crimes and 19 murders. And these are just the ones we have on record, and just the ones captured and released again, and just according to the government. The actual numbers are, obviously, much higher.
A report in 2004 showed that 95 percent of outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles were for illegal aliens. Less than two years ago, the DOJ reported that America’s border towns are the most crime ridden in the country. Cities like El Paso, San Diego, and Brownsville have been struggling to cope with the violence that spills over from the other side of the border for many years now.
Maybe I’m an immigrantphobe, but if thousands of illegals are bringing drugs, crime, and rape into our country, it stands to reason that someone would be right in claiming that illegals are bringing drugs, crime, and rape into our country. I suppose the real question, then, is how many drugs, murdered Americans, and raped women and children do we need before liberals, and particularly this president, will consider it a problem?
The answer: Infinite. Immigrants vote for Democrats, therefore it doesn’t matter what else they do. It’s that simple. This is not my cynical take on things, it’s just how liberalism operates.
The predominant ideology in our culture — or at least the one controlling the government, media, Hollywood, and academia — is a perverse moral vacuum. It is entirely bankrupt, ethically and intellectually, and it has no innate concern for human life. This is a difficult truth to come to terms with, but it’s about time we face it. Liberalism teaches its adherents to judge a person’s life and dignity conditionally. If her life is useful to some end, especially a political end, it’s valuable and its destruction is a tragedy. If not, then the matter is moot and her death will be ignored.
[sharequote align=”center”]Liberals say “think of the children” in immigration, they say “forget the children” in abortion.[/sharequote]
That’s why, unfortunately, you can’t even take a liberal seriously when he laments illegal alien children who are “victimized” by deportation. This is a person, keep in mind, who thinks all human children are eligible to have their brains sucked out of their skulls. While they say “think of the children” in relation to immigration, they say “forget the children” when it comes to abortion. A child has the right to cross the border, but not to live, they say. This is liberal logic at its most depraved.
Meanwhile, the White House on Monday had the audacity to blame Republicans for Ms. Steinle’s death. Look, I understand politics and all that, but this is just plain evil. Barack Obama has declared publicly many times that he will not fully enforce our immigration laws. He says Republicans won’t work with him on immigration reform, but his reform would just grant more amnesty to more illegals.
San Francisco is one of the most liberal cities in the country, run by a liberal mayor who employs the liberal policy of non-enforcement, which is a localized version of the policy Obama has enacted nationwide. But Republicans are at fault here? What?
To make matters worse, the federal government is advertising food stamps in Spanish language flyers, emphasizing, and I quote: “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.” Translation: Come here and our government with the $17 trillion debt will give you free stuff, no questions asked. This has all led to the predictable conclusion of immigrants ignoring our laws, confident they won’t be enforced anyway.
Of course, Obama claims the border is more secure than ever, with the fewest illegal border crossings in 40 years, but the agents on the ground testify otherwise. Border Agent Chris Cabrera, in testimony to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said the numbers are being fudged by higher ups, and the men in the field routinely face reprisals if they deliver honest data to their superiors.
This is the situation. It’s not just about one incident, it’s about a culture of moral and legal corruption that leads to what happened in San Francisco. These crimes are not isolated, in fact Ms. Steinle wasn’t even the only woman murdered by an illegal in the span of 24 hours. Even as I write this, yet another previously deported illegal alien has been charged with a felony, this time a hit-and-run involving young children.
We have a problem. This is a problem.
And these cases are representative of the ongoing epidemic that inevitably follows when our nation allows unfettered immigration from a hellish, crime-ridden nation governed by drug syndicates. There’s a reason nobody wants to stay in Mexico, and it has a lot to do with Mexican criminals.
A study a few years ago found that one in three Mexicans want to leave their country, and over 80 percent describe crime as a major problem. If Mexicans are worried about criminals in Mexico, I think we have reason to share that concern.
You can’t blame someone for trying to flee a deathtrap where cartels routinely leave headless bodies in the street, but no thinking person can blame a neighboring country for wanting to make sure the people coming over aren’t the ones doing the beheading. It’s an exceedingly logical proposition that a country ought to be careful and considered about who it lets in, no matter what sort of country borders it, but especially if the nation to its south is filled to the brim with violence and chaos. Mexico understands this, which is why it has strict procedures in place to deal with anyone crazy enough to enter it without proper documentation.
Kathryn Steinle’s heinous murder is symptomatic, and because it’s symptomatic it’s also symbolic. Democrats will tell us it’s neither of these, but these are the same people who often use isolated, fabricated crimes to invent epidemics out of whole cloth. They certainly don’t have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to lecturing about not “exploiting” tragedies.
They invented the plague of anti-gay murder by using the death of Matthew Shepard, even though Shepard was a meth head killed by another homosexual over a drug-related dispute.
They made a national issue out of the killing of Michael Brown, even though Brown was a violent thug who robbed a store and then assaulted a police officer.
They used the rape of a college girl at University of Virginia to make a point about the “campus rape epidemic,” even though it never happened.
Liberals will latch onto any hoax to advance a narrative built on distortions and falsehoods, while simultaneously telling the rest of us to never point to something that actually happened to highlight what’s actually happening.
And here’s what actually happened: Kathryn Steinle was killed by an illegal immigrant who sought out a city with progressive immigration policies and then proceeded to use the protection it afforded him to slaughter an innocent woman. This is a big deal. It’s the kind of thing that should spark change. If liberals can use fake crimes and hoaxes and false narratives to push sweeping cultural and legislative transformation across the country, can’t we use real problems to do the same?
But it shouldn’t even come to this. Those of us who believe a country should have laws and borders shouldn’t be reduced to begging our government to enforce them so that, at the very least, our women won’t be murdered and our children won’t be gang raped.
We shouldn’t have to point to death and destruction to convince our leaders to take the fantastically reasonable step of requiring that immigrants become citizens if they want to live here. America should enforce its immigration laws not just because of rape and murder, but because they are our laws. The root of the problem is the obliteration of our national sovereignty brought about by a refusal to enforce them. The deaths of many, many Americans at the hands (and cars) of illegals are fruit growing from the tree of lawlessness fostered by our government.
It also should be said that proponents of tougher (or, at a minimum, existent) immigration enforcement don’t lack for “compassion.” We certainly ought to have compassion for the less fortunate, but since when do the less fortunate benefit from the undermining and weakening of the thing that’s supposed to bestow the better fortune upon them? If I want immigrants to enjoy the prosperity of our nation, it would make sense to preserve it. Our nation is indeed a nation of immigrants, but to keep that title it needs to remain a nation in the first place. And nations have borders. All nations have borders.
Real compassion is the sort that covers both the next Kathryn Steinle, and the next Hispanic immigrant. I want them both to bask in the light of a stable, secure, civilized country — which means being careful and organized about who we let through. It means creating an environment where all who live here might experience the rewards of American compassion, and those who don’t might look forward to the possibility, provided they are good, upstanding, contributing people who are willing to follow the process and respect our laws.
What we should be discussing is a drastic slowdown, if not a complete halt, in all immigration, legal and illegal, for a period of time. Let us get a hold of ourselves for a while and work on assimilating those who have already come here legally. Think of this as the national equivalent of the safety instructions they give you on an airplane: put your mask on first, then help those around you. After all, if you’re unconscious or dead, you won’t be of much use to the elderly woman sitting to your right. Similarly, if we become Mexico, we can’t very well be of much service to Mexicans who want to escape Mexico.
Of course, that will never happen. We can’t even all agree that illegal immigration should be controlled, let alone legal immigration. But it helps to reflect upon the point and purpose of immigration, which is not simply to give food stamps and Social Security benefits to the entire Third World, but to strengthen this country, and through strengthening it to provide opportunity and liberty to the immigrant. We are strengthened as a nation, and thus able to give those opportunities, not by playing host to every drunk, thief, deviant, or thug who happens to wander across the border, but by holding immigrants to a certain standard. By saying, “it means something to be an American; it’s more than just living within our geographical boundaries.”
This is why immigration enforcement is not a personal affront to immigrants. It’s for their benefit as well as ours. And I do understand why they come here. I wouldn’t want to live in Mexico anymore than Mexicans do. But the ones who are good and decent people should not protest our reasonable laws and procedures. They’ve seen what a lawless, anarchic country looks like. They should understand and support our efforts to avoid becoming the thing they just left.
But whether they understand or not, the facts are clear. When you don’t enforce your immigration laws, there are consequences. The destruction of our national identity and the strain on our economy are two types of consequences, and the death of Ms. Steinle is another type.
We deserve better. Ms. Steinle certainly deserved better. And now we should demand it, for her sake and ours.
Contact Matt for speaking engagement requests at Contact@TheMattWalshBlog.com. For general comments, use MattWalsh@TheMattWalshBlog.com.
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.