Gimme Shelter

The verdict in the trial of career criminal and illegal Mexican alien Jose Ines Garcia Zarate may not have been a miscarriage of justice; under our system of jurisprudence, prosecutors often overreach and jury nullification, whether by juror selection or choice of venue, is perfectly legal. There is not some sort of instant replay system whereby a flagrant miscall can be overturned by consulting the videotape. When the jury votes for acquittal, that’s it, and we wouldn’t want it any other way.

The knee-jerk reaction to it on both sides, therefore, is irrelevant. Conservatives, in general, were outraged that, legally, the man who pulled the trigger on the gun that fired the bullet that killed Kate Steinle got off with only a felony possession of a firearm conviction. Leftists — including the attorney who effectively won the case — saw it as vindication, and criticized the reaction on the right as, you guessed it, an assault on the legal system.

It’s “horribly improper” for politicians to attack the American criminal justice system, a top defense attorney told CNN after President Donald Trump slammed the not-guilty verdict in the case of an undocumented immigrant accused in the shooting death of a California woman. Jurors in the Kate Steinle case “did what they were supposed to do,” Mark O’Mara told CNN’s Michael Smerconish, adding that critical politicians should “leave our criminal justice system alone.”

“The reality is the system works, and it should not be denigrated by people using it for political back-and-forth” O’Mara said Saturday. “I think it is horribly improper and degrades the process for any politician, be it POTUS, the attorney general or anybody else to come in and attack the system when it works.”

In other words, the verdict had little or nothing to do with the victim or the defendant; rather, it was a thumb in the eye of the Trump administration, which has since its inception opposed the concept of “sanctuary” jurisdictions as part of its efforts to end illegal immigration.

And here’s nub of it: the Steinle case is important, not simply as a matter of (at the very least) criminally negligent homicide, but as a fatality caused by a man who should not have been in San Francisco, or anywhere else in the U.S., at all. It’s good that the feds are now going to charge him, but the damage has been done. Deported multiple times, the perp kept coming back, knowing he would find “sanctuary,” not only in San Francisco but everywhere else in the state of California.

“Sanctuary” from what? Sanctuary from the laws of the United States. Every state, municipality and local jurisdiction that declares itself a place of “sanctuary” should henceforth be treated as being in open rebellion against the federal government, in exactly the same way that South Carolina and the secessionist Confederacy was — and was treated as such by Abraham Lincoln — in 1861.

How liberals cheered when Arizona’s SB 1070 law was effectively nullified last year by challenges from anti-American “activists”:

Arizona has announced an end to its practice of requiring police officers to demand the papers of people suspected of being in the country illegally — a move that pulls the last set of teeth from what was once the nation’s most fearsome immigration law. The announcement on Thursday came as part of a settlement with the National Immigration Law Center and other immigrants’ rights groups that sued six years ago just after passage of the measure, referred to by its legislative shorthand, SB 1070.

The 2010 bill angered immigration activists, business leaders and the governments of more liberal cities, which announced boycotts of Arizona. A boycott from the Los Angeles City Council led Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce to threaten “to renegotiate your power agreements so that Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.” The state of Arizona will also pay $1.4 million in attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs.

And two months later, Donald Trump was elected president, in large part to put a stop to this nonsense.

The concept of “sanctuary,” as the name implies, originates in Christianity: using the sacred precincts of the church to protect and shelter innocent people from the arbitrary power of the state. This is a classic tactic of the cultural-Marxist Left, to appropriate the terminology of faith for its secular, malevolent ends. But in this case those claiming “sanctuary” are not innocent: by definition, illegal aliens are criminals. What the Left is trying to do is nothing less than the nullification of the laws of the United States pertaining to the nation’s right (which they call, of course, “racist”) to define and protect its borders, and to decide who and who shall not be protected by its laws.

It’s as simple as that.

How much longer will we put up with this? In his first inaugural address in March 1861, Lincoln said, “Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy.” President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions would do well to consult that text, in which Lincoln went on to say:

I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States…

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Lincoln did it — as the Left’s favorite saying goes — by any means necessary, which ultimately concluded with federal troops occupying the rebellious states and the re-imposition of federal law. Philosophically, President Trump should follow his lead, and not just by withholding federal funds from cities like San Francisco. Because the Left no longer believes in angels, or laws, or much of anything else, except the destruction of the nation as founded and the furtherance of their own globalist ambitions, they need to be confronted, quickly. If we really do have a government of laws and not men — not to mention of illegal aliens — let’s prove it.

Defense Attorney Matt Gonzalez

Pursuant to (the above), this piece by the estimable Heather Mac Donald in City Journal furthers my argument that while the verdict in the murder trial of the illegal Mexican alien who killed her may have been legally and technically correct, it’s vital not to lose sight of the larger issues at play:

Advocates for illegal immigrants are unrepentant after yesterday’s shocking acquittal on all homicide charges of an illegal-alien confessed killer. The advocates are defending the sanctuary policies that had set in motion the 2015 killing in San Francisco; they have also doubled down on their opposition to any deportation of illegal aliens, criminal or otherwise. If ever there were a clarifying moment regarding what is at stake in the battle for the immigration rule of law, this is it.

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was a poster boy not just for the folly of sanctuary policies but also for the mass low-skilled Hispanic immigration that has transformed California. A barely literate drug dealer from Mexico with a second-grade education, no English, and a penchant for criminal aliases, Garcia Zarate had been deported five times by federal immigration authorities following convictions for various crimes.

Despite his record, Garcia Zarate was the sort of immigrant that the San Francisco authorities apparently believed that this country needs….

Needs” is the operative word here. Immigration used to be — and should be — based upon the needs of the host country, not on the wants and desires of “immigrants” who freely choose to leave their dysfunctional countries in order to take advantage of America’s debilitated sovereignty and generous social freebies. But the Left has chosen to make the fringe benefits of American citizenship — but not the responsibilities — freely (literally) available to the Third World as a matter of “human rights.”

As I noted (above), they’ve accomplished this by garbing their political aims in the robes of Christian doctrine, specifically regarding charity. The image they choose — especially this month — is that of the Holy Family taking refuge in a manger because there is no roo at the inn. But the “immigrants” who will fully choose to break our laws to enter our country are more likely to be Jose Ines Garcia Zarate than Jesus Maria y Jose.

Further, by “charity” they do not mean individual, private beneficence, but rather forcibly provided benefits at taxpayer expense. This is an odd conception of charity, but such is the post-Christian world the Left is making for us, with all of the obligations provided not by the conscience or the soul, but by the government, at gunpoint. That “open borders” — which means of course no borders at all — also puts personal safety and social stability at risk they view as a feature, not a bug.

Indeed, as Mac Donald notes, the verdict has been received by renegade California officials as proof that the state needs tougher gun-control laws, and they warn that illegals (like Muslims after every Islamic atrocity) should be worried about a backlash:

The people we should really be concerned for now, according to former San Francisco Supervisor David Campos, are illegal aliens themselves. “I’m afraid the immigrant community is going to be made to pay for something that the jury decided appears to be a very tragic accident,” said Campos, now chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party. Trump and pro-enforcement forces would react to the verdict by “ramping up their rhetoric. ”True to form, a sitting San Francisco supervisor turned the case into a gun control matter.“ I always thought this is not an immigration issue, as Trump made it out to be— this is a gun management issue,” said Sandra Lee Fewer.

Like South Carolina in 1860, California is spiraling out of control; unlike South Carolina then, California is now the most populous and among the most important states in the Union. Will the American people allow the Golden State to continue to reject federal immigration laws, as a kind of renegade Bear Republic? Will the Trump administration, which has sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution, let them get away with it?

California’s once-unrivalled status as the country’s most educated state has long since disintegrated under the waves of low-skilled, low-social-capital Mexican and Central American immigrants. Now, California’s K-12 system rivals Mississippi and Alabama as an education backwater. The state’s school-age population, now majority Hispanic, lacks competitive linguistic and math skills. (Of course, defense counsel conducted part of their post-verdict press conference in Spanish, oblivious to the symbolism.) California is becoming another Brazil, divided between fabulously wealthy elites hunkered down in their own coastal sanctuaries, and a poor, Third World population. Before the rest of the country ends up in the same situation, the immigration policies that gave rise to the Steinle homicide must change. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been conducting a largely unheralded effort to end sanctuary jurisdictions, but the illegal-alien lawyer’s lobby has fought him at every turn.

The very notion that we willingly harbor an “illegal-alien lawyer’s lobby” is a national disgrace.

We know what their end game is:

The advocates’ agenda is clear: they want to stop all deportations and in so doing eviscerate our sovereignty once and for all. Their ultimate aim is to transform the country culturally and demographically. Sanctuary policies are one of their most powerful weapons in that crusade.

Do we have the will to stop them?

Written by Michael Walsh and published by PJ Media ~ December 2-3, 2017.

Kate Steinle

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

2 thoughts on “Gimme Shelter

  1. Fergus

    Anyone who cites Lincoln as a moral authority on anything is not to be regarded as a well informed source of anything.

    Reply
    1. Publisher

      I hate Lincoln like the plague – however – even SOME of his words were on the money. JAFP – they all say the right thing at some point or another.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Publisher Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *