Been holding off on the Kate Steinle verdict for a bit now. Just because I wanted to be sure about this case before making a comment about it – I don’t like getting dragged into hot topics without researching them first. But I don’t see how clearing her killer can be justified in any matter.
For those who are still unaware, Kate Steinle was killed in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant, who is a poster child for Trump’s campaign against criminal illegals. He was deported five times, had seven prior felony conviction, was just let out of jail 24 hours before to the murder. He should have been deported but since San Francisco is a sanctuary city they refused to cooperate with ICE’s request to hold him.
If you’d like to learn more on the case, Ben Shapiro gives a good breakdown.
So, the reason I held back on commenting is I don’t like using anecdotal evidence to push for policy – namely the old anecdote of pretty white girl gets killed by dirty brown man. Neither do I want to play into the progressive trap – immediately after the verdict, the defense attorney said the case “was used to foment hate” and “catapult the presidency.”
But at some point the anecdote is so egregious that it reveals many problems. At this point we have two of them – our state’s refusal to cooperate with immigration officials, and its refusal to even prosecute properly.
The very fact that the guy admitted to using the gun, and still gets cleared even on manslaughter charges – I tried finding a justification and I just can’t. It really seems like California is exiting the business of protecting its citizens. Why give citizens justice when you have an agenda of undermining the very concept of citizenship?
It goes back to the core of my campaign – I thought maintaining law and order was a bipartisan issue. Trump’s agenda was never radical. It was just about going back to enforcing the laws we already have on the books. Jeff Sessions has the best analysis of the issue: “I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.”
In his comments, the defense attorney said “Today was a vindication for the rights of immigration”. How? Are illegals above the law now? Are we to replace citizenship with a pool of coolie labor with no rights whatsoever?
If there is something to worry about some “right wing backlash”, I don’t see it. The only backlash against this verdict, and Sanctuary City status, is perfectly justified.
