Oregon judge’s connection to illegal immigrant’s murder of Kate Steinle

Kate Steinle_thb

by NW Spotlight

Tragedy on San Francisco’s Pier 14

On Wednesday, July 1st, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was shot and killed on San Francisco’s Pier 14, “one of the city’s most scenic tourist spots.” The ABC affiliate in San Francisco reported San Francisco police said she “was walking along Pier 14 when a man came up and shot her in the upper torso.”

The ABC affiliate reported “Wednesday was supposed to be fun for Kate and her family. She met her father on Pier 14 that night. He was there to take her to Pleasanton, to learn if her brother and his wife were expecting a boy or girl. But tragedy struck instead.” The San Jose Mercury News reported “A bullet pierced Steinle’s aorta and she collapsed to the ground in front of her father, who desperately tried to save her life.”

Murder victim Kate Steinle

Murder victim Kate Steinle

April 2014 Oregon court ruling

Janice M. Stewart was appointed as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on October 13, 1993. She was the first woman to be appointed to serve as a federal magistrate judge in Oregon.

Oregon U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart

Oregon U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart

Judge Stewart ruled on April 11, 2014 that holding Maria Miranda-Olivares for an immigration hold violated her constitutional rights. Miranda-Olivares had been held for 19 hours after completing a two-day jail sentence in Clackamas County for a domestic violence charge. According to the Oregonian “jail officials detained her until the next day, giving US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials time to pick her up.” As part of the ruling, the judge found that cities, counties and states could be held liable for unlawful detention for immigration detentions.

In the wake of the ruling, 30 of Oregon’s 36 counties quickly became “sanctuary counties,” according to the Center for Immigration Studies. One Oregon city, Springfield, became a “sanctuary city.”

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

A Portland immigration lawyer called Judge Stewart’s ruling a game changer and a Lewis and Clark College law professor said “Oregon may actually be one of the leading areas of the country in basically rejecting the idea that state and local law enforcement officers should pay attention to the detainers.”

The April 2014 ruling was followed by a coordinated campaign by immigrant rights’ groups and the ACLU to push other counties to defy federal immigration hold requests (“ICE detainers”) – which are part of the Secure Communities program. They sent letters to counties throughout the U.S.

On May 29, 2014 the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department announced that they would “no longer honor U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers unless they are supported by judicial determination of probable cause or with a warrant of arrest” – expanding San Francisco’s “sanctuary” status.

Accused murderer a felon illegal immigrant exploiting “sanctuary” status of San Francisco

The accused murderer of Kate Steinle, Francisco Sanchez, is a convicted felon who has been deported 5 times and was only recently released from prison. Sanchez used a gun that had been stolen from a federal agent’s car while the agent was in San Francisco on business.

USA Today reported “Federal officials say he should have never been walking the streets a free man. Federal officials released Sanchez in March from federal prison where he had served nearly four years for previous immigration violations. They delivered Sanchez to the San Francisco sheriff’s office, where he was wanted on felony marijuana distribution charges. Local officials dropped those charges a few days later and released Sanchez onto the street despite a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain him for deportation.”

U.S. News & World Report reported “The San Francisco sheriff, citing the city’s ‘sanctuary city’ policy, released Sanchez in April after prosecutors dropped the drug charge, despite an Immigration and Customs Enforcement request to hold him for federal authorities so deportation proceedings could begin.”

A federal immigration spokeswoman said “As a result, an individual with a lengthy criminal history, who is now the suspect in a tragic murder case, was released onto the street rather than being turned over to ICE for deportation.”

U.S. News & World Report reported “Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton told CNN that San Francisco was wrong to ignore the ICE detainer request and release Sanchez from custody.” They also quote Hillary Clinton saying “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported.”

USA Today also reported that the accused murderer told a TV reporter he came to San Francisco to look for a job because he knew they offered sanctuary to people unlawfully in the country.

UPDATE (7/11/2015): Santa Barbara Police Dept shows value of not being a “sanctuary city” – nab illegal immigrant using DNA in cold case killing of homeless woman by cooperating with feds. Santa Barbara PD works with federal authorities, unlike departments in so-called “sanctuary cities.” – “The normal state of affairs is for local, state and federal agencies in the criminal justice system to work with each other. We pick up the phone and talk. In this case, ICE informed us that Manzanares was in custody.”

  • guess who

    Apparently the bleeding heart liberals do not understand any one illegally in this country does not have any rights under our constitution period.

    • Don’t Tread on Me? Ha!

      Outrageous! The flags of La Raza, MEChA and Latino Kings, etc., can fly high, but an archaic Confederate battle flag gets shot down and burned in frenzied flames. .

      • Eric Blair

        Well, not so archaic. The meaning of the flag is more than a little racist, don’t you think? Nor does any State house in this country officially use any of those other flags you mentioned.

        • Dick Winningstad

          Are you still on that canard?

          • Eric Blair

            What canard would that be? To the best of my knowledge, this is the first I’ve discussed the confederate battle flag.

        • redbean

          Resistance to tyranny is the original meaning of the Confederate battle flag, ironic as that may seem to those who don’t know that only a tiny fraction of southerners owned slaves, or that many northerners opposed slavery not out of enlightened conscience but because they just wanted to keep people of African ancestry as far away as possible.

          Since the 1960’s, rockers and rebellious youth of all colors have displayed it to “stick it to The Man.” It’s meaning is in the eye of the beholder, with the current hysteria showing the hallmarks of being a manufactured crusade.

          Given the arguments used against the Confederate battle flag, we should instead discuss ditching the US flag. It is the flag under which the Union generals carried out their war on Native Americans, not to mention that the KKK has long marched under the US flag.

          I won’t hold my breath on that one, but I’ll bet crosses on any state flags will be next. The progressive elites are desperate to divide us with distractions so we don’t hold them accountable for their destruction of the economy.

          • Eric Blair

            What the South was truly incensed was that there weren’t going to be any new slave states, that northern states were not enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law, and that they couldn’t take their slaves with them when slave owners went into northern states. The war was explicitly about slavery in the justifications from the southern states themselves for secession.

            Texas went one step further and claimed that the United States had been formed exclusively for whites.

            Like it or not, the confederate battle flag became the symbol that racists rallied around. It certainly wasn’t accidental that SC raised the flag again 1961 during the protests of the Civil Rights Movement.

            It is legitimate to discuss the US flag, and others, but you’re simply offering those up as a distraction. One flag at a time. 😉

          • redbean

            The South was “truly incensed” about tariffs and had been since 1828.

            The North was enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act quite well, actually, which is why slaves were streaming into Canada to escape from the North, and several Northern states sought to nullify the Act and secede themselves. Lincoln, whose white supremacist views are well documented, offered an amendment to preserve slavery in the Constitution, a month before Ft. Sumter.

            The South had no designs on overthrowing the government in Washington, which is why they didn’t pursuing the fleeing Northern troops back to Washington in the first battle (aka Bullrun by the North, Manassas by the South). Therefore, there was no “civil war” but a War of Northern Aggression.

            The Confederate Battle Flag is based on the St. Andrews Cross, a Christian Celtic heritage symbol well recognized by the Scots-Irish of that day (i.e. the majority of southerners).

          • Eric Blair

            According to justifications from some Southern states, the North was not doing a good job of enforcing the fugitive slave law. If you read what they were saying at the point of secession, they were primarily motivated by one issue: slavery.

            Declaration of secession – South Carolina

            Declaration of secession – Georgia

            Declaration of secession – Mississippi

            Declaration of secession – Texas

            Take a look at those documents and tell me what the overriding concern of the Southern States was.

            “The North was enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act quite well…

            Evidently the South did not feel that the North was doing a good job in enforcing the Fugitive Slave law. In this instance, as it often happens in history, the appearance was more important than the reality.

            “Therefore, there was no “civil war” but a War of Northern Aggression.

            So who fired the first shot? However, I would, for the purposes of this discussion, be willing to refer to the events as either the War of Southern Aggression, or the War to Protect Slavery. I like the last one best. Because that is what the war was about.

            “The Confederate Battle Flag is based on the St. Andrews Cross, a Christian Celtic heritage symbol “

            And changed enough to be instantly recognizable as the Confederate battle flag. That flag flew on the battlefields of the armies of the South who were fighting to maintain their “peculiar institution.” As such, claims that it is merely a flag of “heritage” fall flat. It is a flag that was used in battle to defend the right to own slaves. That flag has continued down to this day as a symbol of white supremacy. There are some who have attempted to moderate the true genesis of the flag, but they are simply being blind.

            “Lincoln, whose white supremacist views are well documented…”

            Nice try. Yes, in modern terms, he was a white supremacist. As were the vast majority of white people in the United States at the time. It is also well known that he would have allowed the continuation of slavery to maintain the Union. That does not excuse the South’s dependance and defense of owning slaves.

            However, the South didn’t trust Lincoln, and they didn’t see the issue being resolved in their favor in the future. The seceded from the United States primarily to defend the existence of slavery. Their own documents attest to that.

            However, if you wish to argue that tariffs even came close as an issue, please feel free to provide links to documents.

            Also note that one of the issues that the South feared was that the North allowed free blacks to vote… I’ll let you connect the dots.

          • redbean

            Excellent work. I’m sorry that I can’t answer all of your valid points right now (yes, I do have rebuttals) – I feel guilty having diverged so far from this thread on illegal immigration. Yet, I can’t resist getting in a few more of my own thoughts.

            The secession documents show that we are both right. Although these legal arguments mention slavery, they also describe constitutional violations related to the tariffs as cause for secession, which BTW had already been decided upon by the time these declarations were written. (However, please note that SC, GA, MS and TX did not compromise the entire South and conventions are not always representative bodies.)

            Have you considered the letters of thousands of Confederate soldiers – who were not slave holders – that also comprise the historical record? The personal is the political, isn’t it? This body of evidence overwhelmingly documents that liberty and independence were overriding factors for their own participation.

            The Confederate states were upholding the original American belief in states’ rights (i.e. the right of secession to keep the federal government in check). But if you want a “national” view, here is a quote from Jefferson Davis’ Inaugural:

            “Sustained by a consciousness that our transition from the former Union to the present Confederacy has not proceeded from any disregard on our part of our just obligations, or any failure to perform every constitutional duty — moved by no intention or design to invade the rights of others — anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations — if we may not hope to avoid war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit us of having needlessly engaged in it. We are doubly justified by the absence of wrong on our part, and by wanton aggression on the part of others. There can be no cause to doubt that the courage and patriotism of the people of the Confederate States will be found equal to any measure of defence which may be required for their security.”

            “Devoted to agricultural pursuits, their chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country. Our policy is peace, and the freest trade our necessities will permit. It is alike our interest, and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon interchange of commodities. There can be but little rivalry between us and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the Northwestern States of the American Union.”

            “It must follow, therefore, that mutual interest would invite good will and kindness between them and us. If, however, passion or lust of dominion should cloud the judgment and inflame the ambition of these States, we must prepare to meet the emergency, and maintain, by the final arbitrament of the sword, the position we have assumed among the nations of the earth. We have now entered upon our career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued.”

          • Eric Blair

            I’m not sure what you mean by us being both right. Are you acknowledging that the War for Slavery was primarily fought on the issue of slavery?

            You definition of States Rights describes a mechanism, but not the cause for making use of that mechanism. It was their legal justification of their right to secede… but the reason they wanted to secede was propelled by their mainly by their desire to protect slavery. Other issues took a distant back seat.

            “Whether by the House or by the people, if an Abolitionist be chosen president of the United States, you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your
            avowed and implacable enemies. Withoutt pausing for your answer, I will state my own position to be that such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed
            and the observances of its mere forms entitled to no respect.

            In that event, in such manner as should be most expedient, I should deem it your duty to provide for your safety outside of a Union with those how have already shown the will, and would have acquired the power, to deprive you of your birthright and to reduce you to worse than the colonial dependence of your fathers.

            Jefferson Davis – speech before the Mississippi Legislature, 1858.

            Full speech here

          • redbean

            Wars don’t have one cause. I didn’t mean to imply that slavery was not an issue, but not “primarily” the issue.

            The South as an agricultural economy depended on slave labor, though inefficient and difficult to sustain. The North as an emerging industrial economy, not so much. Economics, mechanized agriculture and public sentiment (driven by Christians taking their religion seriously) were on the way to producing a peaceful end to slavery. I agree that the South didn’t trust Lincoln, but many Northerners didn’t either.

            The South’s trade of raw commodities for finished goods with other countries had been dividing North and South even before the “Tariff of Abominations” (1828). Tariffs harmed the South not just by higher prices for absolute necessities but because their trading partners found it harder to afford Southern goods. The last sentence of your J.D. quote describes very well the emotional impact of the specter of destitution and dependence – not a “back seat” issue especially to the 98% of Southern men who owned no slaves. Self-respecting folks just can’t stand Yankees when they get up on their puritanical high horses at the same time they act like gangsters (as Killary is discovering).

            I said we’re both right in the sense of “both, and” rather than “either, or.” It was my feeble attempt at being charitable to match the civil tone of your responses. Now, how ’bout dem illegals?

          • Eric Blair

            Another quote from Jefferson Davis before the United States Senate before he resigned (January 1861):

            “It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social
            institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.
            That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born–to use the language of Mr. Jefferson–booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal–meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each
            member of the body-politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their
            declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it
            that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do–to stir up insurrection among our slaves? Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men–not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were
            discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three fifths.”

            You aren’t just arguing with me… you are arguing against the very leaders of the South in 1861, who claimed that slavery was the primary issue.

            There is debate upon the economic efficiency of slavery… it is not as cut and dried as you would have me believe. However, it ultimately doesn’t matter, The South wanted to maintain the institution, and the explicitly went to war to do so. Argue with them… because that is what they believed. THEY believed that they needed slaves, and THEY believed that as they lost control of the Federal government that it was only a matter of time. They seceded to prevent their former slaves becoming free men.

            Which also explains the enthusiasm of poor white farmers. They hoped that they may yet be rich enough to own slaves, and they had been convinced of the danger: physical, political and economic; of freeing such a large population of slaves.

          • redbean

            Your quotations are so much bigger than mine. Are you paid by the hour or by the line?

            Mr. Eric said: “…they had been convinced of the danger: physical, political and economic; of freeing such a large population of slaves.”

            I think it is presumptuous to assume that poor white farmers were so
            stupid as a group that they envisioned going to battle for the benefit of plantation owners – leaving behind defenseless wives
            and children – was a choice means of upward mobility.

            Yes, slave revolts were common in the 18th and 19th centuries, and definitely a source of fear in the South. Lincoln stated this as his rationale for the Emancipation Proclamation, i.e. to provoke violence as a war measure, not to free slaves – indeed, it freed zero slaves.

            It takes two to tango. Lincoln and the U.S. Congress made it quite clear that they intended to
            “preserve the Union” and not to dismantle slavery (“established
            institutions”). Their goal was for the agrarian South to continue to pay for 75% of the federal budget, so Lincoln’s cronies could pursue their Manifest Destiny schemes.

            The views of Southern leaders regarding racial equality were no
            different than that of Lincoln and other Northern leaders. Equality of
            the races was the view of a radical abolitionist minority, including libertarians and authentic Christians (not much has changed).

            Lincoln supported the anti-black-immigrant Illinois Constitution and the Illinois Black Codes, which denied black people the rights
            of citizenship and economic equality.

            Lincoln’s paper trail is voluminous – here are a few selections from 1858:

            “My declarations upon this subject of Negro slavery may be
            misrepresented but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not
            understand the Declaration (of Independence) to mean that all men were
            created equal in all respects.”

            “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races…I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary.”

            “Senator Douglas remarked…that… this government was made for the white people and not for negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too.”

            Lincoln’s reason for keeping slavery out of new states was so that “white men may find a home.”

            The South’s deeply held political belief was – and still is – for many in both North and South, that in order for the union of states to have validity, it must be voluntary. It is the founders’ ideal that the powers of government rest upon the consent of the governed, not the edicts of a dictator backed up by bloody force. The only difference is that today most people understand that “race” doesn’t exist as a biological reality and that “all men are created equal” applies to everyone.

            Those who want to associate the South solely with slavery are seeking to claim the fruits of Lincoln’s revolution to abolish the voluntary union of states, and thus to remove the consent of the governed as the foundation for government.

          • Eric Blair

            “Your quotations are so much bigger than mine. Are you paid by the hour or by the line?

            I wish.

            I didn’t say poor white farmers were stupid. Anywhere. They made common cause with large planters on the issue of slavery because they believed in the institution, and wanted to maintain slavery.

            You discuss just about everything, except the rationale behind secession – which was to defend slavery. I’m already very aware that our shared history of this entire country in horrible when dealing with the issue of race. The “what about you” argument, however, does you a disservice. Don’t you think it is about time to start addressing racism, and the symbols that went along with it? The confederate battle flag should only be the start.

          • redbean

            In 2015, the Confederate flag is being used to foster hatred of the white South based on historical fallacies perpetuated by the media and popular culture. Shining light on those fallacies is not a defense of slavery or racism.

          • Eric Blair

            As for Civil War… I did a little research, and it will depends, in the end, of whose definition you are willing to accept:

            “In their seminal study Resort to Arms, Small and Singer (1982, 210) defined a civil war as “any armed conflict that involves (a) military action internal to the metropole, (b) the active participation of the national government, and (c) effective resistance by both sides.” The main distinction they drew between civil (internal or intrastate) war and interstate or extrastate (colonial or imperial) war was the internality of the war to the territory of a sovereign state and the participation of the government as a combatant. Civil war was further distinguished from other from of internal armed conflict by the requirement that state violence should be sustained and reciprocated and that the war exceeds a certain threshold of deaths (typically more than 1,000).

            By that definition, the conflict that you call the War of Northern Aggression”, certainly was a civil war. I am interested in why you refuse to call it a civil war.

            Sambanis, Nicholas. What is Civil War? Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition. Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 48, No.6 (Dec., 2004), pp. 814-858.


            If you sign up for jstor (for free) you can read articles on line (up to 3 on your bookshelf) for free.

          • redbean

            Thank you for sharing the jstor link. I do have academic access to jstor and a multitude of databases in every discipline, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

            In a civil war, both sides fight for control of a government. The South didn’t want to take over the North, they wanted to secede peacefully. Secession is not a declaration of war. Secession is more like a divorce for irreconcilable differences until one party refuses to separate peacefully (i.e. Lincoln’s government – not necessarily the people of the North).

          • Eric Blair

            That is one definition… but it can be also a regional realignment. In short, a regional declaration of sovereignty from the national government.

            The definition I provided fits the events of the War for Slavery… so yes, I believe it to have been a civil war.

          • redbean

            A “regional declaration of sovereignty from the national government” would not result in a civil war unless the national government chose to punish the independence seekers. This is what Lincoln threatened in his Inaugural if the South didn’t pay up, which he carried out in a most bloody way against innocent noncombatants. Part of the Confederate flag nostalgia in play is the remnant of historical trauma.

          • Eric Blair

            The flag flew over armies who were seceded to protect the institution of slavery. As for violence, the South fired first.

            If you don’t want to believe it was a civil war, that is fine. I don’t find your arguments persuasive, but, as stated before, I’m willing to call it the War For Slavery.

          • redbean

            I don’t find your arguments persuasive either. Why would states care so little about their black citizens that they would continue to fly the US flag of the racist Lincoln and the KKK? Just because bad people display a symbol, doesn’t mean that symbol has the same meaning for everyone. Of course, propaganda always relies on people associating certain ideas with certain symbols.

            The South fired first and a horse died. In response, Lincoln’s troops burned, pillaged and raped the South’s black and white civilians alike. To top it all off, Reconstruction set back the South’s economy and race relations for a century.

            African-Americans have been voting with their feet for quite some time, showing their preference for the South despite the presence of that evil flag. Integration in the South is much more advanced than, say, in the “progressive” Pacific Northwest.

            Looks like we’re just agreeing to disagree, but thank you for your time – it’s been a real hoot.

          • Eric Blair


            The point that you shy away from, is that the confederate battle flag was raised over armies that were protecting the right of states to own slaves. That was the primary issue motivating secession in 1861.

            Actually, a debate about the United States flag would be a good one. And I think changing the United States flag might be a very good idea. At the moment, however, we are discussing the confederate battle flag. You’re offering up a diversion and distraction.

            The fact that South Carolina added the flag in in 1961 in defiance to the Civil Rights movement. Certainly symbolically spitting in the face of their african-american citizens.

            Of course, propaganda always relies on people associating certain ideas with certain symbols.

            And there are some who try and revise history and pretend that the ideas behind the symbol really aren’t there. Propaganda indeed.

            We are talking abut the meaning behind the confederate flag and what secession was about. Depredations occur in all wars, and the south had their fair share as well. Andersonville immediately comes to mind.

            Again, you go for diversion and distraction. I have no doubt that the Pacific Northwest in general, and Oregon in particular (I certainly wouldn’t call Idaho a progressive state) should be doing a lot more. That, however, has nothing to do with the confederate battle flag, which is the issue at hand.

            But let’s be absolutely honest… the vast majority of those blacks in the south see the confederate battle flag as a symbol of slavery – and it was. Most, if not all, white southern politicians are aware of that. Why continue to insist on a symbol that is most certainly not inclusive of all of their citizens. In fact, it is quite divisive.

            It has been a hoot, and quite instructive.

          • redbean

            Demonizing the Confederacy is also not inclusive of all citizens, and thus divisive. It’s useful, though, for those who seek to distract the public from massive governmental failures to solve social problems.

          • IgnoreTheMedia_THINK

            But let’s be absolutely honest… to view the confederate battle flag as a symbol of slavery is dishonest. Why continue to insist one symbol not inclusive of all of their citizens when, in fact, both flags supported slavery? ‘Convenient’ views of history are seldom accurate.

        • raven6

          So what— the word racist ceases to be relevant.
          By birth I am a kike, paddy, redskin and a Brit. Every person on this planet is a racist, to some degree or other. That is why the Constitution and bill of rights did not sanction the issue. All men are created equal.

    • Eric Blair

      100 years of court decisions say otherwise. Yes, illegal immigrants have constitutional rights.

      • NAFTA Refugee

        Just have Obama write a memo. Executive power trumps constitutional rights, at least short term. Come to think of it, if the president’s memos have the full force of an executive order, how does a governor’s memo stack up?

  • Eric Blair

    Wow. This is… amazingly bad. Is Oregon Catalyst working to become an affiliate of WND?

    • John Fairplay

      So you applaud Ms. Steinle’s death.

      • Rudolf Vasolinez

        Seems Eric Blair appears a huckster for what’s left of US ad infinitum. Pity his diaper rash.

      • Eric Blair

        Yes, that’s exactly what I do. Because if I think the article is just egregiously horrible, I must applaud her death. That is the only other answer possible.

        That is sarcasm, by the way.

  • HBguy

    The author is conflating at least two different things here.
    This murder was serving 4 years in prison for immigration violations. Why didn’t they start deportation proceedings PRIOR to releasing him. They had 4 years to initiate them. If they did, the murder wouldn’t have occurred. That appears to be the problem here in this case.

    As to the ICE detainers, you need to know where they come from, how they are issued, how they are served and honored, and what the Feds could have done had they chosen to do so.

    These detainers are issued by agents. Basically, a police officer sends a T Type to a jail saying….hold this guy, don’t let him go. There is no magistrate issuing any warrant, there is no oversight, this is all unconstitutional under the US Bill of Rights, fourth amendment to the constititon. NO police officer has the right to decide someone should he held in jail for more than a brief amount of time without independent findings by a magistrate. So All they have to do is do an affidavit for a magistrate to sign showing probable cause to hold.
    ICE had 4 years to do that in this case.
    All the court ruled was that ICE had to obey the constitutional requirements. It did not order everyone be released. I don’t know if ICE has fixed this problem, but it seems like in two years, they could have.

    • Eric Blair

      Be prepared to be accused of applauding Steinle’s death. That, evidently, is what passes for thinking by some on here.

      • Dick Winningstad

        No the governemnt is screwing up. By not confirming immigrant status and allowing risky people out on the street they are endangering the public.

        • Eric Blair

          The government, in this case, is following the constitution… read carefully what HB Guy wrote. If the proper procedures are followed, then detainees can be held.

    • Melveta

      Obama recently fixed the problems of all mentioned… Obama signed an ORDER for all border patrol to “Stand Down”….NOT to arrest anyone coming over the border or to pursue them!! There is the Culprit in the Bull Pen….. I am writing this Feb. 17, 2016.

      • Melveta

        Obama announced also that he could not be bother to go to the Honorable Judge Scalia’s Funeral… He will be sending two- maybe just one Representative in his place… I will be Scalia’s family is glad that Obama and the mushHell aren’t coming… that would be a disgrace for all, apparently Obozo knew that!!

  • Ron Swaren

    What a tragedy —and it is sad that such events usually happen before issues are addressed. My thought was that going to court and obtaining writs of mandamus might be the way to bring governments back to actually enforcing the law, if one can still do that in the US???Our sheriff’s department were bluffed, once again, by determined activists. Yes we know that sometimes law enforcement makes a mistake and the wrong people are detained. No system is perfect. Those laws, and the cooperation between federal and local law enforcement were put in to policy for a good reason.

  • Dave Francis


    Donald Trump
    is raising the proud, bowed heads of delusional people, which has been forced upon
    them under the control of King Obama’s citadel of Liberal-Democratic radicals. Trump
    has stimulated the expectations of the people for a new type of President and
    thereby he has skyrocketed in the polls. The
    only thing that can stop him is the GOP elitist debates, if the engagement is
    rigged against him. Finally the voice of the people is being heard over the
    wealthy donors who haunt the halls of Congress for favors offering votive
    packages of 100 dollar bills. But dollars cannot buy Donald Trump, so both
    sides are using every dirty keyhole they can see through, looking for the muck
    that is reserved for all the Presidential nominees in the 2016 race.

    It looks to
    me that Donald Trump has a hard skin, a brazen attitude that is not bothered by
    the backlash of companies, institutions and people that have a concealed reason
    for there ire? My thoughts tell me that
    there is a reason that prominently stands out, by the stupid term used to
    describe–criminal illegal aliens. These
    are not undocumented immigrants/ migrants, but what these thieves are; killing
    our jobs and economy spurted on by Democrats for illegal or legal votes.
    When these United States are delivering $60-100 billion dollars a year for
    entitlements to illegal aliens, that has caused a major disruption in our painful
    economy, when this money should be to
    fund a huge border barrier, tough enforcement internally and at the demarcation
    line between Mexico and the US.

    money earned by illegal aliens is being migrated to other countries, when it
    should be spread around the poverty here. The Democrats who are depleting
    enough brain cells to realize they are losing out as well—except for a certain
    class of citizens, who are the virus in our society believing taxpayers should
    support them from their birthing until they die. Thanks to King Obama and the
    nanny state, we are forced by his kinsmen in the IRS not only in catering to
    society’s deadbeats, but illegal aliens as well.


    The Citizenship Act in the United States is a matter of federal
    law, governed by the United States constitution. Since the adoption of the Fourteenth
    Amendment to
    the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of individuals born
    in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship
    Clause, which states: “All persons
    born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
    thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they
    reside.” But birthright citizenship
    has been taken out of context another level, adding millions of illegal alien
    mothers from every part of the world; snubbing our laws and stealing into the United States to have their child/ children as

    citizens and legal resident have a chance turn this financial cost around, by
    clicking on http://www.numbersusa.com and joining in this battle to end birthright
    citizenship laws, unless you have a parent who is a US citizen. Then One American News network my valued and honest channel
    that gives you the facts and not the spin about the dirty word—politics. OANN http://www.oann.com runs
    24 hours, 7 days a week with unrestrained facts of raw news from home and

    foreigners can immediately can collect in some states $600.00 for each child
    and an EBT (food Stamps). If this is not bad enough the child, at the right age
    can sponsor family members; hence CHAIN MIGRATION. Birth tourism is travel to another country for the purpose of giving
    birth in
    that country. Reasons for the practice include access to the destination
    country’s healthcare system and to get their child an American Passport. This
    CHAIN MIGRATION is a disgusting practice and adds massive weight to every US taxpayer. Millions
    of illegal alien mothers are able to exploit the law, as once here are allowed
    to stay. Birthright citizenship law is today a bad situation for taxpayers, as
    under Obama’s preferential treatment—illegal aliens are not apprehended.
    Further is the commitment of Sen. Harry Reid Demented lawmaker for in his past,
    he was very much adverse to illegal alien encroaching on Americas sovereignty. He,
    this crazy Senator refused to eradicate illegal aliens from stealing child tax
    credits in an annual amount of over $4.7 Billion dollars annually.

    You know what; I am going to do, send some money to the
    President Donald Trump campaign, saying I support you? AS THEY ALWAYS DO, DEMOCRATS ARE SUCESSFUL IN

    should consider that in 2007 as it was reported ever since 1999 there have been
    almost one million victims of rape, child molestation, sexual homicides and
    molestation of special needs children by illegal immigrants here in the U.S.-
    and that 63% of the illegal immigrant sex offenders had been deported at least
    once prior to committing a sex crime in the U.S. https://www.aim.org/media-monitor/illegal-alien-sex-fiends/ Police blotters must be censored by the
    authorities not to publish the illegal alien status of incessant crimes
    committed. Democrats and even GOP
    oriented newspapers and the mass media that are negative to the rising
    distinction of Donald Trump, will use any excuse to block you entering a blog,
    commentary or article about issues that doesn’t fit their ideology.

    Donald Trump has pledged to build a wall, between us and Mexico. He will eliminate
    many of the issues that are destroying this nation. America is being saturated
    with foreign nationals who have no right to be here and we are supporting them.
    It is time to think of our own people, our own citizens; assisting our sick veterans
    that who have always driven the enemy from our shores in the name of freedom. These
    men and women must go begging to charities, while foreigners collect taxpayer’s
    money. To our senior citizens that desperately require help with day today
    food, medical and a roof over their heads.

    No matter what–I am voting for Donald Trump, as I care for
    my family’s future and what he can do for America. I am frustrated
    what is happening under King Obama, as our country sinks under a federal debt
    of 18 trillion and climbing. This week this president is disengaging our troops
    from Afghanistan and Iraq, and dismantling
    our military forces when ISIS is building an
    army. Countries that once trusted us
    look upon us with contempt while our enemies show no fear of our wilting war

    We need a President who does not fear the influence of giant
    tobacco companies or pharmaceutical corporations, the US Chamber of Commerce
    and the proverbial transnational corporations that buy the favors from
    Congress. Think about the massive influx of illegal aliens in the last decade. California as an example of a
    distraught, governor issuing driver’s licenses and likely health care to
    unlawful aliens. Of course the business
    sector wants as many people coming here; that it means more cigarettes can be
    sold. More drugs are a continuous, profitable pathway for those types of

    Whatever you can
    picture in your mind, they can find a new buyer. The US Chamber of Commerce has
    spent 2 billion dollars in restraining any new laws so they always have an uninterrupted
    stream of new illegal people for the in-exhaustible supply of cheap labor for
    employers who pay their dues. They buy us with our own taxpayer dollars; poor
    trade treaties to benefit the dictators and the privileged as in the Mexican
    NAFTA agreement. Trump–a man who stands
    with the tired, American worker who slogs all day to keep food on the table and
    a shelter for his wife and kids.

    • HBguy

      i like how you wrote your post as an Epic Poem.
      By the way, I only got through the first 5 lines of Gilgamesh too.

      • Eric Blair

        Trumpamesh? Gilgatrump? Given his nativist leanings, I don’t think he’d like being called Sumerian.

        • .

          Fan you as Poopery Pilates, Obscenior Abhores Blair.

    • Melveta

      Trump is an actor from being a showman all his life….He is a narcissist’s- Chauvinist – Jerk….Just like the Narcissist’s Chauvinist A$$ we have in office now… Saying what you want to hear…and has the idea he can do it all on his own….”in the white house now”…. like in the jail house now tune…He can turn all that “good against you in a heartbeat”….. He is so bigoted now… look how he treats and talks to people now that don’t agree with him….WE THE PEOPLE and the Constitution has the say unless you are a LIBERAL – and that is Trump all over again Liberal right out of N.Y.

  • Sumit Bansal
    • .

      Sumit Bansai, he who succors to the strumpets twice preceding his foremost post.

  • raven6

    As an analyst, some very enlightening comment. My I express my thanks for a bit of intelligent discussion. If I may, one of the hidden issues of the Civil war ( my opinion ) is who was going to be the Center of the Government of the United States. The succession created two economic engines. Countries and money brokers came to both sides. By the way, the Texas Legislature had many blacks as members. Second the KKK was started to wrest the black population from the Republicans, and the NAACP, has kept them as slaves of another kind ever since.