- "Indignation continues to mount on the right over the killing of a 32-year-old white woman in San Francisco last week, allegedly at the hands of an undocumented Mexican immigrant. Following the lead of Donald Trump, who last week used the incident to demand tougher immigration enforcement, GOP presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Rand Paul on Wednesday called for an end to "sanctuary city" policies such as the one in San Francisco, which had allowed the alleged shooter, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, to roam free despite an outstanding federal deportation order."
I personally think sanctuary laws are a band-aid, but they clearly point toward what a rational immigration policy could achieve if it were permitted to exist and more generally, I think they also support an argument against a change in police training and practice, pointing toward Community Policing.
Obviously this is a contentious political issue but I'm really not interested in the usual political arguments. I'm interested in what works, and what approaches, however justified, rationalized, excused or promoted, would lead to lower crime rates and more livable cities.
The policy may be sound, but the argument presented is not. The author acknowledges that crime has fallen nationwide, not just in San Francisco, but then presents as supporting evidence a comparison between SF and similarly-sized cities in the US. There is no city in America comparable to San Francisco. In recent years, SF has witnessed two huge tech booms, skyrocketing real estate value, and an influx of funding for public resources practically unrivaled among similarly small cities (because they refuse to construct new buildings). So SF is really not a good city to use as a model "sanctuary city" for comparison. Let's talk instead about conflating factors. - Liberal policies towards immigrants may be more popular in wealthier "coastal liberal elite"-type cities with highly educated constituents (like San Francisco). - Cities that have high crime rates are probably more hostile to their immigrant communities, especially if those crime rates are related to drug/gang violence. In cities bordering the US/Mexico border, drug trafficking from Mexico is a major source of violent crime. US-born residents may associate their migrant neighbors with the drug trade and be less hospitable as a result. I don't disagree with sanctuary cities, but the evidence presented in this article is so thin. I'm no more confident in my support of the policy than before I read it.
Makes sense to me. The more things you criminalize and thus draw police into the more reason people have not to respond positively to police. Decriminalizing drugs goes a long way. I'd also argue that decriminalizing child support debt could go a long way toward preventing incidents like the murder of Walter Scott.
It may seem silly to say this, but it's also obvious; the best way to reduce crime is to criminalize as few things as humanly possible. However, this does require shifting away from a punitive approach to... well, everything. But I'm afraid this a hill Social Conservatives worldwide will choose to die on.
I'd agree, but you can push it one thing at a time. If we can at least keep police mostly focused on like, theft, violent crime, and maybe traffic violations that'd probably go a long way. Just break up fights, catch violent folks, get people their possessions back, and make sure the roads aren't a complete shit show.