So - as a result of your logic - you suggest that we allow crime and illegal aliens?
We know it does make an impact because the police department regularly arrests them (since they cause negativities in the community) and regularly the courts release them so that they can go back to the same street corner to keep selling death.
Applying "illegal" to someone who is in your country without __papers please__, is just so astonishing to me.
Why on earth do you give a shit who lives where in the world? I've immigrated to the US, legally, gone through all the paperwork and expenses. I don't give a fuck if "illegal" immigrants exist.
I will continue to advocate for them and vote for policies that keep them safe.
Illegal immigrants do not have lawful ways to find a job. They will either get abused in one way or another, or they will start looking at illegal activities to survive (ie, drug dealing).
Encouraging illegal immigration - like you are suggesting by enabling them to come to San Francisco - not only is dangerous for the community but it is first and foremost dangerous for those people who come here thinking it's paradise on earth and end up being taken advantage of.
You are irresponsible. There are reasons why there are lawful ways to immigrate, it is not a game.
You get rid of illegal immigrants on the street and you won't move the needle on crime. Listen, I'm not interested in you blowing my money on vanity projects.
We have been blowing up hundreds of millions of dollars on existing vanity projects for 40 years [1] we might as well try something new and - perhaps - enforce some law and order in a lawless and dangerous city.
None of the existing policies are helping moving the needle on crime, while arresting drug dealers and deporting illegal aliens that perform criminal activities will help with the goal of having less criminals and less drugs in the streets.
My son - native San Franciscan - dodges needles every day at the park. What happens if he gets hurt or catches a disease? Do you think this is the future he deserves? Criminals belong to prison.
Listen, you think you're on the opposite side of the guy with one vanity project by coming up with another vanity project but ultimately, to me, you guys are both just vanity project spenders who want to use someone else's money on random things that make you feel like you did something. I'm not interested in budgeting to your ego.
No thank you. Depending on cost + externalities, I'm okay with some number of criminals not being in prison.
> I'm okay with some number of criminals not being in prison.
And this right here is what’s wrong with San Francisco. You literally support death and crime on what - over the years - costed (and still costs) the city billions of dollars and countless of dead bodies with no tangible results and yet living in a lawful society - like the rest of the world does - is somehow too expensive for you?
The FBI even arrested the guy in charge of the homeless budget for corruption a few months ago (Nuru Mohammed, our dear mayor London Breed's ex-boyfriend, who also used the city funds to pay for Breed’s personal car repairs), and yet all is fine. I guess we don’t put criminals in prison, we elect them: the San Francisco way.
In the meantime people die, but it is an acceptable externality. Cruelty at its finest.
We know it does make an impact because the police department regularly arrests them (since they cause negativities in the community) and regularly the courts release them so that they can go back to the same street corner to keep selling death.
San Francisco truly is a law-less place.