Skip Nav
Summer
8 Reasons Summer Is the Best Time to Rekindle Stale Relationships
Solange Knowles
This Bride's Solange-Inspired Wedding Will Make Your Jaw Hit the Floor
Books
5 Shows That Prove You Love Urban Fantasy — and What to Read After Watching

San Francisco Faces Audit for Border Crime Grant

Advertising for Illegal Immigrants and Big Government Bucks

In an odd, having-your-cake-and-eating-it-too sort of parallel of stories, illegal immigration has hit the city of San Francisco in a confusing way. The city is both actively advertising for illegal immigrants, and under audit for taking millions of dollars of federal money to combat border crimes.

The problem with the dough? San Francisco is 500 miles from any border, and beat out all four states bordering Mexico for banking the most cash. The city has received $5.4 million since 2004 to help secure their "border," and the federal audit found that found the city was not entitled to any of the funds.

What's a great story to balance this? How about the $83,000 ad campaign launched last week trumpeting the city's amnesty status and inviting all to come on aboard? To see the details of their "Got Immigrants?" campaign,

.

The ad campaign just launched shows images of smiling residents and the iconic city skyline and spreads the message in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian.

Partially prompted by a series of federal immigration raids, the ads aim to promise safe access to city services for the undocumented and a look-the-other-way policy when it comes to residency status. Mayor Gavin Newsom said of the campaign, "We are standing up to say to all of our residents: We don't care what your status is. We care that you, as a human being, are a resident of our city and we want you to participate in the life of our city."

Of course not all illegal immigrants commit crimes, but advertising a hands-off policy while pulling in all kinds of government loot to prosecute immigration crimes? The city can't explain it either, issuing no answer as to why a city 500 miles from a border would have prosecuted more than 2,000 cases for the federal government that were related to drug gangs and crimes near the border in a three-year period, and they've been silent on the money too.

Should a city be allowed to herald its amnesty status? Do you think it's an admirable and humane example to follow? What about all that money — do you think the two are related?

Source

Join The Conversation
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Good point Jillness. I understand where you're coming from Lainetm. There is no question that we both want a plan that works. I would rather not have sanctuary cities but from my perspective I can see why they exist. As for your charge regarding San Francisco's motives wanting to attract more families to a city who's demographics are more single than family. I would agree that with most government actions there are mixed motives. However, on this point S.F. has traded number one spots with New York as having the most expensive rent and real estate in the country. I seriously doubt they're trying to attract low wage blue color workers to fill such needs. Sorry for interrupting your dinner hour. Thanks for being a passionate intellectual and until we match wits again I bid you peace.
Jillness Jillness 9 years
"How has the US created this immigration problem (besides not enforcing the borders)?" By employing them. It is widely known that many employers have been importing illegal workers for decades now, especially meat packing plants, the resturant industry, and agriculture and construction industries. Illegal immigration is not good for the US or the immigrants. It allows employers to skirt labor laws and abuse people. However, to remove all of these workers would greatly hurt the finanical sector. I think America needs to have an HONEST conversation about immigration. The right needs to recognise that they have been enabling employers who break the law, and the left needs to realize that our country is hurt by allowing illegal immigration to continue.
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
Just checking in quickly between work and cooking dinner--this is an interesting discussion. Yes, I know there would be some adjustment pains. If, in theory, all illegals disappeared overnight, there would be job vacancies, etc. Still, I believe my projected outcomes are realistic. The first set, within 6 - 12 months. The second set, in 12 - 24 months. I heard someone suggest that the reason SF wants to encourage immigrants is because they want the funding and economic benefits of more family-oriented people--like education funding, etc. Much of the SF demographic is singles or couples without children. Never assume government has entirely humanitarian motives.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Think about it if it really where that easy with those clear outcomes which you laid out not even San Francisco would see a need for a sanctuary city.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
I hear your points but Lainetm but what you are describing is a great out come after implementation an effective immigration policy which is what we do not have. Under the current policy you would not have such a rosy aftermath we would have chaos. The system we have now contradicts and feeds off itself with no real direction. This is the problem and this is why we have things such as sanctuary cities.
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
Hypnotic: Do you mean specific consequences of immediate and effective enforcement? For starters: (1) Housing prices, especially rentals, will stabilize. (2) Less traffic (and fewer untrained / unlicensed drivers). (3) Less crowded emergency rooms and public clinics. (4) Less crowded public classrooms. (5) Higher prices on some goods and services (such as car washes, gardeners, restaurant meals and fast food). Down the road: (1) Lots of education savings from greatly reduced English learners programs. (2) Reduced dropout rates. (I’m not faulting any particular group, but a poor family may value a working member more than an educated one. Also, some cultures value “useful” work more than education.) (3) Lower unemployment, especially among unskilled workers and teenagers. (4) Reduced auto insurance rates (due to uninsured motorists / hit and run drivers).
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
Hypnotic: Do you mean specific consequences of immediate and effective enforcement? For starters: (1)Housing prices, especially rentals, will stabilize. (2)Less traffic (and fewer untrained / unlicensed drivers). (3)Less crowded emergency rooms and public clinics. (4)Less crowded public classrooms. (5)Higher prices on some goods and services (such as car washes, gardeners, restaurant meals and fast food). Down the road: (1)Lots of education savings from greatly reduced English learners programs. (2)Reduced dropout rates. (I’m not faulting any particular group, but a poor family may value a working member more than an educated one. Also, some cultures value “useful” work more than education.) (3)Lower unemployment, especially among unskilled workers and teenagers. (4)Reduced auto insurance rates (due to uninsured motorists / hit and run drivers).
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Well since this conversation has become circular. Let me ask for an address to the specific consequences of enforcing immigration laws proactively across the board. I put consequences out there but no one has yet to comment, so I will pointedly ask.
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
UnDave: I know the UN is no friend of the US, but I think we should shove some of these problems off on them. At worst, it will become even more painfully obvious how ineffective they are. At best, they might actually do something. (Not holding my breath.) Hypnotic: "It's not up to San Francisco to fix, stop or control a national issue...." It's also not up to them to circumvent federal law, or encourage the violation of any laws.
Jillness Jillness 9 years
I think it is terrible that San Fran is getting more than border states, although our ports are very vunerable and big points of illegal entry into the country.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Not since I was a little tiny kid. Must think of good name for you :ponder: This might take some time!
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Of course Spanky is a good thing. Haven’t you ever watched the Little Rascals?
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Is Spanky a good thing? Because if so I feel I need to come up with a term of endearment for you as well.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Otay Spanky!
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Hypno, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree, as I see being a Sanctuary city perpetuating the problem. And that is for ALL sanctuary cities.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
It's not up to San Francisco to fix, stop or control a national issue cine_lover. That's Washingtons job and they need to do it. S.F. is simply in a position not to perpetuate the problem. As for the ad like I said I don't think it makes a difference either way immigrants know which cities are sanctuary they do not need a formal ad. I'll take it even further the ad in my opinion was a waste of money.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Oh UnDave35 come now, "I'm confused. How has the US created this immigration problem (besides not enforcing the borders)?" We have as much played a hand in manipulating immigrants as their own government has had a hand in letting them down. As I've said before pointing to another governments problems as our hall pass to some moral superiority doesn't cut it. We need to own our actions stop the ping pong of blame and put a real plan on the table at the national level.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
Hypno, how is advertising a sanctuary city doing ANYTHING productive? How is saying, "bring more people in, and we will protect you" doing anything to fix or stop or control any problem?
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
Dave... whhaaaa??? The UN *LOVES* us! :)
UnDave35 UnDave35 9 years
Thanks, I understand now. :) I don't see the UN doing anything that might be beneficial to the US
Cassandra57 Cassandra57 9 years
cabaker: "A big part of the Mexican economy is the money thats sent home from illegal immigrants to the states." True. One more complication in the problem. Maybe we should heavily tax wire transfers outside the country, or somehow address the issue through that channel. hypnotic: Their presence here is our problem, but the issues in their home countries driving them here are not. And how "humane" is this sanctuary city being to its own citizens? What about the unskilled laborer who cannot get a job, the student whose teacher is forced to spend more time focusing on the needs of non-English speakers, the neighbor of an apartment where eight or ten people are living in a one- or two-bedroom apartment? What about the crime victim whose assailant is untraceable? I'll be among the first to condemn the government for allowing this to happen. To the Republicans, they're cheap labor, and maybe consumers; to the Democrats, they're clients of the poverty industry (and potential future voters). UnDave: I'm with you on jailing the government of San Francisco. And I did not mean to imply that it was the US's responsibility to change the corruption in Mexico. We need to return their problem (overflow population) to them, and stop sending cash aid. If anyone should look into their internal corruption issues, it should be (maybe) the UN. Ultimately, it's the responsibility of the people to challenge their government.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Well cine_lover I think they're being not part of perpetuating the problem as I said in my previous comment if said laws were enforced across the board you would have a crippling impact on social services due to splintered families, orphans, and the bread winners of the families being sent back to their countries. Not to mention the economic impact as well. Leaving things as they are which is essentially the effect of a sanctuary city until the Feds. Figure out a real plan for dealing with illegal immigration issue is fine by me. As the article above and common sense indicates San Francisco is still investigating and prosecuting crimes by illegal immigrants and dealing with them as such.
UnDave35 UnDave35 9 years
I'm confused. How has the US created this immigration problem (besides not enforcing the borders)? Lainetm, how do we make a changes to a corrupt gov't, like Mexico? We could send the military, overthrow the gov't, set up a democracy, and help it to get established and teach all the parties involved how to work together... Oh wait, we're doing that in Iraq, and many Americans hate it.
cine_lover cine_lover 9 years
I fail to see how being a sanctuary city, is helping the situation. How about instead of being part of the problem be part of the solution?
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
What gets me is that the U.S. was perfectly content to use these people for all their worth and look the other way because it was good for the economy. One thing we forgot to take into consideration is that immigrants produce offspring as well. It is these offspring that is at issue when it comes to safe haven cities. San Francisco does not want to take part in creating thousands of orphans which would have a much bigger impact on the so called well fair system. Any way you look at it the U.S. government not S.F. has created its own catch 22 in this matter.
Best Things to Do in San Francisco
Vicente Fox Telling Donald Trump to Quit Video
San Francisco Playlist
Kids of Immigrants Clothing Brand
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds