.
.
.
Dear Sen. Newman,
As a lifelong Californian, I have dealt with my fair share of grief. For me, it’s part and parcel of living in California. I will state up front that I have never been one who has agreed with the Democratic majority of our state. For my entire lifetime, the legislature in Sacramento has been under one-party rule. With very few exceptions, the Democrats have been able to pursue every avenue they wish. This has led to some very serious disenfranchisement on my part, as well as several other like-minded individuals.
Do you know what it’s like to know that your vote doesn’t matter? That no matter what you say or do, your legislators will ignore you in favor of another voice? I can tell you, it’s maddening. I love the state just as much as anyone else. More, even. However, every day of every legislative session I feel like the California I know and love is slipping farther and father away from me. Yesterday was just another in a long line of disappointing days.
On April 4, you, and every other Democrat in the California State Senate, voted in favor of Senate Bill 54. This was a party line vote. Every single Democratic senator voted in favor and every Republican senator voted against. I’m reminded of the hopeful message I read on your campaign webpage all those months ago:
I’m not a party loyalist and I don’t owe any lobby or special interest anything in my bid for public office. What you’ll see with me is what you’ll get: smart, practical, and principled representation from someone who knows exactly why he works for you.
This bill was flawed from the start. Even though it has been amended a few times, it remains a highly flawed piece of legislation. It was written by a man who has no ethical standing what so ever. It was written by a man who openly admitted that half his family was here illegally and had committed some kind of identity theft. He attempted to underplay their severity, but as any victim of identity theft can tell you, these are not victimless crimes. He used emotionally charged language and cherry picking to assert that making California a sanctuary state would be a net benefit to every Californian. I find his claim highly dubious given that sheriffs across the state as well as more than a few mayors are staunchly opposed to his bill. But you voted for it. You and every other Democrat in the state senate. Honestly, I’m not surprised. That doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed.
How does this bill help California? How does prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies form exercising their own judgment with regard to whether or not they assist federal immigration agencies benefit everyday Californians? When we (stupidly, I might add) passed Proposition 57, we made several previously violent felonies non-violent. These include, but are not limited to:
- Rape by intoxication
- Rape of an unconscious person
- Human Trafficking involving sex act with minors
- Drive-by shooting
- Assault with a deadly weapon
- Hostage taking
- Attempting to explode a bomb at a hospital or school
- Domestic violence involving trauma
- Supplying a firearm to a gang member
- Hate crime causing physical injury
- Failing to register as a sex offender
- Arson
- Discharging a firearm on school grounds
- Lewd acts against a child 14 or 15
- False imprisonment of an elder through violence
Any illegal immigrant convicted of one of these crimes could (and likely will) be released back into our communities with no notification to ICE or Homeland Security. I know you’ll say there are provisions to protect against something like that happening, but given Sacramento’s poor legislative record on public safety, I highly doubt that will actually happen. We have an ever growing list of violent criminal alien felons who have taken the lives and affected the livelihoods of the citizens of California, yet instead of accelerating their removal from our state, we set up legal funds with taxpayer dollars to help them stay. Your vote in favor of this bill shows that you care more about protecting a criminal alien’s right to be in this country and this state than protecting your own constituents’ rights to live a happy and crime-free life. Now, granted, deporting someone doesn’t ensure a crime won’t be visited upon some unfortunate soul. However, it does help ensure a violent criminal alien won’t be the one perpetrating it.
Furthermore, ICE will do its designated duty despite California’s temper tantrum. If you truly care about California’s immigrant (legal and otherwise) population, doesn’t it make more sense to allow ICE to perform those duties largely within the confines of our prison system? If we adopt this Sanctuary State plan, ICE will likely be forced to conduct more general sweeps and covert operations in order to remove those same dangerous and violent criminal aliens from our communities. Criminals that are more likely to prey on their own illegal immigrant community because they know those in that community are less likely to report those crimes. These kinds of operations have a greater possibility of inadvertently apprehending peaceful people who, while violating our immigration laws, are the types of peaceful, contributing members of our society you and your cronies claim to protect.
Since elected, you’ve sponsored partisan resolution after partisan resolution after partisan resolution after partisan resolution. Given your partisan voting history, I can only assume you will vote in favor of Gov. Brown’s proposed constitutional amendment that will raise our fuel taxes and increase our vehicle registration fees to pay for road repairs that should have been made years ago with funding that had already been allocated specifically for that purpose. I understand you have proposed your own amendment (which will likely pass, by the way) to limit the legislature’s ability to siphon off transportation revenue for other projects. That is a move in the right direction, but I fear it is too little, too late. The mentality of Sacramento has to change. You need to be an agent of that change.
I voted for you. I did. I’m registered as no party preference, but I chose to support you because I liked what you had to say. Given the content of this letter, I’m sure you’re probably making assumptions about my stance on a number of issues. Believe it or not, I’m actually more in line with your line of thinking than you probably would assume. At least the you that exists on your campaign site. Please remember that you represent all of District 29. All of us. Don’t be that party guy. Don’t fall victim to Sacramento. Don’t make me regret voting for you.
I supported SB 54 and did ask Josh to support it. I’m not sure everything here is accurate. I just talked to De Leon’s office; any undocumented person convicted of a violent crime who has a warrant against them from ICE will be detained for SIXTY EXTRA DAYS for ICE to come get ’em.
About this list of crimes that are no longer considered “violent crimes” under Prop 57 (and remember that’s just for someone to be eligible to be CONSIDERED for parole, not automatically paroled) – is that the same list that’s not considered violent crimes under SB 54? De Leon’s person wasn’t sure, I’m looking into that.
Another note: I don’t know if there are other reasons to say that Kevin De Leon “has no ethical standing whatsoever,” but the fact his ancestors were undocumented is not one.
Not to step in for Sean, but that’s not what he said.
Huh. That’s what it looks like to me. I must be missing some nuance.
“It was written by a man who has no ethical standing what so ever. It was written by a man who openly admitted that half his family was here illegally and had committed some kind of identity theft.”
Gee, Vern — I don’t know where you got THAT idea!
(The links are to DeLeon, who from what I understand is considered very much an ethical and good government kind of guy. He’s also the guy that made the decision to equalize the spending against Chang enough for Josh to win, but I liked him even before that.)
Well, you’re not wrong in asking for more explanation from Sean.
You’re not correct in relating ancestors to family. That may be true, but the words aren’t exchangeable.
And ignoring Sean’s drawn connection between identity theft and personal ethics is a pretty serious omission.
Frankly, I have a problem with ignoring theft. I think Sean’s got a great point worthy of discussion. I’m shocked you just glazed over that like it doesn’t mean anything.
That was the crux of my argument. A man who admitted that half his family has committed crimes that affect millions in this country and makes no apologies for that has no moral standing.
“Half of my family would be eligible for deportation under the executive order, because they got a false social security card, they got a false identification, they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB 60, they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.”
Anyone who’s dealt with the massive fallout from identity theft knows that it can take years and sometimes decades to fix the problems associated with it. With identity theft on the rise and invariably some in his district suffering from it, it was incredibly tone deaf and downright offensive to try to downplay that.
Identity theft is a serious, serious crime in this country. To write it off as “the price of doing business” is maddening. No. He has no moral standing. Not when he dismisses a major crime because it’s convenient to his argument.
Sean, are you under the impression that “false identification” necessarily means “identity theft”? And isn’t it true that false identification may be a serious crime under some circumstances, but not others? If the SS number they have actually belongs to someone else, and is recorded by the employer, so that the real person with that ID number would incur a payroll tax liability, then that is a serious consequence — but don’t you suspect that the people in the false ID line of work try to avoid that? (There are plenty more available Social Security numbers than there are people, after all.)
If all employers have to do is to see a card that is plausibly theirs, note that they’ve seen it, and never write it down, then this sort of “identity theft” — as opposed to stealing someone’s credit card number to purchase one’s steroids, or whatever — doesn’t really have a specific “victim” in the “ruined someone’s life” sense.
But you may have a point: millions of under-21-year-olds who have used false identification to be able to drink and get into clubs. We can’t deport the citizens among them, so may I presume that you think that we should do the next best thing and just put them into jail for life, so that they too are prevented from walking among us?
And beyond that: employers can get away without having employees with IDs if they pay them in cash — and plenty do just that. Life without parole for them — or death penalty? (It’s a serious crime!)
. . . Oh this is gonna be epic.
Are you being purposely obtuse? Yes, there are many different kinds of identity fraud. The most damaging, I believe, is the stealing of social security numbers for the purposes of assuming that person’s identity for financial gain, either through access to jobs, applying for loans or credit cards, or any other kind of transaction. No one has had their lives devastated because there was another person with their name out there. They’ve been devastated because someone has ruined their credit, or incurred large debts in their name.
Yes, the problem also lies with workplace enforcement. If more companies used e-verify this problem would be greatly diminished. Fake SSNs and green cards would be identified. However, that wouldn’t solve the issue of stolen SSNs and green cards. These are people’s lives. Being glib and misrepresenting my argument is not conducive to understanding.
I’m really trying to not get mad here. I’m not really succeeding. I’m not talking about people trying to get into bars or business owners paying people under the table. You know exactly what I’m talking about and you’re purposely skirting the issue. It’s really fucking obnoxious. Identity theft can ruin someone’s life. Totally. Completely. They can and will spend years trying to undo the damage someone else has caused them. But no, that’s fine. That’s the cost of doing business, right? Anyone in the country illegally who ruins another person’s life should stay, right? I mean, besides the immigration crime and the identity theft, what else have they done? WHO ELSE HAVE THEY HARMED?
Not you, obviously. So let them stay.
You cannot seriously be defending identity theft. I can’t honestly believe that.
What I’m saying is that stealing is wrong. This is not Les Mis and these people are not Jean Valjean. There is no righteousness to their theft. They are taking from someone else — likely someone who doesn’t have the means to protect themselves — for their own benefit. They don’t care about the harm they cause as long as they get what they want. This is immoral. You cannot deny this. At least you can’t in good conscience.
Kevin de Leon has, with his statements, effectively condoned their actions because it is what “you need to do to survive, to work.” He doesn’t care if they are stealing from his constituents. That constitutes an immoral act on his part. He pardons unethical behavior because it benefits someone he knows. That is morally reprehensible.
He is morally reprehensible. That he hasn’t suffered more political backlash because of his statements says a lot about the state of affairs in California.
Let me spell it out for you, Sean: using a false Social Security number, while it would be defrauding the government, is not necessarily “identity theft.” It would only be that if the number were used by another human being, and not every one of the billion possible SS#s is used. Beyond that, using the Social Security number of a deceased person, so long as one does not try to gain access to their resources, would probably fall outside of the category of “identity theft” as well.
Now go back and look at Speaker de Leon’s statement. Does he say that they committed identity theft, or simply that they used false identification documents?
Don’t accuse me of “defending identity theft” when you have provided no evidence that it actually even occurred within de Leon’s family. It seems like he was being pretty careful and his phrasing, and you should follow suit.
Now, if you are asking me whether, as an attorney, I would defend somebody who committed identity theft, I prefer to take clients who I believe have not committed serious wrongs. If they had engage in an activity that significantly injured someone else, then I personally would probably not take such a case. But if they were doing what they had to do to get by without committing a focused harm on any individual, in a way that seems to be winked at by the authorities when it comes to employment, then I don’t see why I would The least reluctant to defend them. (Well, except for the fact that I don’t really practice in that area of law.)
I see. When tasked with defending the indefensible, just change the definition and be on your way. You assume just as much as I do, just in the opposite direction. Should we create two classes of identity theft perpetrators? Ones who’ve actually stolen a person’s identity and ruined their lives and finances and people who have created a persona out of whole cloth? That’s fine. Deport the ones who have devastated lives. Now you’re left with someone else who has both violated immigration law and forged documents. What do you do with them? Just ignore those facts? Send them on their merry way?
Why not start ignoring other inconvenient laws? Why do we have to register cars? Why get insurance? Why file taxes? These are all cumbersome and not needed.
I know people who have had to deal with the fallout of having their identities stolen. It’s not pretty. Whether or not Kevin de Leon’s family engaged in the type of identity theft that leaves victims isn’t the issue. You’re right. He didn’t specify what kind of identity theft they engaged in. That was pretty calculated for what seemed like an off the cuff remark to a friendly audience. The fact that he didn’t specify means he either doesn’t care (malice) or doesn’t know (negligence) about the effect these actions can have on his constituents. And anyone else, for that matter.
He said it with such wanton disregard for the consequences of those actions. That is immoral. That he initially sought to protect criminal alien felons rather than turn them over to ICE and protect the people of California, documented or otherwise, is immoral.
He has no moral standing. None. Not on this issue. Nothing you say can convince me otherwise.
There are two classes of people there, based on their own actions. The first goes well beyond the minimal amount of “necessity” required for the transaction; it’s bad action and is a reasonable basis for deportation (though there may be mitigating circumstances, not that you’ll believe that.) The latter is, again, not necessarily “identity theft” at all, therefore it’s not a “class of identity theft perpetrators.” It’s a class of people who have forged identity theft papers. We can (and I think do) disagree about what should happen to such people — but I hope that you may agree with me that those “perps” should stand well behind those who pay their employees in cash so that they can violate labor laws, include those against wage theft.
His position is that not every sin warrants damnation. If you think that that position lacks moral standing, take it up with God, who in most writings holds a similar position. (Note: I am not saying that I think that Kevin de Leon is God, so don’t even go there!)
Take it up with God?
Wow. Weak.
Really, really, weak.
Your analogy is as weak as your argument. Damnation would effectively be life in prison without parole. Deportation is not that. And yes, I’ve already said I believe in universal enforcement. That includes employers who skirt immigration laws for financial gain. They should be fined and jailed as well. That doesn’t meant we ignore the people who knew they were committing crimes but didn’t care because it was convenient to their situation.
And yes, in a very real sense forging documents is not as deleterious as stealing a living, breathing person’s identity. That doesn’t mean it is devoid of consequence. It undermines the struggles of people who have immigrated legally. Hell, it undermines the whole system by creating a black market of document forgeries. That black market preys on the people you are ostensibly defending because it’s the only source of the documents they need. Do not only are you defending people who wantonly flout our immigration laws, you, by proxy, are defending the whole forgery system by not assigning it the proper severity.
Now, I know you’re not actually defending it. At least I hope you aren’t. These are moral wrongs and I stand by my statement. I also feel like I’m a reasonable person. I would much rather eliminate the underlying source of the problem, which is the forgery market and employers who ignore immigration laws. If we ramp up enforcement of those individuals, the problem will largely solve itself. With no work and no means of obtaining new or up-to-date documents, the illegal alien population of this country will likely either self-deport or begin the process of obtaining legal residency. Win freaking win. Wouldn’t you agree?
Not an actual argument there, Ryan, so I’ll ignore it accordingly.
I’m sorry, Sean, but your “punish everyone until they follow all of the rules” school of thought strikes me as extremely naive. You figure out a way to eliminate under the table payments (which eliminate any need for false identification) and students having fake IDs to buy booze (which I realize is much more important than feeding one’s family) and then I’ll try to work up a head of steam about extreme retaliation against workers who use faked SS#s.
You’re also naive about the effects of deportation. When I was in law school as a summer intern, I worked on a case where my firm had a client — a gay Mexican citizen in New York who was HIV+ and in a long term relationship with another man, whom if the law had already changed by then he would have married — who we were trying to get to stay in the country. (I forget whether it was through deferred action or asylum or just either one.). The Immigration Judge was sympathetic, but because the client was not out of the closet in his city in Mexico — which would have likely led to terrible abuse against him, especially if his HIV status were known — we could not convince the judge that he couldn’t return to Mexico on account of that status. The man was on HIV meds here that kept his condition under control, but he would not be able to get the meds in Mexico, at least not without his being gay and HIV+ becoming known, which threatened his life.
That deportation was a death sentence. Don’t be so quick to offer your opinions about the effects of deportation; it’s not your thing.
Ignore it all you want.
Telling Sean to take it up with God, and not the Senator, is weak sauce.
I don’t really think you need a premise and conclusion to understand the point.
From staff analysis of the latest version:
Senate Floor Amendments of 3/29/17 make numerous changes to address issues
raised by law enforcement, including 1) allowing local law enforcement to contact
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and transfer people of ICE, without
a warrant, if the person was previously deported for a violent felony; 2) allowing
response to notification request from ICE and releasing date information if that
information is available to the public; 3) allowing ICE to interview people in
custody or transfer to federal immigration authorities if there is a judicial warrant;
4) clarifying that local law enforcement can participate in a joint task force so long
as immigration enforcements not the “primary” purpose; and 5) adding public
libraries to the list of places that are safe zones.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54
Put in a query to Senator DeLeon, asking if the list of “violent felonies” under SB 54 indeed excludes the felonies considered “non-violent” under Prop 57. The two bills have such different purposes.
As an update, via Scott Lay:
A bad idea delayed is still a bad idea.
And I’d heard that the governor had concerns about violent undocumented felons being protected … but that was before recent amendments, so I don’t know if that’s been addressed.
Just to stir the pot a little:
“Do you know what it’s like to know that your vote doesn’t matter? That no matter what you say or do, your legislators will ignore you in favor of another voice? I can tell you, it’s maddening.”
There are over FIVE MILLION registered Republicans in California– more Republicans than there are in Texas.
Elections obviously have consequences, but it’s pretty darn sad that over five million people are being ignored by Sacramento every single day.
Not to be glib (well, a little glib), but this vote panders more to people who can’t vote than it does to people who can.
I don’t know about you, but that sure grinds my gears.
“this vote panders more to people who can’t vote”
I think you meant “shouldn’t be able to vote.”
Come on, Zenger: where have you heard of such stories happening within Orange County? I only hear specific accusations about one particular community – and it’s a community that tends to vote Republican. (I can’t get anyone to talk about what they have seen on the record, though. Maybe someday.)
Well the Republican Party of California has effectively been neutered for, what, 20 years? No one cares about Republicans in this state because they almost exclusively live in rural areas, besides San Diego and Orange County (though even that is changing). California is a great place to live as long as you go along with the feel good flow.
Also, I’m sure there are plenty of people out there registered as No Party Preference who might be persuaded back to the Republican fold if they got organized and actually effected some real change. Alas, I’m asking to move mountains.
Neutered? Let me tell you a story about a man named Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sean, who was governor at a time when a party needed two thirds of the seats in order to pass a budget on its own. Neutered? I remember wishing that it were true sometimes.
*If the Republicans simple stuck to bread and butter issues and stayed the heck away from social issues…..they would have about 2/3rd of both houses of the CA Legislature. Republicans need to stay strong on fundamental economic issues and the Firearms Issue. If they actually gave a hoot, they would take one look at our new Governor Gavin Newsome and say: We need Mandatory Drug Testing for the Purchase or Transfer of a Firearm in California. They won’t do it because they think the NRA won’t support them for higher office if they do. If the Republicans got after efficiency in CA Agencies and target Pension and Retirement issues……they would do very well. Say “Immigrant” in a crowded Republican Central Meeting and watch everyone grumble and look at their shoes. They can’t defend their Contractor and Developer Base using “The Undocumented” for everything but the kitchen sink and then screaming that it is the “Dirty Immigrants” that are taking State Resources, Causing Crime and Using our Healthcare. God, what hypocrites!
Wait, hold on a second…How did this get to Republicans should support mandatory drug testing to purchase a firearm? I can’t see how that is relevant to this conversation or how it would be remotely constitutional. This is a perfect example of why any right of a far left view is a marginalized in CA. Unless I am somehow misunderstanding you, your point in a nutshell is “If republicans would just abandon conservatism, make a hard left turn, and join the radical left, they could have a say in CA too”?
*Shawny…please. Do you want to win elections or stomp your feet? Compromise on something….and since we have become a Mary Jane Rotten Crotch Pot Smoking Society…the least the Republicons can do
is bleen our New Governor of one of his prime positions – Anti-Gun. How in good conscious can you support Non Law Abiding Citizens being able to buy or transfer firearms? You have some Smith and Wesson stock..maybe? Give it up please. One frigin issue and you can’t even do that. Great…..welcome ot 2018 when the Great Republican Weenie will be boiled, over cooked and swallowed by the meager 80% who are Democrats or Independents. Perhaps, you are smoking the wrong reefer. Get the stuff from Big Pharma, at least you know it is made in Mumbai…….not some place in Colorado and shipped in.
Yes neutered. Schwarzenegger gave up on being a republican when his slate of initiatives failed. He was always a RINO at best. Aside from Schwarzenegger (who really only won because of his name recognition) who have the republicans supported for statewide office who’ve had a snowball’s change in getting elected?
Republicans in California are largely ineffectual. They’re speed bumps. If they don’t change course and actually start controlling their own narrative they’ll continue to be an afterthought in California politics.
Who won in a recall. Nearly twenty years ago.
Fifteen years ago. And who was re-elected.
That’s nearly twenty, and no one disputes the power of incumbency.
Do you remember the claim that I was refuting when I brought this up?
Until January 2011, Republicans had been very effective getting their way in California — or at least in keeping Democrats get their way, if they really wanted to (which they often did not) — since Deukmejian beat Bradley. Yes, there was a long period in the Speakership of Willie Brown in particular when both parties cooperated in draining the commonweal, but remember back to the days when Arnold and a bare 1/3 plus a tad of one house of the legislature were holding the budget (and the government) hostage to their demands. It wasn’t that long ago.
Or celebrity. Or an unholy combination of the two.
I do, and I disagree.
Even in that period of Republican resistance, the Democrats still got what they wanted: Higher taxes. Permanently.
And here we are again. Higher taxes. Permanently.
I think neutered is appropriate. Dead might also work.
I wouldn’t say dead. There’s definitely a little twitching going on every now and again. But they are on life support. I think the other side would certainly like to paint them in a much more substantial light given the policies which have led to the mass exodus of the middle class can largely be attributed to the almost uncanny ability for a democratic lawmaker to get any agenda they see fit passed, much to the chagrin of the working and middle classes.
One day somebody brought a helium balloon. The California Republican Party’s eyes followed the balloon around the room for a while – it was unmistakeable. It even seemed to smile for a moment.
The “mass exodus of the middle class” — to the extent that that’s really a thing — can be attributed to (1) the destruction of the middle class after 36 years of the Reagan Sea Change in domestic policies and (2) the high price of housing stock here, which is a function of California’s relative economic success.
If you think that Democratic legislators can get anything that they want enacted, you must not have been paying much attention to Governor Brown’s veto messages. And, in terms of policy — again, that’s only been true for six years now, where budgets are concerned, and has not been true of taxes during your lifetime.
You have to up your game here a bit, Sean! Slogans only go so far!
They’re not fleeing to Canada or Belize, Greg. Your “Reagan Era” argument, to hold water, would require California emigration to focus on ex-pats, which it doesn’t. Ergo, your argument isn’t true.
Unless you’re talking about Reagan as a Governor, but Jesus. You’d think that after a dozen years of one party rule, your Democrats would have fixed a problem from 1975.
Either way, you’re gonna have to up your game. Maybe get some slogans.
🙂
I’m talking about the increased divergence between the highest strata of income earners in the country and the rest of us. You’ve seen the graphs that show that diverging right around 1981 and simply continue to widen since, right?
Jesus. Reagan? The middle class wasn’t fleeing California 30 years ago. Or 20. It’s been a fairly recent phenomenon, at least in the numbers we’ve seen. And like Ryan said, they’re not moving to Canada or Mexico or Europe. They’re moving to Arizona and Nevada and Texas, Wyoming and Colorado. They’re moving to places where they aren’t abused financially to the point of poverty by the state government.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/06/20/californias-skyrocketing-housing-costs-taxes-prompt-exodus-of-residents/
We have had net negative migration for a while now, but the numbers have gotten larger in recent years. Remember when Rick Perry was buying airtime on California radio stations encouraging people and businesses to relocate to Texas? Remember how Jerry Brown just laughed those ads off? Maybe he should have taken them a little more seriously.
A full 65% of our state’s tax revenue comes from personal income taxes. What happens when the middle class moves themselves and their businesses out of the state (like they have been)? I guess we’ll just have to pass more tax increases on the wealthy to bridge the gap. Because that’s a sustainable economic policy. I have to figure the legislature doesn’t consider things like that when it makes policy. Otherwise it would actually try to keep people in this state.
Chart that against housing costs — both ownership and rental — Sean. Then please do let us know what you found.
And “Mass Exodus of the Middle Class” seems like a pretty apt slogan to me. You know, since it’s true and all.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/pf/people-moving-out-california/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-24/tired-expense-living-here-californians-continue-leave-state-droves
http://calwatchdog.com/2016/02/24/ca-suffers-middle-class-migration/
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/03/12/california-top-export-is-the-middle-class/
And, once again: how much of that cost is taxes and how much of it is the increase of housing?
Please do research this, keeping open to new information.
Greg, I seriously hope you didn’t ask someone else to research your claim.
My answer is no. I’m guessing Sean’s will be the same.
I think we’ve pretty solidly put you in a corner in this one.
California has a new #1 export: Taxpayers.
I see nothing but blithe assertions to contend with here.
I’ve seen the study within the past couple of months that identified the increasing cost of housing as the culprit in people leaving California, and another study that says that more people are still coming into the state from other US states then are leaving it.
I’m actually content to leave it there, and I’m trying to decide whether it will be better to go find those studies show that there is at least some actual evidence on the table from one of our sides, or whether my doing that would be too cruel to you, which I don’t want to be.
(P.S. to onlookers: Ryan is my friend, and I am happy to see Sean here writing on the site, even if he is taking swipes at my friend Josh. This is just normal push-and-pull debate, without rancor, of the sort that I wish were more common in OCs political blogosphere.)
THERE WILL BE BLOOD!
No, really, solid exchange here. Exactly what we’re trying to create and what sets us apart from the local echo chambers.
Okay, Sean, I did not forget about this.
A good explanatory LA Times article on this bill came out yesterday. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-sanctuary-state-bill-explained-20170413-htmlstory.html It includes the passages:
“Other changes to the bill by De León have attempted to address concerns from Republican lawmakers and sheriffs over the release of violent felons.
“Federal law requires that electronic fingerprint records for all offenders booked into state prisons and local jails be sent to the FBI and to the Department of Homeland Security. ICE receives an electronic notification when DHS has previously entered an inmate’s information into its databases and determines whether the person is a priority for deportation. If so, it can request the arresting agency to hold or notify ICE before the person is let go.
“Under Senate Bill 54, communication between ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies would be limited to passing on information about inmates who have previously been deported for a violent felony, or are serving time on a misdemeanor or felony and have a prior serious or violent felony conviction. State and local agencies would only be able respond to requests from ICE for other information if it is already available to the public.
“Other recent amendments to the bill would require the State Parole Board or the California Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation to give ICE 60-days advance notice of the release date of inmates who have been convicted of a serious or violent felony, or those who are serving time for a nonviolent crime but have a prior conviction for violent or serious crimes.
“Law enforcement officers also would be allowed to contact and transfer people to ICE, with a judicial warrant, if they come into contact with someone who was previously deported for a violent felony.”
***
This still doesn’t answer the question of what is still considered a “violent felony,” and is that list of crimes as limited as it is under Prop 57? And since I hadn’t heard back from the bill’s author, I thought, maybe the journalist who wrote the Times story would know, so I wrote her (Jazmine Ulloa) and she wrote right back:
“Hi Vern,
“Thanks for reading. These crimes are not considered “violent” under the California penal code — something some lawmakers are trying to change this year. (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-proposition-57-violent-crime-list-20170127-story.html) But SB 54 allows for notification or transfer of felons with violent or serious crimes on their record, so law enforcement officials could say these crimes fall under that “serious” provision of the bill.
“As far as trafficking crimes are concerned, it also law enforcement officials to do this: (3) Making inquiries into information necessary to certify an individual who has been identified as a potential crime or trafficking victim for a T or U Visa pursuant to Section 1101(a)(15)(T) or 1101(a)(15)(U) of Title 8 of the United States Code or to comply with Section 922(d)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code.
“Hope this helps.
“Thanks,
Jazmine”