Bush Commutes Sentences

I haven’t blogged much about who Bush would pardon or whose sentences he would commute before leaving office.  I was expecting pardons for Scooter Libby and maybe Dick Cheney — although Bush hasn’t left office yet and those could still happen.

I’m very happy that Bush commuted the sentences of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.  Those two men are former Border Patrol agents who were convicted and sentenced to lenghty prison terms — more than 10 years each — for shooting a Mexican drug runner.

From an AP story:

Compean and Ramos were convicted of shooting admitted drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete Davila in the buttocks as he fled across the Rio Grande, away from an abandoned van load of marijuana. He remains in a low-security prison in Fort Worth, Texas.

The border agents claimed at their trials that they believed the smuggler was armed and that they shot him in self defense. The prosecutor in the case, a U.S. attorney who was appointed by Bush in 2001, said there was no evidence linking the smuggler to the van of marijuana. The prosecutor also said the border agents didn’t report the shooting and tampered with evidence by picking up several spent shell casings.

White House officials said Bush didn’t pardon the men for their crimes, but commuted their sentences because he believed they were excessive and that they had already suffered the loss of their jobs, freedom and reputations.

Compean, 32, and Ramos, 39, were sentenced to 12 years and 11 years in prison, respectively. They each have served about two years. Under the terms of Bush’s commutation, their prison sentences will expire on March 20, but their three-year terms of supervised release and the fines will remain intact.

It’s an open debate as to whether these men should have been prosecuted in the first place.  I’m not going to wade into that here; I’m not interested in sparking that discussion here (and I don’t want to talk about illegal immigration in this post, either).  It’s been well discussed on talk radio — KFI in Los Angeles talked about this it seems like forever. (I’m sure John and Ken are talking about this quite a lot today.)  There isn’t much doubt, however, that their sentences were excessive.  The only thing that bothers me about their sentence commutations is that they took so long in coming.  These men have been away from their families for two years.  There is no reason Bush had to wait until the day before his term in office expires to commute these sentences.

I’m still glad they’re going home, even though I wish Bush had pardoned them.

San Francisco – Sanctuary City

San Francisco is a sanctuary city for many people — LGBT, the free-spirited, and illegal immigrants.  Recently, San Francisco’s status as a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants has come under fire for how illegal immigrant criminals — specifically juveniles — are handled.  The city has been sending some of the immigrants back to their home countries (at taxpayer expense, of course) and sending some to halfway houses in Southern California.  Mayor Newsom said yesterday, “I don’t have the authority here.  I have a bully pulpit.  The courts have authority here.”  A juvenile court judge disputes that.

Let’s talk for a second about “sanctuary cities.”  The United States professes to be a nation of laws.  Laws are being broken (granted, it’s a civil — not criminal — violation) and governments are aiding and abetting people in breaking the law.  San Francisco is only one of these cities — Washington, DC; New York, Los Angeles (see more here) are all sanctuary cities.  San Francisco has even begun issuing city ID cards to illegal immigrants.  How does this qualify as upholding the law?  Well, the obvious, correct and short answer is that it doesn’t.

But how can San Francisco justify sending people back at city taxpayer expense?  I truly don’t understand it.  It’s unethical, immoral and should be unlawful as well.  It’s a federal issue in any case.  Illegal immigrants should be turned over to the feds without question.  (UPDATE: Newsom has announced that this practice will end.  He’s apparently gotten a little heat.)

Illegal immigration is a huge problem.  Largely poor people (yes, I know I’m talking in large generalities here) are pouring across our southern border.  They aren’t educated, have few prospects other than menial work, and are a net drain on society.  They contribute to overcrowding of the jails, emergency rooms (many, especially in Los Angeles, have had to close), freeways, and schools.  That’s just the honest ones, the people who are coming to the United States — illegally — to try to make a better life for themselves and their families.  I applaud that.  Everyone wants a better life and wants their children to be better off than they were.  I want that for my son.

Then there is the criminal element.  There are gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals.  We (especially in California) shouldn’t have to deal with that and shouldn’t have to pay that bill.  And what about the security threat from terrorists?  It’s about the easiest thing in the world to cross into the United States from Canada or Mexico.

As I said above, immigration is a federal issue.  But the federal government has left the border unsecured.  A nation can’t be sovereign if it doesn’t enforce its borders.  So I say let the people who want to be here come.  But they must do it legally.  It’s only common sense and only fair to everyone else who has to get in line to come here.  I’m not advocating sending everyone back to their home countries.  That wouldn’t be right or practical.  But the borders have to be secured before any amnesty should be discussed.  And true immigration reform — reform that acknowledges the realities of the world — needs to be enacted.