Justice isn't really blind, it just operates within a bubble of political expediency these days?

Justice operates in a bubble these days? Perhaps the blame in the delivered verdict in the Jose Garcia Zarate case lies with the prosecutor who opted for a higher charge of outright murder over manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter --especially in light of the ricochet evidence.  Perhaps this initial mis-charging was intentional in order to guarantee a desired outcome, in a sanctuary city, in support a prescribed political narrative? I am left wondering if such a verdict would have been possible in any other non-sanctuary city? The defense knew what they were doing when they opted to have the trial venue remain in the city of San Francisco.

 Image Source:
"Daily Caller"

Given the overshoot in charging, coupled with the apparent mental state of non-well being of the defendant, I suppose the outcome in this trial is not entirely unexpected.  That being said, justice has not been served for the victim, Kate Steinle, or for her bereaved family, not to mention the American people at large.  The bottom line is Zarate should not have been in this country.  If authorities in San Francisco had cooperated with Federal officials in honoring the government's detainer request, Jose Garcia Zarate never would have been on the pier that fateful day and Kate Steinle would still be alive and with us here today.  Sadly, the jury was never given this crucial piece of information during the trial, namely that Zarate was a 7 time convicted felon who had been deported from the country on 5 different occasions, only to return the U.S. time and time again through a porous southern border.  The verdict in this case and the political pontificating of the Defense attorney aside, this case at its core shines a glaring light upon the fundamental problem with sanctuary cities scattered across our nation, namely that  they aren't safe places to visit, live, work or play and the people who run them are perfectly okay with this fact and any unfortunate consequences thereof.  To the latter officials any casualties resultant of their sanctuary city policies are merely necessary sacrifices in a war of battling political ideologies.  To their way of thinking, "we the people" and law-abiding legal immigrants are expendable.  If that isn't a wake-up call to logically thinking people across this country, then I don't know what is??!??

Kate's story really hits home for me, because my family and I were visiting San Francisco, walking in the vicinity of that same pier exactly one week prior to this tragic shooting.  Timing is everything?  My proximity to this story really got me thinking about "sanctuary cities" and illegal immigrants.  After much thought and soul-searching I discovered, like most Americans, I fully support legal immigration.  Furthermore, I think I would be willing to support an increase in the number of legal immigrants we allow into this country, on a yearly basis.  However, I would only support this increase with the pre-requisite condition that our government finally and effectively addresses stemming the tide of illegal immigrants flooding into the country, on a daily basis, particularly dangerous individuals and repeat violent offenders.  A border wall --partial wall in strategic locations-- may just be the best place to start.  To those of you who claim "If you build a thirteen foot wall, they will find a thirteen foot ladder", I would say awakened Americans are no longer willing to subscribe to the "narrative of absolutes."  In the world of logical reality, meaningful actions and accountability, the choices are no longer all simple black and white, all or nothing.  In point of fact, if you build a thirteen foot wall, you actually wind up stopping everyone who doesn't have access to a thirteen foot ladder. And at the end of the day, that just might be enough to truly make a difference in reducing the number of illegal immigrants flowing into our country and committing crimes much to the detriment of law-abiding citizens and legal immigrants alike.

Contrary to the narrative of absolutes, the desire to commit to the development and implementation of a comprehensive immigration program --that will actually be enforced!-- toward the end of curtailing illegal immigration does not automatically make decent, law-abiding citizens bad people or "haters".  Nor does it mean the we want to put an end to all immigration or that that we in anyway dislike all immigrants in general; it just means that we want to be safe in our own homes, communities and cities --even when traveling.  It means we want to reward immigrants who come into this country through the proper channels and vetting process.  That's how we make immigration work for everyone in our country, citizens and legal immigrants alike.  But 'reasonable' people nowadays don't address real-world problems with real solutions, do they?  They cower under the feel-good cover of subscribing to accepted political narratives, in the absence of all independent thought, logic and reason.  The time has finally come to wake-up America!

12/3/2017 Apparently, it is actually a Federal crime not to cooperate with Federal Immigration officials on detainer requests.  Thus, the Attorney General could take meaningful action towards tackling the very problems posed by "sanctuary cities" by prosecuting those San Francisco officials directly responsible for the release of Jose Garcia Zarate.  The question is will Sessions finally take a stand --after eight years of his predecessors looking the other way-- in order to actually enforce the laws already on the books?