Illegals, Crime, and the U.S. Presidency

As the saying goes, "it's the economy and the crime, stupid."

The inherent contradiction within progressive policy on law and order is becoming untenable — as many on even the left are beginning to recognize (even Bill Clinton!). It’s shaping up to be — along with the economy — a top issue in next year’s presidential race (note that I consider the border to be part of the law-and-order issue).

Let’s start with a simple contradiction. For today’s progressives, “safety” has become the universal panacea for… well, for anything they want. For instance, a Harry Potter event in London was recently cancelled because it was deemed not a “safe and inclusive environment” for trans people. That monster J.K. Rowling, you know.

So if universal “safety” is the goal: How can progressives be willing to let millions of unvetted illegals into the country?

And tolerate no-bail statutes for even repeat law-breakers?

When roughly 300 of New York’s chronic perpetrators account for over 30% of all shoplifting?

---

A Steaming Mug of Leftist Flopsweat

Even the traditional left is beginning to see this. James Carville (he of the famous, “it’s the economy, stupid”) has often shown himself to be among the most canny of Dem political strategists. He recently lamented recently to Bill Maher that, “The western far Left is habitually the most stupid, naive people you can imagine. They come up with these really goofy constructs and it's all about feeling good about yourself.”

Count Maher himself among the similarly disillusioned Democrats who are beginning to speak up. (Alas, Carville takes no responsibility for helping to create this progressive monster, through a leftist education system that has midwifed the likes of AOC and her fellow travelers).

In New York, as constituents and Carville rage, both Governor Hochul and NYC Mayor Adams continue to provide a masterclass in feckless, cynical leadership. As they (gently) whine about the cost of illegals, neither will say the magic term: “We are not a sanctuary city.”

How feckless? As Michael Goodwin notes in the The New York Post, when Texas Governor Greg Abbott recently visited NYC, neither Hochul nor Adams would even meet with him.

Then when he left, each blasted the Texas Governor, with Hochul calling Republicans “hypocritical” and Adams calling for Abbot and Republicans to “work” with Biden on “immigration reform.”

This, by the way, is now the Dems default talking point on the border, which must’ve gone out on blast from Jeff Zeints’ WhatsAPP account: Republicans need to “work” towards “immigration reform.”

What exactly this “reform” entails is never elucidated. But one suspects the word “amnesty” will be in there somewhere.

Now, why do cops oppose all this?

1. We don’t know who these people are, including any criminal history;

2. They are pushing the homeless out of the shelters, filling the streets with disorder;

3. The simple math of an influx of hundreds of thousands of people into the cities can only add to an already over-burdened criminal justice system;

4. They are leading to significant cuts in services, including to police services at a time the city can ill-afford it.

By these metrics, Biden, Hochul, and Adams are failing on all fronts.

Hochul (barely) survived last time. But at this point I would consider Adams’ re-election prospects as entering the danger zone. (Recall that he won the Dem primary by less than 1% — over a candidate to his right).

We may not get Curtis Sliwa… but I don’t know that we get Eric Adams, either.

Which could be a national trend, if the Republicans handle this right.

---

So Then — Whither The Feds? And The Candidates?

As a colleague has noted, the FBI looks to make cases; cops look to make a difference.

Yet is DOJ doing even that these days? In response to growing disorder in our streets?

Recall that last year, with much fanfare, the Biden administration passed the Safer America Plan. How’s that been working out for you, champ?

The truth is, the feds can help rein in crime and disorder in our cities. They did it with the bipartisan 1994 Crime Bill that President Clinton signed.

As we’ve noted here before, 80% of the nation lives in an urban area. Add the surrounding suburbs, and you’re likely over 90% of the country whose fortunes are tied to cities.

To me, that makes safety a major talking point in next year’s presidential election.

So in light of last week’s debate… would any of the candidates use the federal government to help restore order in our cities? (And by the way: major kudos to Dana Perino for asking the question!).

Donald Trump: No idea — he wasn’t at the debate. And I’ve seen no reporting on exactly what his plan would be to bring rampant urban disorder under control. This may actually be purposeful — the Dem cities are not his constituency. But this is a mistake (see my 80% state, above).

Trump needs to peel off only a small percentage of voters in various swing states to reverse the 2020 election results. And it’s no secret that he is weak with the soccer moms — many of whom must fear what is happening in the cities and suburbs.

Ron DeSantis: States that he has fired two “Soros prosecutors.” Fair enough. But a President doesn’t have the power to fire local prosecutors.

However, as I stated on the Laura Ingraham show on Friday, DeSantis made a new point at the most recent debate (full disclosure: I was in the crowd, so I don’t know how clearly this came across on television). He said he would use DOJ to bring civil rights cases against local prosecutors who won’t do their jobs.

This statement has received remarkably little attention. Readers of this space know that I have been advocating for the same for some time (wait — is Ron a reader?? That just occurred to me).

Civil rights cases would result in federal monitorships over recalcitrant district attorney’s offices. Forcing them to do their jobs.

It. Could. Work.

Chris Christie: Stated again at the most recent debate that he would use U.S. Attorneys to prosecute urban disorder crimes. Preposterous, and he knows it. He’d have to hire a half-million attorneys, judges, court officers, and federal correction officers. And build 100 new prisons.

Nikki Haley: Has also not offered a concrete plan, and was too busy (unaccountably) picking fights with fellow candidates who don’t poll anywhere near her. Nikki, as an experienced politico, you should know the old rule: never punch down.

Joe Biden: Won’t go near the issue, as he knows that his path to the nomination necessarily goes through South Carolina, as it did last time, when Rep. Clyburne and the African-American vote bailed him out (the outcome of the Dem convention this year feels far from assured). So don’t expect his DOJ to do anything to help out our spiraling urban doom loops — certainly until after November 5, 2024 (if ever).

Now if you really want to see the priorities of Biden’s DOJ, look here, at their current offers of grant funding.

I’m not sure I’ve ever seen the word “equity” so many times in one place.

Follow the money, as they say.

---

Philly Follies

According to Philly D.A. Larry Krasner, the responsibility for the wave of flash mob shoplifting in his town actually falls to the security guards who don’t show up for court. And who don’t hold onto the perps long enough.

He really said this. At a public hearing. To, by the way, predominantly people of color. Who clearly weren’t buying it.

The security guards don’t show up in court? For misdemeanor shoplifting crimes — which is the vast amount — a witness in court should be nowhere near necessary. Get an affidavit from them, as we always did in NYC (well, we did back when DA’s actually did their jobs). Basic criminal procedure.

Instead Krasner has instituted a policy where thefts under $500 would be characterized as “summary offenses” — which are typically enforced with a cop writing a ticket.

Now that’s deterrence!

As for not holding the perps: what a simply idiotic statement. He expects security guards making minimum wage or little more to tussle with a flash mob? Right. And when the perp is injured, the stores incur the liability and their insurance company drops them.

As I explained here at foxnews.com, with no appetite for enforcement by prosecutors, there are far more incentives to simply let the perps walk out with the stuff than to actually attempt to detain them.

And by the way, an under-reported item from the recent Philly mini-crime wave: meet Kenneth Frye, arrested for taking part in the looting of a liquor store. Kenneth was, at the time, out on bail on a 2022 charge of murder for inexplicably punching and killing a gay man.

The judge in the case, Judge Lillian Ransom reportedly won’t respond to questions as to why she downgraded his charges and let him out.

(Judge Lillian H. Ransom)

Will the intrepid Philly media stay on this, to get an answer from the right honorable Judge Ransom?

Oh, and now that he’s been re-arrested, where is Frye now? Out on bail, of course.

The Philly DA’s Office states that they’ll be seeking to revoke bail, based on his re-arrest.

But why the HELL are they not holding him on the shoplifting charge while they do so?

Philadelphia in 2023 makes New York look like Singapore these days.

I say: We need more caning.

---

Los Angeles: “Hey, Wait Up Guys!”

In continuing service to progressives’ jihad on law enforcement, L.A. County now hurries to catch up to follow fellow travelers New York and Illinois in instituting no cash bail starting October 1.

But ABC News reports that, at the last minute, the city of Whittier, saying it is backed by 11 other cities in LA County, announced a lawsuit designed to block the policy.

Unsurprisingly, the actual city of Los Angeles has not joined the suit. Equity….

At a recent hearing on the topic, the L.A. County Sheriff stated that roughly 20% of those released on zero bail get rearrested. And that is before this new, expanded policy.

The good news: California does have a “danger” standard for bail (unlike New York). The bad news: they also have California judges.

Oh — and George Gascon.

As per calmatters.org, the current crime snapshot in L.A. looks like this:

Now, comparing to 2022, a “COVID year,” can be misleading. But clearly, L.A. is a loud and proud member of the new pandemic — retail theft.

And guess who will now qualify, by definition, for immediate release? Yup.

Hey Target, do you have any stores in L.A?

Maybe you should reconsider the name, guys.

---

Bowman’s Blues

(“Fire alarm? I thought I was pulling the lever to early vote in 2024!)

We ask but two questions regarding Rep. Jamaal Bowman’s pulling of a firearm so as to stall Congressional proceedings regarding the budget:

1. Did anyone plan this with him? If so, in addition to the federal felony he should face, federal conspiracy charges should be leveled on him and his associates. FBI: dump his phone for evidence of collusion (yeah, right. That’ll happen).

2. Has he been interviewed? If so, did he lie about having done it before the video emerged? If so, he has committed another felony: 18 USC 1001 — false statements to a federal officer in the course of an investigation. Carries another five years.

If the answers to these two questions is yes, Bowman could conceivably be looking at 15 years.

Does he deserve that? No.

Should he be fully investigated and charged? Yes.

Will he be?

Wait — what’s that sound? Is that… Merrick Garland laughing hysterically?

---