Why San Francisco is a sanctuary city

Why is are Democrats so loath to say or do anything about the death of Kathryn Steinle, killed by an illegal immigrant in sanctuary city San Francisco?  The answer lies in what I have called the “illegal immigrant entitlement complex.”

At the core of this is what Democrats in California have constructed as their power structure.  The biggest campaign contributors to California state political campaigns are teacher unions and other public-sector unions.  They have been in complete political control.  And their quid-pro-quo arrangement, of using tax dollars to fund campaigns, is illegal in its nature, and is not allowed under the U.S. Constitution, yet these unions have become so powerful using this method that they control every big Democrat-run state from New Jersey to California and Oregon.

The illegal immigrant entitlement complex is helped by Democrats in Washington – those bureaucrats who hide in cells in all big bureaucracies and send money to their outposts in the distant cities.  And the illegal immigrants are the conduit that ensures the flow of entitlement and other dollars to San Francisco and other urban areas.

The powerful teacher unions of California have one concern: to keep their money flowing, they need students.  And San Francisco has been losing population.  Since they constantly raise taxes and drive out the honest law-abiding citizens, San Fran administrators must replace those citizens with those they can manipulate to move to their area.  Since illegal immigrants can’t afford to move there and support themselves, they are provided with benefits.

This demographic benefit is the gateway to other federal benefits.  The racial composition of San Francisco clearly shows why its city government wants a sanctuary policy.  Whites have been moving out of S.F. since 1950, a pattern seen in most American cities.  In fact, the white population of San Francisco has declined to where in 1910 there were more white people – 400,000 – than in 1990.  Similarly, there were more African-Americans in San Francisco in 1970 than in 1990.

This white loss has been compensated for by an increase in Asians, but the great change – and this underlies the reason for sanctuary – is that while there were only 16,000 Hispanics in 1930, by 1990 there were 101,000.  Today, 122,000 live in San Francisco County.  In fact, Latinos made gains everywhere in San Francisco but the Mission sector.

In 1980 the Bay area had 632,650 Latinos; this increased to 1.7 million by 2010.  Hispanics are now 23.5% of the Bay area population, nearly one in four, up from 15% in 1990. 

So here is the real reason for sanctuary.  Democrats want votes, they want the campaign donations of state and local workers including teacher unions, and the Bay area receives federal block grants for every person regardless of citizenship.  The lack of concern for the safety of citizens, including Hispanic citizens, takes a back seat to the overwhelmingly more important goal of maintaining political power.

Why is are Democrats so loath to say or do anything about the death of Kathryn Steinle, killed by an illegal immigrant in sanctuary city San Francisco?  The answer lies in what I have called the “illegal immigrant entitlement complex.”

At the core of this is what Democrats in California have constructed as their power structure.  The biggest campaign contributors to California state political campaigns are teacher unions and other public-sector unions.  They have been in complete political control.  And their quid-pro-quo arrangement, of using tax dollars to fund campaigns, is illegal in its nature, and is not allowed under the U.S. Constitution, yet these unions have become so powerful using this method that they control every big Democrat-run state from New Jersey to California and Oregon.

The illegal immigrant entitlement complex is helped by Democrats in Washington – those bureaucrats who hide in cells in all big bureaucracies and send money to their outposts in the distant cities.  And the illegal immigrants are the conduit that ensures the flow of entitlement and other dollars to San Francisco and other urban areas.

The powerful teacher unions of California have one concern: to keep their money flowing, they need students.  And San Francisco has been losing population.  Since they constantly raise taxes and drive out the honest law-abiding citizens, San Fran administrators must replace those citizens with those they can manipulate to move to their area.  Since illegal immigrants can’t afford to move there and support themselves, they are provided with benefits.

This demographic benefit is the gateway to other federal benefits.  The racial composition of San Francisco clearly shows why its city government wants a sanctuary policy.  Whites have been moving out of S.F. since 1950, a pattern seen in most American cities.  In fact, the white population of San Francisco has declined to where in 1910 there were more white people – 400,000 – than in 1990.  Similarly, there were more African-Americans in San Francisco in 1970 than in 1990.

This white loss has been compensated for by an increase in Asians, but the great change – and this underlies the reason for sanctuary – is that while there were only 16,000 Hispanics in 1930, by 1990 there were 101,000.  Today, 122,000 live in San Francisco County.  In fact, Latinos made gains everywhere in San Francisco but the Mission sector.

In 1980 the Bay area had 632,650 Latinos; this increased to 1.7 million by 2010.  Hispanics are now 23.5% of the Bay area population, nearly one in four, up from 15% in 1990. 

So here is the real reason for sanctuary.  Democrats want votes, they want the campaign donations of state and local workers including teacher unions, and the Bay area receives federal block grants for every person regardless of citizenship.  The lack of concern for the safety of citizens, including Hispanic citizens, takes a back seat to the overwhelmingly more important goal of maintaining political power.