Throw the bum out. I can't believe he's still in office. As the DA what more reason do you need.

Get the names and addresses of all the protesters. Since they apparently don't believe in the rule of law regarding legal immigration, they likely are lawbreakers themselves. They'd rather defend a criminal ILLEGAL alien than obey the law. Keep an eye on them.

In cool, quiet contemplation, let's stand back from the issue of sanctuary cities. Let's approach the issue with Socratic and deductive reasoning (omitting the "rather than" alternative because of its disputatious nature). Crossing the US boarder without proper Fed Government approval is illegal (not unlike every other sovereign country on the planet). That illegality can be avoided in a number of ways: visas for travel or work, refugee or asylum, to name the most likely methods. Failing to be in the US legally is a federal crime resulting in the perpetrator being a criminal. At all levels of law enforcement one of their primary responsibilities is to apprehend criminals. This is not and should not be an emotionally driven conclusion. Emotions, feeling good about one’s self and other self-exculpative avoidance mechanisms are excuses not reasons for non-enforcement of the law. So – enforce the law already!!!

Ralph -- what a great idea!

But I think you're being too timid. Instead of just intimidating and investigating those protesters for their pre-crimes, why not go straight to the further goal of every good American -- outlawing protests themselves? Why not just make it an actual crime to disagree with Ralph? We could dispose of those ne'er-do-well scapegoats once and for all time, and live happily ever after in Ralphland. Who needs that pesky domestic experiment in democracy?

We could even call it something special -- the Fourth Reich has a nice ring to it, eh?

Rick,

Lets also make sure to run surveillance on individuals suspected of being here without proper Federal Approval. Then we can make sure that we can lock up any citizens that have paid them any fee for work in violation of federal employment eligibility verification requirements. ICE could just wait by Home Depot, see who picks up day laborers, run their license plate for their address, put eyes on the house and hopefully get the payment on video. Then boom. Swoop in, nab the workers and put them on the bus to Mexico and toss the home owner in the Federal Penn for 5 years.

How about everyone gets to decide what laws they wish to obey?

Are there any Sanctuary cities in Mexico? No.
Can you do sneak into Mexico?
No, (you get put in prison)
Do you get free Medical Care food stamps and Welfare if you sneak into Mexico? No, you go to prison.
gee, let's send DA Peterson to Mexico.

I'm so tired of the left democrat liberals supporting illegal aliens more than American citizens. Why do they always have to be so loud, obnoxious, and in your face about their opinion? Their protests always interfere with the rights of American citizens and many times turn into fights and riots. Disgusting!

Hi Marie: can you tell me how many arrests there were in the demonstration noted in the article -- or in the Massive outpourings of loyal opposition in the marches in the Bay Area and elsewhere? (They were Huge.)

I can. It's a big, fat, bubble-bursting Zeee-roh.

And how are those protests in any way against American citizens? You see, it's possible to be For things like fair treatment and smart solutions to problems, without being Against anything except tyranny.

Further, how did those activities affect you, personally? Even any mild inconvenience to your daily routine? None? You seem to 'tire' very easily.

Left democrat liberal: to tell you the truth, I do not know much about this topic except for what I read here. However, everyone knows that there have been many protests here in the bay, that have turned violent. They interrupt traffic flow, vandalize our streets and stores, and verbally and physically attack people.

I am not against helping illegal aliens who want to become Americans and live a good life, but it does bother me when the left go out of their way to choose illegal aliens when there are so many Americans that need help. We should not have American citizens dying because of illegal aliens who have committed crimes and have been deported multiple times. We should not have any American citizens living on the streets or eating out of garbage cans. Why don't the liberal elites help these people?

Marie, do you see that you are making the grossest generalizations, about people and topics of which you indicate you know very little? How do you know, for instance, that these 'liberal elites' and 'left democrats' Don't help others in need? In fact, they do. I know this because I do, and apparently it only takes one person to create a generalization.

Do you help others in need? If so, wonderful, and it may be of some comfort to know that you are not alone. If not, why not?

If you are made uncomfortable by these demonstrations, then perhaps there's hope. It may be your conscience stirring in the deep recesses -- please listen to it.

Left democrat liberal: I said I do not know much about this one topic here in the CCC, but I am very well aware of what is going on politically in our nation. I understand that you may think I am generalizing, but the fact is, I cannot allow my children to voice their opinion nor protest because I fear for their lives. Also, as mentioned above these protests do interrupt American citizens by blocking roads and stores, vandalizing our stores, streets, and personal property, not to mention the physical and verbal abuse. I agree that it's a small few, but these are still the facts.

And yes, I do try to help others wherever and whenever possible. I have taught my children the same value to help others whether volunteering their time or money. Unfortunately, I do not have unlimited income, as many of the Hollywood elite or big companies, and that is why I asked the question why don't the liberal elites help solve American problems before illegal aliens. I did not say they should not help!

Left Dem Lib,

Why are you against the enforcement of longstanding bipartisan current federal law?
What other laws are ok to ignore in your opinion and who gets to make these decisions? We have a process to change laws if the people wish to do so.
The total cost of illegal immigration is not something most people wish to look at.
There are positives but there are also costs involved and I have yet to see an honest discussion that looks at both.

Breaking the laws of our country though is not the way to go.

For all of those who value obeying the laws, let's get back to the other topic of this article: DA Mark Peterson getting only a mild slap on the wrist (if even that) for pilfering tens of thousands of dollars in campaign funds for personal use. Anyone else who did that would be prosecuted, if not sent to jail.

How can we allow our county's top law enforcement official to keep his job when he has committed a crime that is connected to his job???

Peterson has to go!

Dear Tom: you don't say which "longstanding bipartisan" law(s) you are referring-to. If you mean the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, it has been a dismal failure that has been flouted since the inception by employers and immigrants alike. It created the totally unworkable mess we have today, and any attempt to take it seriously now would work terrible hardships on too many people -- citizens and non-citizens alike. It would be way too subject to abuse and bad luck to give it much legal respect. Hence, I'm all for limiting its application.

The Obama Administration and the Senate worked together on a reform bill that the GOP bomb-throwers in the House refused to even consider. Too bad. Pretty good bill that would have gone a long to untangling the gordian knot we're left with. Until serious, practical, non-punitive reform is achieved, then I'm with the Sanctuary Movement as a less-damaging alternative. And before you throw too many rocks at it, you might read-up on what it actually covers.

So yeah -- there Are instances where I will throw-in with Thoreau, and King's letter from a Birmingham jail.

With a resume like Peterson's, he's a shoo-in for a high-ranking position in the Trump Administration. Good riddance.

America is based on rule of law, and the long standing rule of law in America prohibits people coming here illegally. The question is not whether the people braking the law are bad or good people, or what they add negatively or positively to our country, but whether they broke the law coming here illegally. The remedy for braking the immigration law on the books is being forced to leave our country. That is the law. Period.

The problem is the Democrats at local levels who are in position of authority have unilaterally chosen to ignore the law and actually encourage others to break the law and come here illegally promising sanctuary from the law. This has created an expectation for illegal aliens that the law does not apply to them, and thus anger when suddenly Trump does what a real leader does and requires the laws to be executed.

Most Americans support enforcing the immigration laws, but are quiet about it as they do not want to be labeled a " racist" if they support it. That is why the law has not changed over the years. Again, we are a nation of laws, and if you disagree with the law , you try to get it changed, you don't just unilaterally decide to ignore it.

The speed limit is a law, and in some places it is not enforced, and people get use to breaking it. However, if caught by the police speeding, it is not a defense to argue that it has not been enforced and many break the law, and you became accustomed to breaking the law so it is ok. What separates us from most nations is we are a nation that follows the rule of law, with known consequences if you break the law. So anger at our President who simply is doing his job in seeing laws are enforced is misguided, and anger should be directed at local liberal politicians who created an expectation for illegal aliens with sanctuary cities, a power that belongs to the Federal Government, and a power the local politicians never legally held.

'American:' This is a terribly simple-minded post, that takes no notice of the world as it Actually is. The immigration system is irreversibly, irretrievably broken (or perhaps it's 'braked' if we accept your version of 'speling'). It has been so for many years (the GOP House has refused to reform it).

The sober, rational and just solution is not to pretend that's not the case by analogizing it to a 'speed limit' (really? Are you ten?), but to fix it -- without advocating for a ridiculous relic of a wall (paging General Maginot) that does not address the Actual, vs. the Alternative facts of how undocumented people get here.

Nor does it rush through a scattershot, transparently illegal, unvetted and tragically counter-productive refugee order that aims at the wrong target, misses even that, causes chaos, gives recruiting tools to our enemies, horrifies our better angels and would be easily evaded by those bad dudes who actually know what they're doing. That's not 'leadership' -- that's Amateur Night at the corner tavern, and it's already closing time.

In the meantime 'American', here's a hammer, and a bandage, and a mower, and an apple cart, and some computer code, and a meat cleaver, etc. -- you're going to be very busy replacing those 11 million non-citizens whom you would deport in the name of speed limits. You can use the cleaver on your nose -- you know, to spite your face.

Idl: since you did not like American's "rational", which I did, let me give you another one. People want to protect things they love, all of my neighbors have a fence (a wall), most of them (if not all) lock their doors, some of them have watch dogs and alarm systems. Does that mean they are racist or non-American? Does that mean they never welcome visitors into their home?

Sure Marie, and I wear clothes because they're required, and I have a bank account, so there's a safe place to keep my money when I go to visit it, clothed, in my lockable car, driving the speed limit from my lockable house.

It is the essence of silly to argue that because I know one law to be unjust in its current form, and that it needs to be reformed intelligently lest the cure be worse than the disease, that I must therefore be against all laws. I am not (just to be clear). Nor am I against all immigration laws. I am against stupidity in the high-stakes world of diplomacy and law. Both the wall and this meat-ax Order are utterly stupid, and that matters.

As Nixon famously said of a stupid court nominee "mediocre people deserve to be represented on the Court, too." Fortunately, that candidate was not confirmed. If we are wise, neither the stupid Order nor the stupid wall idea will last for very long.

"IDL": Your post is typical of liberals who allegedly embrace "diversity", but resort to name calling and personal attacks when someone has a different opinion than yours. I am "not 10" or "simple minded", but thanks for the insults. I have learned over the years that usually people sling personal insults when they have nothing of substance to discuss.

The reality is every nation(that survives)has walls, fences, and laws that limit access to their territory. Even Vatican City has giant walls and fences surrounding it, and security that limits and regulates access. The only reason we are seeing so much "controversy" over immigration is that the last 8 years we have seen a President who ignored enforcing the laws on immigration, encouraged local liberals to create illegal sanctuary cities, and refused to listen to the brave men and women of Border Patrol who risked their lives detaining those who sought to illegally enter the country, issuing Executive Orders on "catch and release" and other programs that led to an expectation that we had "open borders". President Trump campaigned on enforcing our immigration laws, and having the back of Border Patrol agents and shutting down sanctuary cities, and now elected he is keeping his promises. The only thing "unprecedented" by Trump is that we have a President who is keeping his campaign promises.

By the way, "IDL", what would you say to those millions of people who have followed the law, filled out the paperwork, paid the fees, were legally vetted, and waited patiently, and became U.S. citizens, who complain about those who simply run across the border illegally and enter sanctuary cities? Where is the jurisprudence in that? Isn't that similar to those who wait in line at a movie theatre, pay admission, and legally enter the theatre thru the front door, only to find others who have illegally entered the theatre thru the back door without paying? "IDL", what do you think happens to that movie theatre if people keep sneaking in the back door without paying?

Most Americans agree with Trump enforcing the immigration laws and taking control of our borders. I am sorry if that is too "simple minded" for you, "IDL", but often common sense is simple.

Whew, 'American,' I'm certainly glad you're not into labeling. It's a comfort to the warmish cockles of my bleeding heart.

You and I agree that immigration reform is needed. So, do you go off half-cocked, provoke a fight with a valued neighbor, say that they'll pay -- by proposing a tax that Americans will obviously bear, give the rival Chinese an opening, and risk a global trade war -- all to build a monument to stupidity that wouldn't stem the current flow (such as it is -- and that's not much)?

Do you destabilize whole sectors of the domestic economy by trying to deport 11 million hard-working, tax-paying individuals? So you can pat others on the head because they had the means to get here legally? Ridiculous.

Do you issue a first-draft, unvetted Order, about better vetting no less, that your Homeland Security chief-immigration-officer has not reviewed, and learns about on a plane? Amateur night. When career diplomats (who actualy know what they're talking about -- refreshing!) advise you against its disastrous consequences, do you threaten their jobs? Not unless you're a petulant adolescent.

Real estate is easy. Licensing your name is even easier. Governing is hard.

Idl: No need for lies, false news, and name calling "amateur" and "adolescent"...

Our Homeland Security Secretary Kelly just said this morning he has been aware of Trumps ideas for the past two years, had people involved in drafting the plans, knew lawyers that were involved in drafting it, has seen the drafts before they were implemented, knew it was coming days ago, knew it was signed Friday morning, and said "no, I did not learn about it on an airplane".

Why does the left democratic liberals keep doing this?

So Tom Cushing now is using the name "IDL". Same nasty, name calling, same arrogance, same refusal to listen politely and consider views different from his, and same misguided logic. By the way Tom AKA " IDL" you never answered the question. What do you tell those immigrants who followed the law, filled out the forms, made the sacrifices, were actually vetted, patiently waited, and became lawful U.S., who complain about those who simply illegally ran across the border and hide in Sanctuary Cities. Any jurisprudence concerns, Counselor?

It's L-D-L, and thanks for the compliment about our popular, erstwhile blogger -- I miss him and hope he comes back. He may have trouble choosing topics in this target-rich environment.

But we're all anonymous here, unless you're willing to identify yourself with your blather, which I doubt you'd want to do.

American -

You are simply factually wrong on your assertions about the past 8 years. (I'm sure there are other channels on your TV besides Fox News from which you can get real facts.)

President Obama increased border security vastly over Pres. Bush's efforts -- more people turned back at border; more raids on businesses to apprehend undocumented workers; more undocumented immigrants deported (way more). Yet, you and the folks on the right continue with your false meme about lax enforcement under President Obama.

Maybe it serves your political goals. Maybe the truth doesn't matter to you. (Certainly THIS new administration has shown an indifference to facts. Yay, leadership!)

But, the bottom line is that a workable, bi-partisan immigration bill was worked out in the Congress during president Obama's last term; but, the Republican leadership would not bring it up for a vote.

So, now we have this clumsy, ham-handed approach by Trump that has only made the world a MORE dangerous place.

Still can't answer my question, can you Tom. Your silence actually speaks volumes. I do find it sadly ironic that you passionately fight for the rights of people who illegally simply ran across the border into Sanctuary Cities, while ignoring the rights of those immigrants who followed the legal process and made sacrifices to become lawful U.S. citizens.

Cushing can come on here and say whatever he wants -- he actually has the fortitude to sign his name to his well-thought-out opinions.

What I want to focus on is the theme among folks like 'American' and 'Marie,' to "otherize" anyone who disagrees with them -- as if to insulate themselves from the need to think or consider those contrary opinions. You, or They, or THOSE people are just a 'Liberal, ' 'Hollywood' 'elite' 'democrat' and 'leftist' -- all used to scornfully label the person as "not one of us." The sneering label is not an answer to a post, but rather a dismissal of it as coming from someone unworthy. It's not thought, but a substitute for thought.

Fortunately, it is a minority view -- perhaps not here in the fuddy-duddy club of Town Square partisans, but all up and down this valley and state.

ldl: Sorry you do not like the term illegal alien, but it has been used for longer than I have been on this earth. I certainly do not mean to insult anyone, it's just what I have gotten used to. I have no problem with you putting a label on me, how about stay-at-home nursing mom. Nobody should be ashamed of who they are or how they think. Be proud! But also be willing to listen and be respectful to all living life. Illegal aliens, or undocumented as you like to call them, should be proud of their heritage, but if they want to live here then do it legally.

Web Link SFW

My name seems to come back up here from time-to-time, and unflattering is fine, considering Am's moth-to-the-flame history with my blog. I must say "ldl" is more than holding his own in this thread, and it's kind of comical that anyone assumes I'm the only one who'd express those cogent points; far from it. Lots of folks around here who wear the "Liberal" label proudly.

I have been thinking about reprising the blog -- one of the concerns I have is that the new guy's public bluster keeps the regular folks who elected him entertained, while he stocks his cabinet and the Court with reps of the Masters of the Universe wing of the GOP -- who are more quietly preparing policies to further promote the interests of their ilk -- the few, obscenely wealthy top-enders. That's actually bad for everybody, most especially regular folks.

It's kind of a rope-a-dope strategy to keep the press occupied and the general public outraged by the tawdry spectacle -- punching themselves out on those easy targets while the real dirty deeds are done behind the scenes.

We'll see -- 'til then, Dave, ldl and others are well-worth a listen. And 'Ralph'? I'm not a fan of hyperbole, and your post is shamefully UnAmerican.

To address one or two of LDL's comments:

The reason that many/most conservatives have been opposed to prior efforts at immigration "reform" is that we knew full well that reform was a sham. The parts of it that would benefit illegal immigrants (whether it was a form of amnesty, or even a "path to citizenship") would be quickly implemented or honored, whereas the promised enforcement of the law would be quickly forgotten about. Fool us once (as in 1986), shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us, etc.

I would agree with LDL's comment that George W. Bush was just as lax on immigration enforcement as Obama, even if his reasons were somewhat different. Both parties have been two-faced on this issue, with a big gap between words and actions. As a side comment, in light of the Trump EO issue this past week, I have heard recordings of a speech that Obama gave as a US Senator, in which he passionately discussed the need for countries to enforce their borders, and to adhere to the rule of law, etc., etc. No doubt, the context of this speech was as part of an effort toward "comprehensive" immigration reform. Obama railed against illegal immigrants effectively being rewarded, in contrast to prospective legal immigrants who played by the rules. If you read a transcript of that Obama speech, you'd swear it was Trump, the words are the same. Of course, Obama didn't really mean any of it - it was just another lie on his part. And I don't think any of his supporters took him seriously....

After years, no, decades, of being lied to with a smile by members of both political parties, you'll forgive conservatives if we've "been there, done that". Enforce the law first, and then we can talk about reform of the legal immigration process, so that it works better for the people who try to do the right thing.

(See, no name-calling! Although, I had to admit being very tempted to make a reference to "Low-Density Lipids", which we all know is the bad form of cholesterol.... Cheers!)