Other things in the news...

Related to the story I just posted, it's also been reported that 3 more illegal immigrant drug dealers have escaped from their group homes. No doubt, liberals may look at this as a bit of justification for the previous practice of shielding the felons, since, some of the escapees were apparently tipped off that they were now in danger of deportation.

"Newsom said city officials suspect that the latest two escapees left the Tulare County group home after being tipped that they could be deported, although the city had not reported them to federal immigration officials.

"In many respects, this is a consequence of the policy change," Newsom said. "It goes without saying, there is an arrest warrant out."

The fact that they've run away because they might face deportation just further reinforces an important part of the justice system: punishment for criminal behavior is supposed to be a deterrent for engaging in criminal behavior. While we need a long-term solution for the problem of illegal immigration in America, one can only hope that fear of deportation may at least give a few would-be criminals a bit of pause before they spiral into a life of crime.

In a different kind of Sanctuary City news, there's a measure on the November ballot to decriminalize prostitution. Who knew (maybe I'm the only one in dark here), there's an "Erotic Service Providers Union"! Sheesh, everyone has a union today. (Except mothers. You don't see Mom Unions sprouting up all over the place demanding that super markets provide free juice and crackers and refrain from putting balloons and toys in the check out lanes. But that's totally an aside.) Anyway, supporters say the main concern is protecting the safety of the prostitutes.

"Workers would like it if crimes like rape, robbery theft and coercion were vigorously investigated and prosecuted," Maxine Doogan, a founder of the Erotic Service Providers Union, wrote in an e-mail. "We want the right to make reports of crimes against us without being retaliated against by the Police Department."

Honestly, my somewhat sheltered little mind is a bit at a loss as to where to start with all the things wrong with this idea. Essentially they're asking SF to be a sanctuary city to another special group (homeless, illegal immigrants, now prostitutes). It's just a new example of how morally permissive our city is...or maybe an old example, apparently this debate has been raging on for years. Still, narrow-minded me cannot help but notice that this is not just a practical issue about the "safety" of prostitutes. Laws are always statements of morality, one way or another, and a law that decriminalizes the sale of sex states that our society doesn't care about the sanctity of sex. Of course, the lack of concern for that issue is a disease of epidemic proportions in this world. Nevertheless, I think our kids shouldn't be sent the message that selling sex (your body) to anyone willing to pay is a legitimate career choice.

Even Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris oppose the measure (possibly the only bright spots on two very dismal careers), rightly pointing out that it will make investigating sex trafficking much more difficult (the measure has language that will ban investigations that are based on racial profiling, so, what, we can't investigate a massage parlor because it's owned by Asians?). There are so many things wrong with this whole thing...but I'm sure it will continue to bring out much hand-wringing about the second-class citizen prostitutes who are persecuted for their career choices. After all, in this world, how do we dare make judgments about any choices made by consenting adults (as long as they're not voting Republican)?