The article challenges the notion that sanctuary city policies in places like San Francisco hinder the deportation of undocumented drug dealers. It argues that existing laws already permit the deportation of such individuals, and the problem stems from insufficient enforcement and legal loopholes exploited through plea bargaining.
The author highlights how public defenders often negotiate plea deals resulting in lesser charges, like "accessory after the fact," to avoid harsher penalties that could lead to deportation. This practice, intended to protect immigrants from overly punitive measures, unintentionally allows drug dealers to evade consequences.
The article refutes the argument that many drug dealers are victims of human trafficking, citing a lack of substantial evidence to support this claim. Interviews with former addicts and a former drug trafficker contradict this narrative. The author points to the significant profits generated by these dealers, suggesting they're actively involved in the drug trade, not forced participants.
The core argument is that the solution doesn't lie in changing sanctuary city policies. Instead, the author advocates for stricter enforcement of existing laws, specifically by district attorneys refusing plea deals for full-time drug dealers, regardless of immigration status. This would ensure that these individuals face appropriate legal consequences and are potentially deported.
The article points out the strong connection between the drug dealers in San Francisco and the Sinaloa Cartel, emphasizing that the cartel is involved in smuggling these individuals into the United States. While sanctuary laws are noted to be a factor in the dealers choosing San Francisco, the article emphasizes that stricter enforcement, not policy change, is the needed solution.