Faulconer, Cate, Zapf, and Kersey: Making San Diego Unsafe Again

Brian Brady Brian Brady 15 Comments


In case you missed it, Scott Sherman was the only San Diego City Council member to vote against whack job City Attorney Mara Elliot’s request to sue to stop President Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration. Let’s start here:

1- President Trump issued an Executive Order to temporarily halt entry into this country from seven countries.
2- The seven countries were identified by the Obama Administration as “terrorist-friendly.”
3- The five countries with the largest Muslim populations on the world are not on that list.
4- The ban shall last four months (it will end right before the Del Mar Fair comes to town).
5- The temporary ban is ordered so that a vetting process can be adopted for refugees from that country.
6- POTUS has the authority (and duty) to enforce federal immigration laws.

Four months — not years, months… and from countries which the Obama Administration deemed dangerous. This doesn’t matter to the radical Left. They, in concert with the mainstream media, tried to make the warning from the Obama Administration and the action which the Trump Administration took, as racist, xenophobic, and unconstitutional. The ACLU-led a lawsuit to overturn this immigration order resulted in a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the most politically-charged judiciary in the country.

The lawsuit, along with the protests, serve to de-legitimize President Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton — and three out of four Republican San Diego City Council members, along with the Republican San Diego Mayor, played into it.

President Trump can (and should) enforce the laws of this land and can (and should) heed his predecessor’s warning. If Council Members Chris Cate, Mark Kersey, and Lorie Zapf, or Mayor Kevin Faulconer, disagree with Presidents Obama and Trump, they should follow their former colleague Scott Peters’ lead and run for Congress. Immigration policy is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The San Diego City Council should focus on core, local government services: filling potholes on the streets, securing and funding police, fire, and lifeguard protections, bringing water to and collecting trash from San Diego houses and businesses, and balancing the budget.

Every time the San Diego City Council strays from it core government functions, and engages in extra-jurisdictional activities, its citizens lose confidence in the Council’s ability to perform its legitimate duties. We point this out constantly to the Democrats on the Council, namely:  Myrtle Cole, Chris Ward, David Alvarez, Barbara Bry, and Georgette Gomez. We shouldn’t have to point this out to Republicans. Thankfully, Scott Sherman did the right thing by voting against this frivolous lawsuit. But Mayor Faulconer and Council Members Cate, Zapf, and Kersey made San Diego a riskier place to live by joining with the Democrats on this vote.

God help them if something happens in the next few months.


Comments 15

  1. Brian,

    I actually agree with much (not all) that you wrote, but I don’t understand your conclusion. How specifically does the Council’s action make San Diego a riskier place to live?

  2. Post

    Good question, HQ. I assume that Presidents Trump and Obama had actionable intelligence which would support the policy to protect America (and thereby San Diego) from foreign threats.

    If they persist on interfering with the President’s right (and duty) to enforce immigration laws, and foreign threats increase, San Diego becomes less safe

  3. Brian,

    Again we mostly agree. For instance, I too believe that the President has a right and duty to enforce immigration laws. However, I do not believe that he has the right to create immigration laws (I believe a Federal Court in Texas made this clear to President Obama). I also believe that the courts have the right (and duty) to review any law (including immigration law) to insure that it is Constitutional.

    Two other quick points:

    1. President Obama did not put a halt (even temporarily) to immigration from the seven countries in question. He did, however, institute additional vetting procedures.

    2. You comment “God help them if something happens in the next few months” makes little sense to me unless you believe that current visa holders should be banned since it takes significantly longer than a few months to get a visa from any of those countries

  4. Post


    Is your argument that the travel ban was unnecessary because the Obama Administration had the vetting figured out? I think that is our only disagreement.

  5. Brian,

    I have a lot of concerns with the Travel Ban. If you want, I can list them all in a future response but for now, I will give you my top two:

    1. It was too broad and too immediate – it trapped legal visa and/or green card holders out of the country. Some of these while actually in mid-flight. It would have been better to pick a future date and ban travel (for a limited time) to and from countries of concern. Exceptions for hardship such as a dying relative or a wedding could have been handled on a base by case basis.

    2. The countries chosen. In my opinion, these countries we’re chosen for purely political reason. This was President Trump fulfilling a campaign promise and looking tough, not preventing an imminent threat. President Obama’s order concerning these countries simply eliminated visa-less travel and was issued in 2015. It is entirely too coincidental for me to believe that there is new intelligence of an imminent threat from someone coming over from of one of these same seven countries. They were picked simply to have Obams’s order as a rationale.

    My biggest concern with your original post is still the “God help them if…” line. You are much better than that.

  6. Post

    Some comments from the RPSDC Facebook page:

    “So angry at our councilman Chris Cate for his role in this. I thought I was supporting, campaigning for, and financially backing a republican not a spineless hack.”–Kris Shetter

    “My street has been crumbling for 20 years…still is yet to be paved. In fact it hasn’t been paved since the houses were built in 1972. We should fire the whole council. What a tremendous waste of money, time and energy”–Beth Roby

    “The Republicans that voted for this are a huge disappointment. Mayor Faulkner’s statement is another one. I’m guessing Faulkner can sit out the Governors race. Thank you to Scott Sherman for doing what all the others should have.

    Following the vote, Congresswoman Susan Davis stated that she was proud that her city council had taken this stand. That alone ought to make these Republicans question their decision.”– Michael Ranson

    “Any idea of what cost there will be to the city? Thinking of possible action for waste of city assets, time , and energy. No , Jan Goldsmith would not have involved us”– Dick Thorn

    “Kudos to Scott Sherman for reminding them what their priorities should be.– Megan Daniels

    “Homelessness, infrastructure, city employee pension debacle – but they CHOOSE TO SPEND OUR TAX MONEY TO GET INVOLVED IN A LAW SUIT WITH WASHINGTON?! Now THATS DEPLORABLE!”– Debby DeMarco

    “Broken water pipes and crumbing streets and now this?”–Paul Honeycutt

    “Obama taught us that immigration is a federal issue”– Russell Sivick

    “I’m very disappointed in our City Council for backing this lawsuit- especially the ones who are Republican”– Valerie Lusk

  7. “Obama taught us that immigration is a federal issue”

    And the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals taught us that the courts have the authority to overrule the President.

  8. Brian,

    Four more problems with the ban are:

    1.) Trump overtly called it a Muslim ban during the campaign, which is unconstitutional. Rudy Giuliani bragged about helping the administration affect a Muslim ban without using the word “Muslim.” He’ll be subpoenaed in a heartbeat as the case proceeds on the merits, and it will not be pretty.

    2.) The ban was rolled out without advance directives to the agencies in charge of enforcing it. While not a legal issue, it was an avoidable self-inflicted wound for an administration that is increasing defined by ineptitude.

    3.) The ban blocked interpreters who have risked their lives and the lives of their families in brace acts that have saved the lives of many of our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. It’s not a stretch to say that this group of individuals has risked more, and earned more for our flag than you, me, and 99% of our readers. It’s un-American, and many of our service members who worked alongside these interpreters agree.

    4.) The administration had to know this would be challenged, and yet they put it into effect with no viable legal defense. No Attorney General, no rationale to explain the selection of the seven countries, no legal strategy. Again, completely inept.

  9. Post

    1- “Trump overtly called it a Muslim ban during the campaign, which is unconstitutional.”

    You are conflating two things: the (unconstitutional) hare-brained scheme he floated during the campaign and a targeted, temporary halt to countries the Obama Admin deemed terrorist friendly.

    2- “The ban was rolled out without advance directives to the agencies in charge of enforcing it.

    I get Trump’s explanation on this; don’t give advance notice to the bad guys. Ultimately, he’s wrong but I get his rationale.

    3- “The ban blocked interpreters who have risked their lives and the lives of their families in brave acts that have saved the lives of many of our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen”

    I don’t get that; Obama did the same thing in 2011 and I didn’t understand it then. I think his (Obama) explanation was that some of them had turned.

    4- “The administration had to know this would be challenged, and yet they put it into effect with no viable legal defense”

    I don’t think they thought it would be challenged for two reasons: (1) Obama did this to Iraq in 2011 and (2) the seven countries were identified by the Obama Administration

    I still can’t wrap my brain around the outrage to a policy which sunsets by Memorial Day

  10. “…a policy that sunsets by Memorial Day.”

    Brian, I will bet you “dollars to donuts” that this policy is extended and expanded rather than ended after Memorial Day.

  11. Brian,

    Perhaps if it was Obama suspending the Second Amendment until Memorial Day you’d feel differently.

    Re: “Obama did this to Iraq in 2011 and the seven countries were identified by the Obama Administration”

    Partly right, but the 2011 policy change was not a ban. Immigrants continued to arrive from Iraq during every month of the year 2011. The increased vetting standards resulted in about 50% reduction in Iraqi immigration relative to 2010. Also, the 2011 policies were a reaction to live intelligence, and were timed and targeted to a specific threat fingerprint. Trump is applying that same filter five years later, when the foundational intelligence for the original policy doesn’t apply. It would be like proposing TARP 2 and another GM bailout today.

    There’s a good apolitical article on the similarities and differences here:

    Business Insider Article

  12. Post

    “Perhaps if it was Obama suspending the Second Amendment until Memorial Day you’d feel differently.”

    I would for one simple reason; that would be the US government abridging a right, constitutionally guaranteed, for a US Citizen.

    Which US citizen loses a constitutionally-protected right by this temporary immigration restriction?

  13. Brian,

    Above, you drew a distinction between “the (unconstitutional) hare-brained scheme he floated during the campaign and a targeted, temporary halt. . .”

    The root of our disagreement is that many of us (including the 9th Circuit) don’t see the distinction. We take Trump at his word. We can plainly observe the realization of that same hare-brained and unconstitutional campaign promise, with some minor lipstick applied to the swine by Giuliani and other lawyers too clever by half.

    And now we come to your question: “Which US citizen loses a constitutionally-protected right. . .?”

    I’ll answer your question with one of my own:

    Hypothetically, in your view, if Trump did implement what you called a hare-brained and unconstitutional ban based on religious beliefs–if he did publicly acknowledge that the policy of the United States would be to favor Christian refugees over others, if he did violate the constitution in that way, which US citizen would lose a constitutionally protected right?

    If your answer is none, then you must admit that either the question establishes a false standard for right and wrong, or that you are willing to abandon American values and accept the hate-brained and the unconstitutional so long as they don’t have a parochial domestic effect.

  14. Post

    We aren’t dealing in hypotheticals; we are dealing in actual policy.

    Take Trump at his word; the immigration restriction was temporary and targeted at countries which are, as the Obama Administration noted them, “Terrorist Friendly”.

    I tried to separate the wheat from the chaff with the last President–this is why I overwhelmingly applauded his normalization of trade with Cuba in SPITE of the visceral criticism I received from Cuban-American friends.

    Let’s try to do the same with this President

  15. Why is Brian the only long-time Rostrafarian who is supporting our Republican, small-government, states-right, strict Constitutionalist President? Isn’t this what all of you wanted?

    Prediction: it won’t be long before even Brian has stopped defending President Trump.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *