He showed up at a January 10th Rialto City Council meeting to guilt the council for “caving in” (his words) on the request to make Rialto a sanctuary city for criminal aliens from Mexico. Good for the city council. That was wise. So the property owners of Rialto showed up in droves to say to the council and to Luis that they’d prefer not to have foreign criminals in their backyard. Rialto property owners have time, energy, and money invested in their Rialto community and don’t really want folks with a criminal background posing a threat or causing a problem. Good for the city council to cancel any meeting to discuss this. If people want to come to the country, then come on your own dime. Not on the taxpayers’ dime. Who do you think you are? If I want to go to Panama, I would never show up there and expect the Panamanian tax-payers to finance my excursions or job prospects. But Nolasco is worried about Trump’s claims to deport undocumented immigrants. Okay, that sounds like a legitimate concern if some of his relatives, friends, and neighbords feel targeted. But realize, too, that the federal government does not have the staff or the budget or the resources to conduct any such expulsion. If that’s the case, Nolasco, then don’t even bring it up. Why make it a public issue in the first place? It must be your training inside the ACLU and other organizations that teach you to be vocal, to speak up, to be an agent for change. Change will happen with or without you.
The federal government cannot come in and break up a community. One, they don’t have the resources, and two, they can’t really override local jurisdictions. Judge Andrew Napolitano explains that the local governments are not obliged to enforce federal law, “Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.” So it is a local contest. Doing nothing, Mr. Nolasco, is to your advantage. So there is no call to be nasty. No call to tell people that they’re going to die in five. No seas una persona mala, está bien, senior Nolasco. The local property owners don’t really like the cultural changes brought by criminal elements. Por favor, senior Nolasco, learn about property rights. Start here.
He opens with this, “I went to Simpson Elementary, Jehue Middle School, I went to Rialto High School. So this is my town. I’d like to say that I’m a product of Rialto, where ever I go. I’m proud of this city, I love this city. And one quick comment I’ll make before I get into the rest is that we’re really talking about due process for all people, the basic rights that the Constitution entitles to all people, right?”
His first lie is this, “So this is my town.” I understand what he says. Lot of young people grow up with this sense of pride in where they live, but to advance this position at a city council meeting is either the height of hubris or a poor kid being led by the nose by some Social Justice organization like the ACLU. I loved my city growing up, but I never presumed to speak on behalf of the city or on behalf of all of the property owners in it. The young man is delusional.
His second lie is “What we’re really talking about is due process for all people, the basic rights that the Constitution entitles to all people, right?” Entitles? Whenever you hear that line you know that the speaker knows nothing about the Constitution and has never read it but is only parroting the local leaders of Social Justice. I feel sorry for this kid. He’s been led by the nose by a bunch of radicalized poverts whose main goal is cultural destruction and any violence they can get away with.
Luis Nolasco continues, “The Constitution doesn’t discriminate against people with an immigration status.” And audience member utters, “Yes it does.” Pointing halfheartedly to the audience at his left, he says “These people here are not representative of the peoples of Rialto. Sorry to break it, but, you know, growing up here, white people were the minority. Black and Latinos are the majority of the city and that is representative of the city, right. And that’s going to continue to be the case in future generations and we have to talk about the future, right, I mean it’s kind of mean of it for me to say but these people maybe have probably like five years left and you know . . . [then his doubtful voice trailed off].”
He goes on, “Me, myself, and the other youth that are here, we are the future and we don’t want to see an America that is hateful. I don’t want to admit it but I don’t want my kids to grow up in Rialto, to live in a city that is going to constantly target them . . . that’s a reality. My family is full of immigrants. We live here in Rialto. They are proud to be immigrants. [So are the property owners of Rialto proud to be property owners in Rialto. What, your pride supersedes their pride? Really?] So I’m just kind of a little disappointed that you’re all caving into people that don’t even live in our city. I would say have this discussion with Rialto residents first. I’ve got to talk to council members at city meetings before and they’re always very vocal about “Hey, we only want to listen to people that live in the city. So, first, these people don’t even go here. First have discussion with Rialto residents, like ours. And that’s why I think, Rafael, that I’m one of the people that requested that meeting so I’m thankful for what he did but he shouldn’t be apologizing for moving us forward and all of California is “kind” cities that are doing this. [Of course, he’s referring to Sanctuary Cities.] Whether they like it or not, the majority of the state is moving in that direction, so, you know, Rialto has to make the decision to stand on the right side of history or continue to be on the side of the oppressors, so, . . .”
Again, why even ask the city council to make official what is already de facto?