They can send all the weed dealers to my neighborhood.
Illegal aliens who have committed state crimes are in state prisons.
-redundant post-
Well, it’s a start, but while California has by far the largest number of incarcerated illegal aliens in its state prisons (about 10,000) of any state, that still leaves 23,000 others.
Quoth flickster:
What does border security have to do with anything? All the folks in prison are, by definition, illegals, and “sending them back” means letting them walk down main street right now. And if you let loose all the illegals, what do you plan to do with all the now-empty prison buildings?
Maybe the rave fad will come back into fashion?
In the context in which he’s using it, “illegal” is usually used to refer to those people who have entered the country illegally or who have violated immigration law allowing them to be legally in the country.
It could be up to their home country to continue incarceration of set them free
Would no longer be the responsibility of CA or be a burden on the taxpayers
It certainly doesn’t help that we have one of the highest costs of incarceration in the nation. Governor Davis was, and now Brown is pretty much in the prison guard union’s pocket. Brown just gave them a HUGE bump, removing limitations on the banking of unused vacation, which will cost us billions. Some guards are making over 200k per year. It costs almost THREE times as much to keep a prisoner in our state than it does in Texas or Florida.
They have known about this problem for at least ten years, and kept right on heading for that iceberg, handing the union pretty much anything they asked for. Now it is to late. Law abiding citizens are going to die over this. Thanks a lot, Sacramento!
How many of those are there, and will it make a significant difference?
I know the drug legalization folks will tell us that some large percentage of those in prison are there because the police caught them with three joints in their sock, but I rather suspect that to be exaggerated.
What I mean is, I would like to know how many inmates in CA are there because they were convicted only of non-violent drug offenses. By which I do not mean the crack dealer who was convicted of possession with intent to distribute, because it was his third offense and the first two were assault with a deadly weapon and first-degree manslaughter in connection with a gang-related drive-by.
Because I think that is behind much of the reaction against this ruling - what if the inmates to be released aren’t “safe” or nice or just naive first offenders?
Regards,
Shodan
The three fold increase in the incarceration rate since 1980 is one of the few social experiments in the United States since the end of the New Deal that worked as planned. From 1980 to 2000 the prison population in the United States increased from 315,974 to 1,428,187. From 1980 to 2009 the crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants declined from 5,950.0 to 3,465.5.
By contrast, from 1960 to 1970 the prison population declined from 212,953 to 196,429. The crime rate during this time per 100,000 inhabitants more than doubled from 1,887.2 to 3,984.5.
http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issues/lawenforcement/punishment.pdf
The high cost of incarceration should be dealt with by the thorough use of prison labor. Convicts have debts to pay society.
How many of those people are there?
How about sending them to Australia? Hasn’t that been done before?
The CALIFORNIA PRISONERS AND PAROLEES 2009Report gives a breakdown of California prisoners, as of December 2009 (this seems to be the latest report). The distribution by offense is in Table 8 on page 16; that might be enough information to answer your question.
Yeah, those 6500 people sure were busy, weren’t they. About 40,000,000 crimes between them over the ten years if my mental arithmetic is correct.
Definitely a good idea to have them locked up. 
Huh. Why would it mean that, as opposed to anyone who violated any other law? What’s so special about illegal immigrants, as opposed to illegal thieves, illegal drug-dealers, or illegal murderers?
Did you really not understand the meaning? I find that hard to believe.
I think he’s obtusely objecting to the use of “illegal” as a standalone term. It does sound kind of callous.
Not sure why it would be so hard for you to grasp…
Why should the taxpayers of CA be footing the bill to keep over 10,000 illegal immigrant criminals housed in CA prisons instead of deporting them back to prisons in their home country?
Because it would cost just as much to deport them, and some non-zero number would not be imprisoned by their home countries because their crimes aren’t crimes there or their convictions can’t be domesticated.
In any case, you can’t deport people without the consent of the receiving country, and other countries often don’t want violent offenders sent back, for obvious reasons.