Some points on Corzo’s guest perspective

1). The article speaks of “rampant misinformation” — neither Supervisor Corzo nor the 60+ groups referred to have shared any data with the public on the recidivism rate of the specific group we are discussing (i.e. high-severity crimes after they have served a sentence)? See Supervisor Canepa’s interview with ABC7 (“I don’t know, you’re not going to change my mind with facts”).

2). Supervisor Corzo is confusing readers by using the term “immigrant” to refer to both lawful and unlawful residents. She should be clear that the ordinance is about protecting unlawful residents who are involved in high-severity crimes.

3). The two-tiered system being referred to is called “immigration law.” It appears the board has a hard time coming to terms with the law of the land. Most of San Mateo County’s residents respect the judicial and immigration systems.

4). When counting those who support vs. oppose — did Supervisor Corzo include the hundreds of emails that the board received on this topic?

5). To be clear, here is what the board has done — they have sent a signal that “it is OK to commit high-severity crimes, stay illegally in our county and be assured there will be no consequences after you have served your sentence. Rinse and repeat.”

Amit Saini

Foster City