On June 8, in Belfast, Northern Ireland, a 30-year-old Sudanese asylum seeker named Hadi Alodid allegedly stabbed 44-year-old local Stephen Ogilvie repeatedly with a kitchen knife in the eyes, face, neck, and back. Ogilvie lost his left eye. Bystanders had to pull the attacker off him.  Alodid had entered through Dublin in 2023, claimed asylum, and received leave to remain until 2028. He now faces attempted murder charges. Why does this pattern keep repeating? Video of the frenzied assault spread instantly. The next night, Belfast erupted. Masked protesters torched vehicles and a bus, set homes ablaze, and clashed with police. Dozens were arrested.  Officials rushed to condemn “far-right thugs.” But what exactly provoked ordinary people to such fury on their own streets? Asylum policies have placed thousands of newcomers into communities without robust vetting or local consent. In this case it resulted in an attempt to kill an Irishman in his own neighborhood. Similar violence has triggered unrest in Dublin suburbs and elsewhere across Ireland. When these inevitable tragedies occur, why do authorities focus more on the resulting riots than on the policies that invited the chaos? Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom reacted to congressional funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and border operations by calling it arming “Trump’s private police” to “terrorize immigrants” based on “skin color and accent.” He labeled it “un-American.” Many individuals subject to immigration enforcement are foreigners who speak with accents—that is precisely the point. They are not random Americans being profiled by appearance; they are individuals who entered the country illegally, overstayed visas, or had asylum claims rejected.  Why does Newsom frame basic enforcement of existing law as racial or ethnic persecution rather than a necessary distinction based on legal status? As Ireland burns from migrant violence, why does Newsom double down on sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal enforcement?  California continues shielding thousands of criminal aliens with active ICE detainers, including those convicted of homicide, assault, and sexual offenses. Repeat offenders are released back into communities. High-profile killings follow. Yet the state’s resistance only hardens. Why this persistent choice?  In late May, Newsom signed Senate Bill 73 as an emergency measure. It restricts law enforcement access to ballots and polling sites without warrants and penalizes certain questioning of election processes.  California operates one of the most permissive voting systems in America. Universal mail-in ballots are sent automatically to all registered voters, ballots get accepted days after Election Day, and there’s no voter ID requirement for most voting.  Critics point to ballots mailed to outdated addresses, weak signature verification, and limited audits as creating obvious opportunities for fraud.  Why, then, does skepticism about elections trigger swift state power under SB 73, while concerns about released criminal aliens draw accusations of intolerance? Who exactly is being protected here?  Newsom’s California prioritizes shielding unlawfully present or failed-asylum individuals over the safety of citizens and legal residents.  Working-class neighborhoods absorb the costs. We get overwhelmed emergency rooms, strained schools, fentanyl deaths linked to open borders, and families shattered by preventable crimes—such as the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle in San Francisco, where the shooter, a repeat illegal immigrant deported five times, was released under sanctuary policies despite an ICE detainer. Legal immigrants who followed every rule watch the system they respected being undermined. Does this make sense? Enforcing immigration law is not cruelty. It is the basic requirement of any nation that wants to remain generous and orderly. Why pretend otherwise? America’s successful immigration history rested on controlled numbers, careful vetting, assimilation, and respect for the law.  Sanctuary non-cooperation and rhetorical attacks on enforcement erode those foundations. Rewarding evasion while eroding trust isn’t compassion. Ireland’s riots, sparked directly by the near-fatal stabbing of Ogilvie, expose the human price of expansive asylum policies without limits. Public patience eventually snaps when violence becomes routine and grievances are dismissed as bigotry.  California polls show similar majorities demanding secure borders and enforcement against criminal aliens. So why does state leadership continue choosing resistance over realism? Can leaders indefinitely side with lawlessness while brushing aside citizens’ concerns?  Newsom’s framing of ICE funding, combined with his sanctuary defense and election oversight, reveals a clear priority: protect certain violators and narratives, but police the skeptics. Is this sustainable?  Ordered, legal immigration has enriched societies that maintain sovereignty and the rule of law. Chaotic non-enforcement delivers precisely what Belfast is now experiencing: division, destruction, and distrust. As Ireland confronts the violent consequences of its policies, California’s embrace of sanctuary logic risks the same fractures here at home. Why do so many elites appear unable or unwilling to acknowledge the obvious?  Citizens in Ireland and America deserve governments that place their safety and the equal application of laws first—not ideology over lived reality.  How many more Belfasts will it take before these leaders are forced to confront the root cause—their radical open-border and sanctuary policies that harbor lawbreakers and import risks—rather than condemning the logical and predictable fury from citizens who are paying the price for those very policies? We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.