Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 07, 2010, 09:04:07 PM
-
Aren't those places willfully violating federal immigration law?
-
same reason Rudy, Palin, Romeny allowed them.
They don't have the courage that Brewer has.
Neither the fed nor state level has been willing to do it for fear of losing hispanic votes.
(LOL at republicans upset the fed govt isn't getting more involved in state affairs hehe)
-
(LOL at republicans upset the fed govt isn't getting more involved in state affairs hehe)
its not a state affair...you see they had to cross the national boundry to get there making it a national affair...
-
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."--
Author Unknown
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39459.html#ixzz0t5yQRCPM
-
Brilliant, but I'm pretty sure that someone else used that quote to describe another prez or politician and then interjected Obama's name.
Also-
Racist Post Reported.
-
Why isn't Obama's administration suing sanctuary cities?
By: Peyton R. Miller
Weekly Standard
06/23/10 12:21 PM EDT
________________________ ________________________ _____
The Justice Department is preparing a lawsuit against Arizona’s controversial immigration law, likely to be filed next week. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a South American interviewer last week that the Obama administration opposes the law because “the federal government should be determining immigration policy.” The idea that the administration seeks to uphold federal sovereignty in matters pertaining to immigration is hard to swallow.
U.S. law prohibits public universities from providing in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrant students, yet ten states currently allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition. Numerous “sanctuary cities”deliberately subvert federal immigration policy by preventing local law enforcement and other officials from inquiring as to the immigration status of residents. Some have gone even further by providing undocumented immigrants with local forms of identification.
President Obama immediately voiced opposition to the Arizona law, which enforces federal law at the state level, but has made no rhetorical or legal challenge to state laws that work against federal immigration policy. Such pro-illegal immigrant practices existed well before January 2009, but Obama did not campaign on the need to abolish them for the sake of restoring immigration policy to the federal domain. In fact, when asked in a presidential debate whether he would “allow [sanctuary] cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants,” he refused to condemn sanctuary cities, commenting only briefly on the need for “comprehensive immigration reform.”
The notion that immigration policy should be handled at the federal level is a legitimate one, but it is difficult for the Obama administration to oppose Arizona’s law on these grounds since it has not lifted a finger in opposition to state-level policies that favor illegal immigrants. A different agenda is at work here.
Peyton R. Miller is the editor of the Harvard Salient and a Student Free Press Association Intern at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
-
Why isn't Obama's administration suing sanctuary cities?
By: Peyton R. Miller
Weekly Standard
06/23/10 12:21 PM EDT
________________________ ________________________ _____
The Justice Department is preparing a lawsuit against Arizona’s controversial immigration law, likely to be filed next week. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told a South American interviewer last week that the Obama administration opposes the law because “the federal government should be determining immigration policy.” The idea that the administration seeks to uphold federal sovereignty in matters pertaining to immigration is hard to swallow.
U.S. law prohibits public universities from providing in-state tuition rates for illegal immigrant students, yet ten states currently allow undocumented students to pay in-state tuition. Numerous “sanctuary cities”deliberately subvert federal immigration policy by preventing local law enforcement and other officials from inquiring as to the immigration status of residents. Some have gone even further by providing undocumented immigrants with local forms of identification.
President Obama immediately voiced opposition to the Arizona law, which enforces federal law at the state level, but has made no rhetorical or legal challenge to state laws that work against federal immigration policy. Such pro-illegal immigrant practices existed well before January 2009, but Obama did not campaign on the need to abolish them for the sake of restoring immigration policy to the federal domain. In fact, when asked in a presidential debate whether he would “allow [sanctuary] cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants,” he refused to condemn sanctuary cities, commenting only briefly on the need for “comprehensive immigration reform.”
The notion that immigration policy should be handled at the federal level is a legitimate one, but it is difficult for the Obama administration to oppose Arizona’s law on these grounds since it has not lifted a finger in opposition to state-level policies that favor illegal immigrants. A different agenda is at work here.
Peyton R. Miller is the editor of the Harvard Salient and a Student Free Press Association Intern at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
Exactly.
-
Yeah I posted this in another thread as it was brought up by the AZ gov.
Crickets from the left...
I'm shocked!
-
he wants their vote in 2010 and 2012? duh...
-
he wants their vote in 2010 and 2012? duh...
Really? Then why is he going against the majority of the country?
-
Really? Then why is he going against the majority of the country?
He did the same thing with healthcare.
-
He did the same thing with healthcare.
And terror trials in NYC, Cap & Trade, etc.
-
i'd like to see surveys done in blue vs red states.
I mean, AZ never went Obama's way anyway, and surely they sway a *little* more supportive of this bill than say, New York?
-
i'd like to see surveys done in blue vs red states.
I mean, AZ never went Obama's way anyway, and surely they sway a *little* more supportive of this bill than say, New York?
Those are both national polls, one by Pew, one by CBS, they are not AZ polls. The CBS is +/- 3%, but when you factor in the "Doesn't go far enough" crowd, Barry is still going well against the majority of the nation.
I can't see him doing this for votes.
-
Those are both national polls, one by Pew, one by CBS, they are not AZ polls. The CBS is +/- 3%, but when you factor in the "Doesn't go far enough" crowd, Barry is still going well against the majority of the nation.
I can't see him doing this for votes.
He is doing it for Hisp[anic votes in districts where their vote can put a marginal person over the top.
-
Probably cause they're a good idea. Besides Obama has deported more illegals than previous admins so it would seem to me he's doing a better job and deportation than in the past.
-
Really? Then why is he going against the majority of the country?
;D
That's a lot of racist people. ::)
-
;D
That's a lot of racist people. ::)
I'm not racist, I hate everyone equally.
-
Probably cause they're a good idea. Besides Obama has deported more illegals than previous admins so it would seem to me he's doing a better job and deportation than in the past.
link?
wow, if he deported more illegals than Bush, that's HUGE news.
-
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20134853fefe8970c-popup (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20134853fefe8970c-popup)
-
link?
wow, if he deported more illegals than Bush, that's HUGE news.
Why? Bush loved illegals and pandered to them daily? Who ever defended Bush on illegals?
-
Like i said in the thread yesterday where this was posted. It'll be attributed to Bush cause it's a positive however, if it were the other way around it'd be blame game for Obama.
-
Like i said in the thread yesterday where this was posted. It'll be attributed to Bush cause it's a positive however, if it were the other way around it'd be blame game for Obama.
Bushs' biggest failure was the border and illegals.
-
Bushs' biggest failure was the border and illegals.
borrowing trillions?
letting NK build nukes?
failing to stop iran?
falling for WMD when the UN didn't find squat?
ignoring cruicial 911 warnings then fighting an investigation?
I'd say the border was 7th or 8th on his failure list.
-
borrowing trillions?
letting NK build nukes?
failing to stop iran?
falling for WMD when the UN didn't find squat?
ignoring cruicial 911 warnings then fighting an investigation?
I'd say the border was 7th or 8th on his failure list.
I disagree. Are you now saying you wanted him to bomb Iran and NK now?
-
I disagree. Are you now saying you wanted him to bomb Iran and NK now?
I don't think you can pin Iran on Bush. Although he would have had a much stronger position if he had never had invaded Iraq.
-
borrowing trillions?
letting NK build nukes?
failing to stop iran?
lmao but when obama does these things you make excuses and point to bush? fuking moron ::)
-
Critics Question Why Obama Administration Doesn't Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities
By Molly Henneberg
Published July 14, 2010
FoxNews.com
Now that the Obama administration is suing Arizona over its tough immigration law, some critics are asking why so-called sanctuary cities are getting a pass for ignoring federal immigration law.
There are more than 50 sanctuary cities in the U.S. Supporters of such policies say they want the local police to focus on solving crimes and leave the immigration work to the federal authorities.
"What sanctuary cities are saying is, we are not going to preempt the federal government. It's the federal government's responsibilities," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill.
Sanctuary cities are not a new idea. They've been around for decades and no administration – Democrat of Republican – has really gone after them.
But the Obama administration is going after Arizona for its new law that permits officers to ask about a person's immigration status during the course of other law enforcement duties, such as a traffic stops. Opponents say the law promotes racial profiling and is unconstitutional. But supporters deny those charges.
"The Arizona law is in compliance with federal law," said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA. "The Justice Department should stay out of it. They should be encouraging Arizona to be enforcing the laws. Secondly, they should be enforcing federal immigration law, which means challenging cities and states that have sanctuary policies."
The Justice Department sees it differently, saying Arizona is unconstitutionally interfering with the federal government's role in immigration control.
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said.
But to those who support the Arizona law and oppose the idea of sanctuary cities, that seems like a cop-out.
"The administration has shown again and again it has no intention of enforcing federal immigration laws," Jenks said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/14/critics-question-obama-administration-doesnt-crack-sanctuary-cities/
-
I disagree. Are you now saying you wanted him to bomb Iran and NK now?
nah, but i'd be fine with letting ISR bomb iran if they feel the need.
NKorea... YES! They have the bomb and set it off, they fired middiles at hawaii, they promised to blow up cali... what more did Bush need? Saddam let the UN search his toilets and they found nothing...
-
nah, but i'd be fine with letting ISR bomb iran if they feel the need.
NKorea... YES! They have the bomb and set it off, they fired middiles at hawaii, they promised to blow up cali... what more did Bush need? Saddam let the UN search his toilets and they found nothing...
War with China?
-
bush PAID THEM OFF to stop shooting ICBMs at us.
one million barrels of oil.
unbelievable.
-
Justice: Sanctuary Cities Safe From Law
Thursday, 15 Jul 2010
By: Stephen Dinan and Kara Rowland
A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state's immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that "actively interferes."
"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."
But the author of the 1996 federal law that requires states and localities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration laws thinks the administration is misreading the statute and that sanctuary cities are in violation of federal law. Drawing a distinction between those localities and Arizona, he said, is "flimsy justification" for suing the state.
"For the Justice Department to suggest that they won't take action against those who passively violate the law who fail to comply with the law is absurd," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. "Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not."
Officials in Arizona say they've been unfairly singled out by President Obama and Mr. Holder, who last week sued to overturn Arizona's new law, arguing that it could lead to a patchwork of state immigration rules.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and other critics said that sanctuary cities -- localities that refuse to check on someone's legal status or won't alert immigration authorities when they encounter illegal immigrants -- are just as guilty of creating a patchwork of laws, and violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Mr. Smith said the administration doesn't appear to understand his law, which requires localities to share information on illegal immigrants with federal authorities.
"The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors federal law -- it does not 'interfere' with it," he said.
The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of any detained person about whom they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.
Messages left with Mrs. Brewer's office Wednesday were not returned. But in a statement last week, she said Arizona was being targeted.
"President Obama's administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted a patchwork of 'sanctuary' policies that directly violate federal law. These patchwork local 'sanctuary' policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials," she said.
Mr. Obama took an active role in targeting Arizona, including ordering the Justice Department to get involved. But on sanctuary cities, the White House has deflected questions, first telling a reporter it would get an answer about the president's thinking but eventually shifting questions over to the Justice Department.
In his original directions to Justice to review the Arizona law, Mr. Obama asked for lawyers to look into potential conflicts with federal immigration law and potential civil rights violations, such as racial profiling.
When it was filed July 6, though, the Justice Department lawsuit attacked the law only as an infringement on federal prerogatives. It did not make any accusations that the law violates civil rights, though Mr. Holder threatened a second lawsuit on that issue during on Sunday's political talk shows.
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez defended the Arizona lawsuit on Monday, telling the American Constitution Society that the federal government can't tolerate different policies.
"You cannot have a system of 50 quarterbacks in the immigration system because immigration includes issues of law enforcement, it involves decisions with implications in foreign policy, it involves incidents with humanitarian implications, and you can't have 50 states making immigration law and have a coherent system," Mr. Perez said, according to MainJustice.com, which covers the Justice Department.
But defenders say Arizona's law would be a problem only if it conflicted with Congress' immigration policy.
On Wednesday, Michigan Attorney General Michael A. Cox filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the federal lawsuit arguing that Arizona's law is consistent with what Congress intended. He was joined by attorneys general from eight states and one territory.
The Arizona law has become a flash point for the broader immigration debate, with polls showing a majority of voters supporting the crackdown.
Arizona officials have said the federal government has failed in its responsibility to police the borders, and the state is experiencing a crime wave spurred by illegal immigration. They have said the new law is meant to fill in the gaps in enforcement.
On Wednesday, two Republican senators -- Jim DeMint of South Carolina and David Vitter of Louisiana -- announced that they will introduce an amendment to a bill that would halt the Justice Department lawsuit by denying it federal funding.
Sanctuary cities are difficult to categorize, and there is no hard-and-fast rule for the label.
A 2007 report from the Justice Department's inspector general found 15 cities that don't regularly inform federal authorities when they arrest an illegal immigrant, and 10 cities that wouldn't regularly tell authorities when a known illegal immigrant was being released from custody, either of which could be viewed as shielding illegal immigrants from detection.
The IG report said two jurisdictions -- Oregon, and the city and county of San Francisco -- acknowledge themselves as sanctuaries. It also said that many cities that are categorized as sanctuaries include language in their policies requiring local authorities to cooperate to the extent required by federal law.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Justice--Sanctuary--Cities--immigration/2010/07/15/id/364702
-
I'm sure the Justice Department will be all over this. We'll also hear the president condemning this action shortly.
San Francisco to Stop Detaining Arrested Immigrants for Deportation
Published May 07, 2011
FoxNews.com
San Francisco, one of the first sanctuary cities in the nation, plans to end its cooperation with federal immigration officials and start releasing illegal immigrants arrested for minor offenses before they can be picked up for deportation.
The city's decision is the latest development in a tug of war between several communities and the federal government over its controversial national program that automatically checks the immigration status of arrestees.
Officials in jurisdictions including Providence, R.I., and Chicago have also challenged the program, which they say undermines trust that it has taken local law enforcement years to build in immigrant communities.
California and Illinois lawmakers are considering measures to let communities retreat from the so-called "Secure Communities" program, which links up the FBI's criminal database and the Department of Homeland Security's records so that every time someone is arrested their immigration status is automatically, electronically checked.
Washington state has deferred to local governments on whether they want to join program overseen by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
But their efforts could be thwarted as federal officials argue that states have no control over what information is shared among federal agencies.
In the absence of a nationwide fix on immigration, the tension between states and the federal government has been simmering in recent years. In the last four years, states have passed a flurry of bills and resolutions on issues ranging from employer verification to access to driver's licenses, most notably Arizona's tough local immigration enforcement law.
Immigrant advocates have lambasted ICE's fingerprint sharing program for sweeping up crime victims and witnesses who are arrested during an investigation in addition to those accused of committing a crime. About 29 percent of the 102,000 immigrants deported under the program since it began in 2008 have no criminal conviction, according to federal government statistics.
Between October 2008 and March 2011, more than 7 million people who have been arrested have had their fingerprints run through the ICE program. Roughly 197,000 were identified as suspected illegal immigrants, and nearly 40 percent of those were in California, according to statistics provided by ICE.
In San Francisco, Sheriff Michael Hennessey told the San Francisco Examiner he is making the change effective June 1 to comply with the city's sanctuary ordinance.
The law, which has caused tension between local and federal authorities, prohibits officials from assisting ICE in cases that do not involve felonies.
The city currently keeps low-level offenders ICE has identified as illegal immigrants through fingerprints until immigration officials collect them. The Examiner reports that 111 inmates were detained for deportation between last June and February.
ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice told the newspaper that Hennessey's decision was unfortunate.
Immigration attorney Francisco Hernandez told Fox News on Saturday that the city still has to hold suspects for 72 hours if federal immigration officials ask.
"That is the law," he said. "The question is whether they are going to be reporting people that are committing speeding tickets or small violations rather than the felonies or criminal people that should be deported under the criminal alien program."
Hernandez said that approach is the one being used across the country.
But Mike Cutter, a former senior special agent for the now defunct U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), sought to highlight the significance of the program by estimating that about half of the FBI's 10 most wanted get arrested for motor vehicle violations.
"If you have somebody in custody who is an illegal alien, it's important that immigration does get notified," he said, arguing that the debate is minimizing the reason for immigration laws in the first place. He said the law lists categories of illegal immigrants that cross the border because they know they couldn't get through the inspections process, including terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, human rights violators and war criminals.
"So if you have somebody who ran the border, somebody whose presence is illegal and you have them in custody, it's in everyone's best interest, including the people in the immigrant communities who very often fall victim to criminal aliens, to have ICE pick them and let ICE make a determination as to whether or not these folks are a priority to remove," he said.
But Hernandez said law enforcement does not have the resources to arrest everyone stopped for a speeding ticket.
"We have to focus our resources on things that are more serious and people that have actual criminal warrants for serious offenses," he said.
The debate over the ICE program is playing out across the country as federal authorities aim to achieve nationwide coverage in 2013. It currently is in effect in more than 1,200 jurisdictions in 42 states.
Immigration officials say the goal is to ensure illegal immigrants who commit crimes are flagged and deported. Nationwide, about 26 percent of those deported under program have been convicted of major drug offenses or violent crimes.
Some communities have welcomed the program as a cost savings measure and a way to ensure illegal immigrants who commit crimes are not released back into their neighborhoods. In Colorado, for example, lawmakers were considering a measure to withhold funding from localities that refused to participate, but it failed.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/07/san-francisco-stop-detaining-arrested-immigrants-deportation/
-
Texas Moves to Crack Down on Cities Protecting Illegal Immigrants
Published May 10, 2011
FoxNews.com
Four months after Gov. Rick Perry put out an urgent request to wrap up a bill cracking down on cities providing sanctuary to illegal immigrants, the Texas House passed it Monday night, advancing it to the state Senate, which is expected to approve it and send it to Perry's desk.
Under the bill, police officers in so-called "sanctuary cities" will be able to question detained suspects about their immigration status even if their bosses disapprove.
The term "sanctuary cities" is used to describe places where local officials refuse to enforce federal immigration laws and undocumented workers are free to seek jobs, housing or local government services without fear of deportation.
The bill doesn't go as far as Arizona's requirement that police check people's immigration status, but it prohibits cities or police departments from telling officers not to enforce immigration laws. Cities that fail to comply would relinquish state grant funds.
Many sheriffs and city police chiefs have criticized the bill, saying they are already helping officials prosecute and deport illegal immigrants but don't want more mandates from the state. Other critics said the bill could allow local police agencies to become de-facto immigration enforcement agents and let rank-and-file officers spend all the time they want enforcing immigration laws no matter what managers want.
But the GOP-led House looked past those objections and approved the measure 100-47 after Republicans moved to cut off all debate on the issue.
The vote came on the eve of Obama's first trip as president to the U.S.-Mexico border, where he planned to continue his recent push to revive legislative efforts to remake the nation's immigration laws.
In the absence of a sweeping national law, many statehouses have taken immigration matters into their own hands. In 2010, a record number of laws and resolutions were passed by state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, which calculated that 46 states and the District of Columbia had passed 346 measures, with an additional 10 having fallen from gubernatorial vetoes.
And the U.S. House is considering legislation that would slash federal funding for "sanctuary cities."
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey released Tuesday found that 59 percent of likely voters favor the legislation, 28 percent oppose it and 13 percent are undecided. But 55 percent think Congress is unlikely to pass the bill. The poll, taken May 7, of 1,000 likely U.S. voters, had a margin of error of 3 points.
An estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants live in Texas, according to the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington. Nationwide, the numbers declined between 2007 and 2009, from 12 million to 11.1 million, the first significant drop after two decades of growth, attributed in large part to a receding economy. But the combined population of illegal immigrants in Texas, Oklahoma and Louisiana went up by a statistically significant 240,000, the center reported last month.
The debate over the bill in Texas, a state heavily dominated by Republicans, has been inflamed by racial allegations.
While supporters say it's needed to stop crime committed by illegal immigrants, critics say it would lead to racial profiling, detract from real police work and allow rogue agents to harass Hispanics.
"Now you'll get stopped for driving while Mexican," said Democratic Rep. Rene Oliveira. "We know that there are people out there who will do racial profiling. ... Now they're going to have a blanket amnesty to do it."
Republican Rep. Leo Berman took offense at the suggestion that people who supported the bill were motivated by racial fears.
"I don't have a racist bone in my body," said Berman. "We have Hispanic government in San Antonio. We have many Hispanic police officers."
Rep. Jose Aliseda, a Mexican immigrant who rose to become a Republican legislator, accused Democrats of "grandstanding" and said he had "brown skin" but was not afraid to give police more authority to police in immigration matters.
Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles and a former aide to President George W. Bush, dismissed the racial allegations as politics as usual by the far left.
"Frankly, the far left is using that argument to scare Latinos," he told Fox News. "It's the historic argument of the left, that you're going to be discriminated against, they're coming after you, they're racist. Democrats are good people, compassionate. That is a very simplistic argument that civil rights groups tied to the left are trying to use."
But Aguilar said Latinos in the end will see through it.
Republican Rep. Burt Solomons, author of the bill, helped tack on softening amendments that would provide a limited exemption for hospitals and school districts. But police officers who work for hospitals or school districts would still be given authority to help enforce immigration law.
"The bill is a prohibition against policies, not a requirement to do anything," Solomons said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/10/texas-moves-crack-cities-protecting-illegal-immigrants/
-
Bama's relection base of racist blacks, illegals, gays, and govt workers wont be happy.
-
Megyn Kelly Eviscerates Obama Administration’s Refusal to Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities
By Curtis Houck
July 9, 2015
Fox News Channel host Megyn Kelly tore into the Obama administration at the top of Wednesday’s Kelly File for both their inability to comment on the illegal immigrant allegedly at the center of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle’s murder in San Francisco and refusal to crack down on sanctuary cities like the far-left Bay Area city.
Kelly ruled that the American people deserve “a direct, straightforward, simple answer” to whether or not President Obama thinks San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi made a mistake in releasing illegal immigrant Francisco Sanchez prior to his alleged murder of Steinle as well as a denouncement of a police that she argued has led to “lawlessness at the local and federal level."
After laying out the facts of the murder case, Kelly then played a clip of reporter asking White Press Secretary Josh Earnest about Mirkarimi’s decision to which Earnest declined to comment “as it relates to this specific case.”
Following the clip, Kelly rebuffed Earnest by stating that “[t]his cannot be turfed to Homeland Security” and “[t]he White House owes the public an answer, a direct, straightforward, simple answer because it was this administration that apparently stopped a measure to combat sanctuary cities like the one in San Francisco in the first place.”
After having expressed the need for Congress to mandate that local authorities cooperate with ICE in a congressional hearing on March 19, Kelly explained that the Obama White House joined with “the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others” to have Saldaña undergo “a shocking about-face” on the issue and essentially reject the pleas she had made the day before.
Kelly further pointed to the likelihood that the Obama White House joined with “the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others” to have Saldaña undergo “a shocking about-face” after having expressed the need for Congress to mandate that local authorities cooperate with ICE.
Late speaking with The Five co-host and former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, Kelly demanded that the administration explain “their ongoing support for these policies” since, in the end, it’s the President who’s “in charge of all of” the executive branch.
Thus, Kelly added: “He can't dodge responsibility for the policies he refuses to support at the federal level. The laws that are on the books by saying, take it up with Saldaña or Jeh Johnson. They answer to him.”
Continuing to hold little back, Kelly castigated the administration for engaging in “lawlessness”:
He allowed this to happen. They – the administration knew the person he placed in charge of ICE was telling Congress, ‘yes, help us, get these cities into compliance’ and someone took her behind the wood shed and said you’re reversing that explicitly and now they don't want to answer for it because they know the press will be too lazy to hold them to account. It is lawlessness.
The relevant portions of the transcript from FNC’s The Kelly File on July 8 can be found below.
FNC’s The Kelly File
July 8, 2015
9:00 p.m. Eastern
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Breaking Tonight; White House Ducks San Francisco Question]
MEGYN KELLY: In the five days since an illegal immigrant shot and killed Kate, a 32-year-old woman, shot at random on a pier, this story has become increasingly ugly. First for San Francisco and now for the White House and President Obama. She was killed while walking with her dad in a popular and public location, allegedly by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had managed to put multiple felonies on his record as he kept coming back. Francisco Sanchez told police he had gone to San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city where he was less likely to be deported and sure enough, when he was being held on drug charges last March, the San Francisco Sheriff's Office decided to release him rather than have the feds deport him, saying that is their policy, but their policy undermines federal law.
(....)
KELLY: This cannot be turfed to Homeland Security. The White House owes the public an answer, a direct, straightforward, simple answer because it was this administration that apparently stopped a measure to combat sanctuary cities like the one in San Francisco in the first place. In fact, The Kelly File has unearthed direct evidence that the administration has no interest in cracking down on sanctuary cities and here is the proof for you to see for yourself. Listen to the head of ICE or Immigration and Customs Enforcement on this very issue less than four months ago. This is Thursday, March 19, 2015 and Ms. Saldaña on the subject of cities that put immigrant felons back on the streets.
ICE DIRECTOR SARAH SALDANA [on 03/19/15]: Last calendar year, state and local jurisdictions rejected more than 12,000 ICE detainer requests. These are convicted criminals?
UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN [on 03/19/15]: Would it help you if we clarified the law to make it clear that it was mandatory that those local communities cooperate with you?
SALDANA [on 03/19/15]: Thank you, amen, yes.
KELLY: Thank you. Amen, yes. Crack down on the sanctuary cities is what she said, but the very next day, Friday March 20, a complete reversal after the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others pressured the White House and presto, the head of ICE makes a shocking about face. This time in writing, though, saying, quote, “[a]ny effort at federal legislation now to mandate state and local law enforcement’s compliance with ICE detainers will, in our view, be a highly counterproductive step and lead to more resistance and less cooperation in overall efforts to promote public safety.” What happened to thank you, amen yes a day earlier? And now, after clear evidence that it is not interested in a sanctuary city crackdown, this administration tells reporters it can't comment on whether the President backs the sheriff or the policies in this case?
(....)
KELLY: They have to got to speak to their ongoing support for these policies. It isn't okay to try to turf it to Homeland Security. Who ultimately runs Homeland Security? President Obama is in charge of all of it. He can't dodge responsibility for the policies he refuses to support at the federal level. The laws that are on the books by saying, take it up with Saldaña or Jeh Johnson. They answer to him.
(...)
KELLY: He allowed this to happen. They – the administration knew the person he placed in charge of ICE was telling Congress, ‘yes, help us, get these cities into compliance’ and someone took her behind the wood shed and said you’re reversing that explicitly and now they don't want to answer for it because they know the press will be too lazy to hold them to account. It is lawlessness.
DANA PERINO: And note she wasn't asking for more money, okay? She was asking for a clarification of the law that the federal law trumps which the federal law does. You can’t, as a city – you don't get to pick and choose which laws you going to enforce or defend. For example, in the Bush administration comes into office in 2001, they inherit all sorts lawsuits that the Clinton administration filed. We didn't drop them. We actually had to defend the D.C. gun ban because that was the law and that’s what you had to do....She wasn't asking for money. She was asking for help from the federal government – from the Congress to help them tell the cities to do what the law already says they have to do.
KELLY: What the law requires. That’s why I say it is lawlessness at the local and federal level.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2015/07/09/megyn-kelly-eviscerates-obama-administrations-refusal-crack-down#.re5ksd:2MgC
-
Megyn Kelly Eviscerates Obama Administration’s Refusal to Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities
By Curtis Houck
July 9, 2015
Fox News Channel host Megyn Kelly tore into the Obama administration at the top of Wednesday’s Kelly File for both their inability to comment on the illegal immigrant allegedly at the center of 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle’s murder in San Francisco and refusal to crack down on sanctuary cities like the far-left Bay Area city.
Kelly ruled that the American people deserve “a direct, straightforward, simple answer” to whether or not President Obama thinks San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi made a mistake in releasing illegal immigrant Francisco Sanchez prior to his alleged murder of Steinle as well as a denouncement of a police that she argued has led to “lawlessness at the local and federal level."
After laying out the facts of the murder case, Kelly then played a clip of reporter asking White Press Secretary Josh Earnest about Mirkarimi’s decision to which Earnest declined to comment “as it relates to this specific case.”
Following the clip, Kelly rebuffed Earnest by stating that “[t]his cannot be turfed to Homeland Security” and “[t]he White House owes the public an answer, a direct, straightforward, simple answer because it was this administration that apparently stopped a measure to combat sanctuary cities like the one in San Francisco in the first place.”
After having expressed the need for Congress to mandate that local authorities cooperate with ICE in a congressional hearing on March 19, Kelly explained that the Obama White House joined with “the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others” to have Saldaña undergo “a shocking about-face” on the issue and essentially reject the pleas she had made the day before.
Kelly further pointed to the likelihood that the Obama White House joined with “the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others” to have Saldaña undergo “a shocking about-face” after having expressed the need for Congress to mandate that local authorities cooperate with ICE.
Late speaking with The Five co-host and former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, Kelly demanded that the administration explain “their ongoing support for these policies” since, in the end, it’s the President who’s “in charge of all of” the executive branch.
Thus, Kelly added: “He can't dodge responsibility for the policies he refuses to support at the federal level. The laws that are on the books by saying, take it up with Saldaña or Jeh Johnson. They answer to him.”
Continuing to hold little back, Kelly castigated the administration for engaging in “lawlessness”:
He allowed this to happen. They – the administration knew the person he placed in charge of ICE was telling Congress, ‘yes, help us, get these cities into compliance’ and someone took her behind the wood shed and said you’re reversing that explicitly and now they don't want to answer for it because they know the press will be too lazy to hold them to account. It is lawlessness.
The relevant portions of the transcript from FNC’s The Kelly File on July 8 can be found below.
FNC’s The Kelly File
July 8, 2015
9:00 p.m. Eastern
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Breaking Tonight; White House Ducks San Francisco Question]
MEGYN KELLY: In the five days since an illegal immigrant shot and killed Kate, a 32-year-old woman, shot at random on a pier, this story has become increasingly ugly. First for San Francisco and now for the White House and President Obama. She was killed while walking with her dad in a popular and public location, allegedly by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times and had managed to put multiple felonies on his record as he kept coming back. Francisco Sanchez told police he had gone to San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city where he was less likely to be deported and sure enough, when he was being held on drug charges last March, the San Francisco Sheriff's Office decided to release him rather than have the feds deport him, saying that is their policy, but their policy undermines federal law.
(....)
KELLY: This cannot be turfed to Homeland Security. The White House owes the public an answer, a direct, straightforward, simple answer because it was this administration that apparently stopped a measure to combat sanctuary cities like the one in San Francisco in the first place. In fact, The Kelly File has unearthed direct evidence that the administration has no interest in cracking down on sanctuary cities and here is the proof for you to see for yourself. Listen to the head of ICE or Immigration and Customs Enforcement on this very issue less than four months ago. This is Thursday, March 19, 2015 and Ms. Saldaña on the subject of cities that put immigrant felons back on the streets.
ICE DIRECTOR SARAH SALDANA [on 03/19/15]: Last calendar year, state and local jurisdictions rejected more than 12,000 ICE detainer requests. These are convicted criminals?
UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSMAN [on 03/19/15]: Would it help you if we clarified the law to make it clear that it was mandatory that those local communities cooperate with you?
SALDANA [on 03/19/15]: Thank you, amen, yes.
KELLY: Thank you. Amen, yes. Crack down on the sanctuary cities is what she said, but the very next day, Friday March 20, a complete reversal after the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others pressured the White House and presto, the head of ICE makes a shocking about face. This time in writing, though, saying, quote, “[a]ny effort at federal legislation now to mandate state and local law enforcement’s compliance with ICE detainers will, in our view, be a highly counterproductive step and lead to more resistance and less cooperation in overall efforts to promote public safety.” What happened to thank you, amen yes a day earlier? And now, after clear evidence that it is not interested in a sanctuary city crackdown, this administration tells reporters it can't comment on whether the President backs the sheriff or the policies in this case?
(....)
KELLY: They have to got to speak to their ongoing support for these policies. It isn't okay to try to turf it to Homeland Security. Who ultimately runs Homeland Security? President Obama is in charge of all of it. He can't dodge responsibility for the policies he refuses to support at the federal level. The laws that are on the books by saying, take it up with Saldaña or Jeh Johnson. They answer to him.
(...)
KELLY: He allowed this to happen. They – the administration knew the person he placed in charge of ICE was telling Congress, ‘yes, help us, get these cities into compliance’ and someone took her behind the wood shed and said you’re reversing that explicitly and now they don't want to answer for it because they know the press will be too lazy to hold them to account. It is lawlessness.
DANA PERINO: And note she wasn't asking for more money, okay? She was asking for a clarification of the law that the federal law trumps which the federal law does. You can’t, as a city – you don't get to pick and choose which laws you going to enforce or defend. For example, in the Bush administration comes into office in 2001, they inherit all sorts lawsuits that the Clinton administration filed. We didn't drop them. We actually had to defend the D.C. gun ban because that was the law and that’s what you had to do....She wasn't asking for money. She was asking for help from the federal government – from the Congress to help them tell the cities to do what the law already says they have to do.
KELLY: What the law requires. That’s why I say it is lawlessness at the local and federal level.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/curtis-houck/2015/07/09/megyn-kelly-eviscerates-obama-administrations-refusal-crack-down#.re5ksd:2MgC
Megyn Kelly.......isn't she cute?
-
BUSH used to really crack down on sanctuary cities, which is why I'm so angry Obama isn't doing it.
Right?
-
BUSH used to really crack down on sanctuary cities, which is why I'm so angry Obama isn't doing it.
Right?
Not to mention we all know Megyn Kelly is a genius and knows what Obama should be doing ::) ::)
-
Not to mention we all know Megyn Kelly is a genius and knows what Obama should be doing ::) ::)
the best thing about Meygn Kelly is the mute button.
-
the best thing about Meygn Kelly is the mute button.
but then we wouldn't hear such gems as Santa Claus must absolutely be white :D
-
BUSH used to really crack down on sanctuary cities, which is why I'm so angry Obama isn't doing it.
Right?
But, but...Bush did it.
Weak shit according to you.
Except when you're doing it.
Right?
-
But, but...Bush did it.
Weak shit according to you.
Except when you're doing it.
Right?
the Q is, why isn't a lib president that wants amnesty, enforcing a policy wanted only by the far-right wing of the repubs party?
lol, i mean, when you phrase it that way....
-
Courts could give San Francisco sanctuary in potential suit over illegal immigrant policy
By Perry Chiaramonte
Published July 13, 2015
FoxNews.com
While Kathryn Steinle's parents are still reeling from their loss and San Francisco and federal authorities point fingers at each other, the possibility of a lawsuit overturning the city's illegal immigration policy would appear to be remote, based on past attempts in other cities.
The parents of Steinle, whose death allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant in San Francisco sparked a national debate about so-called sanctuary cities, said they have not begun to consider the politically-charged policy that some blame for their daughter’s death.
Liz Sullivan, Steinle's mother, said she and her husband, who held his daughter as she died after being shot while strolling through a tourist area on July 1, are still grieving for their 32-year-old daughter. Although critics blame the policy embraced by San Francisco and more than 100 other cities of blocking federal deportation of illegal immigrant criminals, Sullivan said she hasn’t considered legal action.
“We’re still reeling from the loss,” Sullivan told FoxNews.com. “We weren’t even speaking about political [ramifications] until after the memorial service.”
“Bottom line, Congress needs to shut down the civil law. The American public is in danger.”
- Dan Stein, President of Federation for American Immigration Reform
Families of other victims of illegal immigrant killers have sued sanctuary cities for violating federal law and putting their loved ones in danger, but no such cases have been successful. However, in the Steinle case, federal officials have placed the blame for five-times-deported Francisco Sanchez being on the streets squarely on San Francisco’s “sanctuary” policy. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had asked the San Francisco Sheriff's Officer to turn Sanchez over after his marijuana possession charge was adjudicated so he could be sent back to Mexico, but the city freed him instead.
"Here's a jurisdiction that's not even honoring our detainer for someone who clearly is an egregious offender," an ICE official told FoxNews.com.
The city of San Francisco has been sued in a similar situation once before. On June 22, 2008, illegal immigrant and MS-13 member Edwin Ramos killed Anthony Bologna and his sons, Michael and Matthew, near the family's home in the city. Two months later, Bologna's widow, Danielle Bologna, sued San Francisco, claiming that its sanctuary city policy contributed significantly to the three deaths. The case bounced around, moving from federal court to state court before a judge ruled in 2010 that the city wasn't at fault, in part because the sanctuary city policy was intended "to improve immigration controls" rather than prevent crime.
In another California case, Jamiel and Anita Shaw sued the city of Los Angeles for wrongful death after their son, Jamiel Jr., a high school football star with a scholarship offer from Stanford, was killed by an illegal immigrant gang member. That case also was thrown out by a state judge. The parents and their supporters next sought to pass a law that would deny sanctuary city protections to illegal immigrants if they are members of gangs, but "Jamiel's Law" never made it onto the ballot.
If Steinle's family sues, it could be a tough case to win, said Anna R. Yum, a criminal defense attorney based in San Diego and a Fox News contributor.
“The main issue is whether the Steinle family could file a lawsuit against the city on the theory that it provided sanctuary to illegal immigrants by shielding them from deportation and thereby causing the murder of Kate Steinle,” Yum said. “State law typically protects cities from being sued for injuries unless a city violated a law and caused harm that a statute was designed to prevent."
The key, according to Yum, would be showing that the city violated a state or federal law aimed at preventing violent crimes by illegal immigrants.
The real solution, according to Dan Stein, president of Federation for American Immigration Reform, is for the federal government to pressure cities to comply with federal policy and detain illegal immigrants until they can be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.
“The American public is in danger,” Stein said. “Congress has a right to keep the detainers mandatory. These laws were created for cities and Congress to work together and what you are seeing is a breakdown of that system. And it’s intentional and for political reasons.”
On Friday, San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi blasted back at Mayor Ed Lee and federal officials who have blamed his department for Sanchez's release, and said he would review how his department and federal authorities communicate.
"A tragedy of this dimension requires us all to step back and look at our policies," he said.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/13/courts-could-give-san-francisco-sanctuary-in-potential-suit-over-illegal/?intcmp=latestnews
-
Number of sanctuary cities grows to 340; thousands of illegals released to commit new crimes
(http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2015/10/08/AP_251573925916_c0-133-3000-1881_s561x327.jpg?96fbe3a7cbbe0f2e498d5200bc677e115b80da9a)
Jim Steinle, second from left, father of Kathryn Steinle, in photograph, testifies next to Montgomery County (Md.) Police Department. Chief J. Thomas Manger, right, before a Senate Judiciary hearing to examine the Administration’s immigration enforcement policies, in Washington, Tuesday, July ... more >
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, October 8, 2015
The list of sanctuary cities has grown to more than 340, and they shielded an average of 1,000 immigrants a month from deportation last year — and more than 2,000 of those released have already been arrested for yet more crimes, according to a report being released Thursday by the Center for Immigration Studies.
Among those released are illegal immigrants accused of murders and brutal assaults, said Jessica Vaughan, the author of the report, which comes just as the Senate is poised to begin debating legislation to try to crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions.
Santa Clara County Jail in California alone released some 1,349 immigrants that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents had asked be held for pickup, the new report says. Los Angeles released 572.
“Our elected officials must not sit back and watch these sanctuary jurisdictions continue to release thousands of criminal aliens back into our communities in defiance of ICE efforts to deport them, and then witness the harm that inevitably ensues when these removable offenders strike again,” said Jessica Vaughan, the report’s author.
Sanctuary cities exploded onto front pages in July, when a Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old woman, was killed while walking with her father in San Francisco, and an illegal immigrant released by the county was charged with the shooting.
Ms. Vaughan said San Francisco ranked eighth worst on the list of offenders, releasing some 252 immigrants in 2014 that federal officials had asked be held.
All told, there are now 340 jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate to some extent with federal deportation requests, Ms. Vaughan said, citing ICE numbers. She keeps a tally listing most of those jurisdictions, and recently added nine new names to its list, including Prince George’s County and Montgomery County in Maryland, and Chesterfield County in Virginia.
Ms. Vaughan keeps a map of the known sanctuary jurisdictions at: http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map, giving residents a chance to see if they live under one of the controversial policies.
Immigrant-rights advocates defend sanctuary cities, saying that worrying about deportations is a job for the federal government, not local officers. The advocates also say that when local police do cooperate with ICE, it strains relationships with Hispanic communities in particular, who then fear reporting other serious crimes.
The conflict has left Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson in the middle. He scrapped the mandatory Secure Communities program that had pushed state and local prisons and jails to hold illegal immigrants, bowing to legal challenges to the program.
But he has instead tried to earn buy-in for a voluntary approach, known as the Priority Enforcement Program or PEP, which asks communities to cooperate, and promises to only ask for the most serious of criminals to be turned over.
On Wednesday, Mr. Johnson defended progress in getting jurisdictions to sign up, saying 13 of the 25 biggest sanctuary localities have expressed interest in cooperating in the PEP.
“More are coming on line and I expect we will reach agreement with major cities in the near future,” the secretary said in a briefing on the state of immigration enforcement, delivered to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.
Mr. Johnson said sanctuary cities’ refusal to cooperate has dented his deportation efforts, and it’s one reason why deportations in fiscal year 2015, which ended Oct. 1, are at their lowest level in a decade, down nearly 50 percent from their peak in 2012.
The secretary said between January 2015 and June 2015 localities released more than 16,000 illegal immigrants that his agents had wanted held for deportation.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/8/number-of-sanctuary-cities-grows-to-340-thousands-/
-
Number of sanctuary cities grows to 340; thousands of illegals released to commit new crimes
Like most self-proclaimed conservative getbiggers, I never saw Sanctuary cities are a problem when they were in states like Mass (Romney, NY (Guiliani) and alaska (Palin)... it's only when 2009 arrived that I truly realized they were bad.
-
this is a national outrage and that fact that nothing is being done about it shows how sick of a state America is currently in
funny how that lady was arrested for not complying with the supreme court's gay ruling...yet this city's officials intentionally ignored the law and intentionally released felons onto the street who then murdered americans, and NOTHING AT ALL was done to THEM.
-
this is a national outrage and that fact that nothing is being done about it shows how sick of a state America is currently in
funny how that lady was arrested for not complying with the supreme court's gay ruling...yet this city's officials intentionally ignored the law and intentionally released felons onto the street who then murdered americans, and NOTHING AT ALL was done to THEM.
Yep. Agree.
-
So the GOP complains about "states rights" and now bitches at Obama for not stepping in to squash state's rights for sanctuary cities. ::)
-
So the GOP complains about "states rights" and now bitches at Obama for not stepping in to squash state's rights for sanctuary cities. ::)
Vince...people make fun of you...but every now and then you say something quite amazing....good job
-
So the GOP complains about "states rights" and now bitches at Obama for not stepping in to squash state's rights for sanctuary cities. ::)
States don't have the right to violate federal law.
-
State don't have the right to violate federal law.
THIS is what is wrong with the modern day republican party.
Shit all over dems/liberals all day long, but happily shit on states rights.
-
State don't have the right to violate federal law.
Texas has been doing it with abortion. Despite it being legal, the state has used everything from injunctions to banana peels to outlaw it completely.....all to score political points
-
Texas has been doing it with abortion. Despite it being legal, the state has used everything from injunctions to banana peels to outlaw it completely.....all to score political points
Ohio as well...John Kasich has conspired to shut down a lot of abortion clinics in the state....he smiles befoe the cameras but he's a snake oil salesman
-
Texas has been doing it with abortion. Despite it being legal, the state has used everything from injunctions to banana peels to outlaw it completely.....all to score political points
Not the same at all. States are allowed to place restrictions on certain kinds of abortion. Completely different than a state or city willfully violating federal immigration law.
-
Rubio veers right in latest immigration twist
After largely disavowing his attempt at comprehensive reform, the 2016 GOP hopeful backs a bill to crack down on 'sanctuary cities.'
By SEUNG MIN KIM
10/20/15
(http://static2.politico.com/dims4/default/1ddcbaf/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fcf%2Fe8%2F3dff067f4ff39495e1e245a1902d%2Fmarco-rubio-ap.jpg)
Marco Rubio’s complex history on immigration will be back in the spotlight when the GOP-led Senate takes up the sanctuary cities measure. | AP Photo
Marco Rubio’s support for comprehensive immigration reform two years ago remains a major question mark hovering over his presidential campaign, even as he’s cracked top-tier status in the GOP field. On Tuesday, the freshman senator’s tightrope walk on the issue will continue, when the Senate takes up a bill, co-sponsored by Rubio and favored by the party’s staunchest immigration opponents, to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities.
But Rubio’s attempts to explain his trajectory on immigration — from chief GOP advocate of sweeping reform to largely disavowing that effort and now advocating an enforcement-first approach — is drawing criticism from all sides.
“He’s being very sloppy in the way he’s answering questions,” said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the American Principles Project’s Latino Partnership, which pushes conservative causes among Latinos. “He’s being very vague.”
Immigration advocates who were Rubio’s allies just two years ago are now threatening electoral retribution if he becomes the Republican nominee next year. To them, Rubio’s pro-reform role in the 2013 immigration battle and his Latino heritage won’t be enough to make up for his distancing himself from his chief legislative initiative.
And among the hard right, critics of his immigration stances say Rubio’s views have changed little in the campaign: The Florida senator still espouses positions on the high-octane issue that are largely unpopular with Republican primary voters.
“At this point, there’s very little he’s backed off” of, said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, one of Rubio’s chief GOP nemeses on immigration. “On a series of issues, I don’t think he’s ever backed off of the fundamentals of the bill.”
Rubio’s complex history on immigration will be back in the spotlight when the GOP-led Senate takes up the sanctuary cities measure, which was spearheaded by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), one of the most hard-line opponents of looser immigration policies. Sanctuary cities are localities that decline to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, believing their policies can invite racial profiling and harm local policing strategies. When Vitter rolled out the bill earlier this month, Rubio was one of more than a half-dozen Republican co-sponsors.
The measure on the Senate floor Tuesday would impose a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for some immigrants who repeatedly try to enter the United States illegally. Vitter and other conservative Senate Republicans — such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz — have been on the attack against sanctuary cities since July, when authorities say a Mexican immigrant in the country illegally shot and killed a young woman in San Francisco. Most Senate Democrats will vote to block it, aides said Monday.
Understanding Rubio’s immigration views requires grasping his positions on both policy and procedure.
Rubio has not disavowed his stances on immigration during his presidential campaign. He still supports bolstering security measures, like more resources on the border and a mandatory employment-verification system. He also wants to reform the immigration system for highly skilled workers, seeing it as an economic boon to the United States. Finally, he would ultimately find a way for the 11 million undocumented immigrants here to obtain legal status.
All those provisions were essentially in the Senate bill Rubio pushed two years ago, and they are the three prongs of his immigration platform outlined in his book, “American Dreams.” Rubio said the lesson he took from his 2013 experience is that it’s impossible to get a comprehensive bill through a divided Congress, so a piecemeal approach is more effective.
But breaking up the issue into chunks — Rubio’s current refrain — would only ensure that a pathway to citizenship would never actually begin, veterans of immigration battles in Washington say.
Rubio emphasizes border security and stopping illegal immigration, but declines to lay out specifics on what that would look like. In an interview last month with Fox News, he said the debate about legalization shouldn’t even begin until after illegal immigration is halted and the legal immigration system is fixed – and it's difficult to discern what the overall time frame would actually be because he isn't specific about what it means to stop illegal migration.
“The big difference between Rubio’s views in 2013 versus Rubio of 2015 is that he does not want to be pinned down on when exactly legalization would begin,” said Kerri Talbot, former chief counsel for Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and one of the key staffers behind the Senate "Gang of Eight" bill. “It seems he does not want legalization to begin while he would be president.”
On the campaign trail, Rubio also stresses opposition to a so-called special pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants – meaning a way to eventually become a citizen that isn’t offered to other immigrants. Talbot said Senate negotiators wrote the Gang of Eight bill in a way that would allow Rubio to say there was no special path, because other immigrants – such as refugees who had already been in the United States – could technically also qualify for that pathway to citizenship.
“If you create a special pathway, you make it impossible to do anything on immigration,” Rubio told CNBC this month. “The argument you hear from people is: ‘Why should someone who came here illegally be able to access citizenship or a green card faster than someone who came here legally?’”
Still, Rubio’s tactics have allowed him to play both sides of the immigration divide, argued Frank Sharry, a longtime immigration advocate who leads the left-leaning pro-reform group America’s Voice.
“He’s saying to donors and to Latinos that I’m still for a path to citizenship, I’m still for immigration reform. But I’ve learned the hard way” regarding a comprehensive bill, Sharry said. “It’s very clever. It sounds reasonable. But for people who actually know what it takes to pass legislation, especially immigration reform legislation, it’s so hollow. It has all the substance of Cheetos.”
Aguilar, an immigration official under President George W. Bush, agreed.
“How long will it take? Give us an idea. How long it will take to get there?” he said. “Ten years, he supports a path to a green card which means a path to citizenship. The debate happens 10 years then? Or now? This is the problem.”
Aguilar added: “That is the kind of sloppiness that I think opens the door for a lot of people, Democrats in a general election, to question if he’s really committed to immigration reform.”
Rubio's campaign spokesman, Alex Conant, pointed to the senator’s book when asked about Rubio’s immigration positions. He declined to respond when asked how a President Rubio would deem the border secure, or how long the entire immigration process under Rubio’s presidency would take.
Kica Matos, director of immigrant rights and racial justice at the Center for Community Change, argued that Rubio’s positions will spur a backlash among key voting blocs in 2016, adding: “Being Latino is not enough. You have to show some level of commitment to issues that affect the Latino community.”
When asked how Rubio has handled immigration on the campaign trail, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) responded: “Poorly.”
“He should just affirm what he believed in and what he worked with his colleagues on,” Gutierrez said. “I was very, very grateful to him and said so publicly on numerous occasions … You know, in these days, you have to have backbone.”
On the sanctuary cities issue, Rubio’s sponsorship of that bill came after the conservative outlet Breitbart News pummeled the Florida senator for not yet signing on to an enforcement-focused immigration bill.
Conant indicated that the coverage wasn’t a factor, saying the senator co-sponsored the Vitter legislation as soon as it was available. Rubio’s Senate aides, Conant said, had long been in contact with other key GOP offices, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, on crafting a sanctuary cities measure.
But Rubio has his defenders. Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, a Gang of Eight member who has had his own quibbles with the sanctuary cities measure, said Rubio’s endorsement of the immigration crackdown bill did not violate “at all” the basic principles of the 2013 bill.
“Most of us would still move ahead with comprehensive reform if we could,” Flake said. “But absent that, most of us are willing to move ahead piecemeal if we can."
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/marco-rubio-immigration-sanctuary-cities-214931#ixzz3p7spkLNh
-
When a woman in West Virginia defies a court order, the sky falls. When cities defy federal law, aided by the president, this is somehow acceptable.
Senate Dems block anti-sanctuary city bill
Published October 20, 2015
FoxNews.com
Senate Democrats on Tuesday blocked a Republican-backed bill that would crack down on so-called sanctuary cities by threatening to withhold funds to local governments that don't cooperate with federal immigration officials.
The bill failed on a 54-45 vote. It needed 60 to advance.
The Stop Sanctuary Cities Act became a lightning rod issue ahead of the vote, as GOP sponsors tried to peel off just a few Democrats to support it while Democratic leaders blasted the legislation as counterproductive. The White House issued a formal veto threat Tuesday morning, while the chamber's top Democrat tried to discredit the measure by calling it "The Donald Trump Act."
But GOP backers cast the legislation as a critical first step toward reining in the exploding, and risky, practice of cities and counties ignoring federal immigration law.
"Sanctuary cities and the associated violent crimes by illegal immigrants are reaching a critical point, and we cannot wait any longer to take action to protect Americans here at home," sponsor Sen. David Vitter, R-La., said in a statement.
The bill was considered months after a young woman's murder in San Francisco allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant touched off a national debate over immigration law.
Vitter had urged colleagues to "remember Kate Steinle's vicious murder and the tens of thousands of crimes committed by illegal immigrants within our borders."
Steinle, 32, was killed July 1 while walking with her dad along a San Francisco pier. The suspect, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, had a felony record and had been deported five times -- but despite a federal immigration detainer request, the city sheriff released him once an old marijuana charge was dropped. San Francisco is among hundreds of so-called sanctuary cities that do not cooperate fully with federal immigration officials
The White House, though, claimed in a written statement that the bill "fails to offer comprehensive reforms needed to fix the Nation's broken immigration laws and undermines current Administration efforts to remove the most dangerous convicted criminals and to work collaboratively with State and local law enforcement agencies."
According to the White House, it would "essentially turn State and local law enforcement into Federal immigration law enforcement officials, in certain circumstances."
The legislation would have made it illegal for local governments to ignore immigration-related detainers -- federal requests to notify them before releasing an illegal immigrant so they can take custody -- and to bar local officials from sharing immigration information with federal agents.
The bill called for withholding certain federal funding to any local governments that flout the policy.
The issue, though, became a political football not only on the presidential campaign trail but on Capitol Hill.
In advance of the vote, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on the floor:
"This vile legislation might as well be called 'The Donald Trump Act.' Like the disgusting and outrageous language championed by Donald Trump, this legislation paints all immigrants as 'criminals and rapists.'"
As Congress stalled on the sanctuary city matter, some state governments already are taking action. North Carolina lawmakers recently voted to make their state the first prohibiting such policies at the local government level.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/20/republicans-push-for-sanctuary-city-crackdown-in-key-senate-vote/?intcmp=hpbt1
-
Rubio's "complex history on immigration"? Why don't they call it what it is?
-
Rubio's "complex history on immigration"? Why don't they call it what it is?
LOL @ complex. He's a flip flopper.
He wants to end sanctuary cities... Weird, he's been senator for quite some time now... hasn't mentioned much about 5 major cities/7 counties in his own state ;)
Florida is home to seven “sanctuary counties.” The sanctuary counties are: Pasco, Hillsborough, Pinellas, Hernando, Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach.
They ignore federal law authorizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to administratively deport illegal aliens without seeking criminal warrants or convictions from federal, state, or local courts.
http://drrichswier.com/2015/07/09/forget-sanctuary-cities-florida-has-7-sanctuary-counties/
-
When a woman in West Virginia defies a court order, the sky falls. When cities defy federal law, aided by the president, this is somehow acceptable.
Senate Dems block anti-sanctuary city bill
Published October 20, 2015
this is the key point and it is astounding. especially when unlike the gay marriage thing, it is directly responsible for the deaths of American citizens.
the fact that the Dems can openly block this and totally get a pass with the media...is sickening beyond belief. anyone voting against this should be strung up for treason.
-
Its friggen ridiculous and before we get into so BS states rights thing....this is an inherent power of the US central Gov..to defend the borders and they are not.
-
Rudy was on MSNBC this morning, trying to defend his own use of sanctuaty cities.
He said him keeping NYC was okay - because he only allowed "law abiding illegals" to stay. Um, if you're *undocumented*, you are illegal and breaking the law DAILY just by being here, much less all the paperwork you're fudging to stay here.
Rudy said sanctuary cities were okay, as long as you actually deported the violent criminals. bag of shit. Rubio and Jeb were the same way tho - illegals are everywhere in FL and nobody kicks them out. We had a cop killed a few years back (feet away from the zombicon shooting, ironically) - cop killed by an illegal who had done prison time here... ugh. why the F wasn't the illegal deported after doing his time?
-
this is the key point and it is astounding. especially when unlike the gay marriage thing, it is directly responsible for the deaths of American citizens.
the fact that the Dems can openly block this and totally get a pass with the media...is sickening beyond belief. anyone voting against this should be strung up for treason.
Bizarre world we live in sometimes.
-
Its friggen ridiculous and before we get into so BS states rights thing....this is an inherent power of the US central Gov..to defend the borders and they are not.
Correct. States don't have the right to violate federal law. Except when Emperor Obama says it's ok.
-
Correct. States don't have the right to violate federal law. Except when Emperor Obama says it's ok.
states rights.
-
states rights.
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61e9vZ9iKJL.jpg)
-
the constitition > politics.
-
the constitition > politics.
(http://i45.tinypic.com/so1k6w.jpg)
-
Good.
San Francisco sheriff known for 'sanctuary city' defense loses re-election bid
Published November 04, 2015
FoxNews.com
The San Francisco sheriff who over the summer became embroiled in a national debate over "sanctuary city" policies on Tuesday lost his bid for re-election amid a host of local controversies.
Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, 54, was defeated by Vicki Hennessy, a former sheriff's official who had the endorsement of San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and the sheriff deputies association. As of early Wednesday morning, Hennessy had received 62 percent of the vote to just 31 percent for Mirkarimi.
Mirkarimi was the subject of national criticism after Mexican illegal immigrant Francisco Sanchez allegedly shot and killed 32-year-old Kate Steinle on San Francisco's waterfront July 1. Sanchez had been released from Mirkarimi's jail in March even though federal immigration officials had requested he be detained for possible deportation.
But since then, the sheriff's oversight of the department has been plagued by other high-profile mishaps and controversies seen as contributing to his defeat. He had his driver's license briefly suspended for failing to properly report a minor accident while driving a department-issued car, and he also flunked a marksmanship test.
Before those two incidents, a drug gang leader escaped from jail, and guards were accused of staging and gambling on inmate fights.
In November 2014, Mirkarimi also was forced to apologize for the bungled search for a San Francisco General Hospital patient whose body was found in a stairwell weeks after she wandered from her room. The sheriff is in charge of the hospital's security, but deputies didn't search the building until nine days after her disappearance. The city paid the patient's family $3 million to settle a lawsuit.
But Mirkarimi is now known nationally for his strident defense of sanctuary city policies, taking the practice to a new level under his leadership.
San Francisco declared itself a sanctuary city in 1989, passing an ordinance that bans city officials from enforcing immigration laws or asking about immigration status unless required by law or court order. A follow-up ordinance in 2013 allows detention only under a court order targeting violent felons. Last month, San Francisco's board of supervisors unanimously approved a resolution to maintain the city's sanctuary status.
San Francisco and other cities and counties have routinely ignored requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to keep people in custody. The jurisdictions say they can't hold arrestees beyond their scheduled release dates without probable cause.
Hennessy has previously said the sheriff's order barring the San Francisco jail from cooperating with immigration officials is misguided. There are cases, she said, when federal immigration officials should be notified that the jail is about to release an inmate who is in the country illegally.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/04/san-francisco-sheriff-loses-re-election-bid-amid-sanctuary-city-controversy/
-
Family of Murdered Woman Sues San Francisco over ‘Sanctuary City’ Policy
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2015/07/Screen-Shot-2015-07-03-at-6.25.58-AM-640x480.png)
Kathryn Steinle (Screenshot / Facebook)
by Joel B. Pollak
27 May 2016
According to the local CBS News affiliate in San Francisco, the lawsuit “names the city of San Francisco, former Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement” and “alleges that officials allowed Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant with a history of drug offenses, to go free and obtain the gun that killed her.”
The family’s lawyer said: “The Steinle Family hopes that their actions today will serve to highlight the lax enforcement of gun safety regulations among the law enforcement agencies involved and bureaucratic confusion so that this will not happen to others.”
According to the Los Angeles Times, the lawsuit largely focuses on a memorandum issued in March 2015 by then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, in which Mirkarimi prevented local authorities from communicating with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) about detainees.
Mirkarimi was replaced by the voters. The new sheriff, Vicki Hennessy, promised to expand the city’s cooperation with federal officials.
However, she was opposed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and local amnesty activists, who dismissed Steinle’s death as a mere unfortunate occurrence. They placed the blame at the feet of the BLM, from which the murder weapon was stolen. (The BLM is named in the lawsuit.)
On Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors approved a compromise in which local authorities would be permitted to contact ICE in cases where an inmate “has been convicted of a serious felony in the past five years or has been convicted of three felonies in specified state penal codes, such as robbery or assault with a deadly weapon, arising out of three separate incidents in the past five years,” the San Francisco Examiner reported. Other crimes, including some felonies, would still not result in an inmate being reported to ICE.
Hennessy acknowledged that the new sanctuary city policy would not have saved Kate Steinle.
The Steinle family has also expressed disappointment at being unable to convince Congress to pass “Kate’s Law,” which would prevent similar occurrences in the future by applying mandatory five-year sentences to illegal aliens who are deported and return illegally to the U.S.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/05/27/sanctuary-city-steinle-family-sues-san-francisco/
-
Another guy just had his car broken into, lost his gun plus his FBI badges and ID and some other stuff.
-
I really don't know what these guys are thinking. If you insist on leaving stuff like that in your vehicle, then better make it so a thief must figure out a way to steal the whole damn car in order to get it.
-
SF Doubles Down on Sanctuary Policy after Steinle Lawsuit Dismissal
by Lana Shadwick
17 Jan 2017
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has just announced a new campaign to support illegal aliens in his city. The announcement comes one week after a federal judge poured out the Kathryn Steinle family in the lawsuit against the city of San Francisco.
The city’s mayor is doubling-down on its commitment to illegal aliens and its sanctuary city policies.
“San Francisco is a sanctuary city and will not waiver in its commitment to protect the rights of all its residents,” Lee said as reported by KRON 4.
The mayor says the city will work together with the Human Rights Commission and the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigration Affairs in this “Equity and Immigration Services Campaign.” KRON 4 also reported that city departments will work with community organizations “to expand education and outreach, provide multilingual legal services and full scope representation for detained and non-detained clients.”
A lawyer for then-Sheriff Mirkarimi’s office was reported in September 2015 to say “Federal courts have actually held that detaining someone for ICE is unconstitutional, it’s unlawful.”
The sheriff’s department, headed by then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, released the 32-year-old woman’s alleged killer from custody approximately three months before she was shot. There was an immigration detainer on him at the time he was released and the seven-time felon had been deported five times previously.
Kathryn Steinle was walking on San Francisco’s Pier 14 with her father when she was gunned down. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez has been charged with her murder.
As reported by Breitbart News in late May, the Steinle family filed a lawsuit against the city, Sheriff Mirkarimi, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Just last week, the judge ruled that the family can sue the BLM if they can show that the killer stole the gun from the agent’s unlocked car but dismissed the claims against the city.
Congress has not passed “Kate’s Law” which was designed to hinder such tragedies in the future by requiring mandatory five-year sentences to be imposed on illegal aliens who are deported but unlawfully return to the United States. As reported by Breitbart News, the Republican-controlled Senate failed to advance legislation defunding sanctuary cities and increasing minimum punishments for previously-deported illegal aliens who return. Democrats effectively blocked its passage. As reported, the Senate voted 53-44 on Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-PA) “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act,” and 55-42 on Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) “Kate’s Law.” Each bill needed 60 votes to advance.
The trial of Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez was delayed until after the 2016 presidential election. It had been set for early December but under an agreement by Sanchez’ lawyer and prosecutors, it has been postponed until February 17.
Sanchez said he chose San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city. Breitbart’s Michelle Moons reported that the San Francisco police union posted its criticism of the city’s sanctuary city policies on Facebook: “Bottom line is a young innocent woman has been murdered in cold blood, in front of her father, by a 5 time deported illegal alien drug dealer. He is an ILLEGAL ALIEN not an undocumented immigrant and if he was where he belonged (Mexico) this innocent victim would still be alive.”
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/01/17/sf-doubles-sanctuary-policy-steinle-lawsuit-dismissal/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
-
What a difference a president makes.
Trump creates name-and-shame list to embarrass sanctuary cities
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
Thursday, January 26, 2017
President Trump on Wednesday ordered the Homeland Security Department to begin releasing a name-and-shame list of sanctuary cities, listing the specific crimes such as murder or robbery committed by those who have been released back into their communities under the sanctuary policies.
That was one of a number of less-noticed but potentially far-reaching moves tucked inside two new executive orders erasing decades of previous immigration enforcement policy and replacing it with the Trump plan, which calls for aggressive enforcement of existing laws.
Border Patrol and interior enforcement agents have been unshackled from the limits imposed by former President Barack Obama, as Mr. Trump said he wants to see them doing the jobs they were hired for.
He said he wants to enlist those local police and sheriff’s offices that are eager to enforce immigration law, and will punish those that throw up roadblocks — including the new name-and-shame list.
Some 279 cities and counties refused to cooperate on at least some deportations in 2016, accounting for 2,008 immigrants who were shielded, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Each of those immigrants’ convictions will now be publicly listed so residents can see the level of crimes committed by those released into their communities, under the Trump orders.
Analysts said that list could help rally internal opposition to sanctuary cities, which are already rallying to defy Mr. Trump.
“We will fight against attempts to undermine our values and the security of our cities,” said the group Cities for Action, a coalition of big municipalities that support sanctuary policies. “As mayors and county executives nationwide have made clear today, we will continue to provide for all in our communities — regardless of where they come from — and work to continue building trust between city residents and law enforcement.”
In addition to the shame list, Mr. Trump ordered Homeland Security to produce a list four times a year of all illegal immigrants serving time in federal or state prisons, or being held for trial.
And in another striking move, Mr. Trump ordered Homeland Security officials to begin releasing more information on illegal immigrants. He said the Privacy Act, which has regularly shielded information about illegal immigrants from public disclosure, will no longer apply to anyone who isn’t a citizen or green card holder.
That could give the public a new depth of transparency, enabling them to see the types of illegal immigrants the government is encountering.
One part of the new orders would allow Homeland Security to ship illegal immigrants caught crossing the border from Mexico back into Mexico, even as they await the outcome of their deportation cases in the U.S.
That’s allowed under existing law, but legal analysts said they’d never heard of it being used, and debated how far it might be used. But immigrant-rights advocates said it could hurt migrants who need protections.
“Given that many of the people crossing the border today are children and families fleeing violence in the Northern Triangle countries of Central America, invoking this provision threatens to undermine our commitment to refugee protections,” said Tom Jawetz, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.
The Mexican Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment on the provision Wednesday night.
Experts said it’s an open question whether Mexico could stymie that part of Mr. Trump’s orders by refusing to take back those who crossed over its northern border into the U.S.
Another lesser-noticed provision of the new orders would push Homeland Security to collect fines from both illegal immigrants and “those who facilitate their presence” in the U.S.
That could potentially include sanctuary colleges and universities that protect illegal immigrants, and businesses that hire unauthorized workers.
Current law calls for fines of more than $20,000 per illegal immigrant for companies that are repeat offenders.
Conspiracy to harbor an illegal immigrant carries potential jail time or a fine of up to $10,000.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-creates-name-and-shame-list-embarrass/?
-
‘We Will Ban Sanctuary Cities’, Says Texas Governor
Texas Governor Greg Abbott's State of the State AddressAP Photo/Stephen Spillman
by BOB PRICE
1 Feb 2017
Texas Governor Greg Abbott declared ending sanctuary cities to be an emergency item for the 85th session of the Texas Legislature.
During his State of the State address on Tuesday, Abbott said, “This is the session we will ban sanctuary cities,” to the joint session of the Texas Legislature. Specifically, the governor referred to State Senator Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) who filed SB4, calling for sanctions against sanctuary jurisdictions within the Lone Star State.
“I am excited that Governor Abbott stood up for the rule of law by declaring the banning of Sanctuary Cities an emergency item during his State of the State Address,” Sen. Perry responded. “Texans everywhere expect their elected officials to uphold the rule of law. We cannot allow local officials to implement dangerous policies that make it easier for individuals who commit serious crimes to be placed back into our communities.”
Governor Abbott has already taken action to end sanctuary jurisdictions in Texas by threatening to withhold state law enforcement grants from cities and counties that refuse to honor immigration detainers from federal agents. Most recently, when the new sheriff of Travis County stated she was changing the county’s policy on cooperating with immigration officials in January, Abbott responded via Twitter, “I am about to up the ante. No more sanctuary cities in Texas.”
“Some law enforcement officials in Texas are openly refusing to enforce existing law,” Abbott stated during his State of the State Address. “That is unacceptable.”
“Elected officials don’t get to pick and choose which laws they obey,” the governor concluded. “To protect Texans from deadly danger, we must insist that laws be followed. Sen. Perry, this is the session we will ban sanctuary cities. I’m declaring this an emergency item.”
Texas law prohibits bills from being brought to the floor of the State’s House and Senate Chambers during the first sixty days of the legislative session. By declaring the sanctuary city issue as an emergency item for the legislature, bills dealing with the subject can be considered immediately.
The five key provisions of Perry’s SB 4 were discussed by the senator’s staff with Breitbart Texas. Those provisions are:
Municipalities are forced to comply with immigration detainers;
Municipalities cannot prohibit or discourage officers from inquiring about immigration status during a lawful stop;
State grants will be withheld if the Texas Attorney General finds an entity is in violation of law;
The immigration status must be recorded in a person’s case file; and
The bill protects witnesses and victims of crimes if they are here illegally.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/02/01/will-ban-sanctuary-cities-says-texas-governor/
-
What a difference a president makes.
'We're going to see more': Sanctuary cities cave in face of Trump's funding threats
By Elizabeth Llorente
Published February 10, 2017
FoxNews.com
Several towns, cities and counties around the nation are caving to President Trump's threat to pull funding, and abandoning their "sanctuary" pledges to shield illegal immigrants from federal authorities.
Dayton, Ohio, dropped a policy that restricted the city’s cooperation with immigration officials pursuing illegal immigrants arrested for misdemeanors or felony property crimes, according to the Dayton Daily News. Police Chief Richard Biehl said federal authorities will no longer be impeded by the city when pursuing illegal immigrants being held by his department.
Other communities that have dropped policies of shielding illegal immigrant suspects from Immigration and Customs Enforcement include Miami-Dade and Dayton, are Saratoga, N.Y., Finney County, Kan., and Bedford, Penn., according to The Center for Immigration Studies, which keeps a list of sanctuary communities.
“We are reviewing policy changes at a multitude of other jurisdictions as well,” said Marguerite Telford, CIS’s director of communications, who said the organization is “being inundated” by officials on its sanctuary map who want to be taken off.
The mayor of Miami-Dade County, which was considered a sanctuary community, made headlines recently when he changed a policy that called for refusing to hold arrested immigrants for immigration officials unless they committed to reimbursing the county for the cost of detention.
Telling reporters that he did not want to imperil hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding, Mayor Carlos Gimenez ordered jails to comply with federal immigration detention requests.
The changes have come on the heels of President Trump’s executive order giving the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security the power to cut federal funding to communities that are deemed sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Trump also has authorized the DHS to publish a weekly list of sanctuary communities.
CIS, and other groups that favor strict immigration enforcement, laud Trump’s move.
“Are you really going to pick and choose what laws you’re going to enforce?” asked Telford. “If you want a change [in immigration policy], go to the legislature.”
While some communities are rethinking their sanctuary policies under the pressure of losing funding, public officials of others, particularly major cities, have vowed to defy Trump’s orders.
“We’re going to defend all of our people regardless of where they come from, regardless of their immigration status,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York at a recent press conference.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel also vowed to protect illegal immigrants, including ones suspected or convicted of crimes, from the feds.
“I want to be clear: We’re going to stay a sanctuary city," Emanuel said. "There is no stranger among us… you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American dream.”
The "sanctuary" term describes cities that employ a range of uncooperation with federal immigration authorities. Some refuse to hold suspects and even convicts who have completed their sentences for the feds to deport. Others refuse to furnish the feds with information on illegal immigrants who land on their radar through more benign activity.
Forbes contributor Adam Andrzejewski reported that more than 300 government jurisdictions claim to be sanctuaries, of which 106 are cities and “the rest are states, counties or other units of government.”
Supporters of sanctuary communities say that people who are here illegally but have not posed a danger to others or had trouble with police should not be turned over to immigration authorities.
Some police and town officials further argue that working with immigration officials will make people fearful of turning to them if they are the victim of a crime or have information about one.
“It’s incredibly disappointing to see cities and counties scaling back so-called "sanctuary" policies, which were largely adopted to further public safety and ensure immigrants weren’t afraid to call the police,” Grace Meng, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch, told Fox News.
Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, predicted many more communities will be dropping or dramatically modifying their sanctuary stances.
“We’re going to see more of this,” Mehlman told Fox News. “Faced with the possibility of losing federal dollars, they’ll choose to keep funding public services rather than protecting illegal aliens.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/10/were-going-to-see-more-sanctuary-cities-cave-in-face-trumps-funding-threats.html
-
I'm glad I live in a state where people have their heads on somewhat straight.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4VjLSIVMAImzbp.jpg:large)
-
I'm glad I live in a state where people have their heads on somewhat straight.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4VjLSIVMAImzbp.jpg:large)
Congressman: Immigration raids in Central, South Texas part of 'Operation Cross Check'
A U.S. congressman confirmed reported Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids are part of an operation that spans through south and central Texas.
U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro tweeted and took to Facebook Friday afternoon expressing his concern regarding peppered reports of raids throughout the state.
Castro said the agency's San Antonio field office has "launched a targeted operation."
"I'm asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state," Castro's statement reads. "I will continue to monitor this situation."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4Vu1s-WIAIwkOF.jpg)
-
Studies detail how much funding sanctuary cities stand to lose
Published March 07, 2017
FoxNews.com
States with cities that hold onto their "sanctuary" status for illegal immigrants potentially stand to lose tens of millions of dollars in federal funds, according to a new study published Tuesday.
The report details how much could be on the line, in the wake of President Trump's executive order that threatened to yank federal dollars for hundreds of sanctuary cities.
The order did not specifically say what sources of funding could be revoked. But the new report -- released by the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress, National Immigration Law Center and American Immigration Lawyers -- endeavors to calculate the amount of funding at stake, based on prior efforts by Republican lawmakers to defund sanctuary jurisdictions.
All told, the states hardest hit would be California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Maryland.
California could lose as much as $239.5 million if its cities don't comply.
According to the report, New York risks losing $191.1 million, followed by Illinois at $91.3 million. Pennsylvania and Maryland round out the top five with $65.2 million and $35 million, respectively.
A “sanctuary city” typically refers to a government that has refused to comply with federal detention requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or take part in other immigration enforcement actions.
Trump’s January warning was enough to prompt Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Gimenez, a Republican, to abandon his government's sanctuary status. But many sanctuary cities are likely to stay the course. Leaders in New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Boston all say they won’t bow to pressure from the White House.
Tuesday’s report “How Much Funding for Sanctuary Jurisdictions Could Be at Risk,” identifies five key funding sources that could be pulled.
They include:
•The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, which helps states and localities pay for a range of criminal justice needs.
•The U.S. Economic Development Administration grant, which assists “economically distressed areas” with job creation and public works projects.
•The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which reimburses localities for costs associated with detaining immigrants.
•The Community Development Block Grant program, which helps fund a range of housing, infrastructure and business development projects.
•The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which provides money for law enforcement agencies to hire additional community policing officers.
While the latest report looks at statewide funding, a separate report published last month by Open the Books, a nonprofit that analyzes government spending, took a closer look at the cities most likely affected by Trump’s executive order.
Titled, “Federal Funding of America’s Sanctuary Cities,” the report examined 106 sanctuary cities that are home to nearly 6 million of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States. The cities received $27 billion from the federal government in fiscal year 2016.
The report revealed that highly populated cities like Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia would be able to sustain themselves without the federal funds but other places like Boston and Washington, D.C., would feel the pinch.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/07/studies-detail-how-much-funding-sanctuary-cities-stand-to-lose.html
-
>:(
White House blames Md. school rape on lax border, sanctuary policies
By Malia Zimmerman and Christopher Wallace
Published March 21, 2017
FoxNews.com
Critics - including the White House - blamed the alleged rape of a 14-year-old girl in a high school restroom by two much older illegal immigrants students on failed federal policies.
The horrific attack Thursday, in a Rockville, Md., high school was allegedly carried out by two illegal immigrants, ages 17 and 18, who were enrolled in the ninth grade.
"This is a tragic event," White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Tuesday. "It is horrendous and horrible and disgusting what the girl in Rockville went through.
"From an immigration standpoint, there are so many questions," Spicer said. "[One of the suspects] was 18. How does that person get put into 9th grade?"
“Some have severe mental health problems resulting from broken families or parental neglect, exposure to violence in their home country, and a traumatic experience coming here illegally.”
- Jessica Vaughan, Center for Immigration Studies
Critics say the attack grimly underscores the challenge of enrolling upper-teen illegal immigrants with poor language skills in public schools. One suspect, identified by police as Henry E. Sanchez-Milian, had been caught crossing the Mexican border just months ago.
“The surge of Central American kids has become a significant problem in many of the school districts where they are allowed to re-settle,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies. “It’s not uncommon for older kids to be placed in the lower high school grades with much younger kids, because they usually have had only a few years of schooling in their home country.”
Sanchez-Milian, a native of Guatemala, and Jose O. Montano, 17, from El Salvador, were charged with first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree sexual offense. Court records say they dragged the girl into a men’s bathroom, where they allegedly violently raped, sodomized and forced her to perform oral sex in a stall.
It is common for that school system to have adults with limited English speaking skills enrolled as freshman, Montgomery County Public Schools Superintendent Jack Smith told Fox 5 DC.
"We have a lot of 18-year-olds in our schools,” Smith said. “Our student was actually in a METS [Multidisciplinary Educational Training and Support] Program for English learners and that is a program we have across the system, and so, it is not a matter of what grade they were in, but the student was in a program for English learners.”
Vaughan said other students and their parents have no way of knowing which classmates are illegal immigrants – in some cases adults – or what dangers they may pose.
“Some have severe mental health problems resulting from broken families or parental neglect, exposure to violence in their home country, and a traumatic experience coming here illegally,” Vaughan said.
Detectives from the Montgomery County Police Department Special Victims Investigations Division arrested Montano and Sanchez after school officials reported the incident. A forensic team recovered blood and male fluids from the bathroom, court records show.
“It’s a terrible situation. It’s a horrible situation,” the school superintendent told Fox5DC. “We looked at all the information from Thursday and we handed it over to the police immediately. At this point, it is their investigation.”
U.S. Department of Homeland Security databases show a Border Patrol agent stopped Sanchez in August 2016 in Rio Valley Grande, Texas, and determined he’d entered the country illegally from Mexico.
“We do have 550,001 cases through the end of January pending before our courts, and our priorities are cases where the individual is still in detention,” said Kathryn Mattingly, of the Executive Office for Immigration Review at the Department of Justice. “Detained cases are our highest priority.”
Since Sanchez-Milian was released, he did not fall into that priority category. Still, the Border Patrol agent could have detained Sanchez-Milian and then sent him back across the border – but did not.
“If the Border Patrol intercepts somebody within 200 miles of the border, they have the ability to return the individual,” an official from Immigration and Customs Enforcement told Fox News. “But these individuals often claim fear of returning to their home country or desire some sort of judicial review for special reasons like asylum, or a special visa, so they ask for a right to see a border judge.”
Sanchez was ordered to appear before an immigration judge, but the hearing had not yet been scheduled.
ICE has since lodged an immigration detainer against Sanchez-Milian, so ICE can take him when he is released from local custody.
ICE did not release information on Montano. Both Montano and Sanchez will be tried as adults and could receive a life sentence. The judge who oversaw their bond hearing refused to release them on bail, because the students are “dangerous and flight risks.”
The Trump administration has made slashing the backlog of cases in immigration court a top priority. In some parts of the country, there is a three-year waiting list.
“We recognize that in order to reduce our immigration caseload we need to increase our hiring of immigration judges,” Mattingly said.
Officials in Montgomery County have been pushing to make the area a sanctuary for immigrants, and, according to Vaughan, is already uncooperative with ICE when it comes to illegal immigrants like Sanchez-Milian.
“Montgomery County is not the worst, but it’s pretty bad,” Vaughan said. “When Northern Virginia cracked down around 2005 from 2011, many illegals moved to Montgomery County, where they knew they would be treated more leniently.”
Montgomery County does not track crimes committed by illegal immigrants.
“This is not a statistic we track,” Maj. Michael England of the Rockville Police Department told Fox News.
Meanwhile, Maryland’s Republican governor, Larry Hogan, encouraged the county to cooperate with federal immigration agents.
“The State of Maryland is calling on Montgomery County to immediately and fully cooperate with all federal authorities during the investigation of this [alleged] heinous crime,” Hogan tweeted on Tuesday. “The public has a right to know how something this tragic and unacceptable was allowed to transpire in a public school.”
While most illegal immigrant kids enrolled at public schools do not pose a threat to their classmates, gang activity in school districts around the country has been linked to illegal immigration. On Long Island earlier this month, more than a dozen members of the El Salvadoran gang MS-13 were indicted in connection with seven murders in three years, including the deaths of several high school students last year.
Local communities’ refusal to cooperate with ICE, Vaughan said, means “many gang members and other thugs and miscreants are allowed to remain in the county in defiance of immigration laws and causing problems like this.”
Kids from Central America who cross the border illegally, without being vetted, may not have a criminal history here, but can in their country, said Claude Arnold, a former U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations.
“These two could have gang ties in El Salvador and Guatemala or have an otherwise violent criminal history,” Arnold said. “Just like the thousands of other unaccompanied minors that have been released in the U.S. for the past several years, we know nothing about them.”
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/21/white-house-blames-md-school-rape-on-lax-border-sanctuary-policies.html
-
Sessions takes aim at 'dangerous' sanctuary cities, warns on funding
Published March 27, 2017
FoxNews.com
Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired a broadside at so-called "sanctuary cities" Monday, telling reporters local policies of noncooperation with immigration authorities are "dangerous" and will cost communities federal funding.
In the Trump administration's most pointed warning yet, Sessions said federal law allows withholding of federal funding to sanctuary cities, and signaled that such measures will soon be taken. Sessions, who took the podium at White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer's regular media briefing, warned of a pending crackdown by the administration.
"Such policies cannot continue," he said. "They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on the street."
"Such policies cannot continue. They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on the street."
- Attorney General Jeff Sessions
While not a technical term, "sanctuary cities" are communities that have refused to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials after detaining illegal immigrants. By federal law, they are required to inform the feds when they have an illegal immigrant in custody, even if he or she has not been convicted of a crime.
Several big cities, including New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, as well as dozens and possibly hundreds of smaller counties, cities and towns, also refuse to notify ICE, which can then come and take custody of the illegal immigrant, possibly for deportation.
“LAPD has never participated in programs that deputize local law enforcement to act as immigration agents, and on my watch they never will,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said last week.
Immediately after Sessions spoke, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a staunch critic of Trump, said he will fight any efforts to defund sanctuary communities in the Empire State.
“My office will continue to ensure local governments have the tools they need to legally protect their immigrant communities – and we won’t stop fighting to beat back President Trump’s un-American immigration policies,” Schneiderman said in a statement.
But Sessions said such policies put citizens' safety in jeopardy.
"The American people know that when cities and states refuse to help enforce immigration laws, our nation is less safe," Sessions said.
Perhaps telegraphing action President Trump warned of during his campaign, Sessions said the administration will pull billions in federal funding to sanctuary communities if they remain in noncompliance.
Sessions said communities applying for Department of Justice grants will be required to show they are following immigration law.
The DOJ will withhold, and could potentially "claw back" grants to localities out of compliance with federal immigration law, Sessions said. He noted one Justice Department office alone was expecting to award more than $4.1 billion in grants this fiscal year.
"Failure to deport aliens who are convicted of criminal offenses puts whole communities at risk, especially immigrant communities in the very sanctuary jurisdictions that seek to protect the perpetrators," Sessions said.
Sessions, an early supporter of Trump's candidacy, is a longtime illegal immigration hawk who helped drive Trump's winning platform plank on the subject.
Early in Trump's candidacy, in July 2015, a woman named Kate Steinle was killed in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant who had been deported previously and had recently been freed by local authorities. The murder became a rallying point for the campaign.
More recently, a 14-year-old Maryland high school girl was raped in a school bathroom allegedly by two men, at least one of whom is an illegal immigrant. That case has reignited the debate about illegal immigration and sanctuary policies.
Just days after his inauguration, Trump ordered the Department of Homeland Security to publish a weekly list of all detainer requests turned down by local jails. Trump said the list will "better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/27/sessions-takes-aim-at-dangerous-sanctuary-cities-warns-on-funding.html
-
Seattle sues Trump administration over sanctuary city ban
By Reid Wilson - 03/30/17
The city of Seattle has filed suit to clarify an executive order signed by President Trump that would end funding for so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal immigration officials.
The suit, filed Wednesday, asks a federal district court judge to declare that the city is acting in accordance with federal law. It also asks the judge to declare that Trump’s order is an unconstitutional violation of the 10th Amendment by attempting to force the city to enforce federal immigration law.
The suit also argues that the order violates Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, by withholding federal money unrelated to immigration enforcement in an attempt to force the city to comply.
It does not seek a restraining order halting Trump’s executive order, though.
“Seattle will not be bullied by this White House or this administration,” Mayor Ed Murray (D) said Wednesday. “The federal government cannot compel our police department to enforce federal immigration law and cannot use our federal dollars to coerce Seattle into turning our backs on our immigrant and refugee communities.”
The city expects to receive at least $55 million in federal funds this year to bolster its operating costs and another $99 million on infrastructure projects.
States and cities are not obligated to enforce federal immigration law or to comply with requests from federal officials to detain those in the country illegally solely on the basis of their immigration status.
Trump signed the executive order on Jan. 25, just days after being inaugurated. The order says sanctuary jurisdictions “willfully violate federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States.” It allowed both Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly to block federal grants to jurisdictions that did not comply with federal immigration law.
On Monday, Sessions said the Justice Department would withhold grants from those sanctuary cities.
The order also directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hire 10,000 new immigration officers and to prioritize deporting those who had committed a crime. It also allowed immigration officers to deport those who, in their own judgment, posed a public safety or national security risk.
There is no legal definition of a sanctuary city, and there is no indication that the Trump administration formally views Seattle or any other city as a sanctuary jurisdiction. Seattle law prohibits city employees from asking about someone’s immigration status, though that law exempts police officers.
“This lawsuit represents Seattle’s attempt to mute histrionics in favor of a plain statement of the law,” Seattle city attorney Pete Holmes said Wednesday. “I hope the president will refrain from tweeting his legal opinion before our courts have an opportunity to do so.”
San Francisco, another sanctuary city, filed suit in January challenging Trump’s order. San Francisco is more clearly at risk of being labeled a sanctuary city because it operates a jail, which would be subject to detainer requests. Seattle does not operate a jail.
The suit is the latest front in a growing war between liberal cities and states and the Trump administration. Seattle was among the cities that have filed briefs with courts hearing challenges to the Trump administration’s ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries. Earlier this week, a group of Democratic attorneys general said they were also looking in to possible legal action over the Trump administration’s moves to roll back Obama-era climate rules.
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/326481-seattle-sues-trump-admin-over-sanctuary-city-ban
-
Justice Dept. Tells 9 Sanctuary Cities Grant Money at Risk
Friday, 21 Apr 2017
The Trump administration is moving beyond rhetoric in its effort to crack down on sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The Justice Department is forcing nine communities to prove they are complying with an immigration law to continue receiving coveted law enforcement grant money.
The department sent letters Friday to places its inspector general previously identified as having rules limiting the information that can be provided to federal immigration authorities. They include California, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.
Officials there must provide proof from an attorney that they are following the law.
It is an extension of Attorney General Jeff Sessions' repeated threats to crack down on sanctuary communities by denying or stripping them of grant money.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Trump-Sanctuary-Cities/2017/04/21/id/785669/
-
Justice Dept. Tells 9 Sanctuary Cities Grant Money at Risk
Friday, 21 Apr 2017
The Trump administration is moving beyond rhetoric in its effort to crack down on sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The Justice Department is forcing nine communities to prove they are complying with an immigration law to continue receiving coveted law enforcement grant money.
The department sent letters Friday to places its inspector general previously identified as having rules limiting the information that can be provided to federal immigration authorities. They include California, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.
Officials there must provide proof from an attorney that they are following the law.
It is an extension of Attorney General Jeff Sessions' repeated threats to crack down on sanctuary communities by denying or stripping them of grant money.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Trump-Sanctuary-Cities/2017/04/21/id/785669/
Nice!
-
'Sanctuary Cities' protests interrupt Texas House session
By Brooke Singman
Published May 29, 2017
Fox News
Protests erupted in the Texas capitol building on Monday over Gov. Greg Abbott’s new law cracking down on ‘sanctuary cities,’ interrupting the final day in this year’s regular session of the Texas Legislature.
Hundreds of protesters chanted in opposition to the new law, forcing House leadership to stop the session and send state troopers to clear the gallery.
Some protesters held banners that said, “See you in court” and “See you at the polls,” while others chanted “Hey, hey. Ho, ho. SB-4 has got to go.”
Abbott signed SB-4 into law earlier this month in an effort to remain consistent with federal immigration law. The law effectively bans sanctuary city policies in Texas and gives law enforcement officers the ability to ask the immigration status of anyone they stop. Under the law, officers who fail to comply, or cooperate, with federal immigration agents could face jail time and fines reaching $25,000 per day.
“What it means is that no county, no city, no governmental body in the state of Texas can adopt any policy that provides sanctuary, and second, what it means, is that law enforcement officials, such as sheriffs, are going to be required to comply with ICE detainer requests,” Abbott said on “Fox & Friends” the day after signing the bill into law.
He added, “Isn’t it quasi-insane that we have to pass a law to force law enforcement officers to comply with the law?”
Texas is the first state to officially ban sanctuary cities under President Trump. Colorado passed a law in 2006 outlawing sanctuary cities, but the measure was repealed in 2013. So far, only Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, and Tennessee have officially passed bills into law banning ‘sanctuary policies.’ Virginia attempted two measures in the Republican-led legislature, but both were suspended after Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe threatened to veto.
The Texas law is set to take effect on Sept. 1, and opponents have vowed to challenge it in court, after slamming it as the nation’s toughest on immigrants since Arizona’s crackdown in 2010. But Abbott said key provisions of Texas’ law had been tested at the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down several components of Arizona’s law.
Mayors throughout the Lone Star State were in opposition to the bill’s passage, claiming it would weaken the relationship between law enforcement officials and the public, but Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton already filed suit against local jurisdictions that had been accused of not cooperating with federal immigration agents.
Paxton filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, just days after Abbott signed SB-4 into law.
“Unfortunately, some municipalities and law enforcement agencies are unwilling to cooperate with the federal government and claim that SB-4 is unconstitutional,” Paxton said.
But opposition groups are pushing back.
Just last week, the Texas Civil Right Project filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Texas Organizing Project Education Fund, alleging SB-4 is a “discriminatory, unconstitutionally vague” bill that encourages “racial profiling.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/29/sanctuary-cities-protests-interrupt-texas-house-session.html
-
A U.S. congressman confirmed reported Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids are part of an operation that spans through south and central Texas.
U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro tweeted and took to Facebook Friday afternoon expressing his concern regarding peppered reports of raids throughout the state.
Castro said the agency's San Antonio field office has "launched a targeted operation."
"I'm asking ICE to clarify whether these individuals are in fact dangerous, violent threats to our communities, and not people who are here peacefully raising families and contributing to our state," Castro's statement reads. "I will continue to monitor this situation."
Ga is pretty good on illegal immigration and gun laws, I'm proud to say.
I'll bet their isn't much difference between us when it comes to gun rights and illegal immigration enforcement?
-
Ga is pretty good on illegal immigration and gun laws, I'm proud to say.
I'll bet their isn't much difference between us when it comes to gun rights and illegal immigration enforcement?
I don't keep up with Georgia.
-
I don't keep up with Georgia.
We have concealed carry permits and easy access to purchase firearms.
For example, last week, I walked into a Ga Sporting Good store and bought a brand new AR-15 with 30 round clip.
Showed my drivers license, 5 min background check and out I walked with the rifle and plenty of ammo. F'n great! ;)
(AGAIN) I'd bet we're 99.99% the same on gun laws and illegal immigration enforcement.
-
House passes Kate’s Law, as part of illegal immigrant crackdown
Published June 29, 2017
Fox News
House Republicans took action Thursday to crack down on illegal immigrants and the cities that shelter them.
One bill passed by the House would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities and another, Kate’s Law, would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States.
Kate's Law, which would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States and caught, passed with a vote of 257 to 157, with one Republican voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes.
Kate's Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday.
President Trump called the bill's passage "good news" in a tweet, adding "House just passed #KatesLaw. Hopefully Senate will follow."
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Good news, House just passed #KatesLaw. Hopefully Senate will follow.
11:37 AM - 29 Jun 2017
10,502 10,502 Retweets 35,736 35,736 likes
“He should not have been here, and she should not have died,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday, in a final push for Kate’s Law, an earlier version of which was blocked in the Senate last year.
“Our job here is to make sure that those professionals have the tools that they need and the resources that they need to carry out their work and to protect our communities. That is what these measures are all about,” added Ryan.
The other bill, which would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities, passed with a vote of 228-195 with 3 Democrats voting yes and 7 Republicans voting no.
The brutal murder of Steinle catapulted the issue of illegal criminal aliens into the national spotlight. Alleged shooter Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.
On Wednesday, President Trump highlighted other cases during a White House meeting with more than a dozen families of people who had been victimized by illegal immigrants, including Jamiel Shaw Sr.
Shaw’s 17-year-old son Jamiel was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant in California in March 2008..
“He was living the dream," Shaw said during the meeting. "That was squashed out.”
The second measure, "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act," would cut federal grants to states and “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with law enforcement carrying out immigration enforcement activities.
“The word 'sanctuary' calls to mind someplace safe, but too often for families and victims affected by illegal immigrant crime, sanctuary cities are anything but safe,” Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly asserted in the pre-vote press conference.
“It is beyond my comprehension why federal state and local officials ... would actively discourage or outright prevent law enforcement agencies from upholding the laws of the United States,” he added.
While gaining support in the Senate for similar legislation will be a tough road, Trump called for Congress to act quickly.
Trump called on the House and the Senate to “to honor grieving American families” by approving a “package of truly key immigration enforcement bills” so that he could sign them into law.
“I promise you, it will be done quickly. You don't have to wait the mandatory period. It will be very quick,” promised Trump.
Earlier on Wednesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas D. Homan and U.S. Attorney for Utah John W. Huber made their case for the bills during the White House press briefing.
Huber said 40 percent of Utah’s current felony caseload involves criminal alien prosecutions and the number is increasing.
The bills, Huber asserted, would “advance the ball for law enforcement in keeping our communities safe” and “would give officers and prosecutors more tools to protect the public.
Many immigration rights groups have characterized efforts to crack down on sanctuary cities as “anti-immigrant,” but Attorney General Jeff Sessions says it is not sound policy to allow sanctuary cities to flout federal immigration laws.
According to Homan, ICE already has arrested nearly 66,000 individuals this year that were either known or suspected to be in the country illegally. Of those arrested, 48,000 were convicted criminal aliens.
“The practices of these jurisdictions are not only contrary to sound policy; they’re contrary to the law enforcement cooperation that is carried out every day in our country and is essential to public safety,” Sessions wrote in a Fox News op-ed backing the bills.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/house-passes-kate-s-law-as-part-illegal-immigrant-crackdown.html
-
House passes Kate’s Law, as part of illegal immigrant crackdown
Published June 29, 2017
Fox News
House Republicans took action Thursday to crack down on illegal immigrants and the cities that shelter them.
One bill passed by the House would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities and another, Kate’s Law, would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States.
Kate's Law, which would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States and caught, passed with a vote of 257 to 157, with one Republican voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes.
Kate's Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday.
President Trump called the bill's passage "good news" in a tweet, adding "House just passed #KatesLaw. Hopefully Senate will follow."
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Good news, House just passed #KatesLaw. Hopefully Senate will follow.
11:37 AM - 29 Jun 2017
10,502 10,502 Retweets 35,736 35,736 likes
“He should not have been here, and she should not have died,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday, in a final push for Kate’s Law, an earlier version of which was blocked in the Senate last year.
“Our job here is to make sure that those professionals have the tools that they need and the resources that they need to carry out their work and to protect our communities. That is what these measures are all about,” added Ryan.
The other bill, which would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities, passed with a vote of 228-195 with 3 Democrats voting yes and 7 Republicans voting no.
The brutal murder of Steinle catapulted the issue of illegal criminal aliens into the national spotlight. Alleged shooter Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.
On Wednesday, President Trump highlighted other cases during a White House meeting with more than a dozen families of people who had been victimized by illegal immigrants, including Jamiel Shaw Sr.
Shaw’s 17-year-old son Jamiel was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant in California in March 2008..
“He was living the dream," Shaw said during the meeting. "That was squashed out.”
The second measure, "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act," would cut federal grants to states and “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with law enforcement carrying out immigration enforcement activities.
“The word 'sanctuary' calls to mind someplace safe, but too often for families and victims affected by illegal immigrant crime, sanctuary cities are anything but safe,” Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly asserted in the pre-vote press conference.
“It is beyond my comprehension why federal state and local officials ... would actively discourage or outright prevent law enforcement agencies from upholding the laws of the United States,” he added.
While gaining support in the Senate for similar legislation will be a tough road, Trump called for Congress to act quickly.
Trump called on the House and the Senate to “to honor grieving American families” by approving a “package of truly key immigration enforcement bills” so that he could sign them into law.
“I promise you, it will be done quickly. You don't have to wait the mandatory period. It will be very quick,” promised Trump.
Earlier on Wednesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas D. Homan and U.S. Attorney for Utah John W. Huber made their case for the bills during the White House press briefing.
Huber said 40 percent of Utah’s current felony caseload involves criminal alien prosecutions and the number is increasing.
The bills, Huber asserted, would “advance the ball for law enforcement in keeping our communities safe” and “would give officers and prosecutors more tools to protect the public.
Many immigration rights groups have characterized efforts to crack down on sanctuary cities as “anti-immigrant,” but Attorney General Jeff Sessions says it is not sound policy to allow sanctuary cities to flout federal immigration laws.
According to Homan, ICE already has arrested nearly 66,000 individuals this year that were either known or suspected to be in the country illegally. Of those arrested, 48,000 were convicted criminal aliens.
“The practices of these jurisdictions are not only contrary to sound policy; they’re contrary to the law enforcement cooperation that is carried out every day in our country and is essential to public safety,” Sessions wrote in a Fox News op-ed backing the bills.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/house-passes-kate-s-law-as-part-illegal-immigrant-crackdown.html
Also pushing "No Sanctuary for Criminal Act". Such a shame that these probably won't pass the senate due to needing 60 votes. Disappointing. I don't agree with Trump on some issues (healthcare, etc.) but so stupid that these won't pass simply because of party lines.
-
Also pushing "No Sanctuary for Criminal Act". Such a shame that these probably won't pass the senate due to needing 60 votes. Disappointing. I don't agree with Trump on some issues (healthcare, etc.) but so stupid that these won't pass simply because of party lines.
Agreed, how does this not pass. What a crazy USA now.
-
Sessions Barring Sanctuary Cities From Crime-Reduction Program
Thursday, 03 Aug 2017
U.S. cities that refuse to step up efforts to focus on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants will not be allowed to participate in a new crime reduction training program unveiled earlier this year by the Justice Department, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Thursday.
In making the announcement, Sessions singled out four local police departments that had expressed interest in the new Public Safety Partnership Program, saying they first had to answer a list of questions by Aug. 18 confirming they do not have any "sanctuary" policies to shield illegal immigrants from possible deportation by ensuring they will allow federal immigration officials access to local jails.
"By protecting criminals from immigration enforcement, cities and states with so-called 'sanctuary' policies make all of us less safe," Sessions said.
The four police departments that must respond are Albuquerque, New Mexico; Baltimore, Maryland; and San Bernardino and Stockton, California.
Representatives for the four cities' police departments did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Sessions' announcement reflects part of a broader policy push by President Donald Trump to crack down generally on illegal immigration.
He has urged Congress to support funding the building of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, and the administration has moved to dramatically widen the net of illegal immigrants targeted for deportation.
This week, Trump also backed a bill developed by Republican Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia to also cut back on legal immigration by 50 percent over ten years.
The National Public Safety Partnership is a new program launched in June that involves a three-year initiative geared toward areas with high rates of violent crime.
Twelve cities were selected when it was first launched, including Buffalo, New York, Houston, Texas and in Sessions' home state, Birmingham, Alabama.
It is unclear how cities with interest in the program may respond to the Justice Department's stance, but some municipalities have pushed back against the Trump administration's immigration policies.
A U.S. judge last month refused to remove a block on an executive order by President Donald Trump that would have withheld federal funds from "sanctuary" cities, which do not use municipal funds or resources to help advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/sessions-sanctuary-crime-reduction/2017/08/03/id/805606/
-
The crazy thing about "sanctuary cities" is they are openly allowed to ignore the federal immigration laws.
When any gov official tries to enforce the EXISTING LAWS, they act shocked :o
One of the things I'll give Trump and AG Sessions credit for, is trying to enforce immigration laws.
Now, things recently went "mega-retard" when Trump aid, Steven Miller, refuted the statue of liberty inscription.
C'mon now, I'm actually with 'em on this issue. I really am!
But 'dissing the inscription on the statue of liberty is a complete train wreck of a PR move.
He may as well take a pic of his dog, pissing on the bronze lady and tweet it.
-
The crazy thing about "sanctuary cities" is they are openly allowed to ignore the federal immigration laws.
When any gov official tries to enforce the EXISTING LAWS, they act shocked :o
One of the things I'll give Trump and AG Sessions credit for, is trying to enforce immigration laws.
Now, things recently went "mega-retard" when Trump aid, Steven Miller, refuted the statue of liberty inscription.
C'mon now, I'm actually with 'em on this issue. I really am!
But 'dissing the inscription on the statue of liberty is a complete train wreck of a PR move.
He may as well take a pic of his dog, pissing on the bronze lady and tweet it.
Not really. Who claims that "poem"? I don't.
-
Not really. Who claims that "poem"? I don't.
That poem was added much later. Howie needs to research this better.
-
LA made $1.3B in illegal immigrant welfare payouts in just 2 years
Fox ^ | 8/3/2017
Posted on 8/4/2017, 4:58:42 AM by Altura Ct.
Illegal immigrant families received nearly $1.3 billion in Los Angeles County welfare money during 2015 and 2016, nearly one-quarter of the amount spent on the county’s entire needy population, according to data obtained by Fox News.
The data was obtained from the county Department of Public Social Services -- which is responsible for doling out the benefits -- and gives a snapshot of the financial costs associated with sanctuary and related policies.
The sanctuary county of Los Angeles is an illegal immigration epicenter, with the largest concentration of any county in the nation, according to a study from the Migration Policy Institute. The county also allows illegal immigrant parents with children born in the United States to seek welfare and food stamp benefits. Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation senior fellow who has written extensive studies on poverty and illegal immigration, said the costs represent “the tip of the iceberg.”
He said the costs of education, police and fire, medical, and subsidized housing can total $24,000 per year in government spending per family, much more than would be paid in taxes.
“They get $3 in benefits for every $1 they spend,” Rector said.
The Trump presidency’s hardline immigration policies, though, may be playing some role in curtailing the population seeking welfare payments in recent months. The same stats show Los Angeles County is expected to dole out $200 million less this year than in 2016, and several thousand fewer families are collecting benefits. “The number of entrants nationwide is going down. The population is static if not shrinking,” Rector said. The welfare benefit data from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services shows:
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com .
-
That poem was added much later. Howie needs to research this better.
I know that .
The statue of liberty is an American symbol and the poem represents those values in words.
Claiming THAT is wrong or irrelevant, is dismissing a timeless American value.
-
That poem was added much later. Howie needs to research this better.
Yes, IMO it was done to keep the common people from (rightfully) securing power once and for all. America scared the living hell out of the entitled classes, making them determined to destroy us from within.
-
I know that .
The statue of liberty is an American symbol and the poem represents those values in words.
Claiming THAT is wrong or irrelevant, is dismissing a timeless American value.
You're too easily brainwashed, Howard. Doesn't mean you aren't a good guy, but you shouldn't be surprised to be called out as often as you are.
-
Agreed, how does this not pass. What a crazy USA now.
Simple, it needs 60 or more votes to pass.
-
Simple, it needs 60 or more votes to pass.
Already stated in the quote he was replying to. Read, read, read.....
You'd be one of the crazies voting against America. That's the point. That there are so many like you that have no respect for America in positions of power and look to their party only instead of what is good for the country.
-
How in the world did we get to the point where city leaders think they can violate federal law by protecting illegal aliens? As much as I hate the current two-party system, I am glad there is at least some check on these people, even if the GOP sucks.
DOJ fires back at Chicago's sanctuary-city lawsuit threat
Published August 06, 2017
Fox News
The Department of Justice on Sunday fired back at Chicago’s plans to sue the feds for threatening to withhold crime-fighting money to sanctuary cities.
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel formally announced Sunday that his city would file a lawsuit Monday against the Trump administration for vowing to block federal grants to cities that don't comply with federal immigration law.
The Justice Department called out the mayor in its response. “In 2016, more Chicagoans were murdered than in New York City and Los Angeles combined. So it’s especially tragic that the mayor is less concerned with that staggering figure than he is spending time and taxpayer money protecting criminal aliens and putting Chicago’s law enforcement at greater risk,” department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores told the Chicago Sun-Times.
CHICAGO TO SUE DOJ OVER SANCTUARY CITIES POLICY
The dispute centers around so-called Byrne grants for cities' law-enforcement groups. On Thursday, federal officials published an updated application for the grants, which Emanuel compared to “blackmail.”
Chicago is depending on the $3.2 million from the program to buy police vehicles. The grants are named in honor of former New York City police officer Edward Byrne who was murdered in 1988. Still, the grant is just a tiny fraction of the city's budget, The Chicago Tribune reported.
“Chicago will not be blackmailed into changing our values, and we are and will remain a welcoming city,” Emanuel said. “The federal government should be working with cities to provide necessary resources to improve public safety, not concocting new schemes to reduce our crime-fighting resources.”
DOJ THREATENS TO WITHHOLD CRIME-FIGHTING FUNDS FROM FOUR SANCTUARY CITIES
A requirement added to the application would force local jurisdictions to report to federal officials about the release of illegal immigrants from police custody at least 48 hours in advance.
According to the Sun-Times, former high-ranking Justice Department lawyer Ed Siskel, now Chicago Corporation Counsel, doesn’t believe Sessions has the authority to change the requirements of the federal grand program because it was created by Congress, and doesn’t believe he can force local law enforcement officials to comply with federal immigration policy.
Emanuel announced more details about the lawsuit Sunday, saying withholding the grants would violate the rights of Chicagoans.
NY TIMES STORY ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION 'INACCURATE,' DOJ SAYS
“Chicago will not let our police officers become political pawns in a debate,” Emanuel said. “Chicago will not let our residents have their fundamental rights isolated and violated. And Chicago will never relinquish our status as a welcoming city.”
Emanuel added, “The city of Chicago may be the first to bring a lawsuit, but I’m also confident we will not be the last.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/06/doj-fires-back-at-chicagos-sanctuary-city-lawsuit-threat.html
-
California sues DOJ over threats to withhold federal funds to sanctuary cities
By Barnini Chakraborty
Published August 14, 2017
Fox News
California is suing the Trump administration for threatening to withhold funds for sanctuary cities, accusing the Justice Department of “pure intimidation” and arguing the state – not the federal government – should be the one to allocate its law enforcement resources.
"When President Trump threatened to defund our local law enforcement's ability to do its job and protect our people, he picked the wrong fight," state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said.
'He picked the wrong fight.'
- California Attorney General Xavier Becerra
California, which could lose more than $28 million, is the first state in the nation to sue over sanctuary city restrictions on public safety grants.
“It’s a low blow to our brave men and women who wear the badge, and to the communities they serve,” Becerra said, when announcing the lawsuit.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed his own lawsuit against the DOJ, arguing the government is trying to unfairly force the city’s hand.
“These conditions do not appear in any federal statue, and they do not reflect the will of Congress in appropriating funds,” the lawsuit said. “To the contrary, the new conditions are simply the latest attempt by the Trump administration to coerce state and local jurisdictions into carrying out the federal government’s immigration enforcement priorities.”
The showdown over so-called sanctuary cities has been heating up in recent months as some local governments have refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, though a wave of smaller, cash-strapped communities have shed their sanctuary status.
MIAMI-DADE COOPERATES WITH FEDS ON IMMIGRATION, GETS OK FOR $$
The California suit comes on the heels of another filed in early August by Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. In that 46-page complaint, Emanuel claimed the DOJ, under the stewardship of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, wants to slap unfair conditions on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, a long-running federal crime prevention grant.
The DOJ fired back at the time, with a department spokeswoman reportedly saying "it’s especially tragic that the mayor is less concerned with that staggering figure than he is spending time and taxpayer money protecting criminal aliens."
Calls to the DOJ for comment on the California suit were not immediately returned.
The crackdown on sanctuary cities lines up with Trump’s promised prioritization of the issue on the campaign trail. Members of his administration have repeatedly tried to link violent crime to illegal immigration – though mayors of sanctuary cities have pushed back on that assertion.
While not a technical term, “sanctuary cities” are places that have refused to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials after detaining undocumented immigrants. By law, they are required to inform the feds when they have an illegal immigrant in custody, even if he or she has not been convicted of a crime.
There are an estimated 200 to 608 local and state governments with some sort of sanctuary policy in place – however, their degree of cooperation varies. Some work with federal authorities on felony convictions while others only comply in civil investigations. There are a few places that refuse to cooperate altogether.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/14/california-sues-doj-over-threats-to-withhold-federal-funds-to-sanctuary-cities.html
-
LA sues Trump administration over sanctuary city crackdown
By Elizabeth Chou, Los Angeles Daily News
POSTED: 08/22/17
“We’re filing a lawsuit against the (Donald) Trump administration ... to seek an injunction to block the imposition of unconstitutional civil immigration conditions on a vital crime-fighting grant,” City Attorney Mike Feuer said at a news conference at City Hall in downtown Los Angeles.
The lawsuit was filed in the Bay Area, where the city also is requesting to join San Francisco and other jurisdictions in litigation against the federal government, officials said.
The new conditions were recently added to the Justice Department’s Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, which the city receives annually.
• RELATED STORY: LA leaders want city contractors to reveal ties to Trump’s border wall
The Los Angeles area could lose out on the federal grant, anticipated to be worth about $1.9 million in the upcoming year, if the city is unable to comply with new grant rules announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions on July 25.
Feuer has said local officials will have a difficult time meeting the requirement in which a city must notify the Department of Homeland Security at least 48 hours before it plans to release “an alien in the jurisdiction’s custody” wanted by U.S. immigration officials, usually as part of what is known as a “detainer” request.
The city rarely holds anyone in custody for longer than 48 hours, and to do so without a warrant or “probable cause” could violate the detainee’s constitutional rights, Feuer contended.
Those detainer requests often come to the city many hours into a person’s stay in a Los Angeles jail, according to the city attorney.
Feuer on Tuesday described the administration’s plan as “overreaching.”
• RELATED STORY: Pastor detained by ICE ‘assumed multiple identities,’ agency says
The executive branch does not have the power to impose the new immigration conditions, and only Congress can make major changes to rules for the grant, which is handed out each year to cities and local law enforcement agencies that meet a criteria formula, Feuer said.
“For 20 years, Los Angeles has applied (for) and received funding for this program,” Feuer noted. “This case is about protecting public safety and ... about the limits on the power of the Trump administration, limits on the executive branch to impose its will.”
“Federal grants to protect public safety are not weapons,” he said, referring to Trump’s statements earlier this year that he would use such funding against cities that in “his view didn’t comport with his version of immigration policy in this country.”
Justice Department spokesman Devin M. O’Malley said that violent crime in Los Angeles is up since 2014, so it is “baffling that the city would challenge policies designed to keep residents of L.A. safer, especially from the scourge of transnational gang activity,” such as those associated with groups like MS-13 and the 18th Street Gang.
O’Malley said that the goal of “reversing sanctuary city policies is about more than just enforcing federal immigration law by detaining criminals here illegally — it’s about re-establishing a culture of law and order, where crimes are punished and people are deterred from committing them.”
• RELATED STORY: Labor groups want to know if LA sheriff is ‘colluding’ with Trump over ‘sanctuary state’ bill
Feuer said his office worked on the lawsuit closely with Covington & Burling LLP, a law firm that is offering pro bono help to the city. Eric Holder, a former U.S. attorney general under the administration of President Barack Obama, is a partner at the firm, and Mitch Kamin serves as the attorney there that is working on the L.A. case.
Earlier this month, Feuer argued that the federal government has had a practice of explicitly stating that the 48-hour notification requirement would only apply if it is possible or “practicable” for the city, but the new grant rules do not make that clear.
Feuer warned that the city could be forced to take legal action against the federal government if Department of Justice officials failed to respond to an Aug. 7 letter seeking “written guidance that unambiguously clarifies” the rule by the end of the week.
The grant application is due Sept. 5, but federal officials have yet to respond with the clarification request, Feuer told reporters late last week.
Attorneys for the Justice Department initially told him they were “hoping to issue a refinement,” then postponed providing the clarification to later this week, Feuer said.
• RELATED STORY: LA leader to Feds: ‘We’ll have to sue’ if you don’t clarify new sanctuary rules
The city now has a short time frame to apply for the grant, which is used to help pay for Community Law Enforcement and Recovery, or CLEAR, a joint-agency program that was started in 1997 to curb gang-related violence. The program operates in nine areas in the city, including the LAPD’s Foothill Division in the San Fernando Valley, northeast Los Angeles, South Los Angeles and Boyle Heights.
Los Angeles’ lawsuit also follows a legal challenge by Chicago on the new Byrne justice grant rules targeting cities with so-called “sanctuary policies.
Since assuming office in January, Trump has vowed to take federal funds away from cities with “sanctuary” policies aimed at protecting undocumented immigrants, particularly policies that may block communication and cooperation between local and federal authorities about someone’s immigration status.
http://www.dailynews.com/government-and-politics/20170822/la-sues-trump-administration-over-sanctuary-city-crackdown
-
California lawmakers approve landmark 'sanctuary state' bill to expand protections for immigrants
Senate Bill 54 prevents officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations. (Sept. 18, 2017)
Jazmine Ulloa
California lawmakers on Saturday passed a “sanctuary state” bill to protect immigrants without legal residency in the U.S., part of a broader push by Democrats to counter expanded deportation orders under the Trump administration.
The legislation by Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), the most far-reaching of its kind in the country, would limit state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevent officers from questioning and holding people on immigration violations.
After passionate debate in both houses of the Legislature, staunch opposition from Republican sheriffs and threats from Trump administration officials against sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 54 was approved Saturday with a 27-11 vote along party lines. But the bill sent to Gov. Jerry Brown drastically scaled back the version first introduced, the result of tough negotiations between Brown and De León in the final weeks of the legislative session.
ALSO: Democrats' road to winning back the House goes through California »
The decision came hours after a federal judge in Chicago blocked the Trump administration's move to withhold Justice Department grant funds to discourage so-called sanctuary city policies.
On the Senate floor minutes before 2 a.m. on Saturday, De León said the changes were reasonable, and reflected a powerful compromise between law enforcement officials and advocates.
“These amendments do not mean to erode the core mission of this measure, which is to protect hardworking families that have contributed greatly to our culture and the economy,” he said. “This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state.”
It's a wrap for the California Legislature for 2017. Here's what lawmakers accomplished
Officially dubbed the “California Values Act,” the legislation initially would have prohibited state and local law enforcement agencies from using any resources to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents, unless they had violent or serious criminal convictions.
After talks with Brown, amendments to the bill made this week would allow federal immigration authorities to keep working with state corrections officials and to continue entering county jails to question immigrants. The legislation would also permit police and sheriffs to share information and transfer people to immigration authorities if they have been convicted of one or more crimes from a list of 800 outlined in a previous law, the California Trust Act.
Some immigrant rights advocates who were previously disappointed with the list of offenses under the Trust Act, were dismayed to see the same exceptions applied in the so-called sanctuary state bill. The list includes many violent and serious crimes, as well as some nonviolent charges and “wobblers,” offenses that can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor, which advocates said has the potential to ensnare people who do not pose a danger to the public.
But immigrant rights groups did not withdraw their support for Senate Bill 54 and also won some concessions. Under the additions to the bill, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would have to develop new standards to protect people held on immigration violations, and to allow immigrant inmates to receive credits toward their sentences serviced if they undergo rehabilitation and educational programs while incarcerated.
Gov. Jerry Brown and Senate leader Kevin De León strike deal on changes to 'sanctuary state' legislation »
The state attorney general’s office would have to develop recommendations that limit immigration agents' access to personal information. The attorney general also has broad authority under the state constitution to ensure that police and sheriffs agencies follow SB 54’s provisions should it be signed into law.
“This was a hard-fought effort, but the end product was worth the fight,” Jennie Pasquarella, immigrants’ rights director with the ACLU of California, said in a statement Saturday.
The compromise helped draw support for the bill from Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount), and moved the California Police Chiefs Assn.’s official position from opposed to neutral. The California Sheriffs Assn. remained opposed.
In a statement Saturday, Thomas Homan, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said California politicians had “chosen to prioritize politics over public safety.”
“This bill severely undermines that effort and will make California communities less safe,” said Homan, who hosted a March town hall with Republican Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones on immigration enforcement that erupted in protests.
In their respective chambers on Friday, at least 20 members of the Assembly and six members of the Senate took the floor for debate on the bill, voicing complex stances on illegal immigration, federalism and the diversity of families in California.
Assemblyman Steven Choi (R-Irvine), a first-generation immigrant from South Korea, argued that he came to the U.S. legally and said the bill created “chaos” for a country built on law and order.
Others pointed to the opposition from sheriffs organizations, saying SB 54 tied officers’ hands, allowing serial thieves, chronic drug abusers and gang members to slip through the cracks. Supporters countered the Trump administration was trying to paint all immigrants in the country illegally as criminals.
They pointed to provisions in the bill that would make hospitals, schools and courthouses safe zones for immigrants from federal immigration authorities at a time of fear for some communities.
“We are ironically ending this session the way we started, talking about protecting the most vulnerable among us,” Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) said.
De León introduced SB 54 on what was an unusually acrimonious first day of the 2017 legislative session, as lawmakers in both chambers were locked in bitter debate over the still newly elected President Trump.
It was at the center of a legislative package filed by Democrats in an attempt to protect more than 2.3 million people living in the state illegally. Other legislative proposals and budget deals have expanded workplace protections against raids from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and increased legal defense services for immigrants facing deportation and financial aid for students without legal residency.
Senate Bill 54 received national attention as the U.S. Department of Justice pledged to slash government grants for law enforcement from any so-called sanctuary cities, which limit the collaboration between local and federal authorities on immigration enforcement.
In a statement Saturday, Department of Justice spokesman Devin O'Malley said “state lawmakers inexplicably voted today to return criminal aliens back onto our streets.”
“This abandonment of the rule of law by the Legislature continues to put Californians at risk, and undermines national security and law enforcement," he said.
At the request of the California Senate earlier this year, former U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H Holder Jr. reviewed the bill and said it passed constitutional muster, adding that the states “have the power over the health and safety of their residents and allocation of state resources.”
Still, debate raged on and divided even law enforcement officials and associations. In Los Angeles, Police Chief Charlie Beck voiced his support, while L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell was a vocal opponent.
In a statement Saturday, McDonnell said the final version of the bill was not perfect, but “reflects much of what the LASD implemented years ago and the work is well underway.”
On Friday, lawmakers said some children without legal status were too afraid to go to school, while police statistics showed a drop in reports of sexual assault and domestic violence as immigrant victims refused to come forward.
Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens) said the era was reminiscent of the 1980s, when her father dreaded immigration raids.
“We are not living in a hypothetical fear,” she said. “That fear is a reality.”
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20170916-story.html
-
California becomes 'sanctuary state' in rebuke of Trump immigration policy
By JAZMINE ULLOA
OCT 05, 2017 | 01:40 PM
Under threat of possible retaliation by the Trump administration, Gov. Jerry Brown signed landmark "sanctuary state" legislation Thursday, vastly limiting who state and local law enforcement agencies can hold, question and transfer at the request of federal immigration authorities.
Senate Bill 54, which takes effect in January, has been hailed as part of a broader effort by majority Democrats in the California Legislature to shield more than 2.3 million immigrants living illegally in the state. Weeks before Brown's signature made it law, it was met with swift denunciations from Trump administration officials and became the focus of a national debate over how far states and cities can go to prevent their officers from enforcing federal immigration laws.
Brown took the unusual step of penning a signing message in support of SB 54. He called the legislation a balanced measure that would allow police and sheriff's agencies to continue targeting dangerous criminals, while protecting hardworking families without legal residency in the country.
"In enshrining these new protections, it is important to note what the bill does not do," Brown wrote in a signing message. "This bill does not prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way."
Legal experts have said federal officials may try to block the law in court to keep it from being implemented. Some doubt such challenges would be successful, pointing to the 10th Amendment and previous rulings in which courts have found the federal government can't compel local authorities to enforce federal laws.
On Thursday, Department of Justice spokesman Devin O'Malley declined comment on the agency's next move. Asked whether the administration would attempt to block the state law, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Thursday that federal officials "are spending every day we can trying to find the best way forward."
"The president will be laying out his responsible immigration plan over the next week," she said. "And I hope that California will push back on their governor's I think irresponsible decision moving forward."
Brown's decision comes as local and state governments are locked in legal battles with U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions over his move to slash federal grant funding from "sanctuary jurisdictions," where city and county agencies are limited when working with federal immigration officials. A Chicago federal judge largely blocked Sessions' effort just hours before SB 54 cleared the Legislature on Sept. 16.
Last month, Sessions called California's sanctuary state bill "unconscionable." Other federal officials also have sounded off against SB 54, suggesting illegal immigration is tied to increases in violent crime.
Throughout his campaign and in his tenure as president, Trump has tried to make the same connection, showcasing the relatives of people killed by immigrants in the country illegally. And one of his earliest executive orders put cities and counties on alert that they would lose federal funding if law enforcement did not cooperate with immigration agents.
The move has struck a bitter chord in California, home to at least 35 cities that have embraced the "sanctuary" label, and where Brown and Democratic lawmakers have passed legislation to extend financial aid, healthcare and driver's licenses to thousands of unauthorized immigrants. Other bills signed by Brown on Thursday would prevent some cities and counties from adding beds to immigrant detention centers, and would extend protections for immigrant workers and tenants.
In some places, the "sanctuary city" name is largely a symbolic message of political support for immigrants without legal residency. But other cities, most notably San Francisco and most recently Los Angeles, have cut ties with federal immigration officials and sought to build up social services for families, including city-funded legal aid.
The bill's author, Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles), has countered that the state law is defensible in court and will send a strong message against new federal policies that he argues have pushed some families further into the shadows. Research has shown sanctuary cities have lower crime rates and that immigrants generally commit fewer crimes than U.S. citizens.
De León joined Assemblyman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) and immigrant rights advocates at a press conference in Los Angeles on Thursday, saying the new law would put a kink in Trump's "perverse and inhumane deportation machine."
"California is building a wall of justice against President Trump's xenophobic, racist and ignorant immigration policies," he said to chants of "Si, se pudo," or "Yes, we could" from the crowd.
The final language of the new law was the result of months of tough negotiations between Brown, De León and law enforcement officials. It was the centerpiece of this year's legislative proposals in Sacramento that sought to challenge Trump's stance on illegal immigration and provide protections for families amid his threats of mass deportations.
The new law will largely prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from using either personnel or funds to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents unless those individuals have been convicted of one or more offenses from a list of 800 crimes outlined in a 2013 state law.
Federal immigration authorities will still be able to work with state corrections officials — a key concession Brown had demanded — and will be able to enter county jails to question immigrants. But the state attorney general's office will be required to publish guidelines and training recommendations to limit immigration agents' access to personal information. And all law enforcement agencies will have to produce annual reports on their participation in task forces that involve federal agencies, as well as on the people they transfer to immigration authorities.
The new law doesn't specify what happens if local law enforcement agencies don't comply with the new rules. But the attorney general has broad authority under the state Constitution to prosecute police and sheriff's agencies that don't comply.
For many officers across the state, the expanded restrictions won't change much. Some police and sheriff's agencies already have developed similar boundaries against working with immigration agents, either through their own policies or under local "sanctuary city" rules.
For other officers, though, the legislation would set new guidelines and has long divided police chiefs and sheriffs. The California Police Chiefs Assn. moved its official position from opposed to neutral after final changes to the bill last month, but the California Sheriffs Assn. remained opposed.
Follow
Christine Mai-Duc ✔ @cmaiduc
Romulo Avelica-Gonzalez thanks Brown for signing bill. He says it'll allow immigrants to drop off kids at school, go to doctor w/o fear
8:34 AM - Oct 5, 2017
1 1 Reply Retweets 2 2 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck supported the bill, joining others who said entangling police and federal immigration forces can have a negative effect on public safety, because crime victims and witnesses without legal status may refuse to come forward to authorities out of fear of deportation. L.A. County Sheriff Jim McDonnell was a vocal opponent. Even so, he said the final version of the bill, though not perfect, "reflects much of what the LASD implemented years ago and the work is well underway."
Immigrant rights advocates said its passage would help keep thousands of families together. Angela Chan, policy director at the Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus, said it will "improve protections for immigrants in most counties in California."
"This victory is the result of community organizing and directly impacted immigrants sharing their stories about being turned over to ICE at the hands of local law enforcement," she said. "And we look forward to working to pass stronger protections for immigrants throughout California in the years to come."
http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20171005-story.html
-
DOJ issues 'last chance' warning to sanctuary cities
Fox News
If the cities do not comply they could be required to pay back millions of dollars in federal money.
The Justice Department on Thursday delivered a “last chance” warning to cities suspected of having "sanctuary" policies to drop their resistance to federal immigration officials.
In a notice reviewed by Fox News, the DOJ announced that five jurisdictions “have preliminarily been found to have laws, policies, or practices that may violate” a key federal statute concerning cooperation with federal immigration officials.
They are: Chicago, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia and Cook County, Ill.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a written statement that sanctuary cities “adopt the view that the protection of criminal aliens is more important than the protection of law-abiding citizens and of the rule of law.”
Acting Director Thomas Homan pushes back against California's policy on 'America's Newsroom.'Video
ICE chief: Sanctuary cities make our job 'almost impossible'
“I urge all jurisdictions found to be out of compliance in this preliminary review to reconsider their policies that undermine the safety of their residents,” he said.
The statute in question generally bars local officials from restricting the sharing of immigration and citizenship information with federal immigration officials.
JUDGE SAYS SESSIONS CAN'T WITHHOLD GRANT MONEY TO SANCTUARY CITIES
Sessions earlier this year said any cities and counties out of compliance could lose certain federal grant money.
However, a federal judge in September blocked Sessions from withholding those grants for now, while a Chicago lawsuit against the department plays out in the courts.
Thursday’s notice shows the Department of Justice is still aiming to make a final determination on which jurisdictions are skirting the law.
The Justice Department said the five cities and counties in question will have until Oct. 27 to “provide additional evidence that the interpretation and application of their laws, policies, or practices comply with the statute.”
Officials in those jurisdictions have defended their policies. After the September court ruling, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel called the decision “an affirmation of the rule of law."
According to the Chicago Tribune, he called it a “clear rejection of the false choice that the Trump Justice Department wanted Chicago to make between our values, our principles and our priorities."
Several additional jurisdictions had been flagged in a May 2016 inspector general report as having laws that might conflict with federal requirements. But the DOJ on Thursday cleared those jurisdictions, including Milwaukee and the state of Connecticut.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/12/doj-issues-last-chance-warning-to-sanctuary-cities.html
-
Wonder how all the rest escaped notice, or so it would seem. Whose dick did they pull, more like. Some of the worst aren't on there.
-
Kate Steinle case that led to debate over US sanctuary cities, Trump’s call for wall is under way in court
Fox News
Laura Wilkerson, whose son was killed by an illegal immigrant, discusses the highly-publicized trial.
Kate Steinle’s murder fueled national outrage and became a flashpoint in the divisive debate over the twin issues of illegal immigration and U.S. sanctuary cities, and now her accused killer is getting his day in court.
A homeless illegal immigrant from Mexico is charged with the slaying which became a signature issue for Donald Trump as he was running for president. Trump invoked the murder in calling for the construction of a wall on the Mexican border and stepping up deportations and cracking down on illegal immigration.
The 32-year-old woman and her father James Steinle were strolling on San Francisco's Embarcadero on July 1, 2015 when she was shot.
Her father testified Monday that before she died, she said to him: “Help me, dad.”
Two days after Steinle was shot, Trump released a tough statement on the killing.
"This senseless and totally preventable act of violence committed by an illegal immigrant is yet another example of why we must secure our border immediately," he said.
"This is an absolutely disgraceful situation, and I am the only one that can fix it. Nobody else has the guts to even talk about it. That won't happen if I become president."
Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 54, admits shooting Steinle but says it was an accident.
A jury of six men and six women began hearing arguments Monday in the courtroom of Judge Samuel Feng.
“This is the gun fired at a young woman named Kathryn Steinle on pier 14,” prosecutor Diana Garcia told the jury in her opening statement.
She pointed to Zarate, and said, “She’s dead because this man pointed a gun in her direction and pulled the trigger.”
Garcia said the prosecution’s evidence includes surveillance video from a fire station that shows Steinle falling to the ground and a splash from when Zarate threw the gun in the water.
She concluded by telling the jury when they see the video, hear the defendant’s words, hear from witnesses and hear more about the gun, they will conclude that Zarate knew what he was doing and that “he meant to shoot people on pier 14 and ended up killing Kate Steinle.”
Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said during his opening statement that his client hadn't stolen the gun, but rather found it on the pier, and it went off as he unwrapped the T-shirt.
Criminal defense attorney Philip Holloway, a former assistant district attorney, says San Francisco's sanctuary city policy led to the murder of Kate Steinle.Video
Attorney: San Francisco has Steinle's blood on their hands
He showed the jury surveillance video, attempting to prove that someone else could have left the gun where Zarate was sitting and argued that Zarate threw the gun in the water to make it stop firing.
Gonzalez portrayed Zarate as a homeless man who didn't speak English well and didn't really understand what was going on. The attorney showed video from Zarate's initial police interview in which he repeatedly said he didn't know why he shot Steinle and why he was aiming in that area.
But the prosecution said when Zarate was interviewed by detectives he first said the gun went off when he stepped on it, and then said it was wrapped up in a bag and that it somehow went off. Garcia said that eventually he admitted to deliberately firing the gun, but without explaining why, except at some point to say he was aiming at a seal.
The defense attorney told the jury that there has "never been a ricochet charge as a murder in San Francisco" and that an expert "couldn't make this shot if he tried."
Gonzalez concluded by saying, "If this had happened to a college kid or a Swedish tourist - if they had accidentally fired a gun - would they be charged with murder?"
The jury also heard from Jim Steinle, who was with his daughter on the pier when she was shot.
In a brief but emotional testimony, Jim described his close relationship with his daughter and their love of taking selfies together, one of which was taken moments before the shooting.
He cried on the stand as he recounted the details of his daughter's death. Jim said after she was shot and fell to the ground, "she looked at me with her arms out and said, 'help me dad' ...and I grabbed her and held her."
Zarate had a criminal record and had been deported several times at the time of the shooting.
Just before the shooting, he had been transferred to the San Francisco County Jail after serving a prison sentence for illegal reentry.
He was being held on a 20-year-old marijuana charge that prosecutors dismissed.
The San Francisco sheriff then released Zarate from jail despite a federal immigration request to detain him for at least two more days for deportation. The sheriff's department said it was following the city's sanctuary policy of limited cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
San Francisco, as a sanctuary city, honors immigration holds only if the person has a violent record or if a judge vetted the hold or approved a warrant.
At the time of the Steinle shooting, Trump was trailing most of the field running for the GOP presidential nomination.
Two weeks later after issuing his statement he was in first place.
As president, Trump has threatened to withhold federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities such as San Francisco. The threat has been met with lawsuits to stop the president from moving forward.
The gun Zarate fired had been stolen from the car of a Bureau of Land Management ranger several days before the shooting.
The trial is expected to last four to six weeks.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/23/kate-steinle-case-that-led-to-debate-over-us-sanctuary-cities-trump-s-call-for-wall-is-underway-in-court.html
-
Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge
Fox News
A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued the ruling Monday in lawsuits brought by San Francisco and Santa Clara counties. According to the judge, Trump can’t set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.
The judge had previously put a temporary hold on the executive order.
The Trump administration has appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/20/trump-order-on-sanctuary-cities-permanently-blocked-by-federal-judge.html
-
So they put Matt Gonzalez on the case of the pier shooting. Big surprise.
-
Kinda old news, but: Pier shooting guy ended up with only a relatively minor thing stuck to him, which they're looking to fix (and realistically may succeed in doing).
Unbelievable. This guy may be the luckiest SOB to ever jump our border. Just incredible that he could come here and pull the shit that he did, and get away with it.
-
DOJ threatens to subpoena sanctuary cities – prompting mayors to boycott Trump meeting
By Jake Gibson, Alex Pappas | Fox News
Exclusive: Attorney General Jeff Sessions sounds off on the shocking not guilty verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial. Plus, Sessions comments on Mike Flynn's plea. #Tucker
The Justice Department on Wednesday threatened to subpoena 23 jurisdictions if they don’t turn over information about their "sanctuary" policies -- triggering a backlash from mayors across the country who pulled out of a White House meeting.
In letters to New York City, Chicago, San Francisco and other jurisdictions, the Justice Department demanded records relating to whether these localities are "unlawfully restricting information sharing by law enforcement officers with federal immigration authorities."
Department of Justice speaks out on 'Fox & Friends' on sending document requests on possible violations of federal law.Video
DOJ targets 23 jurisdictions on immigration policy
“I continue to urge all jurisdictions under review to reconsider policies that place the safety of their communities and their residents at risk,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “Protecting criminal aliens from federal immigration authorities defies common sense and undermines the rule of law.”
The letter drew a fiery response from several Democratic mayors -- including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio -- who said they would boycott a planned working session with the president at the White House on Wednesday.
“I will NOT be attending today’s meeting at the White House after @realDonaldTrump’s Department of Justice decided to renew their racist assault on our immigrant communities,” de Blasio tweeted. “It doesn’t make us safer and it violates America’s core values.”
Bill de Blasio
✔
@NYCMayor
I will NOT be attending today’s meeting at the White House after @realDonaldTrump’s Department of Justice decided to renew their racist assault on our immigrant communities. It doesn’t make us safer and it violates America’s core values.
7:33 AM - Jan 24, 2018
1,883 1,883 Replies 1,485 1,485 Retweets 5,002 5,002 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu, who serves as the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, also said he would boycott the meeting.
"Unfortunately, the Trump administration’s decision to threaten mayors and demonize immigrants yet again – and use cities as political props in the process – has made this meeting untenable," Landrieu said.
The White House said the meeting would still take place with mayors who chose to still participate.
"We are disappointed that a number of mayors have chosen to make a political stunt instead of participating in an important discussion with the President and his administration," said White House Deputy Press Secretary Lindsay Walters.
The letters from the Justice Department state that jurisdictions that fail to respond will be subject to a DOJ subpoena.
“Sanctuary cities” is a phrase typically used to describe jurisdictions that restrict local law enforcement from sharing information with the federal government about the immigration status of those in custody.
“We have seen too many examples of the threat to public safety represented by jurisdictions that actively thwart the federal government’s immigration enforcement—enough is enough,” Sessions said.
The DOJ letter requests documents “reflecting any orders, directives, instructions, or guidance to your law enforcement employees” about how to “communicate with the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and/or Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”
If these jurisdictions can't prove they are complying with federal law, senior DOJ officials told Fox News, federal funding could be withheld and the DOJ may demand the return of 2016 federal funding some of the cities have already received.
“We’ve given them federal dollars – your taxpayer dollars – to cooperate with federal law enforcement,” Sarah Isgur Flores, a spokeswoman for the DOJ, said Wednesday on "Fox & Friends." “They didn’t have to take that money, but they did. And when they took it, they said they would comply with federal law. So what we’re saying is if we find out you’re not complying with federal law, we’re taking the tax dollars back.”
The administration, though, has faced setbacks over trying to withhold federal funds for sanctuary cities. A federal judge in Chicago ruled against Sessions in September; a judge in San Francisco also blocked President Trump’s executive order that denied federal funding to these cities.
"President Trump might be able to tweet whatever comes to mind, but he can't grant himself new authority because he feels like it," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in November, after the city filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the president's executive order.
The jurisdictions that received letters on Wednesday, according to the Justice Department: Chicago; Cook County, Ill; New York City; the state of California; Albany, N.Y.; Berkeley, Calif.; Bernalillo County, N.M.; Burlington, Vt.; the city and county of Denver, Colo.; Fremont, Calif.; Jackson, Miss.; King County, Wash.; Lawrence, Mass.; City of Los Angeles, Calif.; Louisville, Ky.; Monterey County, Calif.; Sacramento County, Calif.; the city and county of San Francisco; Sonoma County, Calif.; Watsonville, Calif.; West Palm Beach, Fla.; the state of Illinois and the state of Oregon.
All 23 of these jurisdictions were previously contacted by the Justice Department, which raised concerns about its laws, policies and practices.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/24/doj-threatens-to-subpoena-23-jurisdictions-over-sanctuary-city-policies.html
-
How in in the world does this happen in the U.S.? :-\
Oakland Mayor Sends Out Warning On Possible ICE Raid
HENRY RODGERS
Political Reporter
02/26/2018
Democratic Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf sent out a warning Saturday that Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents may conduct a raid in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Schaff’s message came in a tweet, and claimed she had heard from multiple sources of a possible crackdown on illegal immigrants in the area. The Democratic mayor said she believes it was her “duty and moral obligation as Mayor to give those families fair warning when that threat appears imminent.”
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DW2uTD6VQAAG-CO.jpg)
The Democratic Mayor also said she was sharing the information ahead of time so no one panicked and residents have time to figure out what to do if they were detained by authorities. (RELATED: ICE Arrests Nearly 200 Convicted Criminal Illegal Immigrants)
“My priority is for the well-being and safety of all residents ― particularly our most vulnerable,” Schaaf continued in her statement. “And I know that Oakland is safer when we share information, encourage community awareness, and care for our neighbors.”
The news comes as ICE carried out raids on more than 100 businesses in the Los Angeles area just weeks before arresting 212 illegal immigrants over a five-day span.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/26/oakland-mayor-warning-ice-raid/
-
Justice Department sues California over 'sanctuary' laws that aid those in U.S. illegally
Matt Zapotosky
Washington Post
The Justice Department dramatically escalated its war on "sanctuary" jurisdictions Tuesday, alleging in a lawsuit that the state of California has violated the Constitution with laws that are friendly to undocumented immigrants.
In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento just after 9 p.m. Eastern time, the Justice Department alleged that three recently enacted California laws obstruct enforcement of federal immigration law and harm public safety.
The Justice Department asked a federal judge to block the California laws, which restrict how state businesses and law enforcement agencies can cooperate with immigration authorities. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is to address the lawsuit in a speech Wednesday at the California Peace Officers Association's 26th Annual Law Enforcement Day, saying, in part: "We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe we are going to win," according to an excerpt of his prepared remarks.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, D, said Tuesday night that while he had yet to examine what the Justice Department filed, he felt the state was abiding by the Constitution and cooperating with its federal partners to foster public safety.
"States and local jurisdictions have the right to determine which policies are best for their communities," he said.
California Gov. Jerry Brown, D, wrote on Twitter, "At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don't work here. SAD!!!"
The Trump administration and the Justice Department have been waging an increasingly acrimonious battle with sanctuary jurisdictions, although the latest lawsuit is perhaps the most consequential step yet. It sets up a clash not just on what is the best immigration policy to promote public safety, but also on what power the federal government should exert over the states.
Although the court is being asked to consider only California, which this year became a "sanctuary state" to some fanfare, the court's decision could have far-reaching consequences for other jurisdictions with similar policies. There is no formal definition of a "sanctuary" jurisdiction, but the Justice Department has put dozens of other locales in its crosshairs, this year threatening to subpoena 23 jurisdictions, including Chicago and New York City, that it suspects of unlawfully interfering with federal immigration enforcement.
A senior Justice Department official said department lawyers are still evaluating other places' laws and could bring other lawsuits - although the measures California passed stood out as being especially high-profile and transgressive of what Sessions thought was constitutional.
Becerra has proved to be a thorn in the Trump administration's side. He noted in a recent interview with The Washington Post that the state had 28 lawsuits against the Trump administration and - at that time - had not lost a case. Later that day, a judge ruled against the state in a suit over the Trump administration's move to try to expedite border-wall construction.
"Our track record so far when it comes to any dispute with the federal government has been pretty good on this count," Becerra said Tuesday night.
The new lawsuit takes aim at three California laws: Assembly Bill 450, which prohibits private employers from giving immigration officials access to workplaces or documents for enforcement without a court order; Assembly Bill 103, which created a state inspection system for immigration detention facilities; and Senate Bill 54, which limits what state and local law enforcement authorities can communicate about some suspects and which people they can transfer to federal custody.
The suit argues that the measures are preempted by federal law and thus violate the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. A senior Justice Department official said the department hopes a judge will be able to take action in the case in a matter of weeks, after setting a briefing schedule for California to respond.
"The provisions of state law at issue have the purpose and effect of making it more difficult for federal immigration officers to carry out their responsibilities in California," Justice Department lawyers wrote. "The Supremacy Clause does not allow California to obstruct the United States' ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted or to take actions entrusted to it by the Constitution."
The Justice Department's suing states over their laws is uncommon but not unheard of. Toward the end of President Barack Obama's tenure, his administration sued North Carolina over what came to be known as the "bathroom bill," which barred transgender people from using restrooms that did not correspond with the sex on their birth certificates. The state ultimately repealed and replaced the measure, and the Trump Justice Department said that meant the case should be dropped.
The Justice Department during the Obama administration also sued North Carolina and Texas over their voter ID laws, and it sued Arizona over a law designed to crack down on illegal immigration. That case ultimately made it to the Supreme Court, which struck down portions of the law but let stand the provision requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they detained and suspected were in the country without legal documentation.
Former Attorney General Eric Holder Jr., who was tapped to represent the California State Senate in private practice, opined in a letter that Senate Bill 54 "fully complies with the Constitution and federal law."
President Donald Trump effectively declared war on sanctuary jurisdictions within a week of taking office, signing an executive order stating that such places "have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic" and threatening to withhold federal funds from them. That order, though, triggered legal challenges, and in April, the administration suffered a setback when a federal judge in San Francisco blocked the order's implementation.
Later, a judge in Chicago similarly ruled that the attorney general had exceeded his authority in tying federal grant money to jurisdictions' cooperation with immigration officials, and a judge in Philadelphia ruled that the city was in compliance with immigration law and blocked the Justice Department from withholding money there.
This time, the Justice Department will enter court as the plaintiff in a suit, forcing California to appear as the defendant and make the case that its actions are legal.
California is not the only jurisdiction to draw the ire of the Justice Department, but tensions between Justice and the state have been particularly acute. As Brown was contemplating signing a law late last year that would limit how state and local police could cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, Sessions said publicly that the measure would endanger law enforcement officers and neighborhoods. Brown ultimately signed it.
Last month, Oakland's Democratic mayor warned residents that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was planning a raid, just before authorities took into custody more than 150 people in Northern California suspected of violating immigration laws.
ICE Deputy Director Thomas Homan said that hundreds were able to dodge the operation, "thanks to the mayor's irresponsible decision."
In a statement released about the new lawsuit, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said: "California has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and responsibility of the Congress to protect our homeland. I appreciate the efforts of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law and protect American communities."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-justice-department-california-sanctuary-city-lawsuit-20180306-story.html
-
US Appeals Court Upholds Texas' Ban on 'Sanctuary Cities'
The law allows police officers to ask people during routine stops whether they're in the U.S. legally
By Paul J. Weber
AP
A federal appeals court Tuesday upheld the bulk of Texas' crackdown on "sanctuary cities" in a victory for the Trump administration as part of its aggressive fight against measures seen as protecting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans allows Texas to enforce what critics call the toughest state-level immigration measure since Arizona passed what critics called a "Show Me Your Papers" law in 2010.
The law allows police officers to ask people during routine stops whether they're in the U.S. legally and threatens sheriffs with jail time for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities.
The ruling comes a week after the U.S. Justice Department — which had joined Texas in defending the law known as Senate Bill 4 — sued California over state laws aimed at protecting immigrants.
"Dangerous criminals shouldn't be allowed back into our communities to possibly commit more crimes," Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in response to the decision.
Leading the lawsuit were Texas' largest cities— including Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and Austin — in a state where the Hispanic population has grown at a pace three times that of white residents since 2010.
Under the Texas law, local authorities who fail to honor federal requests to hold people jailed on offenses that aren't immigration related for possible deportation can be fined. Police chiefs, sheriffs and constables could also now face removal from office and even criminal charges for failing to comply with such federal "detainer" requests.
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, said they were disappointed in the ruling and will closely monitor how the law is implemented. The only part of the Texas law removed by the court was a portion prohibiting local officials from "endorsing" policies that limit immigration enforcement.
"This is the toughest state law in the country," he said.
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/US-Appeals-Court-Upholds-Texas-Ban-on-Sanctuary-Cities--476726563.html
-
Orange County votes to fight California's sanctuary city laws, joining sheriff's pushback
By Paulina Dedaj | Fox News
The board voted 3-0 to join a federal lawsuit against California's sanctuary laws; Trace Gallagher reports from Los Angeles.
Officials in California's Orange County voted Tuesday to join a lawsuit from the Trump administration fighting the state's "sanctuary city" laws, hours after the county sheriff's department anounced its own methods of pushing back against the legislation aimed at protecting illegal immigrants.
The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted 3-0 to join the U.S. Justice Department's lawsuit, which argued three recent California laws deliberately interfered with federal immigration policies.
One of the laws bars police in many cases from turning over suspects to federal immigration agents for deportation.
"This legislation prevents law enforcement from removing criminals from our community and is a threat to public safety," Supervisor Shawn Nelson said before the vote.
The county moved earlier this week to improve communication with federal immigration agents by publishing the release dates of inmates online. The sheriff's department used to screen inmates in the county's jails to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents identify those subject to deportation but had to stop after the state law passed.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra says the Trump administration doesn't have the legal authority to build the type of wall proposed and is prepared to go to court to make that case.
"State law is state law. It’s my job to enforce state law and I will do so. We want to make sure that every jurisdiction, including Orange County, understands what state law requires of the people and the subdivisions of the state of California," the state's attorney general, Xavier Becerra, said at a news conference. When asked if that meant an arrest or lawsuit against the sheriff, Becerra responded, "I think I just answered that."
The Orange County Register reported that the sheriff’s department would publish a “Who’s in Jail” online database, including the date and time of inmates’ release, to help cooperate with other law enforcement agencies including Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
“SB 54 makes local law enforcement’s job more difficult and requires bureaucratic processes that could allow dangerous individuals to fall through the cracks of our justice system,” Sheriff Sandra Hutchens said.
"SB 54 makes local law enforcement’s job more difficult and requires bureaucratic processes that could allow dangerous individuals to fall through the cracks of our justice system," Sheriff Sandra Hutchens said. "My department, however, remains committed to cooperating fully with federal authorities in all areas where I have discretion to remove serious criminals from our community."
Annie Lai, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at UC Irvine, noted that SB-45 does allow authorities to notify federal agencies of the release dates of illegal immigrants convicted of serious crimes. "This change in policy is basically affecting everybody else who doesn’t have a serious criminal history under SB-54," she said.
Los Alamitos, California moves ahead on bid to opt out of state sanctuary law. Mayor Troy Edgar speaks out on 'America's Newsroom.'Video
Los Alamitos mayor on opting out of sanctuary law
Earlier this month another California city, Los Alamitos, approved an ordinance to opt out of the sanctuary city law that council members say conflicts with federal law.
Board members say that the state law “may be in direct conflict with federal laws and the Constitution,” and goes against the oath they took for office.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/27/orange-county-votes-to-fight-californias-sanctuary-city-laws-joining-sheriffs-pushback.html
-
3 More California Cities Vote to Opt Out of State's Sanctuary Law
Newport Beach council votes 7-0 against law.
The Newport Beach city council voted unanimously earlier this week to challenge California's sanctuary law, joining a dozen other cities that are not interested in complying with the sanctuary policies.
It's the third city in the past two days to take such action, joining about a dozen others in recent weeks.
"It's a tool in the toolbox for our police to help keep criminals off the street," Newport Beach Councilman Scott Peotter said of the vote against the law.
He said the issue is not about opposition to immigrants - as critics allege - but about keeping "illegal alien criminals" from re-entering the community.
The sanctuary law is heavily supported by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and State Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D).
Peotter also said that Brown is sending National Guard troops to the border for reasons other than to prevent illegal immigration.
"You listen to Jerry Brown, and he's sending [troops] there for other reasons. Not for immigration purposes," he said. "In either event, the troops end up being at the border."
"So it's a matter of, whose spin do you want to listen to?" he added, arguing that the state is controlled by two-thirds Democrats.
Peotter said the state did not listen to the city's concerns about the law before it passed and now the city is joining the lawsuit against the state by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
"We want to be a law and order city and a law and order state. We want to comply with federal law and state law. They put us into a situation where we have to choose and we don't like it," he added.
Watch the interview from "Fox & Friends" above, and read more about other California cities opting out of the sanctuary law.
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/04/12/13-california-cities-now-fighting-states-sanctuary-law
-
Trump 'sanctuary cities' executive order is unconstitutional, US appeals court rules
Katherine Lam By Katherine Lam | Fox News
A U.S. appeals court ruled Wednesday it is unconstitutional for the Trump administration to threaten to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” that aren’t cooperating with immigration officials.
"Absent congressional authorization, the administration may not redistribute or withhold properly appropriated funds in order to effectuate its own policy goals," Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the majority.
In a 2-1 ruling, Thomas also said he's sending back the case back to the lower court because there wasn't enough evidence to support a nationwide ban on Trump's executive order. The case will receive more hearings on the nationwide ban question.
SANCTUARY CITIES: WHAT ARE THEY?
In November, U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued an injunction to permanently block President Trump's executive order to cut off funding to sanctuary cities. The judge said the president didn’t have the authority to attach new conditions to spending approved by Congress, adding that the president's efforts also violated the separation of power doctrines.
The ruling came in lawsuits filed by two California counties — San Francisco and Santa Clara.
A federal judge also ruled last Friday that the U.S. Justice Department cannot withhold grants from Chicago because it was providing sanctuary to immigrants.
Trump promised to crack down on sanctuary cities, claiming they were “harboring” illegal immigrants. The administration said the executive order signed in January 2017 only applies to a small monetary fund that already requires compliance with immigration law.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/01/trump-sanctuary-cities-executive-order-is-unconstitutional-us-appeals-court-rules.html
-
Oregon has been a sanctuary state for more than 30 years.
-
Oregon has been a sanctuary state for more than 30 years.
Oh Dear. ::)
Nothing to be Proud of.
-
Oh Dear. ::)
Nothing to be Proud of.
Sanctuary Cities List
States
California
Colorado
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Mexico
Oregon
Vermont
Cities and Counties
California
Alameda County
Berkley
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles
Monterey County
Napa County
Oakland
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Ana
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Sonoma County
Watsonville
Colorado
Arapahoe County
Aurora
Boulder County
Denver
Denver County
Garfield County
Grand County
Jefferson County
Larimer County
Mesa County
Pitkin County
Pueblo County
Routt County
San Miguel County
Weld County
Connecticut
East Haven
Hartford
Florida
Alachua County
Clay County
Georgia
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Iowa
Benton County
Cass County
Franklin County
Fremont County
Greene County
Ida County
Iowa City
Iowa City, Johnson County
Jefferson County
Marion County
Monona County
Montgomery County
Pottawattamie County
Sioux County
Illinois
Chicago
Cook County
Kansas
Butler County
Harvey County
Louisiana
New Orleans
Massachusetts
Amherst
Boston
Cambridge
Concord
Lawrence
Newton
Northhampton
Somerville
Maryland
Baltimore
Montgomery County
Prince George's County
Minnesota
Hennepin County
Mississippi
Jackson
Nebraska
Hall County
Sarpy County
New Jersey
Middlesex County
Newark
Ocean County
Union County
New Mexico
Bernalillo County
New Mexico County Jails
San Miguel
Nevada
Washoe County
New York
Albany
Franklin County
Ithaca
Nassau County
New York City
Omondaga County
St. Lawrence County
Wayne County
Oregon
Baker County
Clackamas County
Clatsop County
Coos County
Crook County
Curry County
Deschutes County
Douglas County
Gilliam County
Grant County
Hood River County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Josephine County
Lane Countyn
Lincoln County
Linn County
Malheur County
Marion County
Marlon County
Multnomah County
Polk County
Sherman County
Springfield
Tillamok County
Umatilla County
Union County
Wallowa County
Wasco County
Washington County
Wheeler County
Yamhill County
Pennsylvania
Bradford County
Bucks County
Butler County
Chester County
Clarion County
Delaware County
Eerie County
Franklin County
Lebanon County
Lehigh County
Lycoming County
Montgomery County
Montour County
Perry County
Philadelphia
Pike County
Westmoreland County
Rhode Island
Providence, Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Virginia
Arlington County
Chesterfield County
Fairfax County
Vermont
Burlington
Montpelier
Winooski
Washington
Chelan County
Clallam County
Clark County
Cowlitz County
Franklin County
Jefferson County
King County
Kitsap County
Pierce County
San Juan County
Skagit County
Snohomish County
Spokane County
Seattle
Thurston County
Walla Walla County
Wallowa County
Whatcom County
Yakima County
-
Sanctuary Cities List
States
California
Colorado
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Mexico
Oregon
Vermont
Cities and Counties
California
Alameda County
Berkley
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles
Monterey County
Napa County
Oakland
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Ana
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Sonoma County
Watsonville
Colorado
Arapahoe County
Aurora
Boulder County
Denver
Denver County
Garfield County
Grand County
Jefferson County
Larimer County
Mesa County
Pitkin County
Pueblo County
Routt County
San Miguel County
Weld County
Connecticut
East Haven
Hartford
Florida
Alachua County
Clay County
Georgia
Clayton County
DeKalb County
Iowa
Benton County
Cass County
Franklin County
Fremont County
Greene County
Ida County
Iowa City
Iowa City, Johnson County
Jefferson County
Marion County
Monona County
Montgomery County
Pottawattamie County
Sioux County
Illinois
Chicago
Cook County
Kansas
Butler County
Harvey County
Louisiana
New Orleans
Massachusetts
Amherst
Boston
Cambridge
Concord
Lawrence
Newton
Northhampton
Somerville
Maryland
Baltimore
Montgomery County
Prince George's County
Minnesota
Hennepin County
Mississippi
Jackson
Nebraska
Hall County
Sarpy County
New Jersey
Middlesex County
Newark
Ocean County
Union County
New Mexico
Bernalillo County
New Mexico County Jails
San Miguel
Nevada
Washoe County
New York
Albany
Franklin County
Ithaca
Nassau County
New York City
Omondaga County
St. Lawrence County
Wayne County
Oregon
Baker County
Clackamas County
Clatsop County
Coos County
Crook County
Curry County
Deschutes County
Douglas County
Gilliam County
Grant County
Hood River County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Josephine County
Lane Countyn
Lincoln County
Linn County
Malheur County
Marion County
Marlon County
Multnomah County
Polk County
Sherman County
Springfield
Tillamok County
Umatilla County
Union County
Wallowa County
Wasco County
Washington County
Wheeler County
Yamhill County
Pennsylvania
Bradford County
Bucks County
Butler County
Chester County
Clarion County
Delaware County
Eerie County
Franklin County
Lebanon County
Lehigh County
Lycoming County
Montgomery County
Montour County
Perry County
Philadelphia
Pike County
Westmoreland County
Rhode Island
Providence, Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Virginia
Arlington County
Chesterfield County
Fairfax County
Vermont
Burlington
Montpelier
Winooski
Washington
Chelan County
Clallam County
Clark County
Cowlitz County
Franklin County
Jefferson County
King County
Kitsap County
Pierce County
San Juan County
Skagit County
Snohomish County
Spokane County
Seattle
Thurston County
Walla Walla County
Wallowa County
Whatcom County
Yakima County
One of the craziest things happening in the country today.
-
One of the craziest things happening in the country today.
What is also crazy is Trump thinking he can actually sanction states, counties and cities with fines and withdrawal of Federal funding. Technically he could try, of course. I don't see this ever happening, though.
-
What is also crazy is Trump thinking he can actually sanction states, counties and cities with fines and withdrawal of Federal funding. Technically he could try, of course. I don't see this ever happening, though.
What?? The federal government is always conditioning federal funding to the states on the states complying with various directives. That's a horrible argument. Will never survive scrutiny when it gets to the Supreme Court.
-
:-\
-
Where are the ISIS Murderers Lives Matter Protesters
What about his Human Rights
He good man
He dindu nuffink
::) ::) ::)
-
About friggin time. Thank you.
Barr's DOJ Brings 2 'Sanctuary City' Lawsuits
Monday, 10 February 2020
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/sanctuary-cities-lawsuits/2020/02/10/id/953497/
-
About friggin time. Thank you.
Barr's DOJ Brings 2 'Sanctuary City' Lawsuits
Monday, 10 February 2020
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/sanctuary-cities-lawsuits/2020/02/10/id/953497/
Dems: "We love illegals and killers and muzzies so much (aka we want their vote) we're willing to put American lives in harms way to get what we want".
Commie Socialists...
-
Dems: "We love illegals and killers and muzzies so much (aka we want their vote) we're willing to put American lives in harms way to get what we want".
Commie Socialists...
Sadly how very True is that - It’s The Mantra of Obsessed Diseased Liberal Leftists,
Very Sick Sick Individuals.
-
Court hands Trump win in sanctuary city fight, says administration can deny grant money
By Adam Shaw, Bill Mears | Fox News
100 elite Border Patrol agents will be deployed to 10 major cities including New York and Los Angeles; reaction and analysis on 'Outnumbered.'
A federal appeals court on Wednesday handed a major win to the Trump administration in its fight against “sanctuary” jurisdictions, ruling that it can deny grant money to states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York overturned a lower court ruling that stopped the administration’s 2017 move to withhold grant money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which dispenses over $250 million a year to state and local criminal justice efforts.
“Today’s decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the Attorney General to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities,” a DOJ spokesman said in a statement. “The grant conditions here require states and cities that receive DOJ grants to share information about criminals in custody. The federal government uses this information to enforce national immigration laws--policies supported by successive Democrat and Republican administrations.”
“All Americans will benefit from increased public safety as this Administration is able to implement its lawful immigration and public safety policies,” the statement said.
The latest decision conflicts with rulings from other appeals courts across the country concerning sanctuary policies, indicating a Supreme Court review is ultimately likely.
New York City and liberal states including New York, Washington, Massachusetts and Connecticut sued the government, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York backed them — ordering the money be released and stopping the government from putting immigration-related conditions on grants.
But the appeals court ruled that it “cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue.”
“These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations,” the court ruled. “But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.”
It also disagreed with the district court’s claim that the conditions intrude on powers reserved only to states, noting that in immigration policy the Supreme Court has found that the federal government maintains “broad” and “preeminent” power.
The ruling marks a key win for the administration in its efforts to crack down on the continued use of “sanctuary” policies that limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities in order to shield illegal immigrants from deportation.
Such policies generally forbid local law enforcement from honoring detainers -- requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that they be alerted to of an illegal immigrant’s release from custody so they can be be picked up by ICE and put through deportation proceedings.
Proponents of the policies claim it makes cities safer because it encourages illegal immigrants to cooperate with police without fear of deportation. But the Trump administration has been relentlessly pushing back by highlighting cases in which criminals are released onto the streets only to re-offend.
It has also deployed a series of measures to combat the practice, including deploying elite Border Patrol agents to sanctuary cities to help ICE track down and detain illegal immigrants.
The Justice Department recently announced a slew of measures, and President Trump has called on Congress to pass legislation that would allow victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants to sue sanctuary cities and states.
“Not one more American life should be stolen by sanctuary cities; they’re all over the place and a lot of people don’t want them,” Trump said at the State of the Union address this month.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-hands-trump-win-in-sanctuary-city-grant
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/1r9d0j.jpg)
-
Trump moves forward with cutting off funds to sanctuary cities: 'Do not protect criminals!'
Adam ShawBy Adam Shaw | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-cutting-off-funds-to-sanctuary-cities
-
Sanctuary cities were always a fraud
DAVID STROM
August 03, 2023
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/08/03/sanctuary-cities-were-always-a-fraud-n568704
-
Sanctuary cities were always a fraud
DAVID STROM
August 03, 2023
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/08/03/sanctuary-cities-were-always-a-fraud-n568704
Most of us already knew that.
-
Just so you know Oregon has been a sanctuary state since 1987. Thus, it would follow that Portland Oregon is a sanctuary city.
-
lol
LA mayor 'fearful' that planes of illegal aliens might arrive in city that 'welcomes immigrants'
LA boasts the label of 'sanctuary city' for illegal immigrants
By Jamie Joseph Fox News
Published September 15, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/la-mayor-fearful-planes-illegal-aliens-might-arrive-city-welcomes-immigrants