Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 19, 2018, 03:28:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Down
Author Topic: Why isn't the Obama Administration pursuing "sanctuary cities"?  (Read 21027 times)
Getbig IV
Posts: 3587

« Reply #100 on: August 05, 2017, 06:14:24 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #101 on: August 07, 2017, 09:12:17 AM »

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.


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.”


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.


“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.”
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #102 on: August 16, 2017, 10:28:29 AM »

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. 


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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #103 on: August 23, 2017, 04:04:42 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #104 on: September 18, 2017, 09:44:36 AM »

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.”
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #105 on: October 05, 2017, 02:45:53 PM »

California becomes 'sanctuary state' in rebuke of Trump immigration policy
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.
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."
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #106 on: October 12, 2017, 09:17:06 AM »

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.


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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
Posts: 7394

! Repent or Perish !

« Reply #107 on: October 12, 2017, 09:55:17 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #108 on: October 23, 2017, 04:42:44 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #109 on: November 21, 2017, 03:51:22 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Las Vegas
Getbig V
Posts: 7394

! Repent or Perish !

« Reply #110 on: November 21, 2017, 04:38:39 PM »

So they put Matt Gonzalez on the case of the pier shooting.  Big surprise.
Report to moderator   Logged

Las Vegas
Getbig V
Posts: 7394

! Repent or Perish !

« Reply #111 on: December 22, 2017, 07:32:09 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged

Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #112 on: January 24, 2018, 12:42:13 PM »

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

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #113 on: February 26, 2018, 01:45:32 PM »

How in in the world does this happen in the U.S.?   Undecided

Oakland Mayor Sends Out Warning On Possible ICE Raid
Political Reporter

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.”

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.

Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #114 on: March 07, 2018, 10:08:40 AM »

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."
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #115 on: March 13, 2018, 07:40:45 PM »

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

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #116 on: March 27, 2018, 04:05:53 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Getbig V
Gender: Male
Posts: 54012

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

« Reply #117 on: April 16, 2018, 10:03:08 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!