Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
AG Sessions Sues California for Violating Federal Immigration Law – Finally!
Like most of you, I’ve been appalled at the state of California’s not only flouting, but condemning federal immigration law. I’m happy to say that Jeff Sessions is loaded for bear, and he is suing that state for their outrageous behavior and rejection of the rule of law. When I researched the topic to get up to date, the actions of the state of California were even more egregious than I had imagined.
California, along with other states, believes that protecting its illegal immigrants is more important than protecting its legitimate citizens:
There are about 300 state and local governments with laws, rules or policies that impede federal efforts to enforce immigration laws. But what exactly does that mean to the average American citizen? Since 2014, about 10,000 criminal aliens who were released because of sanctuary policies were arrested – again – for new crimes. That’s 10,000 preventable crimes. Sanctuary policies make us all less safe.
California has been especially aggressive about blocking federal efforts with three laws: the state prohibits private employers from aiding federal immigration officials by threatening fines; it prevents local agencies from informing federal authorities of release dates of illegal aliens; and it establishes a state-run inspection process of illegal aliens in federal detention facilities.
Most recently, AG Sessions called out Libby Schaff, the mayor of Oakland: “So here’s my message to Mayor Schaff. How dare you, how dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open borders agenda?” Tom Homan, acting director of ICE, has said that ICE failed to make 800 arrests that they might have executed if Mayor Schaff had not spoken out.
ICE will increase its presence in the state, and AG Sessions still hopes to cut funding to sanctuary cities that defy federal law enforcement.
In his speech to the California Peace Officers Association in San Francisco yesterday, AG Sessions reminded his audience of the three executive orders that were sent to him by the President: to back law enforcement; to reduce crime in America; and to dismantle transnational criminal gangs. AG Sessions concluded his remarks with the following:
California is using every power it has — and some it doesn’t — to frustrate federal law enforcement. So you can be sure I’m going to use every power I have to stop them.
We are going to fight these irrational, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you and our federal officers. We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. We are fighting to have a lawful system of immigration that serves Americans. And we intend to win.
Of course, Governor Jerry Brown is furious at Sessions: “This is basically going to war against the state of California,” Brown said. “This is pure red meat for the base … the Trump administration is full of liars.”
I think the governor might finally realize that the federal government is serious about stopping the sanctuary city movement.
My questions are many: will the federal courts once again rule against the federal government as they did in Arizona? Will the federal government be allowed to withhold state funds as a penalty for breaking federal law? Will there be consequences for individuals who violate federal law in this manner?
Who’s running this country anyway?
Published in Law
Rush mentioned a while back there were several states which didn’t input everything into the NICS. I’ll bet you sanctuary states (and cities) deliberately keep crimes of illegal aliens from being entered. I’ll see if I can find a reference for this . . .
There are multiple sources. I picked one:
http://www.guns.com/2016/10/07/fixing-state-nics-reporting-still-a-work-in-progress/
Hey Susan – I hope you can edit your title from AF to AG.
Victor Davis Hanson has been a necessary read over the last several years, giving us the “boots on the ground” view of what’s happening in his state as a result of California’s immigration policies.
Here’s a recent bit: Understanding the California Mind.
This part in particular stuck out to me:
Dear Federal Government: please withhold all Federal funding from all states, for all manner of this and that, and also enact a commensurate drop in federal income tax. Thank you.
The AG is AG AF. In the parlance of the young folks…
The federal court ruled in favor of (not against) the feds’ position against Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer’s efforts to legally uphold federal immigration law at the state level. The left cheered.
Now that it’s California trying to legally obstruct federal immigration law at the state level, logically, the feds should win easily. But then, in the case of Arizona, judges did not go rummaging through the offhand comments or tweets of the litigating parties.
Whereas now, as we all know, judges feel compelled to routinely scrutinize and base decisions on things like campaign remarks or tweets, because Trump.
I was taught in law school that both forum- and judge-shopping were sharp and ethically questionable practices, so inquiring minds want to know how it is that the “random assignment of cases” systems seem usually to place these controversies in the hands of left leaning judges. . . viz. Hawaii, Seattle, etc.
Many court rulings over the past few years have made me wonder.
The courts.
Sessions should also nail this guy. The first 30 seconds pretty much says it all: “half my family …”
“De” Leon is appealing to the Aztlan faction that promotes reunion with Mexico.
For a (for now) fictional projection of the California dystopia, try
J.L. Curtis and Tina Garceau’s Calexit: the Anthology
It can be a bit over the top (I hope) and ranting, but it’s enjoyable. Sort of.
I don’t know what this guy is saying. Half his family came here illegally. But then they had to work, so now they have to obtain a forged identity (social security card, drivers license, etc) breaking more laws to get a green card. Aw shucks, these poor folks pay taxes, he claims. Oh, and we need to bring our community together. Why? Well to prevent crime, he says. What? This guy sees no irony in his desire to bring people who have committed multiple crimes together to make a safe community. Safe for law abiding citizens? Not so much. Safe for his family of criminals. Thanks, but no thanks.
Those aren’t crimes. Those are Acts of Love™.
Though since it was the US Supreme Court that ruled in favor of the feds in the 2012 Arizona case, it should be a little harder for a judge to disregard that decision, Trump tweets or no.
I think his words translate to something like “Your laws don’t matter because you stole this land from ‘us’ and we’re going to take it back. Until we get it back, we’re going to lay a huge guilt-trip on you, and hope you’re stupid enough to let us.”
I can’t personally change it once it’s up. I’ve written to Jon.
He’s always brilliant, Drew. Although often depressing. Thanks for the info and link!
The La Raza stuff is real.
Of course they did. But wasn’t some part of the Arizona law upheld? I can check that. I seem to be fighting mistakes today. Thanks, @fritz.
The concept of “sanctuary” has sure moved far from its origins. Once upon a time, the idea was to deal with victims of crime who were reluctant to report the crime because of the victim’s fear of being deported. Not asking crime victims (and sometimes witnesses) about their immigration status was an effort to encourage people to report crime so that the police could arrest the perpetrators and reduce crime.
Now the sanctuary policies are explicitly about protecting the perpetrators of crime (as evidenced by the prohibition on asking upon arrest or even conviction about immigration status).
You’re being logical, @cdor. When it comes to CA, we should all know better than that. ;-)
Acts of love for the illegal immigrant. If I forged my identity, I would get all the love I ever wanted… in jail.
While there are parallels, there are also differences in the two situations. My recollection is that Arizona was adding substantive enforcement provisions over and above federal law, while California, skirting the margins, is skimping on its cooperation with the feds. The former was a straight case of “federal preemption” of enforcement, but the California situation seems more complex. In short, in Arizona, the federal government was not trying to force action on Arizona; it was seeking to prevent it from acting.
As a side note, sanctuary cities (refuges) were developed in ancient Israel for people who accidentally killed a person. Of course, they had to stay there as long as the priest in that refuge lived, to be guaranteed asylum. Not exactly the same, hmmm…?
He has a remarkably casual outlook on forging official government documents.
Los Angeles Unified School District to require ethnic studies for graduation:
Mexican American Heritage is a popular textbook; while it was rejected by Texas it is or was on the Tuscon schools’ Mexican American Studies text and reading lists.
Here’s something about its contents:
California textbooks are important:
Here it is:
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down several key parts of Arizona’s tough law on illegal immigrants, but it left standing a controversial provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they detain and suspect to be in the country illegally.
The decision upholding the “show me your papers” provision came with a warning that the courts would be watching its implementation. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) declared victory and said police could enforce the law without resorting to profiling based on ethnicity.
But the ruling, which reinforced the federal government’s primacy in immigration policy, also vindicated the Obama administration’s decision to challenge the Arizona law almost from the moment it was passed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-on-arizona-immigration-law/2012/06/25/gJQA0Nrm1V_story.html?utm_term=.0072ec2943e7
I once heard a very chilling explanation of LaRaza and the related dynamics by Micky Kause. I was persuaded.
It might have been interesting to see what “Act of Love ¡Jeb!” would have had his AG do, but I’m glad he was too low energy and we’re not finding out.
I would think the easy way to resolve this is to simply cut off federal funds for undocumented immigrants. No citizenship-proving identification? No Medicaid, Medicare, Section 8 housing, students loans, and so on. I’d be happy to let this be a state issue if I didn’t have to pay for it.