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
All the stories seem anecdotal, the left says they are all good, yada yada yada; the right says there are a substantial number of criminals and abusers of public goodies ( I tend to agree with the right). I think Sessions has it right, we are a nation of laws. So, in my one class of business law, you look at the circumstances and apply the law. Seems easy to me. Doesn’t matter if you are good or bad, you go back home and come in the front door.
No one is talking about executing anyone or returning them to political oppression. The illegals may not like the gig being up, but they’ll just have to deal with it.
Like VDH, I listened to Adam Corolla talk about the litter on the roadside where illegals peddle stuff, and the cops just drive on by.
You get more of what you allow.
More banging on the table from the left.
I always wonder why we need to take a poor country’s best people. It seems rather arrogant and selfish of America.
Maybe we are thinking of two different things, but I thought in Arizona the courts ruled in favor of the Federal government thus overriding the State laws that were set in place that conflicted with the Obama administrations more lax policies. So you want the courts to once again rule in the same way, which is that immigration policies and enforcement are the responsibility of the Federal Government, and that a state can’t take matters into its own hands either by being more lax or less lax than the Federal Government wishes to be. So the Arizona precedent I think helps Sessions in this case. But, I am no lawyer, so maybe it doesn’t. It just seem to me that it would.
Thank you very much for bringing this topic to the front page here at Ricochet. Already our government-behind-the-scenes is seeing that money is flooding into Social Services departments instates where there are still relatively few illegal immigrants. (New Jersey being one of the recipients.) This is a way of letting citizens know that the Fed government will pick up a large share of the tab for any services offered them. So this policy softens the rhetoric of anyone stating out loud: “But when too many people come into a state, eventually schools suffer, hospitals and clinics suffer, crime rates go up, etc.
Of course, once a place is overrun with new arrivals, the Fed government quickly forgets all of its legal responsibilities. Calif is still owed 28 billion dollars from back in the 1980’s – and it is unlikely we will ever get any of that money. But hey, if people here don’t like the abysmal schools, crowded clinics and bankrupt hospital districts, they can always rent a U Haul and move out. But if present tendencies continue, where does someone go?
Here is the full speech that Sessions gave. It runs for over 20 minutes. (I skipped the first two minutes as he was a bit overlong in the intro.)
Appalling to realize per Sessions’ info that the sanctuary offered by some Calif locales includes the secret release of a pedophile back into the community!
http://abc7news.com/politics/full-video-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-speaks-in-sacramento/3186705/
Oh and BTW, there is talk that Obama would make a great General Director at the United Nations. John Podesta is still sitting enthroned inside the Board of Directors there. (I am forgetting the term for the top people at the UN, so feel free to correct the BofD phrase if you know the right term.)
The UN has been scrambling to make new rules pertaining to oversight of immigration. The UN feels it is inhumane for any nation to stop for any reason any number of people that wish to immigrate to another nation.
If I had not witnessed the 24/7 coup by the media against Trump I would not be worried about the UN. But this has become such a crazy world and far out society that the UN putting boots on the ground right here in the USA could be a possibility. Strange the times and scenarios that allow for the preaching of RW militias to seem sensible.
You can’t make this up.
Ah, but in MA, you would, right? Gr-r-r-r-rrrr
@valiuth, I can see why I’m causing confusion here. I wish I could change it in the OP. I meant that the courts stopped Arizona from supplementing the Federal law. I believe that if Arizona wanted to make the law even more stringent, they should have been able to do so. My apologies to all.
@caroljoy, I’m sure to make a mess of this comment, but it seems to me that this figure was grossly inflated, due to CA playing games with the numbers. (I lived in CA, too.) Maybe someone will remember that information.
No one will be safe, anywhere.
Disclaimer: I ain’t a lawyer.
I see it differently. Arizona has no right to make immigration law and wanted to enforce federal law against the will of the federal government. I think the courts ruled correctly that there’s no right to do that. I haven’t read much about the law suit, but the news coverage suggest that now the federal government wants to compel state and local governments to enforce federal law against the will of those state and local governments. I don’t think the federal government has the right to compel that cooperation, failure to cooperate isn’t obstruction of justice, and obstruction of justice is a criminal offense, not civil. Sure, law is complicated and the right lawyer can justify anything to the right judge, but a civil suit for obstruction of justice defies common sense.
Now California’s law that can fine employers for reporting violations of federal law to the federal government is blatant obstruction of justice. If I were Sessions I would have arrested Xavier Becerra after that ridiculous press conference a couple month ago, and would arrest anybody in the State of California that made any attempt to enforce that law.
I’m not a lawyer either, but think I am at the minimum of average intelligence. I also thought the Constitution was designed for the everyday man with a common English education of the day (prob. 5th grade or something) to understand. Madison and the elites of 1787 did not write and approve of the document and send it out all neat and tidy. They sent it to the states to be ratified by citizens representing their towns. The arguments were robust and rowdy and the transcripts could be mistaken for happening today.
Now lawyers have decided that the simple ideas, like what it is to be a citizen, cannot be understood by the common American with 12 years of education is really quite insulting. Why did Charlie Cooke bother with going through the hoops to take his oath if you get to use squatter rights in claiming citizenship? Probably because Charlie really is a best and brightest like liberals declare the illegals to be.
I’m even less of a legal expert than you are, @chuckenfield, but is it possible that the mainstream media has presented the situation to their preferred picture of it? To ask the state and local governments to make a simple notification to ICE to pick up illegal immigrants, for example (which takes them off the locals hands) doesn’t seem unreasonable to me.
I agree, @ralphie. I also think that immigration falls under national security, which is one of the powers that the federal government actually does have.
Absolutely. That’s why I stipulated where I got my info. I’m conscious of the fact that I
may beprobably am misinformed. That said, NPR is often selective with the facts, but they don’t get them completely wrong too often. There’s probably more to the suit than I’ve heard, but the things I heard are probably part of the suit.While it I agree it is quite reasonable to expect state and local authorities to cooperate with federal authorities, I don’t think the feds have the constitutional authority to compel that cooperation.
I want to see that mayor (who warned the city of upcoming ICE raids) arrested for obstruction of justice, and perp-walked to a black SUV and taken away.
Yes, the UN’s agenda for us and Obama’s are strangely congruent. I think he’s been running for Secretary General for years.
Susan,
It is quite the other way around. Jerry Brown and his gang of left-wing hysterics are making war on the Federal Government. Not since South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter has anything like this taken place. I say let the libs go down with their lunacy. Brown, Harris, and Pelosi are doing nothing but posturing & virtue signaling. They care neither for the illegal migrants nor for the future of California.
Do you remember what happened in Arizona? The Governor of Arizona tried to enforce the border laws and the Obama Justice department forced them to leave everything up to the discretion of the Federal Government. Now the State of California wants to make Federal Law. They can’t have it both ways.
Regards,
Jim
It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me either, but it may not be required. As we’ve noted, immigration law is federal, and the extent to which the feds can compel states to take action is an open question and could properly be seen as a federalism issue–something many (most?) here support in theory. Note I’m not talking about active state interference with enforcement (e.g., fining employers), but I need to bone up on what CA is doing there.
Yes. What if California had refused to cooperate with the WWII internment of Japanese immigrants and their U.S.born descendants?
I can almost understand his view. California won’t do anything, and under the administrations of the buffoons who held the presidency since at least 2000 until 2016, nothing would be done at the Federal level. What was the down-side for De Leon?
This is the basic problem of all illegal immigrants…their remarkably casual outlook on breaking our laws. They actually seem entitled. Illegals protesting on the street in front of our Capitol Building. Talk about outrageous. They believe our country owes them. I wonder where they get that attitude from?
OMG . . . is it really that bad? There should be a flood of U-Hauls and Mayflower trucks leaving the state . . .
Maybe such cases could be randomly assigned to a circuit court or judge.
They will, if it ends up in the Ninth Circus . . . gotta depend on the Supremes after that.
Speaking for me and not Hoyacon, I don’t know. I’m an immigration hawk and am fairly well informed on those issues. That I detest sanctuary cities, want to see far more illegal aliens deported, and even want to have less legal immigration doesn’t change my understanding of the constitution.
I’m much less familiar with the details of the internment. Just what form of cooperation did the federal government demand of the states?
Please, Jeb! had nothing to do with it. Hehe . . .
Apparently there are.
Why wouldn’t the guy have a casual attitude toward forging documents? The law does not descend on immigrants who use forged documents. I mean, when are there ever any consequences for the illegally arrived who do this? (Answer: rarely if ever.)
That whole aspect of employment for the illegally arrived is kept secret. Hospitals and clinics have their employees vetted off site. So if someone is using Aunt Luisa’s Driver’s License, work certificate (including certificates that indicate a number of college classes) and then all the vetting, including finger printing, is done off site, how does the person doing the vetting know that Luisa is there on her niece’s behalf? And the finger prints will match as long as Luisa presents her Calif Driver’s License and doesn’t slip up in any comments she makes.
@theleftcoast
Although the internment of the Japanese during WWII was heinous, it is also true that the numbers of Japanese living on the West Coast was not that high a number.
Right now, over 1.1 billion people live south of our border. Although I too feel sympathy for people who grow up in miserable conditions in the barrios of Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Guatamela City et al, my sympathy doesn’t change the fact that if we continue with an open borders policy, we could be doubling our own population in fifteen years or less. Transporting enough people here to the States means that those barrios will begin to appear here. (As the existence of tent cities inside the city of Los Angeles already confirms.)