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?

There are 99 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  1. Stad Thatcher

    Susan Quinn: 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.

    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 . . .

    • #1
    • March 8, 2018, at 10:27 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  2. Stad Thatcher

    Stad (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: 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.

    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/

    • #2
    • March 8, 2018, at 10:31 AM PDT
    • 4 likes
  3. tigerlily Member

    Hey Susan – I hope you can edit your title from AF to AG.

    • #3
    • March 8, 2018, at 10:34 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  4. DrewInWisconsin, Influencer Member

    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:

    In California, civilization is speeding in reverse—well aside from the decrepit infrastructure, dismal public schools, and sky-high home prices. Or rather, the state travels halfway in reverse: anything involving the private sector (smartphones, Internet, new cars, TV, or getting solar panels installed) is 21st-century. Anything involving the overwhelmed government or public utilities (enforcing dumping laws, licensing dogs, hooking up solar panel meters to the grid, observing common traffic courtesies) is early 20th-century.

    Why is this so, and how do Californians adjust?

    They accept a few unspoken rules of state behavior and then use their resources to navigate around them.

    1) Law enforcement in California hinges on ignoring felonies to focus on misdemeanors and infractions. Or rather, if a Californian is deemed to be law-abiding, a legal resident, and with some means, the regulatory state will audit, inspect, and likely fine his property and behavior in hopes of raising revenue. That is a safe means of compensating for the reality that millions, some potentially dangerous, are not following the law, and can only be forced to comply at great cost and in a fashion that will seem politically incorrect.

    The practical result of a schizophrenic postmodern regulatory and premodern frontier state? Throw out onto the road three sacks of garbage with your incriminating power bill in them, or dump the cooking oil of your easily identifiable mobile canteen on the side of the road, and there are no green consequences. Install a leach line that ends up one foot too close to a water well, and expect thousands of dollars of fines or compliance costs.

    . . .

    Californians, both the losers and beneficiaries of these unspoken rules, have lost confidence in the equal application of the law and indeed the idea of transparent and meritocratic government.

    Cynicism is rampant. Law-abiding Californians do whatever is necessary not to come to the attention of any authorities, whose desperate need for both revenue and perceived social justice (150,000 households in a state of 40 million residents pay about 50 percent of California income tax revenue) is carnivorous.

    A cynical neighbor once summed up the counter-intuitive rules to me: if you are in a car collision, hope that you are hit by, rather than hit an illegal alien. If someone breaks into your home and you are forced to use a firearm, hope that you are wounded nonlethally in the exchange, at least more severely than is the intruder. And if you are cited by an agency, hope it is for growing an acre of marijuana rather than having a two-foot puddle on your farm classified as an inland waterway.

    • #4
    • March 8, 2018, at 10:40 AM PDT
    • 20 likes
  5. Spin Inactive

    Susan Quinn: Will the federal government be allowed to withhold state funds as a penalty for breaking federal law?

    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.

    • #5
    • March 8, 2018, at 10:43 AM PDT
    • 11 likes
  6. Spin Inactive

    tigerlily (View Comment):
    Hey Susan – I hope you can edit your title from AF to AG.

    The AG is AG AF. In the parlance of the young folks…

    • #6
    • March 8, 2018, at 10:44 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  7. Fritz Member

    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.

    • #7
    • March 8, 2018, at 10:47 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  8. Weeping Member

    Susan Quinn: Who’s running this country anyway?

    Many court rulings over the past few years have made me wonder.

    • #8
    • March 8, 2018, at 10:52 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher

    Susan Quinn: Who’s running this country anyway?

    The courts.

    • #9
    • March 8, 2018, at 10:56 AM PDT
    • 11 likes
  10. Django Member

    Sessions should also nail this guy. The first 30 seconds pretty much says it all: “half my family …”

    • #10
    • March 8, 2018, at 11:10 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  11. Ontheleftcoast Inactive

    “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.

    • #11
    • March 8, 2018, at 11:24 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  12. cdor Member

    Django (View Comment):
    Sessions should also nail this guy. The first 30 seconds pretty much says it all: “half my family …”

    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.

    • #12
    • March 8, 2018, at 11:42 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  13. Ontheleftcoast Inactive

    cdor (View Comment):
    Why? Well to prevent crime, he says.

    Those aren’t crimes. Those are Acts of Love™.

    • #13
    • March 8, 2018, at 11:50 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  14. Full Size Tabby Member

    Fritz (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #14
    • March 8, 2018, at 11:52 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  15. Django Member

    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.”

    • #15
    • March 8, 2018, at 11:53 AM PDT
    • 10 likes
  16. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    tigerlily (View Comment):
    Hey Susan – I hope you can edit your title from AF to AG.

    I can’t personally change it once it’s up. I’ve written to Jon.

    • #16
    • March 8, 2018, at 11:58 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    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.

    He’s always brilliant, Drew. Although often depressing. Thanks for the info and link!

    • #17
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:04 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  18. RufusRJones Member

    Django (View Comment):
    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.”

    The La Raza stuff is real.

    • #18
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:05 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  19. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Fritz (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    • #19
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:07 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  20. Full Size Tabby Member

    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).

    • #20
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:10 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  21. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    cdor (View Comment):
    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.

    You’re being logical, @cdor. When it comes to CA, we should all know better than that. ;-)

    • #21
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:10 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  22. cdor Member

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):
    Why? Well to prevent crime, he says.

    Those aren’t crimes. Those are Acts of Love™.

    Acts of love for the illegal immigrant. If I forged my identity, I would get all the love I ever wanted… in jail.

    • #22
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:16 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  23. Hoyacon Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    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.

    • #23
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:18 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  24. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    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).

    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…?

    • #24
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:21 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  25. Full Size Tabby Member

    cdor (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):
    Sessions should also nail this guy. The first 30 seconds pretty much says it all: “half my family …”

    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.

    He has a remarkably casual outlook on forging official government documents.

    • #25
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:25 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  26. Ontheleftcoast Inactive

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    The La Raza stuff is real.

    Los Angeles Unified School District to require ethnic studies for graduation:

    He said teachers will have the freedom to craft curriculum to suit the needs and interests of their students. “In East L.A., it might be Chicano history. In Koreatown, it might be Asian American courses,” he said.

    A task force of students, parents, district officials, experts and teachers will determine how much curriculum will be developed and how much will be adapted from other districts, Zimmer said.

    Supporters of the measure succeeded in Los Angeles despite the failure of similar efforts elsewhere. This year, California lawmakers proposed legislation to look into providing ethnic studies curriculum statewide, but that effort stalled for lack of funds….

    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:

    The myth of Aztlan can best be explained by California’s Santa Barbara School District’s Chicano Studies textbook, “The Mexican American Heritage” by East Los Angeles high school teacher Carlos Jimenez. On page 84 there is a redrawn map of Mexico and the United States, showing Mexico with a full one-third more territory, all of it taken back from the United States. On page 107, it says “Latinos are now realizing that the power to control Aztlan may once again be in their hands.”

     

    Shown are the “repatriated” eight or nine states including Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington. According to the school text, Mexico is supposed to regain these territories as they rightly belong to the “mythical” homeland of Aztlan. On page 86, it says “…a free-trade agreement…promises…if Mexico is to allow the U.S. to invest in Mexico…then Mexico should…be allowed to freely export…Mexican labor. Obviously this would mean a re-evaluation of the border between the two countries as we know it today.” Jimenez’s Aztlan myth is further amplified at MEChA club meetings held at Santa Barbara Public Schools..

    California textbooks are important:

    Under a unanimous decision by the California Board of Education made on July 14, 2016 , California students will finally be encouraged to know the history of Latino civil rights leaders like Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta and Filipino labor leaders like Larry Itliong, as well as an accurate and inclusive history of LGBT activists as a part of the history of California and the nation. These topics are currently substantially absent from public school textbooks.

    The California State Board of Education decided to include these long- ignored histories in their re-writing of the History/Social Science Framework for the state. The Framework document sets the parameters and the minimums required of textbooks used in the schools. Because of California’s large size and market, what goes into California textbooks frequently also gets written into textbooks around the nation.

    • #26
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:27 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  27. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    • #27
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:27 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  28. RufusRJones Member

    I once heard a very chilling explanation of LaRaza and the related dynamics by Micky Kause. I was persuaded.

    • #28
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:30 PM PDT
    • Like
  29. Ontheleftcoast Inactive

    cdor (View Comment):
    Acts of love for the illegal immigrant. If I forged my identity, I would get all the love I ever wanted… in jail.

    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.

    • #29
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:30 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  30. MarciN Member

    Susan Quinn: Who’s running this country anyway?

    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.

    • #30
    • March 8, 2018, at 12:32 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4