Half of Californians support deportations, Muslim travel ban, survey finds
|| San Jose Mercury News
A new UC Berkeley study shows not all Californians are opposed to Trump’s border wall
“About half of Californians say they support President Trump’s Muslim travel ban and more deportations of undocumented immigrants, according to a new poll that challenges the conventional belief that residents of the left-leaning Golden State are overwhelmingly allergic to the administration’s hard line on immigration.
The survey released Wednesday by UC Berkeley’s Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society shows that while residents of the country’s only sanctuary state value diversity and inclusion on all fronts — from economic and racial justice to immigration reform — their viewpoints on politics, race and culture are sometimes complex and even contradictory.
“It’s a state whose progressive movement has grown and matured… and yet we’re still seeing high levels of inequality across the state and other social justice issues that are problematic,” said Olivia Araiza, director of the Haas Institute’s Blueprint for Belonging project, which commissioned the survey. The group, which opposes Trump’s policies, said it found some of the results unsettling.
About 24 percent of the survey’s participants said it’s “very important” for the U.S. to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants, while 35 percent said it’s “somewhat important,” according to the poll. That viewpoint even held true in the Bay Area, where 25 percent of those surveyed said increasing deportations is very important and 35 percent said it’s somewhat important.”
San Diego County supervisors vote 3-1 to support the Trump lawsuit against California sanctuary laws
|| U-T San Diego
“The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California over laws that the state passed last year to limit its role in immigration enforcement.
The county will file an amicus brief at the first available opportunity, likely on appeal, said Kristin Gaspar, supervisor for District 3 and chairwoman of the board.
The Department of Justice filed the lawsuit against the state at the beginning of March over three laws.
SB 54, the law that received the most publicity when it passed, limits the ways in which local police can interact with federal immigration officials. Under the law, police can turn immigrants over to federal immigration enforcement agencies only if they have committed crimes listed in the legislation. It says local police cannot participate in task forces that are focused on immigration enforcement.
It also requires the California Attorney General to set policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, libraries and hospitals.
AB 103 prohibits local governments across California from adding new contracts with the federal government for civil immigration detention or expanding old ones. It also requires the California Attorney General’s office to monitor conditions in existing immigration detention facilities in the state.
AB 450 says that employers cannot voluntarily allow immigration officials into non-public areas of the workplace unless the officers have judicial warrants. It also requires employers to notify employees about upcoming immigration inspections.
“We’re talking about people who are crossing the border illegally, coming into this county and committing a crime and them being let loose probably to commit another crime,” said Dianne Jacob, supervisor for District 2. “That creates a public safety issue and creates a problem in our neighborhoods.”
Gaspar, Jacob and Supervisor Bill Horn voted to support the lawsuit. Supervisor Greg Cox voted no. Supervisor Ron Roberts had a previous commitment and did not attend the meeting.
A long line of supporters and detractors addressed the board Tuesday morning after a group of people hoping to dissuade the supervisors from supporting the lawsuit rallied outside.
Supporters of the lawsuit felt that the laws in question were an overreach of state power and worried that it would inhibit the federal government from deporting people with criminal convictions.
Critics said they worried that allowing local police to work closely with federal immigration officials, which the laws limit, would create less safe communities because immigrant victims or witnesses wouldn’t call the police.
Many accused Gaspar of bringing the issue to a county vote to gain media attention for her campaign to take the Congressional seat of Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista.”
Jerry Brown Blames ‘Low-Life Politicians’ for ‘Sanctuary State’ Backlash
“California Governor Jerry Brown blamed “low-life politicians” for a growing backlash against the “sanctuary state” policies he has enacted in his state during an appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.
Brown spoke as a revolt continues to spread throughout Southern California against the state’s sanctuary laws in the wake of a Department of Justice lawsuit filed last month against the Golden State’s “sanctuary” laws.
The lawsuit seeks to invalidate three state laws — the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (HB 450), the Inspection and Review of Facilities Housing Federal Detainees law (AB 103); and the California Values Act (SB 54) — under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Roughly a dozen local governments have joined the revolt, and many more are considering joining the lawsuit, with three new cities climbing aboard last week.”
Orange, Newport Beach join other Orange County cities opposing California sanctuary law
|| Orange County Register
“Elected officials in Orange and Newport Beach, following hours of emotional testimony from both sides of the sanctuary issue, voted late Tuesday to oppose a new California law that protects people living in the country illegally.
In Newport Beach, the City Council voted unanimously during closed session to support a federal lawsuit filed by the Trump administration against California. The Newport Beach council also voted 7-0 for a resolution that says the city is publicly opposed to the law.
In Orange, the council voted 3-2 for a resolution against the California Values Act, the law that limits cooperation between federal immigration agents and local law enforcement and provides protection to unauthorized immigrants in public schools, libraries and medical centers. The Orange resolution says the city will not comply with state law, but resolutions are largely symbolic and it’s unclear whether it will have any impact on day-to-day operations.
“It’s making our voice heard, and supporting the County of Orange who really is the one dealing with custody and ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) communication issues,” Councilman Fred Whitaker said in an e-mail Wednesday.
Opponents of illegal immigration hailed the latest votes as victories as the anti-sanctuary movement continues to gain momentum in Orange County.
In Orange, Mayor Teresa Smith and Councilman Mike Alvarez voted against it. Smith said the ordinance undermined trust and inclusion in the community. Alvarez said he would prefer to sit out the debate but would be interested in voting on something stronger that states, “We’re not a sanctuary city.”
Councilmen Whitaker and Mark Murphy brought the issue before the council. Councilwoman Kim Nichols joined them in support, saying that the California law is in conflict with federal laws.
Whitaker said Orange is “a welcoming city” but officials need to abide by the rule of law.
Several of the speakers in opposition of the law erroneously said that the California Values Act, known as California’s sanctuary law, prohibits communication between federal immigration agents and local law enforcement, barring cooperation between the agencies upon the release of potential deportable criminals from jail. Actually, the law limits but does not prohibit the two sides from working together.
The Westminster City Council is scheduled to take up the issue on Wednesday, April 11.”
….Continue reading more @ OC Register | Story by Roxana Kopetman
Red California’s revenge on sanctuary laws
|| U-T San Diego
“California is always the familiar Democratic blue in those political maps on TV, but the state still has notable swaths of red, particularly in the south.
And red California is making itself known through a local government rebellion against the sanctuary state.
On Wednesday night, Escondido joined President Donald Trump’s effort to dismantle California’s sanctuary laws, which, among other things, prohibit local law enforcement from telling federal officials when unauthorized immigrants are being released from custody unless they’ve been convicted of one of 800 specific crimes.
Orange County, Los Alamitos, Yorba Linda, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo and now Escondido have all taken action to support the Trump suit to overturn the state laws.
The West Covina City Council declined to join the movement Tuesday night, even though the city had taken an official position against the key sanctuary law a year ago. Unlike the others, West Covina has a plurality of Democratic voters.
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors are scheduled to discuss taking action against the sanctuary laws in closed session on April 17.
Amid some loud, ugly words and mind-numbingly repetitive rhetoric Wednesday night, one quiet revelation surfaced before the Escondido City Council voted 4-1 to file a “friend of the court” brief supporting the administration’s lawsuit.
City Attorney Michael McGuinness said Friday is the court’s deadline to file an amicus curiae brief. That limits the options available to the supervisors.
They could direct the county to file its own lawsuit like Huntington Beach, which is a much, much larger undertaking than filing a supporting brief. They could pass an ordinance like Los Alamitos to opt out of the sanctuary laws, though that’s a legally questionable move. They could do something else, or do nothing.
Board Chair Kristin Gaspar, who is running for Congress, called the meeting to discuss opposing the sanctuary laws.
“I have been vocal in my support of upholding the law and protecting the 3.5 million people who call San Diego home,” she said in a statement Thursday. “This issue was already decided in 2012 when the Obama-led Department of Justice and Supreme Court determined that local laws can’t override Federal law. I have asked our Counsel to prepare to discuss all of our options . . .”
It’s far from clear what the board will do. Supervisors Dianne Jacob and Gaspar want to support the Trump suit, while Greg Cox and Ron Roberts have indicated they don’t think the board should get involved. Supervisor Bill Horn said through a spokeswoman that he wants to wait until the board discusses the matter before commenting publicly.
There has been little communication between Gaspar and the other supervisors on this, and some where caught off guard when she announced the meeting.
If the county joins the movement, it would be the first jurisdiction with a Democratic plurality, slight as it may be, to do so. In contrast to the county’s political demographics, all five board members are Republican.
The politics on immigration crackdowns often seem to divide along partisan lines, but it’s more complex than that. Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump all have had versions of get-tough border and immigration policies, though none of the previous three matched Trump’s heated rhetoric on the issue.
Clinton launched the hotly disputed “Operation Gatekeeper” in San Diego in 1994 and deportations ramped up so much under Obama that some immigration advocates called him “deporter in chief.”
Mexican lawyer appointed to California government job may be first illegal immigrant in US history to hold state post
|| Washington Examiner
“California may be the first state in the country to appoint a person illegally in the U.S. to a position in state government following the Senate Rules Committee’s decision to approve Lizbeth Mateo, a Mexican-born woman, for a statewide post.
Mateo, a 33-year-old attorney, was appointed Wednesday to the California Student Opportunity and Access Program and will advise the Student Aid Commission.
California Senate Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon’s office confirmed to the Washington Examiner on Thursday Mateo is the first illegal immigrant to be given a state-appointed job and said it was not aware of any other state to have done so.
Multiple officials at immigration organizations also told the Examinerthey were unaware of any other states that had made similar appointments, making the Wednesday vote a historic one.
Mateo came to the U.S. with her parents when she was 14 years old. In California, where illegal immigrants gained the legal right to practice law in 2014, she attended Santa Clara University School of Law and passed the California state bar exam last year.
“While undocumented students have become more visible in our state, they remain underrepresented in places where decisions that affect them are being made,” Mateo said in a statement.
In her new role, Mateo will help low-income and under-served communities learn more about how to apply for college.
It’s not clear if Mateo is a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which would give her legal protections from deportation and work authorization.”
Note: The California State Constitution would appear to make such an appointment unconstitutional:
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS [SECTION 1 – SEC. 32]
( Article 1 adopted 1879. )
(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
What is the basis for her appointment? The fact that she is a foreign national, illegally in the country. How is that not a preference based on national origin?
Mob of 70 Antifa Anarchists Surround ICE Van in Los Angeles
“A mob of approximately 70 anarchists and open borders activists surrounded an Immigration and Customs Enforcement van with two agents inside on Thursday evening in Los Angeles.
The incident took place outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in response to ICE arresting more than 200 illegal aliens throughout the city during a five-day operation.
The mob was organized by the Koreatown Popular Assembly, an anarchist group, who has been operating a 24 hour “rapid response” hotline to monitor and respond to reports of ICE raids. It is unclear what their planned response entails.
“With over a year of preparation and training the hotline is staffed with around 30 dispatchers who volunteer to do two to three 4-hour shifts a week. In turn the network has trained nearly 100 first responders who are registered based on geographic areas and dispatched with text messages via an open source software platform,” a member of the Black Rose Anarchist Federation wrote of the incident on the popular Antifa website It’s Going Down.
The assembly reportedly consists of approximately 125 members.
As the group had the van surrounded, the anarchists chanted “no more deportations,” “Trump and Pence must go,” and other anti-borders slogans including “f-ck ICE.”
“It is significant that these actions are not the efforts of stand alone activists or NGO directed staff but a result of discussion, debate and decision making by a base of everyday people choosing the priorities based on their immediate reality and needs. The Koreatown Popular Assembly is still small and embryonic but stands out as an example of how radicals can move beyond isolated projects and work to build popular power from below,” the communique on IGD continues.
Neither of the two agents who were surrounded by the group were injured.
The week of immigration sweeps was targeting approximately 400 individuals and resulted in 212 people being arrested. According to a statement from ICE, “88 percent of those arrested during this operation were convicted criminals.”
The True Biblical Response to Illegal Immigration and DREAMers
“My Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) hosted another error-ridden town hall in Hermosa Beach last week. On immigration, he claimed to support two parts of President Trump’s proposed(?) plan: granting legal status to 1.8 million young illegals; and enhancing border security (although Lieu called the border wall “stupid”). He differed on ending chain migration and the diversity lottery. He quoted the Bible in his defense: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.” (Matthew 25:35).
My response: “Then take them into your home!” Amnesty advocates preach their open-border morality, but don’t live up to it. Moreover, Jesus’ statement is directed toward individuals who welcomed strangers into their own homes voluntarily. Any form of amnesty imposed by our government is not voluntary.
My consternation with these Biblical arguments has grown since reading this article in the Christian Post, when evangelical leaders, many of whom I respect, pressured Congress to pass some kind of DREAM Act. Pastor Samuel Rodriguez of Sacramento, CA stated in a January press conference: “The wall is a physical object created by man. 800,000 human beings created in the image of God by God.” Walls are Biblical, affirmed by God in Scripture. In fact, God commands the construction of walls around Jerusalem both the Old (Nehemiah 1:1-7:3) and the New (Isaiah 54: 12; Ezekiel 42:20).
In another letter to Congress, Evangelical leaders wrote: “Roughly 700,000 young people are poised to lose their right to work lawfully in the U.S., not to mention their dreams of a future in this country—the country they were brought to as children, without choice.” First of all, this country is not responsible for their parents’ crimes, which have harmed their children. Children should not be punished for the sins of their parents (cf. Jeremiah 31:29), but natural consequences remain. A mother breaks into my home, steals my car, and her children use the ill-gotten gains for good. I am still entitled to restoration of my property (Exodus 22). Illegal aliens are stealing this country’s space, resources, and wealth.
In response to these pro-enforcement arguments, preachers cite The New Covenant (Hebrews 8:10-012), which asserts that we are no longer under law, but under grace. However, grace is not arbitrary. Jesus died on a Cross for the sins of the world, the just for the unjust (1 John 2:2; 1 Peter 3:18). A payment must be rendered. Why should law-abiding citizens pay for lawbreakers?
If Christian leaders want to preach accurately on immigration, they should first acknowledge a few things:
Nations are God’s idea, not merely man’s construction, and rewarding illegal immigration harms nations. Genesis 11 reports God created multiple languages—and nations—to stop mankind from building the Tower of Babel. The dissolution of border security and national sovereignty are unholy gestures. To contend for amnesty based on a misplaced understanding of scripture is not tenable. There will come a time when every knee will bow, and every tongue confess Christ Jesus as Lord, but for now nation-states remain as part of God’s plan. Rampant amnesties only erode national boundaries.
Citizenship is a principle defended in the Bible. In the Old Testament, strangers were respected (Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10: 19), but they were expected to adopt all the customs of Israel, not retain their original cultural views (Numbers 15: 14-29). In the New Testament, Paul the apostle asserted his Roman citizenship to redress the abusive treatment of Roman soldiers (Acts 22:22-23:11). He also addressed his fellow Christians as “citizens of heaven” (Philippians 3:20, Colossians 3:5-16). Membership in a defined, national compact matters and should not be pushed aside. Many illegals in this country, especially DREAMers, are hell-bent on retaining and imposing a neo-pagan culture in this country, estranged and unsubmissive to our country’s constitutional rule and civic culture.
Christians are called to honor their rulers (and rules!) among the nations (1 Timothy 2:1-2; 1 Peter 2:17). To dismiss the authority of temporal rulers, especially on matters of immigration, is unholy and unwise.
Instead of championing amnesty, Christian leaders should reference the ideal immigrant: Ruth the Moabite. Unlike the 11 to 16 million illegal aliens in our country, per official tallies, Ruth did not break into her adoptive nation of Israel. She had a sponsor, her mother-in-law Naomi. There were other factors which Ruth obeyed, too (Ruth 1:16-17):
“For whither thou goest, I will go”: She would attend to Naomi, recognizing her place in her new country as based solely on the goodness of her mother-in-law. She did not enter into Israel as a political radical or busy-body.
“Where thou lodgest, I will lodge”: She would live with Naomi, not depending on someone else, particularly the state or taxpayers, to provide her housing. Her needs would come from her sponsor, not by force from other inhabitants in Israel.
“Your people will be my people”: This statement sums up assimilation perfectly. She pledged to become an Israelite. How often do our leaders today talk about the importance of immigrants adopting American customs, rather than demanding that we accommodate their foreign ways?
“Thy God [will be] my God.”: while our free society does not demand religious adherence to one creed, we should expect immigrants to embrace our cultural and moral values. For this reason, I am adamant against accepting adherents of Sharia Law, for example, or other religious sects which endanger life and property.
“Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried”: Ruth pledged a complete break with her pagan country and culture. She refused to abandon her new country or identity.
At the very least, politicians and pastors should stop shaming the public by misusing Scripture. Christians should have a ready defense when amnesty advocates distort Scripture for selfish political ends. Every country has a right to strong borders, safe citizens, and a secured sovereignty. These are not un-Christian expectations in the slightest.”
“Colts Linebacker Edwin Jackson and his driver were allegedly killed by a drunk driving, previously deported illegal alien Sunday morning near Indianapolis. The suspect fled the scene on foot after crashing into their vehicle. Indiana State Police officers arrested the reported driver later that morning.
Police arrested a man who identified himself as Alex Cabrera Gonsales, a 37-year-old Mexican national, after he allegedly crashed his black Ford F-150 into a car parked along Interstate 70 near Indianapolis, according to a statement obtained from the Indiana State Police. The driver of the car, 54-year-old Jeffrey Monroe, and his passenger, 26-year-old Indianapolis Colts Linebacker Edwin Jackson, were both killed in the crash.
Detectives discovered the driver gave police false information about his identity. Investigators said the man’s name is actually Manuel Orrego-Savala, a citizen of Guatemala. A background investigation revealed Orrego-Savala has been deported from the United States on two previous occasions. The first deportation occurred in 2007. This was followed by a second deportation in 2009.
Police believe Monroe was a rideshare operator who picked up Jackson and was taking him home. Monroe apparently pulled his car over to the shoulder to assist Jackson who had become ill. Shortly after that, the truck driven by Orrego-Savala crashed into the back of the car.
Statements from the state police indicate that both victims were outside of their 2018 Lincoln when the crash occurred. The impact threw one of the victims into the center lane of the highway where he was later struck by another vehicle. The coroner’s office pronounced both victims dead at the scene of the crash.
Orrego-Savala reportedly fled the scene on foot but state police troopers found him a short distance away from the scene of the crash and took him into custody. Orrego-Savala had no drivers license, officials stated.
Breitbart Texas reached out to ICE officials to determine if Orrego-Savala has any additional immigration history. A response was not available by the time of this publication.
Jackson, nicknamed “Pound Cake,” recently completed his second season with the Indianapolis Colts.
The Colts said Jackson “loved the game of football and we’re thankful to have been a part of his journey,” in a tweet responding to the news of Jackson’s death.”