Category Archives: Border

Obama DOJ Official who fought Arizona AB 1070 law on immigration now tries to block Trump Sanctuary City EO | Apr 27, 2017

Judge Blocking Sanctuary City Order Apparently Still Thinks He’s Part of Obama Admin

|| LawNewz

“A judge just declared taxpayers must give money to a city that refuses to enforce federal immigration law while at the same time refusing to give any redress for the family of dead Kate Steinle due to that same sanctuary city policy. Judge William Orrick, a legacy of the liberal gentry whose grandfather founded one of the big corporate law firms in San Francisco, whose father also sat on the federal bench (and the left complains of nepotism?), and who, according to Public Citizen, bundled nearly a quarter of a million for Obama’s campaigns, blocked Trump’s executive order defunding sanctuary cities by claiming sanctuary cities’ refusal to actually enforce immigration law is an act of “immigration enforcement strategy.”

This, in the city that freed the killer of Kate Steinle just before he killed her. Oh, and by the way, liberal judges in the city also said that Kate’s family can’t sue the city for the sanctuary city policy that killed her.

Already infamous for intervening on behalf of abortion advocates to prevent the public from seeing exposes of their misdeeds and his prior litigation under Obama’s DOJ of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch fame where Orrick spent years trying to prevent Arizona and Alabama from enforcing their immigration laws, Orrick now extended sanctuary city status as a right of local governments to choose their own “immigration enforcement strategy.” That’s right — a federal judge called a city’s refusal to enforce federal immigration law a “strategy” of “immigration enforcement.”

Welcome to liberal legalese: refusing to enforce the law is now an act of “enforcement” of the law.

This should come as no surprise as Orrick had an implicit conflict with Trump’s efforts. It was Orrick, at Obama’s Department of Justice, who supervised the office of immigration litigation, and fought state-level immigration enforcement efforts in Arizona and Alabama and elsewhere.

In other words, the same judge who said Trump cannot dispute a local government’s immigration actions filed suit to stop Arizona and Alabama from enforcing their own local immigration actions. Welcome to results-oriented legal jurisprudence of Obama judicial appointee liberalism where legal precepts, logical consistency and historical precedent have no role, just as the life of foreign criminals now enjoy more legal protection than the citizens safety of the Kate Steinles of America.

The irony is the Supreme Court appeared to invalidate Orrick’s judicial basis for his order when it validated Orrick’s own prior litigation theory while working for Obama, as reflected in the Supreme Court’s Arizona v. United States decision. Justice Kennedy declared the federal government’s authority to govern immigration as so “broad” and “undoubted” that it “preempted” many of Arizona’s attempts to have its own local immigration enforcement strategy.

The Supreme Court did not allow Arizona to pursue any “immigration enforcement strategy” as an “impermissible” intrusion on the exclusive power of the federal government, even to the degree that “even complementary state regulation is impermissible.”

Anything that could be an “obstacle to the full purposes and objectives of Congress” was considered “preempted” and prohibited.  It is Congress that mandates no “state or local law” nor “state or local government entity or official” may “prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

Yet, Orrick just ruled San Francisco can overrule both Congress and President Trump, and further that President Trump cannot interfere with San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” choice because the Judge claimed a right of San Francisco to its own “immigration enforcement strategy,” after the Supreme Court said no such right exists.  Then how can Orrick rule consistent with the Supreme Court? He can’t. So, no surprise, Orrick mutilates the precedent on that issue.

How can Alabama and Arizona be prohibited from actually enforcing immigration law but San Francisco, the city that freed the killer of Kate Steinle, be given federal funds for its ignoring federal immigration law? When the federal judge still thinks he’s part of the Obama administration.”

….From the article by Robert Barnes @ LawNewz

 

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Part of Trump’s Immigration Order on Sanctuary Cities

|| Legal Insurrection

“A federal judge in California blocked a portion of President Trump’s January Immigration Executive Order Tuesday.

Jude William H. Orrick of United States District Court for the Northern District of California targeted the Trump administration’s promise to cut federal funding from “sanctuary cities” or cities who refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement concerning immigration matters.

From the New York Times:

The judge, William H. Orrick of United States District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the administration, directing it to stop trying to cut off aid to sanctuary jurisdictions.

That said, the decision is pretty weak (NYT continued):

But the order does not prevent the federal government from moving forward on designating certain places as “sanctuaries,” nor does it keep the administration from enforcing conditions for doling out federal money if they already exist, as the Justice Department has already begun to do with some law enforcement grants.

San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which had asked the judge for an injunction, “have a strong interest in avoiding unconstitutional federal enforcement and the significant budget uncertainty that has resulted from the Order’s broad and threatening language,” the judge wrote, referring to Mr. Trump’s January executive order on immigration.

..

In March, AG Sessions announced the DOJ’s commitment to enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373, which allows the federal government to strip grant money from cities who willfully refuse compliance with federal communications guidelines as they pertain to local law enforcement and federal immigration officials:

“This guidance requires local jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with Section 1373 in order to be eligible for OJP grants,” said Sessions. “It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants. The Department of Justice will also take all lawful steps to claw back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that wilfully violates 1373.”

All of this smells far more politically motivated than anything derived from sound legal doctrine. As I blogged in March:

If there is a legal mechanism to penalize sanctuary cities, we haven’t found it. It’s likely none exists because, despite threats, no administration has carried out a threat to withhold federal monies from disobedient rogue local governments.

There’s speculation aplenty as to how the Supreme Court might interpret a legal challenge to anti-sanctuary city guidance. Printz v. United States (highly cited in relation to this particular part of immigration discussion) held, “Congress may not compel a state or local government to implement federal regulatory programs, even if they are temporary functions.” Enforcing federal law is the responsibility of the federal government, thus immigration enforcement cannot and should not be delegated to local law enforcement. However, as 1373 indicates, local law enforcement are expected and required to communicate certain information to federal authorities.

Trump’s administration doesn’t seem afraid of legal tests, given his first immigration executive order, but it’s clear that sanctuary cities are in the crosshairs.”

….Continue reading more @ Legal Insurrection

 

Recent History | Arizona’s AB 1070 |  Jun 2012

Supreme Court Overturns Three Sections of Arizona Immigration Law, Upholds Papers Check

|| ABA Journal

“The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down three contested sections of an Arizona law designed to crack down on illegal immigrants.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion (PDF) upholding just one contested section of the law—at least for now. The provision requires state and local police to check the immigration status of people who are stopped, detained or arrested on legitimate grounds, if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally.

“At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume [the status-check provision] will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law,” Kennedy said. “This opinion does not foreclose other pre-emption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.”

The court overturned three other provisions on pre-emption grounds. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” Kennedy said.

The provisions struck down by the court:

• Make it a crime for immigrants to fail to obtain and carry federal registration documents. “Permitting the state to impose its own penalties for the federal offenses here would conflict with the careful framework Congress adopted,” Kennedy wrote.

• Make it a crime for illegal immigrants to work or apply for work. Federal law imposes civil rather than criminal penalties for illegal immigrants who engage in unauthorized work, Kennedy said. Although the Arizona law “attempts to achieve one of the same goals as federal law—the deterrence of unlawful employment—it involves a conflict in the method of enforcement,” Kennedy said.

• Authorize warrantless arrests when there is probable cause to believe a person has committed a public offense warranting deportation. Under federal law, an administrative document is issued when an alien is subject to deportation; the attorney general has discretion to authorize an arrest pending a removal decision. The state law authorizes arrests without federal input. “The result could be unnecessary harassment of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed,” Kennedy said.

Kennedy was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case.

“It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate states,” Kennedy wrote.

Justice Antonin Scalia would have upheld all four provisions, he wrote in a concurring and dissenting opinion. States had a long-time role in regulating immigration, and the Constitution did not eliminate their power to do so, he said. “Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it,” he wrote. “The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state.”

Justices Clarence Thomas wrote that he would have upheld all four provisions, though he differed with Scalia on the reason. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. would have upheld three provisions.

The case is Arizona v. United States.

In a press release, ABA President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III applauded the holding striking down three provisions of the Arizona law. “As the ABA argued in the amicus brief it filed in the case, immigration law and policy are and must remain uniquely federal, with states having no role in immigration enforcement except pursuant to federal authorization and oversight,” Robinson said.”

….Continue reading more @ ABA Journal

California’s Role in the Rise of Donald Trump | Apr 26, 2017

DONNELLY: Marlow, Lucas Discuss the Rise of Trumpism in California

|| Breitbart

“What may come as a shock to some of the staunchest liberals in California — who wear their Trump “resistance” as a badge of honor — is that California was the birthplace of “Trumpism,” according to Politico writer Scott Lucas.

Lucas called into Breitbart News Daily Show, hosted by Alex Marlow, on Monday, and for about 14 minutes, one of the most conservative radio hosts and one of the most liberal political journalists had an extremely good conversation—one that was both insightful and respectful.

(Something lacking in the current political climate.)

Marlow and Lucas attended Berkeley together — where they battled on blogs and in the school paper — and still talk occasionally to this day.  Lucas recently penned a piece for Politico entitled, “How California Gave us Trumpism”—and Marlow asked him how it was received.

In response, Lucas quoted a conservative friend from high school, who was a contestant on The Apprentice and “knew Donald Trump a little: “Scott, I feel like this piece does a really, really good job of understanding sort of how I see the world, seeing things through my eyes.”

And that sort of sums up Trump’s appeal.

He saw the world through the eyes of the tired, the forgotten, the everyman — who’d been left behind.

In California, conservatives are the truest of true believers, whose isolation has made them all the more ardent about their beliefs. According to Lucas, it was that environment that gave birth to “Trumpism,” described by Lucas as the “marriage of ‘Constitutional Conservatism’ coming out of the Claremont Institute with a sort of ‘Entertainment Populism’ coming out of Breitbart.”

When asked who were some of the names who sparked what Lucas later in the interview calls “an important intellectual moment,” more than 80% of the names are likely familiar to Breitbart’s audience:

  1. Steve Bannon, former Breitbart CEO, now chief strategist to President Trump;
  2. Stephen Miller, an immigration hard-liner from Santa Monica, now White House policy adviser;
  3. Michael Anton, now a high-level National Security Council aide, raised in Northern California;
  4. Julia Hahn, Bannon’s fellow Breitbart alum, who is now an aide in the West Wing, and who grew up in Los Angeles, where she attended the prestigious Harvard-Westlake School;
  5. Alex Marlow, the editor-in-chief of Breitbart News and another Harvard-Westlake alum, the website that has become the primary media vehicle for Trump’s “populist nationalist” agenda.

One name that came up later would bring the entire discussion full circle — and that was none other than Andrew Breitbart himself, who Lucas noted embodied both schools of thought. Breitbart was on a Lincoln Fellowship at the Claremont Institute when he launched the website that would bear his name, and later help launch one of the most unlikely presidencies in modern times.

What is ‘California Trumpism’?

Lucas says, “’Trumpists’ are people who think California — and by extension the United States — are in decline…that there’s something wrong, something’s on the downslope, and they’re very willing to say that, point it out, try to figure out what to do about it.”

For Lucas, there are two seminal moments in the rise of “Trumpism.”  First, the publication of Michael Anton’s “The Flight 93 Election” — in which Anton, under an alias, lays out the perfect case for why a Trump-like figure can only arise as a Phoenix from the ashes of a corrupt, California-like Republic — and the tragic murder of Kate Steinle, the beautiful 32 year-old woman cut down in the prime of her life by an illegal alien set loose on the streets of San Francisco by liberals’ sanctuary policy.

Lucas was very open about the way he and other liberals were taken by complete surprise by Trump’s election — something that many conservatives in California understood intuitively was a foregone conclusion once Trump made it clear he would stand and fight like Reagan did, instead of cutting and running  like the Mitt Romney wing of the party.  But unlike most liberals, Lucas admitted that he believes it is important to understand how we got here, instead of simply demonizing Trump and his supporters.

“We’re all in this country together, we’re all in this state together — who are you people?” Lucas asks, rhetorically.  “What do you think?”

It seems a very important intellectual moment in bringing together these sort of two strands of Conservatism that have emerged in Southern California.

On the one hand, this idea from the Claremont Institute — that the United States was founded as sort of an expression of ancient political theory coming from Aristotle and people like that.  And that we’re in serious trouble with the rise of Progressive Liberal Government in the 20th Century.

And on the other hand, sort of Andrew Breitbart’s idea that culture is ahead of politics — that you had to create a media vehicle that sort of spoke to people where they are — and bring them along politically after that.

And it struck me that was very obviously the formula for Trump…

Lucas decried the violence and death of free speech in Berkeley (the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement’):  “It’s very disheartening to see people [on the far left and the far right] who’d rather punch each other than talk to each other when they have political disagreements.”

When asked by Marlow if life is going to get better or worse for conservatives in California, Lucas had a warning.

“California is always a decade or two ahead of the United States — and…as goes California, so, too, very often goes the United States…”. He suggested that progressive leftism was likely going to take over the rest of the nation in that time.

Not likely in places like Texas or the heartland of this country, at least not anytime soon.

Maybe there’s another takeaway…

Since “Trumpism” was truly born in California, perhaps there’s hope for the Golden State after all.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

Immigration | More Judicial Obstruction on Sanctuary Cities | Apr 25, 2017

Judge blocks President Trump’s sanctuary city funding freeze

|| San Jose Mercury News

“SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge Tuesday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal funding, dealing a blow to the Trump Administration’s efforts to punish so-called sanctuary cities and counties.

With Santa Clara County and San Francisco’s landmark motion for a preliminary injunction approved, the section of the executive order applying to sanctuary jurisdictions will not go into effect until the court rules on the county’s Feb. 3 lawsuit against the administration.

District Judge William Orrick issued a ruling less than two weeks after a hearing on the case. Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez called it a victory for immigrant rights.

“We’re fighting for the United States Constitution and we succeeded after the Trump Administration tried to do an end run around it,” Chavez said in a statement. “The court’s decision is a win for the neediest people in our nation. Seniors in need of food, foster youth in need of shelter and children who need medical care. We’ll continue being a welcoming, safe and diverse community.”

Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, said Santa Clara County and San Francisco were interpreting the executive order too broadly. The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people’s immigration status, he said.
The order would affect less than $1 million in funding for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco, Readler said. Republican President Donald Trump was using a “bully pulpit” to “encourage communities and states to comply with the law,” Readler said.

The case has placed Santa Clara and San Francisco at the center of a contentious debate about sanctuary cities and counties. Hundreds of jurisdictions around the country have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, proclaiming they will not turn those immigrants over to federal agents, despite repeated threats from the Trump Administration.

Orrick appeared to sense the ambiguity of the policy, at one point asking, “What would the purpose of the executive order be?”

….Continue reading more @ Mercury News

 

Federal judge blocks Trump’s sanctuary cities executive order

|| Washington Examiner

“A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s sanctuary cities executive order.

San Francisco and Santa Clara County both won preliminary injunctions on Tuesday against Trumps’ Jan. 25 executive order that moved to cut off federal funding from cities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration requests.

According to San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick, the loss of funds would cause cities “to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.”

Orrick also cited public comments from Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, saying the two “erased” any “doubt about the scope of the order.”

However, the federal government is still able to enforce existing conditions of federal grants and does not restrict it from “developing regulations or preparing guidance on designating a jurisdiction as a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction,'” Orrick ruled.

There are at least three other lawsuits against similar language in the executive order.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez called it a victory for immigrants.

“We’re fighting for the United States Constitution and we succeeded after the Trump administration tried to do an end run around it,” said Chavez in a statement. “The court’s decision is a win for the neediest people in our nation. Seniors in need of food, foster youth in need of shelter and children who need medical care. We’ll continue being a welcoming, safe and diverse community.”

The federal government has been taking actions targeting so-called sanctuary cities since the January executive order, such has rolling back Justice Department grants that a city can receive contingent on cooperating with immigration requests under Section 1317 of 8 U.S. Code.

The decision comes only months after courts ruled against key portions of two of Trump’s immigration-related executive orders.”

…..Continue reading more @ WashingtonExaminer

The Danger of Sanctuary Cities | Apr 2016

Sanctuary Cities and the Concept of Federal Preemption and the Supremacy Clause | Nov 21 2016

Now Mexican ‘Immigrants’ Say it’s ‘Canada’s Turn’ | Apr 25, 2017

Canadians Get “A Little Mad” As Refugees Continue To Flood In From U.S.

|| ZeroHedge

“Just over a month ago we highlighted the comments of one recently deported Mexican nationalist who told Reuters that illegally immigrating to the U.S. was over, courtesy of the Trump administration, and that it was “Canada’s turn” to welcome the world’s immigrants with open arms.

 

“For those without documents, I think (the United States) is over. Now it’s Canada’s turn.”

And, with each passing month, new immigration stats from Canada seem to indicate that Reuters’ young border-hopper was a very prescient fellow indeed.  According to stats highlighted by the Financial Times today, “land border asylum claims” in Canada continue to skyrocket with Quebec crossings up nearly 3x YoY and crossings into Ontario surging as well.

Meanwhile, the FT insists that the following propagandastory from a man named Abdi, a Somalian refugee who fled the U.S. out of fear of Trump, is typical of what’s driving the illegal and dangerous migrations north.

“Every time you see the TV, Trump is still talking about deportation, every time,” Abdi says, lounging on a steel-framed bed at a Salvation Army hostel in a gritty stretch of Winnipeg, the capital of Canada’s Manitoba province, where he has slept since sneaking across the border in March. “It scares me, it scares my friends, it scares everybody who is an immigrant living in the US.”

As they gaze out of the window on to central Canada’s prairies, he and two other Somali men recount their journey. Abdi says that if he returns to Somalia, the fragile east African state ravaged by decades of civil war, he would be killed, which is why he slogged through waist-deep snow and -30C temperatures to get to Canada.

“My country for me is fire . . . you see the fire, you run away. So I can’t return . . . but when you see [Trump] talking like that, you don’t feel free either,” he says.

Of course, one day after Trump signed his first immigration executive order back in January (see “Trump Signs Executive Orders To Keep “Radical Islamic Terrorists” From Entering US, Rebuild US Military”), Canada’s ‘progressive’ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sent the following tweet as an apparent jab at the new U.S. administration.

And while ‘open borders’ sound super nice in a political speech, the practical reality is that the majority of Canadians, just like Americans, don’t approve of unfettered illegal border crossings that place a massive financial burden on taxpayers and are often accompanied by a surge in crime (see “Half Of Canadians Want Illegal Immigrants Deported“).

Within Canada’s political arena, the issue is becoming hugely divisive, with many of the same debates and sentiments that have been so prevalent in the US. For Mr Trudeau, openness to refugees is a core conviction — part of the progressive image that his father, Pierre Trudeau, who led Canada for 15 years, is credited with shaping. Roland Paris, a former adviser to the younger Mr Trudeau, whose cabinet includes turban-wearing Sikhs and Muslims, says he is “unlikely to back down on this”.

But Canadians are ambivalent about this type of irregular — some say illegal — migration. A recent poll by Reuters showed almost half of Canadians want these asylum seekers to be deported.

Some opposition Conservative politicians have promised to deploy the military to close the border. With Mr Trudeau’s approval ratings at a low of 48 per cent, they sense an opportunity. While Canada has not been shaken by populist tremors in the same way as France or the US, anti-immigrant sentiments are moving into mainstream politics.

Meanwhile, conservatives in Canada, taking a cue from the recent U.S. elections no doubt, have ratcheted up their nationalist rhetoric, with politicians threatening to enlist the army to fortify their border.

“There are significant portions of the population that have expressed discomfort with these arrivals,” admits Mr Paris. “The [Conservative candidates] see this as a potential issue to run with.”

In Emerson, opinion is divided. Some residents spoke of plans to assimilate the Somali families permanently in a town where there is little unemployment and farmers are often in need of help. “We have the space in Canada. It’s not like Europe where you have people on top of each other,” says Mr Janzen, the mayor.

But there is also tension in the town of 678 people. “Canada can’t take care of the whole world and it seems lately like that’s the way it is,” says Wayne Turton, who owns a car repair shop in Emerson. “It makes you a little cranky . . . it makes us a little mad.”

First it was just Trump supporters, but now it’s looking increasingly likely that France and Canada are also filled with a bunch of racist people intent upon protecting their ‘arbitrary’ borders.

…..Continue reading @ ZeroHedge

Is Using a Fake Social Security Number to Get a Job a Crime? | Apr 22, 2017

Tucker Carlson Destroys Cocky ‘Dreamer’ After She Brags About Using a Fake Social Security Number

|| TheGatewayPundit

“Julissa Arce is a ‘Dreamer’ who was born in Mexico and grew up in the U.S. after her parents brought her here illegally.

She appeared as a guest on Tucker Carlson’s show tonight bragging about using a fake Social Security number to get a job at Goldman Sachs. Julissa Arce said that Dreamers who use fake Social Security numbers are ‘what young people who are incredibly driven are forced to do’. Arce is now a legal citizen.

So driven people are now forced to break the law? That makes you driven? No, that makes you a CRIMINAL.

Here is one of the clips where Tucker Carlson forces her to say just how many immigrants the U.S. should take.

Tucker Carlson: “How many immigrants should we bring in a year? That’s a real question.”

Julissa Arce: “That cap of 85,000 visas should at least be doubled to meet the demands of our country…”

We need to bring in more immigrants when Americans are suffering from years of chronic unemployment? No! We need to put Americans back to work and get tough on illegal aliens! Illegal aliens are criminal invaders and must be deported.”

….Continue reading more @ TGP

 

From the TGP Comments section:

Cocky ‘Dreamer’ Brags About Using Fake Social Security Number

Examples of often violated laws by illegal aliens but under-enforced :

•False Personation of a U.S. Citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911). Illegal aliens often present themselves as U.S. citizens, an act punishable by up to five years in jail, a felony. This law is often cited in immigration prosecutions and may involve, for example, an alien claiming U.S. citizenship to his employer.

•Fraud and False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001). It is common for illegal aliens to make false statements to the government or on official documents. An illegal alien violates this law when claiming to be a U.S. citizen on an I-9 Employment Eligibility form and faces a fine and up to five years imprisonment.

•Social Security Fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408). This statute has been invoked where an illegal alien provided a false Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a job, where an illegal alien used a fraudulent Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a driver’s license, and when an illegal alien used a Social Security card belonging to a citizen in order to obtain Section 8 housing, for example.

Violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years. The court can also require violators to provide restitution to the victims.

etc etc….”

 

California Senate Leader: Trump Immigration Crackdown ‘Based on Principles of White Supremacy’

|| Breitbart

“California senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) has claimed that the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown is based on the “principles of white supremacy,” after the federal government threatened to withhold $20 million in criminal justice grants from the state of California.

“It has become abundantly clear that Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration are basing their law enforcement policies on principles of white supremacy — not American values,” de León said in a statement. “Their constant and systematic targeting of diverse cities and states goes beyond constitutional norms and will be challenged at every level.”

Sen. de León’s comments come after the Department of Justice warned the state of California that it could lose $20 million in criminal justice grants should it fail to enforce policies under the new administration’s immigration crackdown.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has repeatedly warned localities protecting illegals from deportation, known as “sanctuary cities,” that they risk losing federal funding should they fail to comply with federal immigration law. The administration is also publishing a weekly list of crimes committed by illegal aliens residing in sanctuary cities.

On a visit to the southern border on Friday, Sessions described de León’s claim as “kind of extremist statement that I totally reject,” urging jurisdictions such as California and New York to “reconsider” their position.

Meanwhile, Californian Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Yuba) ridiculed it as a “ridiculous statement.”

“Nobody here is talking about the state becoming an immigration agency or doing ICE’s job for them. It’s about whether you comply with federal law,” Gallagher told The LA Times.

In February this year, de León revealed that “half [his] family are here illegally” under false documents and would be eligible for deportation under government policy. He then went on to push legislation making California a “Sanctuary State,” which prohibits state law enforcement agencies in California from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

California State Senate Leader: ‘Half My Family’ Here Illegally

|| Breitbart  | Feb 2017

“Everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work.” – California Senate leader admits most illegal aliens in California commit identity fraud to survive illegally. 

“California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon (D-Los Angeles) said last Tuesday that “half his family” was in the country illegally, using false documents, and eligible for deportation under President Trump’s new executive order against “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

De Léon, who introduced the bill, made his remarks at a hearing in Sacramento on SB54, the bill to make California a “Sanctuary State.”

He said:

… I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.

Testifying before the Senate Public Safety Committee, De Léon defended the widespread practice by illegal aliens of using fraudulent documents to work and obtain taxpayer-paid benefits, dismissing any concerns California citizens may have about being the target of identity theft.

In an interview the following day on KPCC 89.3’s Air Talk with Larry Mantle, De Léon expressed outrage that President Trump’s executive order would include those who possess fraudulent documents or committed identity theft to obtain a Social Security number.

“Someone simply who received or purchased a [fraudulent] Social Security card down at McArthur Park, or elsewhere in my district would be eligible immediately for mass deportation,” De Léon said (at 11:45 in the link above).

“He’s trying to deputize police officers — and with the suspicion of someone being a criminal or having a broken taillight, that they themselves, as a local police officer, could call the ICE agents immediately and have that person deported without even legal due process.”

Host Larry Mantle asked him: “… First of all, I just — I want to make sure I understand correctly: You don’t think purchasing a phony Social Security card and number should be a deportable offense?”

De Léon replied: “I don’t think so … the vast majority of immigrants — hard working immigrants — have done that.  I can tell you I have family members specifically who came here as undocumented immigrants, and they did the same thing. That’s what you need to do to survive in this economy.”

Mantle objected: “But of course the problem is, — and I know people too — who’ve had their Social Security numbers and identities stolen as a result of that….”

De Léon minimized the problem, saying it was not the same as “Russian” hacking.

Breitbart News’ calls to the President Pro Tem’s office were unreturned.”

…..Continue reading more @ Breitbart

This legislative leader is saying that in order to survive in California, you must become a criminal, and therefore we must decriminalize our laws in order to make it easier for criminals to stay. What strange and twisted logic a for ‘lawmaker’ to make, to justify more illegal immigration. /CJ

DACA Schemer Gets Deported for Unlawful Re-entry | Apr 19, 2017

First Illegal Alien ‘DREAMer’ Sent Back to Native Mexico Under Trump

|| Breitbart

“U.S. Customs and Border Protection sent a self-identified illegal alien with criminal convictions back to a family member’s home in Mexico on Tuesday, according to media reports.

USA Today reports that Juan Manuel Montes, 23, is the first illegal alien who applied for temporary protection from lawful deportation to be sent back home after President Donald Trump assumed office. Montes first arrived in the U.S. at nine years old, and applied for a deportation stay under Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), twice.

“Court records show he has four convictions: one for shoplifting in January 2016, and three for driving without a license, most recently three months ago,” the outlet reports.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

DHS: USA Today Got Its Big Scoop On Deported ‘DREAMer’ Totally Wrong

|| Daily Caller

“USA Today reported Tuesday that an illegal immigrant protected by Barack Obama’s amnesty was deported in February after spending an evening with his girlfriend. However, a Department of Homeland Security spokesman told The Daily Caller that they have no record of this incident and that Juan Manuel Montes-Bojorquez’s amnesty status was terminated.

The USA Today story said that Montes-Bojorquez, 23, was apprehended by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in Calexico, Calif while he was waiting for a car ride to pick him up.

According to the article, he told the officers he left his wallet in his friend’s car and because he didn’t have his ID or proof of his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status, he was deported.

David Lapan, a DHS spokesman, orginally told TheDC Tuesday that Bojorquez’s DACA status “expired in Aug. 2015.”

However, in an updated statement Wednesday, Lapan said: “After a detailed records search, we determined that Juan Manuel Montes-Bojorquez was approved for DACA starting in 2014 and had a DACA expiration date of Jan. 25, 2018. However, Mr. Montes-Bojorquez lost his DACA status when he left the United States without advanced parole on an unknown date prior to his arrest by the U.S. Border Patrol on Feb. 19, 2017.”

Montes-Bojorquez’ lawyers said that after he was deported on Feb. 18, he subsequently returned to the U.S. after being robbed in Mexico, and shortly thereafter turned himself in to immigration officials.

The DHS spokesman said: “The U.S. Border Patrol has no record of encountering Mr. Montes-Bojorquez in the days before his detention and subsequent arrest for immigration violations on February 19, 2017.  There are no records or evidence to support Montes-Bojorquez’s claim that he was detained or taken to the Calexico Port of Entry on February 18, 2017.”

….Continue reading more @ DailyCaller

 

Pelosi Accuses Trump of ‘Deportation Dragnet of Appalling Inhumanity’ After DREAMer with Criminal History Deported

|| TownHall

“House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) released a statement Tuesday evening following a USA Today report that the Trump administration had deported its first DREAMer, Juan Manuel Montes, allegedly protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

“Instead of honoring the protections of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative, President Trump has unleashed an indiscriminate deportation dragnet of appalling inhumanity,” Pelosi wrote.

Montes is suing the federal government and the USA Today report is now being disputed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

CBP said Montes’ DACA permit expired in August 2015. Montes’ lawyers claim he had renewed it in 2016 and it expires in 2018. CBP also pointed out the fact, acknowledged even in USA Today’s report, that Montes was convicted of theft and sentenced to probation.

“Court records show he has four convictions: one for shoplifting in January 2016, and three for driving without a license, most recently three months ago,” according to USA Today.

Those convictions, however, are not serious enough to disqualify him from DACA protections, USA Today adds, citing the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services guidelines.

“The Trump Administration is terrorizing patriotic young people who want nothing more than to live, work and contribute to the country they love – the only home they’ve ever known,” Pelosi said in her statement. “These outstanding young men and women are American in every way but on paper.””

….Continue reading @ Townhall

 

Sessions on Booted DREAMer: ‘Everyone Is Subject to Being Deported’

|| Breitbart

“Attorney General Jeff Sessions is defending the deportation of a four-time convicted illegal immigrant DREAMer who applied for protection under the Obama-era ‘Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals’ DACA program.

As Breitbart News reported, 23-year-old illegal immigrant Juan Manuel Montes was deported by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency after having four criminal convictions, one for shoplifting and three others for driving without a license.

Despite Montes’ believing that he was protected as an illegal immigrant under DACA, Sessions told Fox News’ Jenna Lee the days of the Obama Administration’s lax enforcement are over.

“DACA enrollees are not being targeted, I don’t know why this individual was picked up,” Sessions said on the case. “Everybody in the country illegally is subject to being deported, so people come here and they stay here a few years and somehow they think they are not subject to being deported – well, they are.”

“Our priority is to end the lawlessness at the border, stop the additional flow of illegals into the country, then to prioritize those who have gotten in trouble with the law, recent arrivals, people who have been deported previously, drug dealers and other criminal activists,” Sessions said. “They need to be deported first.”

“But we can’t promise people who are here unlawfully that they aren’t going to be deported,” Sessions reiterated.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

Trump signs bill allowing veterans to seek care outside broken VA system

|| Business Insider

“President Trump signed legislation Wednesday that will dramatically expand a program at the Department of Veterans Affairs that lets patients seek care from private doctors if they want to bypass the troubled VA system.

The Veterans Choice Improvement Act removes barriers that Congress placed around the original “choice” initiative and eliminates an expiration date that would have shuttered the program in August.

Lawmakers created the choice program in 2014 after a massive scandal involving wait time cover-ups at more than 100 VA facilities around the country. It was initially structured as a two-year pilot program that limited when and where veterans could choose to see private doctors. Patients could only use the choice program if they lived more than 40 miles from the nearest VA hospital or if they could not get an appointment from their local VA facility within 30 days.

The choice program has proven controversial since its inception three years ago. Critics have questioned whether increasing veterans’ reliance on private doctors might move the VA toward privatization, while proponents of such efforts have accused the VA of resisting steps to implement the program in order to protect the status quo.

“Extending the Choice Program is the right thing to do, but only as a stopgap measure until better solutions are developed and implemented,” said Dan Caldwell, policy director at CVA. “Reauthorizing the Choice Act buys Congress some time to work with Secretary [David] Shulkin on broader choice reforms that will truly empower veterans with the ability to seek care outside the VA when they want to.”

….Continue reading more @ BusinessInsider

 

Tucker, Cuban Battle Over Whether Choosing Foreign Workers Over American Workers Is Good for Economy

|| Youtube | Tucker Carlson

“Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” host Tucker Carlson and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban battled over the H1-B visa and its usefulness for the United States economy.

Cuban argued that a business bringing in the best applicants from around the world is actually good for the American economy, while Tucker noted that people who get beat out for jobs just remain unemployed and get on disability insurance.”

……See more @ Breitbart

 

O’Reilly out at Fox News

|| theHill

“Fox News host Bill O’Reilly will not return to the network, 21st Century Fox announced Wednesday.

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the Company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,” the network said in a statement.

Reports emerged this week that 21st Century Fox was leaning toward ousting O’Reilly in the wake of sexual harassment allegations.

New York Magazine’s Gabriel Sherman reported hours earlier that Fox News had decided to oust O’Reilly and execs were in talks about how to end the relationship without causing collateral damage to the network.”

….Continue reading @theHill

Gov Moonbeam Attacks Planet Earth and the 1st Amendment | April 01, 2017

‘FAKE NEWS BAN’ California Attacks the First Amendment

| theGatewayPundit

“A bill was introduced back on February 17 by the California State Assembly, which attempts to ban “fake news” – a difficult term to define. Wednesday, March 29, saw the bill filed to the Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs.

The bill, which would ultimately amend the California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act, would make it illegal to spread so-called “false or deceptive” information.

The following is a portion of the proposed amendment as it stands:

It is unlawful for a person to knowingly and willingly make, publish or circulate on an Internet Web site, or cause to be made, published, or circulated in any writing posted on an Internet Web site, a false or deceptive statement designed to influence the vote on either of the following:

(a) Any issue submitted to voters at an election.

(b) Any candidate for election to public office.

As previously stated, the term “fake news” is hard to define and given this, the text that makes up the amendment is equally ambiguous and does not in explicit language define what “false or deceptive” information, or statements, are, which would allow for subjective interpretations of the law to be used to discredit or devalue narratives that are counter intuitive to the individual/entity attempting to use the law for some sort of claim.

Another major problem that will undoubtedly arise is the prospect of an individual using social media who wishes to explore political ideologies that could be in stark contrast, or contradiction to, the people who are carrying out the law.

The bill is fundamentally flawed.

A memo attempts to clarify certain aspects of the bill:

This bill will fuel a chaotic free-for-all of mudslinging with candidates and others being accused of crimes at the slightest hint of hyperbole, exaggeration, poetic license, or common error. While those accusations may not ultimately hold up, politically motivated prosecutions—or the threat of such—may harm democracy more than if the issue had just been left alone . . .

At this point in time, it is clear that this bill endangers free speech, it also can be used as a tool by the left to silence opposition in the state of California. The left has been actively attempting to undermine conservative or contradictory thought for far too long and now their efforts are moving toward totalitarian policy measures.”

….Continue reading more @ TGP

 | Let me get this straight, in a state where identity fraud is rampant, the state is considering adopting a law called ‘Cyber fraud abatement Act’ which does nothing about identity cyber fraud? /CJ  

Obama spying looks even worse than Trump claimed

|  WND

“WASHINGTON – The spying by the Obama administration on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump reportedly was even worse than what he has alleged.

And it had nothing to do with Russia but everything to do with politics.

Sources in the intelligence community claim the potentially illegal revealing of names, or unmasking, of people in the Trump camp who were under surveillance was done purely “for political purposes” to “hurt and embarrass (candidate) Trump and his team.”

The bombshell revelations come from rank and file members of the intelligence community who are fighting back against a stonewall by the leaders at the nation’s spy agencies, according to Fox News.

Reporter Adam Housley said the sources are “not Trump” people but are “frustrated with the politics that is taking place in these (intelligence) agencies.”

And what they have revealed is amazing. Here is what they told Fox:

1) Surveillance targeting the Trump team during the Obama administration began months ago, even before the president had become the GOP nominee in July.

2) The spying on the Trump team had nothing to do with the collection of foreign intelligence or an investigation into Russia election interference.

3) The spying was done purely “for political purposes” that “have nothing to do with national security and everything to do with hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team.”

4) The person who did the unmasking was someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world, and is not in the FBI.”

5) Congressional investigators know the name of at least one person who was unmasking names.

6) The initial surveillance on the Trump team led to “a number of names” being unmasked.

7) House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., has known about the unmasking since January.

8) Two sources in the intelligence community told Nunes who did the unmasking and told him at least one of the names of someone in the Trump team who was unmasked. The sources also gave Nunes the serial numbers of the classified reports that documented the unmasking.

9) It took Nunes a number of weeks to figure out how to see those intelligence reports because the intelligence agencies were stonewalling him, and not allowing the chairman or other people to see them.

10) There were only two places Nunes could have seen the information: where the sources work, which would have blown their cover; and the Eisenhower Executive Office building on the White House grounds, which houses the National Security Council and has computers linked to the secure system containing the reports he sought.

11) Nunes got access to that system on March 21 with the help of two Trump administration officials.

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel reported that the documents Nunes saw confirming the Obama administration spied on the Trump team for months “aren’t easily obtainable, since they aren’t the ‘finished’ intelligence products that Congress gets to see.”

She said there were “dozens of documents with information about Trump officials.”

Strassel also reported there was a stonewall against the Intelligence committee chairman because, “for weeks Mr. Nunes has been demanding intelligence agencies turn over said documents—with no luck, so far.”

She also learned that, along with former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, one other Trump official was unmasked.”

….Continue reading more @ WND

“You need the coercive power of government to say “do this” – Jerry Brown

| Youtube

CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN: Tom, you used the phrase “policy, good policy.” But I want to unpack that term a little bit. Inside the policy, you need a law, you need a rule, you need the coercive power of government to say “do this.”

Now, you have to be wise and don’t say something stupid, or try to order something stupid. But the fact is, the regulations supported by the laws drive innovation.”

…More @ Youtube

 

California Senator Forced To Pull Bill Banning “Fake News” After Realizing It’s Idiotic

| ZeroHedge

“California is known far and wide for it’s wacky regulations.  In fact, just last fall we wrote about SB 1383, a very significant piece of legislation signed into law by Jerry Brown which requires a 40% reduction in methane gas emissions from cow flatulence by 2030 (no, really…you can take a look here: “Here Are Some Of The Ridiculous New State Laws That Will Take Effect January 1st – Happy New Year!“)

But a recent piece of legislation introduced by California Assemblyman Ed Chau (D-Monterey Park), “The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act or AB 1104 for short, gives the “cow fart” bill a run for its money in terms of its complete idiocy.  The bill, filed Wednesday in the Assembly’s Committee on Privacy and Consumer Affairs, would have effectively made it a crime to be wrong on the Internet.

The text of the bill implicated anyone who writes, publishes or even shares news stories that could be false, if those news stories are later found to have had an impact on an election.

As of right now it looks as if the legislation has been pulled after Chau just cancelled a hearing originally scheduled for Monday.  Presumably Chau got a little pushback from mainstream media outlets after they realized his bill would effectively ban them, and their fake “Russian hacking” narratives from California.”

….Continue reading @ ZeroHedge

 

 

Evelyn Farkas Suggests the Russians May Be Behind ‘Fake News’ About Her

| theGatewayPundit

“Former Obama official, Evelyn Farkas has come under heavy fire for her March 2nd appearance on MSNBC where she admitted to having a lot of knowledge on the surveillance of Trump and his team. She is now in damage control mode and her nervousness is causing her to make some odd statements.

Evelyn Farkas appeared on MSNBC to defend herself, claiming the recent stories about her knowledge of Trump being wiretapped is fake news and perhaps the Russians are behind it. We are officially in the twilight zone, folks.”

…Continue reading more @ theGatewayPundit

California’s Sanctuary Status in Trump Admin Crosshairs | Jan 2017

DMV Crash: California DMV Offices Off-line in Another Jerry Brown Failure | Oct 2016

California Governor Jerry Brown’s Email Problem Over San Onofre Nuke Deal | Aug 2016