Category Archives: Border

The Law and Politics of a ‘National Emergency’ | Feb 15 2019

Obama Declared 13 National Emergencies — 11 Are Still Active

|| BigLeaguePolitics

“There are a lot of national emergencies going on. In fact, there are 31 active national emergencies declared under the National Emergencies Act.

Bill Clinton used this authority 17 times. President Trump has only used it three times so far.

Sorry Democrats, this “national emergency” business is not quite the work of “dictators.”

Conservative Tribune reports: “Of Obama’s 11 continuing national emergencies, nine of them were focused exclusively on foreign nations, while only one seemed focused on protecting America — a declaration aimed at punishing individuals “engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities.”

All of the rest of Obama’s national emergencies were focused on blocking property or prohibiting transactions/travel for individuals engaged in various activities in — by order of the date of enactment — Somalia, Libya, transnational criminal organizations, Yemen, Ukraine, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Venezuela and Burundi.

The American people stand with President Trump following his amazing Oval Office address explaining the human cost of illegal immigration.

If President Donald Trump uses the U.S. military to build the border wall along the United States’ international with Mexico by declaring a national emergency, won’t liberals simply run to a Federal judge whom they believe to be left-wing within the Ninth Circuit and block Trump? Can Congress vote to overturn Trump’s declaration of an emergency?

No. If the federal courts actually follow the law, President Trump cannot be prevented from “reprogramming” funds appropriated for the U.S. Department of Defense and actually using the military (such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) to build the border wall.

As noted in the first installment on this topic, Congress has given a president the power to declare a national emergency by 50 U.S.C. 1621 and  50 U.S.C. 1622.  A declaration of an emergency allows the President to reprogram funds in the military budget.  See 33 U.S. Code § 2293 “Reprogramming during national emergencies.”

Trump could reprogram funds from other parts of the Department of Defense budget — including from other DoD construction projects such as on bases, military housing, etc. — and engage in construction in areas of need for the national defense.  The statute says that explicitly (although statutes are never easy reading).

But Democrats are threatening and commentators are warning that such an action would be challenged in court and in Congress immediately.  Can such a plan be blocked?

First, 50 U.S.C. §1622 allows the Congress to over-turn a president’s declaration of an emergency.  If both the Senate and the House each pass s resolution terminating the President’s declaration of an emergency, than the emergency status terminates under 50 U.S.C. §1622.  But clearly the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate would not join the Democrat-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.  Unless a significant number of Republican Senators vote against a border wall built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or contractors with military funds, Congress could not block Trump’s efforts.

(Note, although I argue in the next section that this power has been invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court, if a court disagrees on that, a legislative veto power should block a lawsuit.  Where Congress has provided a specific method for challenging a declaration of an emergency, the federal courts would normally hold that that method becomes the exclusive remedy.  A lawsuit would be blocked by the fact that Congress provided a non-litigation remedy.)

Second, however, the Congressional veto process described above has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), finding a legislative veto of Executive Branch action unconstitutional.  Congress passed many laws which specifically enabled Congress to veto regulations or actions under that law.  The U.S. Supreme Court found a legislative veto violates the structure or architecture of the Constitutional system.

Laws go to the President for signature or veto.  Congress cannot reach over and pull a law back.  Congress must pass a new law and present it to the President for signature if dissatisfied with how the law is working out.  The U.S. Supreme Court had no hesitation finding that the Congress had over-reached, based only on the implied architecture of the Constitution.

In Chadha50 U.S.C. 1622 was one of the laws explicitly discussed.  The dissenting opinion specifically warned that the Chadha decision invalidated Congress’s ability to overturn a presidential declaration of a national emergency.

Therefore, Congress cannot overturn a declaration by President Trump that the open border is a national emergency.  Even if the U.S. Senate were to side with the Democrats, Chadha explicitly ruled the Congressional veto (termination) of a presidential declaration to be an unconstitutional distortion of the familiar “Schoolhouse Rock” means by which laws are passed and signed by presidents.  Once a law is signed, there is no “claw back” right by Congress.

Third, of course, critics are discussing whether Trump’s actions would be constitutional.  Here, however, Congress passed a specific statute, in fact a series of statutes.  So there is no question about the President’s power to do what the Congressional statute has explicitly empowered him to do.

Some even point to a rather famous Constitutional landmark case — Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) — in which the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly ruled that President Dwight D. Eisenhower did not have the power to temporarily nationalize the U.S. steel industry to avert a strike for national defense.  However, Youngstown was not that simple.  Youngstown analyzed the inherent powers of Commander in Chief as modified by Congressional agreement by statute.

The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly analyzed that the President’s powers are at their greatest (zenith) when he acts not only by his inherent powers as President but also by the agreement of a statute passed by Congress.  In Youngstown, Eisenhower did not have any statute supporting his action and the Court reasoned that he was actually acting in conflict with relevant statutes.

Here, the Congress has already enacted and President George W. Bush signed into law, the Secure Fence Act of 2006.  It is already the law of the land that a border wall shall be built along the United States’ Southern border.  Neither Congress nor any private plaintiff can challenge the official determination that a border wall or barrier shallbuilt.  That is the law.  That is the official determination of both the U.S. Congress and the Commander in Chief.

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 was never implemented (other than a few miles) because Congress did not appropriate the funds to pay for it.  There are two steps:  Authorization and Appropriation of funds.  The decision to build a border wall is final.  The only question is applying funds to make it happen.

Building of a border wall under the 2006 Act was also not completed because the Swamp and Deep State sabotaged it.  Using classic bureaucratic games, the bureaucracy and open borders legislators followed “designed to fail” steps that ground the construction to a halt.

Note that in spite of the word “fence” in the title, the law does not actually mandate a “fence” in particular.  The wording of the Act is not about a “fence” but about any kind of barrier customized to the particular terrain in each location to the extent necessary to “the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.”   That is “all.”  As in “all.”

So the Secure Fence Act of 2006 requires building “whatever it takes” — not a “fence” per se.  The Act does require specific enhanced barriers and lights, cameras, and sensors, in some named locations.

Fourth, could liberals run to the courts to block Trump from using the military to build a border wall?  No.  Only those with “standing” can bring a lawsuit.  How is anyone harmed?

The federal courts have been waging Jihad against citizens bringing lawsuits for decades.  The federal courts have been raising the bar higher and higher to make it nearly impossible for anyone to challenge the actions of government agencies or public officials.  Specifically a complaint that is shared generally by much of the population cannot establish standing.

Contrary to strongly-held popular belief, the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly ruled that taxpayers do not have standing to challenge government spending, revenue, or action merely because they are taxpayers.  See, Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589, 547 U.S. 332 (2006).  So the Left cannot block Trump’s plans by suing as taxpayers.  (The only exceptions involve use of funds to establish a religion or local government taxpayers.)

Similarly, Members of Congress do not have standing either.  Certainly individual Members of Congress do not.  See Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (1997).

To bring a lawsuit, one must show that they are tangibly harmed, personally, not just in disagreement with a policy.  If Trump uses some of the $700 billion in the omnibus bill to build a border wall, everyone will be more safe.  How is anyone harmed?”

….read more @ BigLeaguePolitics

 

Fact Sheet: The Secure Fence Act of 2006 – The White House Archives

 

The Secure Fence Act Builds On Progress Securing The Border

By Making Wise Use Of Physical Barriers And Deploying 21st Century Technology, We Can Help Our Border Patrol Agents Do Their Job And Make Our Border More Secure. The Secure Fence Act:
  • Authorizes the construction of hundreds of miles of additional fencing along our Southern border;
  • Authorizes more vehicle barriers, checkpoints, and lighting to help prevent people from entering our country illegally;
  • Authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of advanced technology like cameras, satellites, and unmanned aerial vehicles to reinforce our infrastructure at the border.”

….read more @ George Bush White House Archives

 

Senate Committee Finds No Trump Russia Collusion | Feb 14 2019

NBC Ignores Own Exclusive: Senate Probe Found No Evidence of Collusion

|| NewsBusters.com

 

“According to an NBC News exclusive that first aired during the 10 o’clock hour of Tuesday morning’s MSNBC Live, both Republican and Democratic sources on the Senate Intelligence Committee admitted they had not found any direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Despite the fact the exclusive was filed by NBC News intelligence and national security reporter Ken Dilanian, NBC Nightly News hid it from viewers. Meanwhile, ABC’s World News Tonight and the CBS Evening News also turned a blind eye.

Instead of reporting on their massive breaking news story that drove a flood of reporting by other outlets, NBC Nightly News and anchor Lester Holt chose to hype DNA tests for dogs. [UPDATE: NBC skipped its own reporting again on Today.]

When the story first broke, a seemingly shocked Hallie Jackson came back from a commercial break to announce their discovery. “NBC News exclusive reporting on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Their investigation into Russian election interference and what they have and have not uncovered,” she said as she introduced Dilanian.

Wasting no time in getting to the heart of what his reporting discovered, Dilanian declared: “Hallie, after two years and after interviewing more than 200 witnesses, the Senate Intelligence Committee has not uncovered any direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Dilanian noted that committee chairman, Senate Richard Burr (R-NC), confirmed that finding to another network the other day, but he wanted to see what Democrats on the committee had to say. “[W]hat I’ve been doing since then is checking with my sources on the Democratic side to understand the full context of his remarks because that was essentially a partisan comment from one side, but this is a bipartisan investigation and what I found is that the Democrats don’t dispute that characterization.

….read more @ NewsBusters

 

Trump Demands Gavin Newsom Return $3.5 Billion for Canceled Bullet Train; Newsom: It’s ‘California’s Money’ Now

|| Breitbart

“President Donald Trump demanded Wednesday evening that the State of California return $3.5 billion in federal funds after Gov. Gavin Newsom canceled most of the state’s high-speed rail project, saying it was too expensive.

“California has been forced to cancel the massive bullet train project after having spent and wasted many billions of dollars,” the president tweeted. “They owe the Federal Government three and a half billion dollars. We want that money back now. Whole project is a “green” disaster!”

Newsom devoted the opening portion of his first “State of the State” address Tuesday to attacking Trump and his policies on the border. Yet he then bowed to conservative criticism — and, arguably, to fiscal reality — by canceling the high-speed rail project championed by his predecessors.

The governor added that while the bullet train would no longer connect San Francisco and Los Angeles, as first envisioned, the state would still continue “phase one” of the project between the rural towns of Bakersfield and Merced. “I know that some critics will say this is a ‘train to nowhere,’” he said. “But that’s wrong and offensive.”

Newsom added that the state had to continue the project if it wanted to keep the federal funds it had taken: “I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump.”

The money was granted to California as part of President Barack Obama’s stimulus, which set aside “$8 billion in federal stimulus money to create 13 high-speed rail corridors,” the New York Times reported at the time.

Obama pressured states to take the cash — which Democrat-governed states eagerly did. But the Republican wave of 2010 brought new governors to office, and several rejected their state’s high-speed rail plans as costly and unnecessary.

California has already spent over $5 billion on the high-speed rail project — roughly the same amount that Trump had requested for the border wall.”

….read more @ Breitbart

 

Russia Investigation

Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia

|| NBC News

“WASHINGTON — After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.

But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media.

“If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an interview with CBS News last week.

Burr was careful to note that more facts may yet be uncovered, but he also made clear that the investigation was nearing an end.

“We know we’re getting to the bottom of the barrel because there’re not new questions that we’re searching for answers to,” Burr said.

On Tuesday, Burr doubled down, telling NBC News, “There is no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

Sen. Mark Warner, D.-Va., ranking member of the committee, told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday that he disagrees with the way Burr characterized the evidence about collusion, but he declined to offer his own assessment.

“I’m not going to get into any conclusions I have,” he said, before adding that “there’s never been a campaign in American history … that people affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did.”

Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr’s characterizations, but said they lacked context.

“We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, ‘Hey Vlad, we’re going to collude,'” one Democratic aide said.

The series of contacts between Trump’s associates, his campaign officials, his children and various Russians suggest a campaign willing to accept help from a foreign adversary, the Democrats say.

By many counts, Trump and his associates had more than 100 contacts with Russians before the January 2017 presidential inauguration.

Senate has found no direct evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia

|| NBC News

 

“WASHINGTON — After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee.

But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media.

“If we write a report based upon the facts that we have, then we don’t have anything that would suggest there was collusion by the Trump campaign and Russia,” said Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an interview with CBS News last week.

Burr was careful to note that more facts may yet be uncovered, but he also made clear that the investigation was nearing an end.

“We know we’re getting to the bottom of the barrel because there’re not new questions that we’re searching for answers to,” Burr said.

On Tuesday, Burr doubled down, telling NBC News, “There is no factual evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.”

Sen. Mark Warner, D.-Va., ranking member of the committee, told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday that he disagrees with the way Burr characterized the evidence about collusion, but he declined to offer his own assessment.

“I’m not going to get into any conclusions I have,” he said, before adding that “there’s never been a campaign in American history … that people affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did.”

Democratic Senate investigators who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity did not dispute Burr’s characterizations, but said they lacked context.

“We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, ‘Hey Vlad, we’re going to collude,'” one Democratic aide said.

The series of contacts between Trump’s associates, his campaign officials, his children and various Russians suggest a campaign willing to accept help from a foreign adversary, the Democrats say.

By many counts, Trump and his associates had more than 100 contactswith Russians before the January 2017 presidential inauguration.”

….read more @ NBC News

 

Chinese Nationals Wade Ashore Illegally in Seal Beach | Jan 30 2019

A dozen people taken into custody after fishing vessel comes ashore near Seal Beach naval weapons site

|| OC Register

“Federal officials took 12 people into custody, including 10 Chinese nationals and two Mexican nationals, after they apparently escaped from a fishing vessel that landed near rocks Monday, Jan. 28, at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach.

“Several people got out of the boat and ran,” said Huntington Beach police Lt. Tom Weizoerick of the incident, first reported at 1:45 p.m. to the Long Beach Maritime Coordination Center.

The center, at the Port of Long Beach, coordinates several federal, state and local law enforcement agencies aimed at keeping the waters off California safe from smugglers and other criminals.

Bridgett Lewis, director of the MCC and security operations for the Port of Long Beach, confirmed Monday that 12 people, including one woman, were taken for processing at the San Clemente Customs and Border Patrol station.

Charges have not yet been filed, she said.

“We don’t know what their intent was,” Lewis said. “We don’t know if there is another boat behind them or who they were supposed to meet up with, if anyone.”

The MCC was first notified by the Navy who observed the boat landing near its beaches.

“Any vessel that lands here, we’re involved,” Lewis said. “The call came into the MCC and our assets were notified.”

One of the first on scene was the Orange County Sheriff Harbor Patrol, whose officers heard the MCC’s notification.

Two civilian employees, who were working on harbor buoys, saw a boat going in and people getting off, said Sgt. Isaac Felter.

“They radioed dispatch,”  he said

At that time, the department’s deputies were seven miles out at sea responding to a call of a human body that had been found in the water. The body was discovered by a fisherman, who first saw a group of birds eating what he thought might be a whale or dolphin.

“When he took his boat there,” he realized it was a body,” Felter said.

The male body has not been identified but the coroner said, likely it had been in the water for about 24 hours based on physical examination, Felter said.

Harbor Patrol deputies responded to the report of the boat landing but once on scene, they determined it had become a land-based operation being run by Seal Beach and Huntington Beach police departments and Customs and Border Patrol agents.

The passengers were caught by the two police agencies, Felter said. They were taken to a nearby business where a Harbor Patrol sergeant stood guard until they were picked up by Border Patrol agents.

There were no immediate reports of injuries.

The incident is the latest of several in Southern California in recent months involving alleged smugglers who have used boats to illegally bring in people and drugs to the United States.

On Nov. 29, seven men escaped off of a panga boat in Laguna Beach and were arrested. Two other suspected smugglers were found nearby in two take-away cars. In June, two panga boats landed at Crystal Cove State Beach, just outside Laguna Beach.

In all, there were 433 arrests of people trying to enter the country via panga boats between Nov. 1, 2017 and Oct. 31, 2018 in the San Diego sector, which includes Orange County, officials have said. Panga transports are organized by criminal smuggling operations and single transports can cost $13,000 to $17,000.

While panga and small vessel landings have been the main focus, law enforcement is also aware of other efforts for people to come ashore illegally. Pangas meet up with pleasure crafts and fishing vessels on the open sea. When that happens, it’s harder to detect.

Still, within the last few months, calls from concerned boaters in Dana Point and Newport harbors about illegally docked boats have alerted Harbor Patrol. Officials found evidence of smuggling activities occurred, including life vests, food and water that could only have been purchased in Mexico.”

….Read more @ OC Register

Mexico Is Not Allowing Illegal Invasion on land in Baja California, Mexico | Jan 6 2019

No further invasions will be allowed in the entity; the law will be applied, warns BCS Government

| BCS News

 “under no circumstances will invasions be tolerated and the law will be applied in this matter, because the most important thing is to protect the integrity of our people.”

 

La Paz, Baja California Sur (BCS ). No further invasions will be allowed in any of the municipalities of Baja California Sur, since safeguarding the inhabitants is a priority, said the Secretary General of the Government, Álvaro De la Peña Angulo .

In the current administration, special attention has been given to this issue, to avoid further cases of irregular settlements, mainly in Los Cabos, so actions are taken to ensure decent housing for those who live in Baja California Sur , explained the state official.

The economic and tourist dynamics that characterize the region brings with it a greater demand for services and social security, for which reason the State works to cover basic needs, he emphasized.

It should be remembered that, a few days ago, a land reserve of 70 hectares was granted to develop housing in the municipality of Los Cabos, where 9,000 homes will be built as part of a sustainable project.

Finally, and for all the above, said: “under no circumstances will invasions be tolerated and the law will be applied in this matter, because the most important thing is to protect the integrity of our people.”

…Read more @ BCS Noticias – Google Translation

Migrants Illegally Rush the Border to Start the New Year | Jan 01 2019

150 migrants rush U.S. border, are met with tear gas from agents who say they were throwing rocks

|| U-T San Diego

“A group of about 150 migrants attempted to breach a San Diego border fence on New Year’s, and some began throwing rocks at responding U.S. border agents who deployed pepper spray and tear gas on the crowd, authorities said.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said the group was attempting to climb over and under the San Diego border fence. When agents and officers responded, about 45 migrants turned back to Mexico, according to the agency.

Some migrants began throwing rocks over the fence at agents and officers, according to the agency.

“Several teenagers, wrapped in heavy jackets, blankets and rubber mats were put over the concertina wire. Border Patrol agents witnessed members of the group attempting to lift toddler-sized children up and over the concertina wire and (have) difficulty accomplishing the task in a safe manner,” a news release from U.S. authorities states.

The Customs and Border Protection release said agents and officers deployed smoke, pepper spray and CS gas to address the rock throwers, who they said were assaulting border agents and also risking the safety of migrants who had already made it onto the U.S. side.

The gases caused people to stop throwing rocks and flee, CBP said.

The agency apprehended 25 people, including two minors, the release said.

“I don’t like that type of violence of people throwing rocks,” said Silvio Sierra of Honduras, one of the migrants who approached the border and turned back amid the gas. “We don’t like that type of violence of throwing rocks. The majority of people came in peace. Our intent was to walk up peacefully.”

Regarding the tear gas, he said, “It was very strong. It was everywhere. People were crying. Women and children too. The gas was everywhere.”

Several migrants from the group that rushed the border said they have been growing frustrated in recent weeks waiting in El Barretal shelter with conflicting and shifting information about how the U.S. immigration process is supposed to work. They said the majority in the group planned to peacefully approach U.S. immigration authorities at the border and “throw themselves at their mercy.”

Such a rush of the border has been discussed for several days. Plans to make the effort on Christmas Eve did not materialize.

“The thing about it is, you don’t want to be illegal but you are already illegal,” Sierra said. “So they tell you to take a number. You ask for a number and wait in line for an opportunity. But there’s so many people in line, you aren’t getting through. If you walk up and ask for asylum, they say you are in the wrong place. You tell me what are we supposed to do?”

Jose Alexander of El Salvador said he headed to the border with his four-year-old son and witnessed the tear gas fired across the border. He said he didn’t see anyone throwing rocks, a sentiment echoed by many migrants interviewed on Tuesday.

“My son is still scared today,” Alexander said. “We were a little farther back in the group. As soon as I heard the first shot, I scooped him up and ran back. He was really scared.”

Authorities also used tear gas on Nov. 25 during a similar rush on the border. Although some women and children said they were affected by the gas, officials said it was only targeted at rock-throwers in that instance as well. President Donald Trump said at the time it was “a very minor form of the tear gas itself” that he assured was “very safe.”

The migrants from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador have come to seek asylum from violence and other unrest in their native countries. They set out on foot in October, and eventually used buses and other means to arrive in Tijuana, awaiting U.S. processing. Their presence has been portrayed as an invasion by Trump and and a human rights crisis by others. They have been routed from one shelter to another, and many have decided to return to their homelands or stay in Mexico, where new President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is more welcoming than Trump.

U.S. authorities are not the only ones who have used tear gas on the Central America migrants. Two suspects tossed tear gas canisters into the El Barretal shelter as migrants were settling into bed on Dec. 18.

Late Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Katie Waldman issued a statement on the incident.

“Once again we have had a violent mob of migrants attempt to enter the United States illegally by attacking our agents with projectiles,” the statement said. “As has happened before – in this and previous administrations – our personnel used the minimum force necessary to defend themselves, defend our border, and restore order. The agents involved should be applauded for handling the situation with no reported injuries to the attackers.”

Juan Carlos Caballero Jones said he participated in Tuesday’s rush on the border. He said he made it past the border fence and hid in the brush as agents searched nearby.

“When they passed me, I moved another inch or so, and then I stayed still,” he said. “They walked right past me but didn’t find me.”

He said he hid in silence holding his breath for 5 minutes.

Eventually, Caballero was discovered by the lights from an overhead helicopter, he said.

“I was just starting to think I was free.”

He said he was the only one caught in the spotlight of the helicopter and unsure if the agents were going to use some type of force to stop him.

“I was so nervous my whole body was shaking,” he said.

He said agents from the ground returned, and took him into custody and walked him back into the Mexico side.

“I was so close,” he sighed. “But I am going to try again on another day.”

….Read more @ U-T San Diego

California DMV registers Illegal Aliens Doesn’t Know How Many are Voting | Oct 13 2018

California Elections Official Does Not Know if Non-Citizens Have Voted

|| Breitbart

“California Secretary of State Alex Padilla does not know if any of the 1,500 people who were improperly registered to vote by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) this year voted in the June primary elections, the Associated Press reports.

On Tuesday, multiple news outlets reported that the DMV had erroneously registered 1,500 people, including non-citizens, to vote between April and September. The reports came after the state government insisted for years that its safeguards would prevent that for happening — a significant concern given a 2015 law that allowed illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses, and a 2017 law that automatically registered Californians to vote when they obtained driver’s licenses, if otherwise eligible. While the state says that no illegal aliens were registered to vote, at least one legal alien was confirmed as having been registered.

The AP elaborated:

The roughly 1,500 people either told the DMV they were ineligible or didn’t confirm their eligibility but were registered anyway, he said. The group included at least one non-citizen living legally in the state and perhaps many more. It could also include people under 18 or those ineligible to vote because of a criminal conviction, Padilla said. The DMV said none of the people mistakenly registered are people living in the country illegally.

The incorrect registrations occurred between April 23 and Sept. 25 because of a “processing error,” according to the DMV. California held its primary election June 6 [sic].

Early voting for the Nov. 6 election began this week.

California’s motor voter law letting residents automatically register to vote through the DMV took effect in April. Since then, people have newly registered or updated their voter registration more than 3 million times, DMV spokeswoman Jessica Gonzalez said. The new law is aimed at making it easier for people to register and boosting voter turnout.

 

Padilla added that the DMV may have to suspend the “motor voter” program if problems persist. Last month, Padilla admitted that 23,000 registrations had been filed with significant errors.”

….Read more @ Breitbart

“Huntington Beach can immediately start ignoring California’s contentious “sanctuary state” law | Sep 28 2018

Judge rules Huntington Beach can defy California’s sanctuary law

|| OC Register

 

“Huntington Beach can immediately start ignoring California’s contentious “sanctuary state” law, a judge ruled Thursday, Sept. 27.

But even before he announced his decision, Orange County Superior Court Judge James Crandall acknowledged that the case will wend its way through higher courts for months to come.

In April, Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates filed a lawsuit against the state claiming that Senate Bill 54 unconstitutionally interferes with the city’s charter authority to enforce local laws and regulations.

Signed into law last year, SB 54 limits interaction between local law enforcement and federal immigration officials — with exceptions, including cases that involve violent or “serious” felonies.

Crandall opened the hearing complimenting both sides, saying he found the opposing attorneys’ briefs “stimulating, in fact, invigorating.”

“I realize this is a very important case with significant implications,” he said.

From there, still early in the three-hour hearing, Crandall signaled that his sympathies lay with the city. Citing parts of the state constitution that grant charter cities a degree of autonomy, he said, “Laws are protections for the little guy, in this case, the city.”

Century-old constitutional amendments that allowed cities to create their own charters were meant to restrict “the ever-extending tentacles of state government,” Crandall said.

Huntington Beach is one of 121 charter cities in California, a designation decided by voters. Charters accord greater control over “municipal affairs,” such as how a city conducts elections and deals with its employees.

Still, California’s constitution holds that charter cities are subject to the same state laws as “general law cities” on matters considered to be of “statewide concern” — a point emphasized by Supervising Deputy Attorney General Jonathan Eisenberg.

The constitution’s charter rules do not give cities “a get out of jail free card,” Eisenberg said.

Specifically, Gates, Eisenberg and Crandall debated the two “subsections” of Section 5, Article 11, in which the constitution defines charter powers. Subsection A states that charter cities can “be subject to general laws.” Subsection B enumerates four areas over which a charter may bestow control, including “government of the police force.”

Crandall agreed with Gates that the subsections should be viewed as independent of one another, while Eisenberg said, “You do not get to skip whether there’s a matter of statewide concern.”

Huntington Beach, Eisenberg said, “is not a unique city” from the rest of California. And as a tourist destination visited by thousands of nonresidents, he said, what happens there regarding immigration enforcement affects the entire state.

Occasionally, Crandall drifted away from the core of the lawsuit – that SB 54 violates a charter city’s sovereignty – harshly criticizing SB 54 as forcing cities into “one size fits all” policing. He complained that legislators “want to keep bossing people around.”

When Eisenberg said that local law enforcement can still communicate with immigration officials regarding serious crimes under SB 54, Crandall replied, “You haven’t tied their hands and feet, you’ve just taped their mouths.”

Several times, the judge noted the presence of Huntington Beach Police Chief Robert Handy in the courtroom. After granting the city’s request to be free from enforcing SB 54 while the decision undergoes an appeal, Crandall said, “I think Chief Handy wants to get out there and do his good police work as soon as possible.”

….read more @ OC Register