Soros Legal Alum Helps Get Illegal Alien MS-13 Member Released
“An illegal alien MS-13 gang member was released by a federal judge after two immigration attorneys lobbied for his release.
U.S. District Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon ordered the 17-year-old, self-admitted illegal alien MS-13 gang member be released from federal custody, despite his criminal and gang-affiliated history.
The illegal alien previously admitted to selling drugs in Honduras and witnessing multiple murders committed by fellow MS-13 members. Now, he will be allowed to live freely in the U.S.
In an interview with the Washington Post, the illegal alien spoke about how being a member of the violent MS-13 gang felt like a family:
“It was like the family I couldn’t find at home,” he said. “I thought nobody loved me. But when I found them, I said, ‘This is my family. They love me.’ ”
Older gang members gave him money, alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. But soon they demanded he sell drugs, too, including heroin and “piedra,” or crack.
“I began to see things, like them torturing people,” the teen said. “For rent. Because they belonged to another gang. Because they had screwed up somehow.”
The illegal alien gang member arrived in the U.S. as an ‘unaccompanied minor child,’ who are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
As Breitbart Texas reported, the federal government has continued placing unaccompanied minor children in MS-13 gang hot-spots across the U.S.
One of the two attorneys who helped fight for the MS-13 gang member’s release, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg and Rebecca Wolozin with the Legal Aid Justice Center, has ties to left-wing billionaire George Soros.
Wolozin previously worked for Soros’ Open Society Foundation as a ‘Legal Research Intern,’ according to her online resume.”
Cost Disputes Could Derail Plans To Track Foreign Departures In US Airports
“The federal government has developed a system to track foreigners leaving the country through U.S. airports, but disputes with airlines may prevent the timely application of the technology.
The new tracking system would rely on photographs taken of all passengers boarding international flights at their departure gate, allowing authorities to know with certainty whether a foreigner has left the country and where they went.
After nearly two decades spent developing technology to track individuals who enter the U.S. legally and then stay past their legal departure date, and repeated congressional mandates demanding an exit tracking system, the federal government has met resistance from airlines who don’t see the benefit of implementing it.
“Right now, there is no benefit to us. We’re not interested in adding another 10 minutes to the boarding process,” one airline official told the Wall Street Journal in Monday article.
John Wagner, who heads the program for the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection agency told a congressional committee last month that DHS needs to rely on airlines to run the cameras in order to avoid an “astronomical” cost to taxpayers.
“We’re out of time and we’re out of excuses,” Wagner said. “We can’t do this without the airlines.”
Wagner also disputed the claim that the new system will inconvenience airlines, pointing out that the new technology would eliminate the necessity of checking passports.
Airline officials denied the technology would allow them to stop checking passports, saying they still have a responsibility to make sure passengers aren’t flown into other countries without identification.
The exit tracking system, which has received bipartisan support, would prevent individuals from remaining in the country illegally by having someone else exit using their passport. It would also prevent people from leaving the country undetected by using someone else’s passport.
In the past two years hundreds of thousands of people have overstayed their visas. This problem received significant congressional attention after the September 11 attacks when it was discovered several of the hijackers were in the country on expired visas.
The DHS has run a number of exit tracking pilot programs at various airports around the country. The central obstacle the department faced was determining a method to make sure individuals reported as having departed the country actually boarded the flights they were supposed to be on.
There is ample opportunity for someone to get through security and then simply leave the airport, since travelers pass through airport security checkpoints well before they reach their departure gate. The DHS successfully navigated this obstacle by developing a plan in which cameras are installed in departure gates. The cameras would scan passengers faces directly prior to boarding, the system would then cross references the images with the list of passengers who are supposed to be on the flight, confirming the individual boarded their flight.
Wagner explained that he hopes airlines will cooperate in implementing the technology but said the DHS must implement the programs with or without their cooperation. “Congress has been pretty clear about the requirement,” he told the Wall Street Journal.”
MS-13 Extorting Legitimate Latino Business Owners in DC Suburb
“The powerful gang Ms-13 is extorting Latino-owned businesses in the D.C. suburbs, Montgomery County police chief Thomas Manger said Wednesday in testimony before the Senate.
“We have heard from community members that the gangs, which historically extorted money solely from illicit businesses such as ‘bordellos’ and unlicensed ‘cantinas,’ are now collecting ‘rent’ from legitimate Latino business owners and residents in certain apartment complexes” Manger told the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. “In some instances, if the victims of this extortion refuse to pay the fee demanded by the gang, the gang members return with detailed information on the intended victims’ family members still living in Central America.”
Manger was one of three law enforcement officials who provided testimony regarding the growing threat posed by MS-13 and the resulting need for federal intervention. The gang, which is comprised largely of Salvadoran immigrants, began in Los Angeles in the 1980s and now maintains a significant presence in the New York and Washington D.C. metro areas where they engage in drug dealing, extortion and violence.
Manger also spoke about the need for the federal government to relax surveillance laws so law enforcement can more easily monitor gang members. He explained that gang members have become increasingly tech savvy and as a result are often able to evade police surveillance, according to the Washington Examiner.
“I also urge Congress to act to balance citizens’ rights to privacy with law enforcement’s need to lawfully monitor and intercept electronic communications regarding criminal activity and potential deadly plots” Manger said.”
The Obama administration knowingly let in at least 16 admitted MS-13 gang members who arrived at the U.S. as illegal immigrant teenagers in 2014, a top senator said Wednesday, citing internal documents that showed the teens were shipped to juvenile homes throughout the country.
Sen. Ron Johnson, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said a whistleblower turned over Customs and Border Protection documents from 2014 detailing the 16 people who were caught crossing the border.
“CBP apprehended them, knew they were MS-13 gang members, and they processed and disbursed them into our communities,” Mr. Johnson, Wisconsin Republican, said.
The gang members were part of the surge of UAC, or “unaccompanied alien children,” as the government labels them, who overwhelmed the Obama administration in 2014, leaving Homeland Security struggling to staunch the flow from Central America.
Officials at the time said the children should be treated as refugees fleeing horrific conditions back home — though security analysts said the children were prime recruiting territory for gangs already in the U.S.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, The Obama administration was an 8 year crime spree. Obama and his corrupt agencies knowingly put Americans in danger with their disregard for the law. Where is the justice? The equally corrupt media never reports on stories like this because they are too busy obsessing over the Trump-Russia hoax.
You can read the full report by The Washington Times here.”
ICE Nabs Illegals Working Construction On Travis Air Force Base
|| Daily Caller
“Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have arrested illegal aliens working construction at the Travis Air Force Base and are looking to deport them as soon as possible.
ICE quickly arrived on the scene after a military official realized that two illegals, Hugo Mejia and Rodrigo Nuñez, did not have valid social security numbers and reported the pair of construction workers at the base, The Mercury News reports.
After arresting Mejia and Nuñez, ICE has placed the men in expedited deportation proceedings, as both men have removal orders stemming from when they entered the country illegally over a decade ago.
Mejia is naturally upset. He told The Mercury News in Spanish, while detained at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center, that he has a good track record.
“I’ve been here for 17 years and my record is excellent,” he said. “I’ve never done anything to anyone. My bills are paid on time, I have a clean record, we’ve never asked the government for help.”
ICE told The Mercury News that the two men “will remain in ICE custody pending court proceedings and it will be up to a judge with the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review to determine whether they will be subject to removal from the U.S.”
Justice Scalia Believed Supreme Court was Being Surveilled by Obama
“Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst, went on FOX Business Network on Monday to discuss allegations Senator Rand Paul and another senator were under surveillance by the Obama administration.
Napolitano also dropped a bomb on the Obama administration spying on the US Supreme Court.
Judge Napolitano: Justice Scalia told me that he often thought the court was being surveilled. And he told me that probably four or five years ago…If they had to unmask Senator Paul’s name to reveal a conversation he was having with a foreign agent and the foreign agent was hostile to the United States they can do that. That’s not what he’s talking about. They’re talking about unmasking him when he’s having a conversation with his campaign manager when he’s running in the Republican primary.
During the discussion Judge Napolitano also said Barack Obama could be subpoenaed to testify if he viewed the unmasked intelligence.”
“Federal immigration officials arrested nearly 1,400 gang members in a nationwide 6-week operation, including illegal immigrants gang members who had protected status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
Altogether, 1,378 gang members were arrested by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, 1,098 of which already have federal or state criminal charges against them, according to a news release. Twenty-one of the members had pending murder charges against them, while another seven were facing rape allegations. The other 280 were arrested for being in the U.S. illegally.
Three of the gang members arrested in the ICE operation had protected status as illegal immigrants under the Obama-era DACA program. Since DACA’s inception, more than 1,500 illegal immigrants have had their protected status revoked after they were found to be involved with a gang or committed a crime.
DACA recipients are given protection by the federal government and since the Trump Administration has not ended the program, experts like Mark Krikorian have previously said that 800 new permits for protected DACA status can be granted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) every day.
“They’re still processing these work permits,” Krikorian told Breitbart Texas at the time. “That’s got to end at the absolute minimum.”
Additionally, of the 1,478 gang members arrested, 10 of them had crossed the U.S.-Mexico Brder as unaccompanied minors. Of those 10, nine were confirmed gang members and eight of those 10 were MS-13 specifically.
Most recently, Breitbart Texas reported on the continued resettlement of foreign unaccompanied minors into MS-13-prone regions of the U.S., despite experts pointing to evidence that this process allows foreign crime syndicates to flourish.
Since the beginning of the Fiscal Year, October 1, 2016, 651 unaccompanied minors were placed in Nassau County, which is home to one of the largest growing MS-13 gang population’s in the U.S. In neighboring Suffolk County, which has a widespread MS-13 gang problem in Brentwood and Central Islip, approximately 915 have been resettled in the region.”
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) concluded a targeted nationwide gang operation which was the largest ever conducted by Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
The six-week nationwide crackdown on gangs took place from March 26 through May 6 and resulted in 1,378 arrests of which 1,095 were confirmed gang members and affiliates, according to a statement from ICE.
Of the 1,378 total arrests, 445 were foreign nationals from 21 countries spread across five continents around the world. Of those arrested, “137 affiliated with the Bloods, 118 with the Sureños, 104 with MS-13, and 104 with the Crips. The remaining 283 claimed no gang affiliation but were arrested on either criminal or administrative charges,” ICE noted.
The operation specifically targeted gang members that were suspected to be involved in drug trafficking, sex trafficking, weapons smuggling, human smuggling, racketeering, and murder.
The operation led to the seizure of 238 firearms, 546.96 ounces of methamphetamine, 790.15 ounces of cocaine, 113.42 ounces of heroin, 1.59 ounces of fentanyl, 8,019.46 ounces of marijuana, and $491,763.
ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan noted that gangs threaten not only large cities but also small and rural communities.
“Gangs threaten the safety of our communities, not just in major metropolitan areas but in our suburbs and rural areas, too,” Homan said. “Gang-related violence and criminal activity present an ongoing challenge for law enforcement everywhere. Our efforts to dismantle gangs are much more effective in areas where partnership with local law enforcement is strongest.”
DUI suspect who struck family returning from Disneyland deported 15 times in 15 years
|| U-T San Diego
“Mexican man who has been deported at least 15 times pleaded not guilty Wednesday to a felony drunken driving crash in San Ysidro that fractured the skull of a 6-year-old boy.
Lennox Lake’s parents didn’t go to court for the arraignment, preferring to stay at their son’s bedside at Rady Children’s Hospital. “He’s a tough kid,” father Benjamin Lake said. “He wants to go home, to his brothers, his dog, to play on his computer and go to the park.”
But Lennox will have to stay at the hospital for at least nine more days while he receives antibiotics for a common strep infection that set in after surgery to repair his skull, his family said.
The boy was knocked unconscious and wasn’t breathing when a pickup slammed into his parents’ Honda Accord late Saturday night as they returned from a day at Disneyland. Lake and his wife, Ingrid, suffered minor injuries.
Constantino Banda-Acosta, 38, is suspected of speeding through a stop sign on Camino de la Plaza at Dairy Mart Road in San Ysidro and plowing his pickup into the side of the Accord. Then, authorities say, he kept going.
He was arrested about a mile away, where Border Patrol agents found him in the damaged pickup with a passenger.
Immigration officials say Banda-Acosta, 38, has been returned to Mexico at least 15 times since 2002 for being in the U.S. illegally, most recently in January.
Banda-Acosta entered his not guilty plea in Chula Vista Superior Court to felony charges of driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a blood-alcohol level of more than 0.08 percent and hit-and-run, and a misdemeanor charge of driving without a license. If convicted, he faces a possible sentence of seven years and eight months in prison.
Chula Vista police said they arrested Banda-Acosta twice on charges of domestic violence against his wife, on April 9, 2006, and this year on Jan. 9. According to court records, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic battery in 2007 and spent time in county jail.
The records also show he has convictions for driving on a suspended license and a 2006 misdemeanor DUI conviction for which he was placed on probation for five years.”
California eyes herbicide compound for carcinogen list
|| Capitol Weekly
“California is deciding whether to add a popular herbicide’s ingredient to the list of officially recognized cancer-causing compounds — a move that has run into a legal road block.
At issue is glyphosate, which for decades has been a prime compound in the Monsanto Company’s herbicide Roundup.
In March, the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment announced plans to recommend adding glyphosate to its list of substances included in warning labels, as required by voters under Proposition 65. These labels list compounds known to the state of California to cause cancer.
Glyphosate had been expected to be included, but that action may be contingent on the result of a lawsuit brought by Monsanto in 2015 to block the listing, according to OEHHA spokesman Sam Delson.
The lawsuit has put the brakes on the effort to list glyphosate as a carcinogen — at least for now.
Among those anxious for a listing is Harvey Makishima, the CEO of an advocacy group called Public Awareness for Preventative Health Care, which seeks to ban the substance statewide.
Monsanto’s suit to block the listing of glyphosate was dismissed by a Fresno County Superior Court judge earlier this year, Delson said.”
Illegal Immigrant Uber Driver Skips Town after Rape Accusation
“A Democrat Massachusetts judge in a “Welcoming City” for illegal aliens set a low bond on a previously deported Dominican Uber driver accused of raping a Boston College student. She did so, knowing immigration officials were about to put a detainer on the suspected rapist. Predictably, he has not been seen since that day in court.
Prosecutors in the case asked the judge for a $100,000 bond and told her that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were working on getting a detainer on the alleged rapist. Instead, Newton District Court Judge Mary Beth Heffernan “insisted on $2,500 bail,” the Boston Herald reported in a scathing article.
The recipient of the small bail, Luis Baez (aka Pedro Valetin), is charged with raping the female college student three times. Reports indicate Baez (or Valetin) worked as an Uber driver using a fictitious name.
Breitbart Texas spoke with ICE Public Affairs Officer Shawn Neudauer about the judge setting the low bail.
“You mean the one who released him on purpose, knowing we were coming for him?” Neudauer expressed. He confirmed that ICE officials were working hard to confirm Baez’s identity prior to his release. Baez refused to cooperate with police during his fingerprinting process making positive identification more time-consuming, Neudauer said.
ICE confirmed that Enforcement Removal Officers deported Baez in 2010 following two Class A felony convictions. A court convicted Baez in 2004 on an assault and battery with a dangerous weapon charge, and in 2003 for a felony possession of a controlled substance charge. Despite his violent criminal history and previous deportation, the judge ignored the prosecutor’s request for a $100,000 and set bail at $2,500. Baez’s girlfriend attended court with the suspect and “paid his bail on the spot,” Neudauer said.
Thirty minutes later, ICE confirmed the identity of the previously deported alien and issued an immigration detainer.
Baez is alleged to have picked up a woman in Boston while driving under the fake name of Pedro Valentin in September, Middlesex District Attorney prosecutors told Boston25 News. Instead of dropping her at her requested destination, he drove her to another location where he allegedly sexually assaulted the young woman. He then dropped her off at Boston College and she reported the incident to campus police. Boston College would not confirm or deny if the woman is a student at the college.
ICE officers obtained a federal felony criminal warrant on Baez on a charge of illegal re-entry after removal. Neudauer said Customs and Border Protection officers will be watching for Baez if he attempts to flee the country via a port of entry.”
“A state judge freed a previously deported Uber driver accused of rape on light bail even after a prosecutor insisted that federal immigration agents were drafting a detainer and asked for high bond to hold him, according to a court recording obtained by the Herald.
The stunning tape of Tuesday’s hearing reveals Newton District Court Judge Mary Beth Heffernan cutting the arguments short before a defense attorney could even counter the prosecution’s $100,000 bail and GPS-monitoring demand, interjecting, “Twenty-five hundred dollars cash.”
Luis Baez — now being sought by immigration authorities who tell the Herald he’s dropped out of sight — is accused of raping an inebriated Boston College student who had hailed his Uber car Sept. 29. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said they made attempts to find Baez, but have been unsuccessful.
Police tracked Baez through the Uber app data. They determined with the help of Boston gang cops, who recognized his picture, that he had been using a false name — Pedro Valentin — on his Uber account.”
“Iowa Republican Gov. Terry Branstaad signed a voter identification law Friday morning that requires voters to show ID at polls beginning in 2019 and reduces the state’s early voting period to 29 days.“We welcome Iowa to the growing collection of states enacting necessary reforms to prevent against voter fraud and boost confidence in our elections,” Public Interest Legal Foundation President and General Counsel J. Christian Adams said in an email statement on the law. “This law is a step toward modernizing elections with policies and infrastructure designed to protect voters from error and fraud alike.”
The new law also provides submission guidelines for third party voter registration organizers and details the use of electronic poll books to be used for confirming felon status.
Additionally, the law sets requirements for post-election audits and refers illegal votes to appropriate local law enforcement.”
Fed-Up Advertisers Stop Paying More for Declining TV Audiences
“In the coming weeks, TV networks will host glitzy events in New York to convince advertisers to spend more money on the latest dramas and reality shows. Many ad buyers, however, say they’re tired of paying ever-higher prices to reach ever-fewer viewers.
Thanks to competition from so many new forms of entertainment — Netflix, Facebook, Snapchat — audiences for traditional TV networks, from ESPN to MTV, are declining. In the current TV season, the four major broadcasters have lost 8 percent of their audience. Because of the slumping ratings, advertisers who want to reach a certain amount of eyeballs can’t get what they need from television anymore.
To make up for the shrinking audiences and keep ad sales high, TV networks have kept raising their rates, believing ad buyers will just have to spend more to reach the people they need. TV ratings have dropped 33 percent in the last four years while TV ad prices are up 20 percent during that period, according to Magna, the ad-buying agency owned by Interpublic Group of Cos.
But now, marketers are losing patience with the networks, and ad sales in the $70 billion U.S. TV market are slumping.
“Advertisers’ businesses aren’t growing 10 percent, so when you charge 10 percent increases you’re going to scare people away from TV,” said Dave Campanelli, director of national broadcast at Horizon Media, an ad buyer.
Some ad buyers have been shifting more of their TV budgets to the internet, seeking to encourage the growth of digital competitors like Hulu and YouTube. Last year, Magna announced it would move $250 million of its clients’ TV budgets to YouTube.
Though major media companies Walt Disney Co. and 21st Century Fox Inc. won’t report quarterly results until next week, cable networks look likely to post their first decline in advertising since 2010, according to Bloomberg Intelligence.”
University Will Pay ‘100 Percent’ Of Illegal Students’ Financial Needs
“Emory University is keen to pay “100 percent of demonstrated financial need for undocumented students (with or without DACA) who are admitted as first-year, first-degree-seeking students,” according to an online description of coming fall program.
As The College Fix reports, the private Atlanta university has given the take care of illegals program the unwieldy name of “Need-Based Financial Aid Program for Undocumented Students, including Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) Students” and the information is all available on their website.
There’s money galore for illegals. “All Undocumented Students (with or without DACA) who are admitted as first-year, first-degree-seeking undergraduate students, who have graduated from a U.S. high school, and who are determined by Emory to have financial need, will be awarded Emory financial aid funds to assist them in meeting their demonstrated need,” the website promo declares.
Emory neglects to provide an exact definition of what exactly constitutes “financial need.”
Emory receives high marks as an academic institution and charges $50,000 in tuition fees for American citizens and $70,000 for foreign nationals, who won’t be sharing in the financial needs bonanza with the illegal students.
International students, who don’t intend to stay in the U.S. illegally, are instructed by the university that “you are required to certify that you have sufficient funds to cover your expenses while attending Emory University.”
Mexico’s Government Warns U.S.A. to Not Build Border Walls
“The Mexican foreign secretary called the plan to build walls along the border a “hostile” and “deeply unfriendly” act, and an “aggravating action”. He warned that Mexico intends to conduct a fierce legal battle to stop any border walls that violate the rights of Mexicans.
Mexico Foreign Secretary Luis Videgaray said building any walls when there are already 600 kilometers of barriers is not only a hostile and deeply unfriendly act, but one that “also is not going to fulfill the objectives that it raises, is not only an aggravating action, but it seems to be frankly a bad idea.”
The foreign secretary said Mexico is planning a legal fight, and it has no intention to pay for any border walls or to cooperate with the U.S. in any way on the development of border walls.
“Of course, any kind of financial cooperation or any other way in building the physical barrier between our nations and, of course, an important fundamental limit is not accepting the violation of the human rights of Mexicans in the United States.”
Videgaray charged that any border wall “is not part of a bilateral discussion and should not be, Mexicans should not be part of that discussion, we will not collaborate in any way the construction of something that hurts us, Is apparently an absolute waste of resources.”
Videgaray made this vow during his appearance before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Chamber of Deputies in Mexico City this week.
The foreign secretary said that his country had put together “a very significant amount of human resources” to argue that the U.S. is violating international treaties, “starting with the ominous Treaty of Guadalupe in 1948.” This was most likely a reference to the 1848 treaty that ended the Mexican-American war and set the Rio Grande as a boundary to Mexico.
He forewarns that Mexico will file lawsuits in the U.S., as well as in international courts of law if there are any violations of a border treaty, environmental treaties, or an international law regulation.
Secretary Videgaray told the Committee on Foreign Relations that Mexico “has been a tireless promoter of openness to the world, to open up to us,” for decades. He urged, “we must recognize that we face new circumstances, some of them unpublished and others that are reminiscent of things that happened to the world decades ago.”
“Today in the world there are threats to our paradigms of international coexistence that have been in force for decades. It is undeniable that there are outbreaks of isolationist protectionism, outbursts of nationalism that try to close the world and beyond that, from political actors of very diverse origins in different latitudes, question the principle of global integration.” In the same speech, he said, “first and foremost as it should be,” the United States must recognize Mexico as a sovereign nation.
The Mexican foreign secretary threatened that any attempt to tax remittances from the U.S. would be “a break point in any dialogue on other issues.” He called the “flow of foreign exchange” “a fundamental support for many families.” “[F]or Mexico, [it] is a non-negotiable issue,” he charged.
In his address, Videgaray also vowed that Mexico would “increase significantly the attention to Mexicans abroad.” Videgaray explained that the 50 Mexican consulates have assisted and protected 45,290 this year – “more than half were in the immigration field.”
There have been 2,400 migrants who have been provided legal representation, and they are representing those who have already been deported.
The foreign secretary said Mexico would never accept a unilateral decision by the United States to send migrants from other countries to Mexico, and the country is waiting to challenge executive orders “regarding the extension of the criteria to allow express deportation.” They are “waiting for the first act of implementation, not only the Mexican government but the allied organizations, non-governmental organizations, so that when the first act of application exists, proceed to challenge the general rule,” he said. “There is not yet an act of application regarding the criterion of expeditiously deporting someone who has more than 14 days in the country or someone who is beyond 100 kilometers of internment.”
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.”
Judge Blocking Sanctuary City Order Apparently Still Thinks He’s Part of Obama Admin
“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.”
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.
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.”
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.”