“Our California Counts collaborative will host a U.S. Senate debate with California Attorney General Kamala Harris, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, Duf Sundheim, Tom Del Beccaro and Ron Unz 7 p.m. at KPBS in San Diego Tuesday, May 10. The debate will air live on 88.5FM and stream on KQED.org.”
Video: Illegal Alien Deported Three Times Killed After Shooting at Deputy; Illegal Was Reportedly Protected by CA Sanctuary Laws From Multiple ICE Detainers
“Javier Hernandez-Morales, 43, a Mexican national thrice-deported from the U.S. who was shot to death by Napa County sheriff’s Deputy Riley Jarecki after he fired at the deputy during a traffic stop Sunday night, was protected from further deportations by California’s sanctuary laws which blocked the federal government from detaining him on four separate occasions in recent years when he was arrested there according to a statement issued Thursday by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
The Napa County Sheriff’s Office released a video Wednesday of the shooting which shows Hernandez-Morales pulling a handgun on the deputy and firing at her as she spoke to him on the driver’s side. The deputy, who was not wounded, went to the other side of the car and returned fire, killing him. The screen image above is from before the shooting. The deputy first approached from the passenger side, then went to the driver’s side where she was fired on. The video was accompanied by this statement:
“Warning: This post contains graphic video content and is not suitable for children. This Body Worn Camera footage depicts the Attempted Murder of Napa County Sheriff’s Deputy Riley Jarecki on February 17th, 2019. The decedent, Javier Hernandez Morales, fired the first shots. Deputy Jarecki returned fire. She was not physically injured. Hernandez Morales died at the scene.”
Obama Declared 13 National Emergencies — 11 Are Still Active
“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 Chadha, 50 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.)
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?”
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.”
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.”
Trump’s Welfare Ban for Immigrants Would Be $57 Billion Dollar Tax Cut for American Taxpayers
“President Trump’s ban on allowing welfare-dependent legal immigrants to resettle permanently in the United States would likely save American taxpayers about $1,600 a year per immigrant.
As Breitbart News reported, the Trump administration is set to roll out a plan in the next month that bars foreign nationals who need government welfare in order to live from resettling in the U.S. Such a ban on welfare importation through immigration has been eyed by the Trump White House since February.
Such a plan would be a boon for American taxpayers, who currently spend about $57.4 billion a year on paying for the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of 1.5 million new, mostly low skilled legal immigrants every year. In the last decade, the U.S. has imported more than 10 million foreign nationals and is on track to import the same amount in the coming decade if legal immigration controls are not implemented.
The National Academies of Science released a report two years ago, noting that state and local American taxpayers are billed about $1,600 each year per immigrant to pay for their welfare, where immigrant households consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households.”
Immigrants Use Close to 60% More Food Stamps Than Those Born in America
“Immigrant households, both legal and illegal consume 33% more cash welfare than American citizen households and 44% more in Medicaid dollars. This puts a strain on public services by a whopping 44 million foreign born people and translates to the average immigrant household costing American taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare.
According to a study conducted by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), more than 1.5 million foreign nationals who enter the country each year use an average of 57% more food stamps than the average native born American household, as reported by Breitbart.
The most recent Rasmussen Report poll finds that 62% of American voters support the Trump administration looking to discourage foreign nationals immigrating to the U.S. from using any taxpayer-funded welfare.”
Chinese Communist Spy Stealing U.S. Military Technology Pleads Guilty in OC
|| OC Weekly
“A 33-year-old Chino Hills resident—who provided accounting services for American aerospace companies, including U.S. defense contractors—pleaded guilty this week in Orange County to illegally transferring sensitive military technology to the People’s Republic of China.
Si Chen (a.k.a. Cathy Chen) sent advanced radar, military-grade communications jammers, low-noise amplifiers and Ka-band space communications to Hong Kong in route to China without seeking permission from the U.S. Department of Commerce, according to federal prosecutors.
“Defendant and her co-conspirators executed their conspiracy through multiple entities, including Archangel Systems Space, Inc., Century Electronic International Company and Star Aero Investment Limited, all of which maintained addresses in Shenzhen, China, as well as TAA Electronics, Inc., that used an address in Hong Kong,” Chen acknowledged in her signed guilty plea for activities conducted between 2013 and 2015. “On multiple occasions, [she] made false representations to the suppliers about the end user and country destinations of the items.”
Federal law enforcement officials obtained instructions Chen, whose father is tied to Beijing’s military affairs, received on her disposable cell phone from a mysterious Chinese contact instructing her to always insist the technology would not leave this country.
“[You] mustn’t have any involvement with China” and “don’t contact any companies in Hong Kong or China,” her communist handlers instructed her, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Officials also say they obtained evidence that Chen—who used multiple aliases after arriving in the U.S. in 2007, falsified immigration documents and attended National University in San Diego—received more than $200,000 in payments after making the shipments.”