Justice Department sues California over sanctuary laws
|| SF Chronicle
“After struggling in court for the last year to strip federal funds from California and sanctuary cities like San Francisco for refusing to aid federal immigration agents, the Trump administration filed suit Tuesday accusing the state of unconstitutionally interfering with immigration enforcement.
Three state laws enacted in 2017 “reflect a deliberate effort by California to obstruct the United States’ enforcement of federal immigration laws,” the Justice Department said in a lawsuit in federal court in Sacramento. The suit seeks to overturn all three laws.
In remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday to a law enforcement gathering in Sacramento, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Trump administration would “fight these unjust, unfair and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you.”
So far, though, his arguments have made little headway in federal court, where judges in San Francisco and elsewhere have rejected efforts to strip federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to comply with Justice Department edicts.
The suits by California, San Francisco and other sanctuary jurisdictions challenge conditions the department has sought to attach to federal funding, while the Justice Department’s suit directly challenges the California laws. But the central issue in all of them appears to be whether sanctuary laws are a proper exercise of state and local government’s authority over law enforcement or an unconstitutional intrusion by those governments into federal immigration law.
Sessions’ suit, though filed in a different court, could be consolidated with the California suit and transferred to San Francisco if the judge in that case decides the issues are the same.
Gov. Jerry Brown, a defendant in the new lawsuit, said in a statement, “At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they won’t work here.”
State Attorney General Xavier Becerra, also a defendant in the suit, responded with his own overture to law enforcement. “We’ll continue to stand up for our police and sheriffs whose funding has been threatened by the Trump administration” in the federal grants, he told reporters.
Besides targeting sanctuary laws, Sessions and others in the administration have denounced local officials like Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who publicly warned the immigrant community Feb. 24 of an impending Bay Area raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Acting ICE director Thomas Homan, who previously threatened pro-sanctuary politicians with criminal prosecution, compared Schaaf to “a gang lookout.” President Trump’s press secretary said the Justice Department was looking into Schaaf’s actions.”
Sessions Punches Back: DOJ to Sue California to Strike Down ‘Sanctuary’ Laws as Unconstitutional
“Attorney General Jeff Sessions will speak Wednesday about his Department of Justice’s (DOJ) first-of-its-kind lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of three of California’s “sanctuary” laws, Breitbart News has learned.
Relying on both federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, DOJ will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern California to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of these laws intended to protect illegal aliens by preventing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. DOJ will also seek declaratory judgement that these laws are unconstitutional – “preempted” by federal immigration law – when it files late Tuesday night.
“The Department of Justice and the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Attorney General Sessions is expected to tell a gathering of California police officers Wednesday in Sacramento. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe that we are going to win.”
Trump Administration Announces Rollback Of DACA Program
|| Daily Caller
“President Donald Trump followed through on a campaign promise Tuesday to end an amnesty program for hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, albeit in a way that allows beneficiaries to continue using the program for a period and gives Congress a chance to pass a legislative fix.
The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was started by President Barack Obama in 2012 to protect illegal immigrants that arrived as minors. It protects roughly 800,000 illegal immigrants, many of whom are in their 30s. President Trump vowed to end the program immediately on the campaign trial, but wavered before his hand was forced by a litigation threat from several Republican state attorneys general.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions made the announcement in a Tuesday press briefing and said that he had determined that the program was unconstitutional.
Congress could potentially pass an amnesty for DACA recipients along with the RAISE Act, which substantially lowers legal immigration and is supported by the White House.
The slow rescinding of DACA will also mean that DACA beneficiaries will be able to keep their status on a rolling basis. This will allow some illegal immigrants to be protected from deportation and keep their work permits all the way into 2019.”
“For every dreamer that is working there is one citizen out of work. For every dreamer that is in college there is one citizen that is not. For every dollar spent on a dreamer there is one dollar that is diverted away from helping a homeless citizen.” / CJ
200 DACA supporters march to Congresswoman Mimi Walters’ office in Irvine, demanding her help
|| OC Register
“IRVINE – Drummers led the Tuesday morning march of 200 supporters of DACA, as they walked from San Marco Park to the office of U.S. Congresswoman Mimi Walters.
“We demand that (Congresswoman) Mimi Walters co-sponsors legislation to help our DACA community,” Rex Wang said to the cheering crowd.
Wang is an organizer with the Korean Resource Center, one of the multiple organizations that put on the rally.
The crowd marched chanting and holding up signs with such slogans as “Save the American Dream, Save DACA,” and “Diversity is our Strength.”
Marchers were students, faith leaders and others who say any decision to end DACA would be detrimental.
It took 30 minutes for the demonstrators to march the 1.6 miles get from San Marco Park to Walters’ office on Michelson Drive. They chanted and held up signs all along the way garnering honks of support from passing motorists.
Irvine police officers on motorcycles followed along to ensure demonstrators, who were peaceful, got to their destination safely and also didn’t affect traffic. They arrived with drums beating.
No one from the representative’s office came down to address the demonstrators, but through her spokesman Walters said Tuesday morning:
“The Constitution mandates that Congress, not the president, write the laws. DACA, while well-intentioned, was an unconstitutional abuse of executive power. Our nation and our government cannot function unless we uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.
“It is now up to Congress to develop a permanent legislative solution to provide certainty to the young people who were brought to America as children without the proper documents through no fault of their own. America is the only home most of these young people have ever known and it is unjust to punish them for the actions of their parents. Congress should work to ensure their residency so that they can continue to contribute to our community and strengthen our nation.”
Outside the congresswoman’s office, a handful of speakers asked her and other Congress memebers to co-sponsor legislation that will help those affected by DACA’s repeal.
Min Jung Park’s parents moved to the United States from South Korea when she was 7. She grew up in Los Angeles and moved to Orange County when she started attending UCI.
“My parents are heroes. They sacrificed so much to bring me here,” the 21-year-old senior psychology major said. “We should stop criminalizing them and others for wanting a better life.”
UCI criminology major Paulina Jiménez offered a similar story.
“I came here when I was 3 years old,” she said. “Mexico is a foreign country to me.”
“DACA expressly violated federal statutes which require the initiation of removal proceedings.
As critics warned at the time, our first experiment with mass amnesty, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, led to a giant increase in our illegal alien population far higher than before it took place. In response, President Clinton created the Commission on Immigration Reform, led by civil rights-icon Barbara Jordan, to study the issue and make recommended policy changes. The Jordan Commission’s findings formed the basis of what became true comprehensive immigration reform: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That legislation sought to foreclose attempts by the executive to apply amnesty by fiat, which the executive had done in years previous to small groups through administrative tools such as the parole power and extended voluntary departure.
In response to the Jordan Commission’s report, Congress made it clear that those here without our authorization would be placed in removal proceedings. They amended into Title 8 of the US Code section 1225(b)(2)(A), which reads “if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding under section 1229a of this title.”
When DACA was challenged by members of an ICE public sector union in 2012, the Obama DOJ attempted to argue that “shall” in the above section actually meant “may.” Showing a respect for the English language, the judge in that case ruled that “shall” really did mean “shall” and would have struck down DACA but for jurisdictional problems.
DACA violated the constitutional obligation of the executive to Take Care That The Laws Are Faithfully Executed.
The DACA Directive ordered that our immigration laws would no longer be executed against a class of 1.7 million illegal aliens, or 15 per cent of what DHS estimates to be the total illegal alien population. Such an exercise of “deferred action” to such a broad group of foreign nationals who chose to unlawfully and irresponsibly violate our sovereign borders is most certainly not consistent with a president’s duty to faithfully enforce the peoples’ democratically-enacted laws.
The Take Care Clause also certainly prohibits the president from rewriting those laws under the guise of executive “discretion” or “limited resources” or because it’s simply “the right thing to do.”
And contrary to what many pro-amnesty advocates have claimed, the Take Care Clause is absolutely judicially enforceable against the President. Cases in which the Supreme Court has decided as much include Kendall v. United States and Angelus Milling Co. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue.
DACA conferred amnesty and federal benefits under the false pretense of “Prosecutorial Discretion.”
“Prosecutorial discretion,” insofar as it is permitted by federal immigration law, is by definition the exercise of discretion not to remove; it is not the conferral of a benefit such as work-permit.
To the limited extent that any “prosecutorial discretion” is permitted by federal immigration law, such discretion is closely detailed in the immigration statute and its underlying regulations. For instance, based an illegal alien’s “extreme hardship”, ICE can seek the cancellation or withholding of a removal. There’s also Temporary Protected Status, Humanitarian Parole, or asylum, all which are granted based on a number of factors that have been set in statute for years.
The exercise of “prosecutorial discretion” does not permit any DHS employee or officer to grant unlawfully present aliens amnesty and work-permit benefits in the manner attempted by the DACA Directive. No doubt most anti-borders advocates know this by the simple fact that if such executive authority had always existed it would have been used before.
DACA conferred a benefit without promulgating a rule.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that all agency actions be set aside when they’re taken “without observance of procedure required by law.” Like DAPA, DHS failed to put DACA through the procedures required by the APA, namely, that it be presented to the public for notice and comment. So, not only did President Obama decide to bypass the legislative route on DACA, it bypassed the regulatory one as well.
The Justice Department would later argue in the 26-state challenge against DAPA that, with that program at least, formal rulemaking procedure wasn’t necessary because it wasn’t a substantive rule, but a mere procedural one.
But DACA, like DAPA, most absolutely fulfills the APA’s definition of a substantive rule. DACA established a new class of individuals by specific eligibility criteria against whom our immigration laws requiring their removal would not be executed and who are made eligible for work permits. This makes it an agency statement of general applicability and future effect and one that’s most certainly substantive.
Strangely, then-DHS Secretary Napolitano tried to make it look as if she was going through proper procedure. Two months after DACA was announced, she issued a Federal Register Notice as part of a so-called “information collection” exercise in relation to the program. The gesture was likely an attempt to satisfy the APA’ publication requirements should they be sued.
Congress and the President are the peoples’ servants. We vote them in based on their campaign promises and expect them to see those promises through.
By ending DACA, that’s what President Trump has done and that’s why today he’s shown himself to be a true constitutional leader. Thank you President Trump, today you have made the Constitution great again.”
Hillary Clinton’s Vow To College Grads: I’ll Outsource Your Jobs To Foreign Graduates
“Hillary Clinton today promised donors that she’ll provide Green Cards to an unlimited number of foreign college graduates, even though the resulting flood of university-trained foreign labor will drown the lifetime wages and career prospects of her college-indebted American supporters.
The open-borders promise to foreign graduates is posted at her campaign, and is titled “Hillary Clinton’s Initiative on Technology & Innovation.”
As part of a comprehensive immigration solution, Hillary would “staple” a green card to STEM masters and PhDs from accredited institutions—enabling international students who complete degrees in these fields to move to green card status.
The promise was slammed by Sen. Jeff Sessions, chairman of the Senate’s immigration panel.
“There are more college graduates in the U.S. today than at any point in our history, many have trouble finding meaningful work in their field of study. Many are underemployed, taking jobs well below their skill level simply to make ends meet … Yet, today, candidate Hillary Clinton announced that if elected president, she would ‘staple’ a green card to STEM master’s degrees and PhDs of every graduate – enabling foreign students to get green cards and thus be able to remain in the U.S. permanently and take any job,” he said in a press release. He continued;
Young Americans graduating with master’s degrees and PhDs in these fields have sacrificed their time and energy to pursue a career in the STEM field – often at the encouragement of policymakers and national leaders – and oftentimes carry the burden of substantial student loan debt as a result. Further saturating the STEM labor market will limit their ability to obtain high-paying jobs that will allow them to pay down their debt and pursue the occupation of their choosing.
In contrast, Donald Trump has promise to reform the main H-1B guest-worker program so that companies are forced to hire Americans instead of cheaper foreign college-graduates.
The website myvisajobs.com shows the companies and locations of many guest-workers. For example, the Deloitte accounting firm has roughly 225,000 employees worldwide. But it asked the federal government for H-1B visas to bring in 20,000 foreign business-school grads for jobs in the United States between 2012 and 2015.
Similarly, companies are already hiring more foreign students straight from US. college campuses via the little-known Optional Practical Training program, which allows foreign graduates of U.S. universities to work for 12 months or 29 months in the United States. Without approval from Congress, the program was created by George W. Bush’s appointees and is being expanded to 36 months by President Barack Obama’s appointees. In 2014, the controversial program allowed 120,000 foreign graduates to work at a very wide variety of U.S. jobs, sometime for employers who discriminate against Americans.
Many of these foreign graduates are trying to land a multi-year H-1B job.
Universities love the OPT program because it allows them to effectively sell U.S. work-permits to foreign students, and rent foreign students to companies. “