Tag Archives: Sanctuary cities

More Opposition to California Sanctuary City Laws as San Diego Votes to Support Trump | Apr 17 2018

San Diego County supervisors vote 3-1 to support the Trump lawsuit against California sanctuary laws

|| U-T San Diego

“The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California over laws that the state passed last year to limit its role in immigration enforcement.

The county will file an amicus brief at the first available opportunity, likely on appeal, said Kristin Gaspar, supervisor for District 3 and chairwoman of the board.

The Department of Justice filed the lawsuit against the state at the beginning of March over three laws.

SB 54, the law that received the most publicity when it passed, limits the ways in which local police can interact with federal immigration officials. Under the law, police can turn immigrants over to federal immigration enforcement agencies only if they have committed crimes listed in the legislation. It says local police cannot participate in task forces that are focused on immigration enforcement.

It also requires the California Attorney General to set policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, libraries and hospitals.

AB 103 prohibits local governments across California from adding new contracts with the federal government for civil immigration detention or expanding old ones. It also requires the California Attorney General’s office to monitor conditions in existing immigration detention facilities in the state.

AB 450 says that employers cannot voluntarily allow immigration officials into non-public areas of the workplace unless the officers have judicial warrants. It also requires employers to notify employees about upcoming immigration inspections.

“We’re talking about people who are crossing the border illegally, coming into this county and committing a crime and them being let loose probably to commit another crime,” said Dianne Jacob, supervisor for District 2. “That creates a public safety issue and creates a problem in our neighborhoods.”

Gaspar, Jacob and Supervisor Bill Horn voted to support the lawsuit. Supervisor Greg Cox voted no. Supervisor Ron Roberts had a previous commitment and did not attend the meeting.

A long line of supporters and detractors addressed the board Tuesday morning after a group of people hoping to dissuade the supervisors from supporting the lawsuit rallied outside.

Supporters of the lawsuit felt that the laws in question were an overreach of state power and worried that it would inhibit the federal government from deporting people with criminal convictions.

Critics said they worried that allowing local police to work closely with federal immigration officials, which the laws limit, would create less safe communities because immigrant victims or witnesses wouldn’t call the police.

Many accused Gaspar of bringing the issue to a county vote to gain media attention for her campaign to take the Congressional seat of Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista.”

…..Continue reading more @ U-T San Diego

 

Jerry Brown Blames ‘Low-Life Politicians’ for ‘Sanctuary State’ Backlash

|| Breitbart

“California Governor Jerry Brown blamed “low-life politicians” for a growing backlash against the “sanctuary state” policies he has enacted in his state during an appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.

Brown spoke as a revolt continues to spread throughout Southern California against the state’s sanctuary laws in the wake of a Department of Justice lawsuit filed last month against the Golden State’s “sanctuary” laws.

The lawsuit seeks to invalidate three state laws — the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (HB 450), the Inspection and Review of Facilities Housing Federal Detainees law (AB 103); and the California Values Act (SB 54) — under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Roughly a dozen local governments have joined the revolt, and many more are considering joining the lawsuit, with three new cities climbing aboard last week.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

Opposition to Sanctuary Laws in California Grow in Orange County and San Diego | Apr 12 2018

Orange, Newport Beach join other Orange County cities opposing California sanctuary law

|| Orange County Register

Vaughn Becht of Westminster chants, “Build that wall, build that wall!” outside Aliso Viejo City Hall during a meeting discussing whether or not the city should file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the City of Los Alamitos and also the Orange County Board of Supervisors in United States V. State of California on Wednesday, April 4, 2018. (Photo by Drew A. Kelley, Contributing Photographer)

 

“Elected officials in Orange and Newport Beach, following hours of emotional testimony from both sides of the sanctuary issue, voted late Tuesday to oppose a new California law that protects people living in the country illegally.

In Newport Beach, the City Council voted unanimously during closed session to support a federal lawsuit filed by the Trump administration against California. The Newport Beach council also voted 7-0 for a resolution that says the city is publicly opposed to the law.

In Orange, the council voted 3-2 for a resolution against the California Values Act, the law that limits cooperation between federal immigration agents and local law enforcement and provides protection to unauthorized immigrants in public schools, libraries and medical centers. The Orange resolution says the city will not comply with state law, but resolutions are largely symbolic and it’s unclear whether it will have any impact on day-to-day operations.

“It’s making our voice heard, and supporting the County of Orange who really is the one dealing with custody and ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) communication issues,” Councilman Fred Whitaker said in an e-mail Wednesday.

Opponents of illegal immigration hailed the latest votes as victories as the anti-sanctuary movement continues to gain momentum in Orange County.

In the past three weeks, cities that have passed resolutions or taken other measures to protest the state law are Los Alamitos, Huntington Beach, Mission Viejo, Yorba Linda, Aliso Viejo, Fountain Valley and San Juan Capistrano. Orange County has as well.

In Orange, Mayor Teresa Smith and Councilman Mike Alvarez voted against it. Smith said the ordinance undermined trust and inclusion in the community. Alvarez said he would prefer to sit out the debate but would be interested in voting on something stronger that states, “We’re not a sanctuary city.”

Councilmen Whitaker and Mark Murphy brought the issue before the council. Councilwoman Kim Nichols joined them in support, saying that the California law is in conflict with federal laws.

Whitaker said Orange is “a welcoming city” but officials need to abide by the rule of law.

Several of the speakers in opposition of the law erroneously said that the California Values Act, known as California’s sanctuary law, prohibits communication between federal immigration agents and local law enforcement, barring cooperation between the agencies upon the release of potential deportable criminals from jail. Actually, the law limits but does not prohibit the two sides from working together.

The Westminster City Council is scheduled to take up the issue on Wednesday, April 11.”

….Continue reading more @ OC Register | Story by Roxana Kopetman

 

Red California’s revenge on sanctuary laws

|| U-T San Diego

“California is always the familiar Democratic blue in those political maps on TV, but the state still has notable swaths of red, particularly in the south.

And red California is making itself known through a local government rebellion against the sanctuary state.

On Wednesday night, Escondido joined President Donald Trump’s effort to dismantle California’s sanctuary laws, which, among other things, prohibit local law enforcement from telling federal officials when unauthorized immigrants are being released from custody unless they’ve been convicted of one of 800 specific crimes.

Orange County, Los Alamitos, Yorba Linda, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Aliso Viejo and now Escondido have all taken action to support the Trump suit to overturn the state laws.

The West Covina City Council declined to join the movement Tuesday night, even though the city had taken an official position against the key sanctuary law a year ago. Unlike the others, West Covina has a plurality of Democratic voters.

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors are scheduled to discuss taking action against the sanctuary laws in closed session on April 17.

Amid some loud, ugly words and mind-numbingly repetitive rhetoric Wednesday night, one quiet revelation surfaced before the Escondido City Council voted 4-1 to file a “friend of the court” brief supporting the administration’s lawsuit.

City Attorney Michael McGuinness said Friday is the court’s deadline to file an amicus curiae brief. That limits the options available to the supervisors.

They could direct the county to file its own lawsuit like Huntington Beach, which is a much, much larger undertaking than filing a supporting brief. They could pass an ordinance like Los Alamitos to opt out of the sanctuary laws, though that’s a legally questionable move. They could do something else, or do nothing.

Board Chair Kristin Gaspar, who is running for Congress, called the meeting to discuss opposing the sanctuary laws.

“I have been vocal in my support of upholding the law and protecting the 3.5 million people who call San Diego home,” she said in a statement Thursday. “This issue was already decided in 2012 when the Obama-led Department of Justice and Supreme Court determined that local laws can’t override Federal law. I have asked our Counsel to prepare to discuss all of our options . . .”

It’s far from clear what the board will do. Supervisors Dianne Jacob and Gaspar want to support the Trump suit, while Greg Cox and Ron Roberts have indicated they don’t think the board should get involved. Supervisor Bill Horn said through a spokeswoman that he wants to wait until the board discusses the matter before commenting publicly.

There has been little communication between Gaspar and the other supervisors on this, and some where caught off guard when she announced the meeting.

If the county joins the movement, it would be the first jurisdiction with a Democratic plurality, slight as it may be, to do so. In contrast to the county’s political demographics, all five board members are Republican.

The politics on immigration crackdowns often seem to divide along partisan lines, but it’s more complex than that. Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Republican presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump all have had versions of get-tough border and immigration policies, though none of the previous three matched Trump’s heated rhetoric on the issue.

Clinton launched the hotly disputed “Operation Gatekeeper” in San Diego in 1994 and deportations ramped up so much under Obama that some immigration advocates called him “deporter in chief.”

…Continue reading more @ U-T San Diego

 

Kate Steinle’s Killer Found Not Guilty in San Fran | Nov 30 2017

Five-Times-Deported Illegal Alien Jose Zarate Found Not Guilty in Murder of Kate Steinle

|| Breitbart

“A jury found seven-time felon, five times deported illegal alien Jose Garcia Zarate not guilty in the case of the 2015 murder of Kate Steinle Thursday evening.

The only count Zarate was found guilty on was felony possession of a weapon.

Thirty-two-year-old Steinle was shot and killed on a pier in San Francisco in 2015 while walking with her father. Her final words were pleas to her father for help, as she died in his arms.

Zarate, previously known as Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, previously confessed to shooting Steinle in a jailhouse interview with a local ABC News affiliate. He also told the outlet that he had chosen to go to San Francisco because he knew it was a sanctuary city.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

 

Follow On for Kate

|| Paul Brady

 

 

More California DMV Failure – Disabled Placard Fraud | Apr 30, 2017

California’s DMV isn’t making sure people who have disabled parking permits should actually have them

|| LA Times

“The California Department of Motor Vehicles isn’t making sure that people issued placards for disabled parking should actually have them, a state audit released Tuesday found.

Among other problems, the audit found the agency hasn’t canceled tens of thousands of the permits issued to people who have died, which has allowed some placards to be misused by their heirs.

The state has 2.9 million placards and disabled license plates in service that are meant to allow motorists with medical disabilities to park in disabled parking spots and curbside in metered spots for free and beyond time restrictions.

“DMV does not sufficiently ensure that applications for placards or plates are legitimate,” auditor Elaine Howle wrote in a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature.

Auditors looked at a sample of 96 approved placard applications and found 70 that “did not include sufficient medical information to demonstrate that the applicant qualified.” If that trend holds, it means the DMV may have approved 1.1 million applications from July 2013 through June 2016 without sufficient information to demonstrate that the applicant was qualified, the audit concluded.

Auditors questioned whether signatures of physicians on several applications matched information on file with the state and found the DMV does not work with health boards to review applications, as it is required to do.

Auditors also checked the name and date of birth of active placard holders against the U.S. Social Security Administration’s Death Master File, and identified nearly 35,000 matches. As of last June, they found nearly 26,000 placard holders were over 100 years old, even though the estimated centenarian population of California is only about 8,000.

In addition, some permanent placard holders have requested “an unusually high number of replacements for lost or stolen placards” and state law does not limit the number of replacements a holder may receive, she said. That means some placard holders might be giving extra placards to friends or family.

Although local sting investigations found about 15% of disabled parking placards are being misused, Howle said some local motor vehicle offices have less enforcement than others.

Auditors said there is no standard for how many sting operations each district office should conduct, so some do many more than others.

“By not establishing reasonable goals to conduct regular sting operations, DMV fails to detect and deter as much of the continued placard misuse as it can,” Howle wrote in the letter.

DMV Director Jean Shiomoto was given an advance look at the audit and has begun making improvements.

“We agree with the recommendations and are pleased to report that we have begun implementing the recommendations,” she wrote as part of the audit report.

The review was requested by former Democratic Assemblyman Mike Gatto.

“The audit showed a program that is even more rife with abuse than anyone could have conceived,” Gatto said Tuesday.”

….Continue reading more @ LA Times

Question: This is the same agency that we entrust to verify and maintain eligible voters? They can’t even manage a simple task like the placards, how would the current DMV manage the more complicated tasks of keeping the voting rolls accurate and restricted to U.S. citizens? Simply not credible. The Feds need to investigate this out of control state agency, asap. /CJ

 

CA Sheriff Hits Back at “Sanctuary State” Rhetoric by Showing Just Who Would be Protected

|| TownHall

“Much attention has been given to the antics of crazy California politicians like Kamala Harris, Kevin de Leon, and Nancy Pelosi, who all advocate for sanctuary city/state policies and call anyone opposed to their view racist or “white supremacist” – and can somehow say with a straight face that this policy doesn’t put Americans at risk.

But, there are elected officials and law enforcement officers in the state who strongly oppose these policies and, in particular, Senate Bill 54, which would prohibit law enforcement agencies in the state from using “agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.”

Law enforcement associations have made their concerns known, but since SB 54 has passed the Senate, the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department is taking their concerns straight to the public, posting a “rap sheet” of some of the actual Ventura County inmates recently detained by ICE.

As a follow-up to our concerns over Senate Bill 54, we would like to provide more factual information regarding the types of individuals that would be released into our community if immigration authorities are not allowed in our jail as would be mandated by this bill. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has continued to review inmates in the jail who might have possibly been in the country illegally.

The report stated that ICE had detained 50 inmates in the last 30 days, but the county averages 1,373 ICE detainers a year. All but one of the 50 had either a prior arrest history, current felony charges, or prior deportation orders (yet found themselves in jail again). The Sheriff’s Department then posted a sample of the charges of those detained by ICE:

  • Inmate 1 Current Arrest – felony domestic violence; Prior Arrests – drunk driving; stealing a vehicle; hit and run; drunk in public; under the influence of a controlled substance; possession of drugs; possession of drug paraphernalia
  • Inmate 2 Current Arrest – felony domestic violence; dissuading a victim from testifying; obstructing the use of a communication devices to prevent summoning assistance; Prior Arrests – felony domestic violence (twice); assault with a deadly weapon; child endangerment; illegal entry; previously deported
  • Inmate 3 Current Arrest – felony domestic violence; false imprisonment; resisting arrest; kidnapping; Prior Arrests – sexual battery; burglary; robbery; false information to a peace officer; brandishing a weapon; false imprisonment; kidnapping; stealing a vehicle; illegal entry; previously deported
  • Inmate 4 Current Arrest – possession of a controlled substance for sale; transportation of a controlled substance (twice); driving on a suspended license; Prior Arrests – battery (twice); drunk in public; vandalism; transportation, sales, or distribution of a dangerous drug; transportation of a controlled substance; drunk driving (twice)
  • Inmate 5 Current Arrest – felony drunk driving; driving without an ignition interlock device; driving on a suspended license; Prior Arrests – lewd acts with a child under 14; driving on a suspended drivers’ license (five times); drunk driving (twice); unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor
  • Inmate 6 Current Arrest – assault with a deadly weapon; attempted kidnapping; Prior Arrests – possession of drugs (twice); possession of drug paraphernalia (three times); prowling; theft (twice); false information to a peace officer (twice); drunk in public; robbery (three times); felony domestic violence; assault with a deadly weapon (three times); kidnapping (twice)
  • Inmate 7 Current Arrest – domestic violence; Prior Arrests – felony criminal threats (twice); domestic violence (twice); child endangerment; driving without a license; driving with a suspended license; possession of drugs; theft (twice); possession of stolen property; false information to a peace officer; stealing a vehicle; illegal entry
  • Inmate 8 Current Arrest – kidnapping; false imprisonment; lewd acts with a child under 14; Prior Arrests – resisting arrest; under the influence of drugs (twice); kidnapping; lewd acts with a child under 14, drunk in public
  • Inmate 9 Current Arrest – warrant for resisting arrest, false information to a peace officer, domestic violence, violation of a domestic violence court order; Prior Arrests – brandishing a weapon; felony domestic violence; felony criminal threats; drunk in public (twice); violation of a domestic violence court order (three times); vandalism; domestic violence (twice); resisting arrest (twice); false information to a peace officer
  • Inmate 10 Current Arrest – felony domestic violence; Prior Arrests – felony domestic violence; previously deported
  • Inmate 11 Current Arrest – possession of a short barreled shotgun; Prior Arrests – assault with a deadly weapon, possession of a short barreled shotgun (twice), assault, carrying a concealed firearm, illegal entry
  • Inmate 12 Current Arrest – under the influence of drugs; Prior Arrests – felony domestic violence, burglary, inflicting injury to a child, under the influence of drugs, resisting arrest, unlicensed driver, drunk driving, possession of drug paraphernalia, false information to a peace officer
  • Inmate 13 Current Arrest – possession of drugs for sale; Prior Arrests – possession of drugs for sale (twice); previously deported
  • Inmate 14 Current Arrest – under the influence of drugs; Prior Arrest – member of a street gang, assault with a deadly weapon, conspiracy, possession of drugs, drunk driving, trespassing
  • Inmate 15 Current Arrest – felony domestic violence; Prior Arrests – felony domestic violence; child endangerment; false imprisonment; domestic battery; drunk driving; hit and run

Members of gangs, drug dealers, sex offenders, pedophiles, assault with a deadly weapon, repeat drunk drivers, repeat domestic violence, violating court orders – yeah, these are not harmless people just looking for a way to have a better life. Good for you, Sheriff, on giving the people you’re sworn to protect the facts.”

….Continue reading more @ TownHall

Majority of Californians Favor Ending Sanctuary Cities | Jan 23 2017

Poll: 74 Percent of Californians Want to End Sanctuary Cities

– Breitbart

“The vast majority of residents living in California would like to see sanctuary cities barred, a state home to multiple jurisdictions which refuse to abide by federal immigration laws.

Roughly 74 percent of California residents want to see an end to sanctuary city policies, according to a poll by UC Berkeley.

The issue to end sanctuary cities in the state crosses racial and party lines, with 65 percent of Hispanics registering their agreement, while 70 percent of independents, 82 percent of Republicans, and 73 percent of Democrats feel the same.”

….Continue reading @ Breitbart

 

 

Connecticut to Cut Funding for 21 Gun Salutes at Veteran Funerals – Too Costly

– theGatewayPundit

“Veterans are furious over a proposed state budget cut that will eliminate the firing detail at veteran funerals.

The Connecticut state military said funding for the gun salutes will run out around April.

Meanwhile Connecticut state university and colleges, along with Hartford and New Haven, have declared themselves sanctuary cities. And state employees were given fat raises at the end of December.

Reader Mark had this to say:

“Since our budget is so bad, they are considering not giving soldiers who are having funerals the 21 gun salute anymore. Keep in mind that Connecticut has stated they will fight Trump on immigration issues. They have declared the city of New Haven a sanctuary city. I find it funny they have money to give to illegals but not to give to soldiers to have a proper and decent burial and celebration of their service.”

….Continue reading more @ theGatewayPundit.com

More Obama Security Failure Thousands of Green Cards Go Missing | Nov 21 2016

THOUSANDS Of Immigration Green Cards Have Disappeared

– Daily Caller

bor4

“Thousands of green cards are missing because U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials apparently sent them to the wrong addresses, jeopardizing national security, according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (IG) report made public Monday.

“It appears that thousands of green cards have simply gone missing,” DHS Inspector General John Roth said in a news release. “In the wrong hands, green cards may enable terrorists, criminals, and undocumented aliens to remain in the United States. It is vital that USCIS ensure better tools and procedures are in place to mitigate such risks.”

The USCIS in the last three years received more than 200,000 reports from approved applicants claiming their cards were never delivered, the IG found. Monday’s audit — a follow-up to a March IG report saying USCIS officials sent hundreds of green cards to the wrong addresses — revealed “the problem was far worse than originally thought,” the IG said.”

….Continue reading @ Daily Caller

 

Sanctuary Cities Risk Losing DOJ Funds in 2017, Texas Congressman Says

– Breitbart

kate3

“Sanctuary cities and other jurisdictions will now have to choose between protecting illegal aliens and receiving federal law enforcement grants thanks to the work of a Texas congressman.

Texas Representative John Culberson (R-TX) used his position as chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science and the congressional power of the purse to force the Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce existing law requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with immigration officials. Culberson announced in February an agreement with outgoing Attorney General Loretta Lynch to block federal law enforcement grants to jurisdictions with sanctuary policies, Breitbart Texas reported. Since that time, the Texas congressman has been working with DOJ officials to certify the top-ten jurisdictions not in compliance with the law.

Citing his committee’s power over the DOJ’s budget, Culberson stated in February:

Any refusal by the Department to comply with these reasonable and timely requests will factor heavily in my consideration of their 2017 budget requests, and whether or not I will include language in the fiscal year 2017 CJS appropriations bill prohibiting the award of law enforcement grants to jurisdictions that harbor illegal aliens. I will include language in this year’s bill requiring the DOJ to amend the application process for Byrne JAG, COPS, and SCAAP grants so that grantees must certify under oath that they are in compliance with section 1373 of title 8 of the United States Code.

The law was passed in 1996 during the administration of President Bill Clinton to force local and state jurisdictions to cooperate with immigration officials or risk losing federal funding. Part of the process requires the federal agency’s office of inspector general to certify that a jurisdiction is not in compliance in order to block funding.

“The law requires cooperation with immigration officials 100 percent of the time,” Culberson told Breitbart Texas in an exclusive interview. In February, Culberson provided Attorney General Lynch with a list of more than 300 sanctuary cities compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies.”

….Continue reading @ Breitbart

State Orders LA City Schools to Stop Shifting Money Illegally,  Spend it on ‘Most Needy’ Students

– LA Times

pallets2

‘Needy students’ Now Comprise 84% of LAUSD students

“State officials have ordered the Los Angeles Unified School District to redirect hundreds of millions of dollars in spending, with the goal of benefiting students who need the most academic assistance.

The action won the praise of advocates who had filed a complaint with the state, while L.A. Unified officials said that complying with the order will hurt students.

The issue is whether the school system is following the rules of a revised state funding plan that provides added dollars for students who are more difficult and costly to educate.

Advocates, including the Community Coalition of South Los Angeles, asserted that the nation’s second-largest school system was using this money for its general program for all students or for other costs. They accused L.A. Unified of using these funds to offset an ongoing budget crisis, which, they said, is an improper diversion.

Instead, the money should go to direct services for the targeted students, they said. A year ago, they sued L.A. Unified over the matter, and they also filed a complaint with the California Department of Education, which oversees the state’s school districts. The lawsuit is pending, but state officials sided this week with the advocates.

“This district is required to implement … corrective actions,” a three-person evaluation team concluded in a report dated May 27.

The heart of the dispute is how to spend increased funding meant to help students from low-income families, those learning English and students who are not living with their parents. About 84% of L.A. students fall into this category, according to district documents submitted to the state.

By all accounts, L.A. schools derive substantial benefit from the new state formula.This redistribution of education dollars was a landmark policy of Gov. Jerry Brown. It passed in the Legislature because an improving economy also permitted the state to increase funding for schools with few students in the three categories.

But L.A. Unified went a step further than other districts in its accounting maneuvers, said Victor Leung, lead counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.

The district, he said, moved money into its general fund that should have been spent specifically on low-income students, English learners or foster children. The district interpretation was based on how spending for disabled students should be accounted for.

“LAUSD is the only district that has done this kind of calculation,” said Leung.

L.A. Unified counters that an improved general program directly benefits the students at the heart of the dispute. Making changes of the magnitude required could lead to unintended consequences, officials said. If the funds are redirected, for example, a foster student might be able to receive additional algebra tutoring, but there also may no longer be as many algebra classes available, leaving the remaining periods overcrowded or harder for students to schedule, said McNair.

McNair added that the state intervention is at odds with new laws giving districts more decision-making authority.

Leung countered that L.A. Unified is diverting funds from their legally intended purpose. Other districts could be tempted to follow suit if L.A. isn’t stopped, he said.”

….Continue reading @ LA Times

What should be very clear reading future labor projections and fiscal liabilities, is we will need less, but more highly trained and trainable workers in the future. We will actually need less workers in the future, not more, but continually spending more on an unlimited number of high risk students is unstainable. It is not our responsibility as a state to educate anyone who can illegally cross the border in order to get their children educated in California. 

      In the city of Los Angeles schools, they are resorting to illegal fiscal sleight of hand to balance the books. That will only work for so long. What remains, is the students still get shortchanged on every level. /CJ

UC Outsources IT Jobs at UCSF, while Students Agitate for Sanctuary for Illegal Aliens | Nov 16 2016

DACA & DAPA Applicants First on Deportation List | Nov 11 2016

Now the Push for Sanctuary Status for Illegals On College Campuses | Nov 15 2016

Universities Face Pressure to become Illegal Immigrant Sanctuaries

– the Hill

web-ns_-protest-mp_-640x424x

“Faculty members and students at universities across the country are asking school leaders to declare their campuses as sanctuaries for undocumented individuals who could face immigration action under President-elect Donald Trump’s promised policies.

The move comes after several big-city mayors have promised their cities will be safe havens for law-abiding undocumented immigrants.
Trump pledged early in his campaign to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants, threatening to withhold federal funds from cities that did not collaborate with his administration’s immigration authorities.
In a “60 Minutes” interview Sunday, Trump said he would focus on securing the border and deporting “probably two million, it could be even three million” undocumented immigrants with criminal records before making a determination on what to do with the undocumented population at large.
But Hispanics, the youngest demographic in the country, are concerned Trump’s administration will stick to its campaign promises with severe consequences for young immigrants.
Immigrants under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that began under President Obama are widely considered especially at-risk for deportation, since they submitted their personal information — with an admission of their undocumented status — to the federal government.
There are at least 720,000 recipients of DACA status, a June 2016 federal government report said.
“I gave this information under good will and faith to the federal government,” Juan Escalante, digital campaign manager for America’s Voice, told The Hill.
Escalante added that DACA recipients paid fees, submitted their information and were subject to a background check.
“If this database were to be used as some massive deportation list, I would beg to question whether this would be the smartest course of action for the administration or Congress,” he said.”
…..Continue reading @ the Hill

College Students Now Demanding ‘Sanctuary Campuses’ To Protect Illegals From Trump

– Daily Caller

gettyimages-57344330x

“Following Donald Trump’s shocking victory last week, student meltdowns have taken place at colleges across the country. From scheduled “cry-ins” to post-election safe spaces with bubbles, Legos and Play-Doh, you would think you’d seen it all, but there’s more. Some students are demanding their colleges become “sanctuary campuses” to protect illegal immigrants from the immigration crackdown that President-elect Trump has promised.

At Yale University, students created a petition urging the university administration “to take immediate steps to make Yale University a sanctuary campus for students, staff, and their family members who face deportation under President-elect Donald J. Trump’s proposed policies.”

“Given that many students and their family members now live in fear of Donald Trump’s deportation threats, we call upon the University to immediately develop a protocol for making itself a sanctuary campus. Yale has promised to be a home for all of us. A home is supposed to be safe. We owe it to the most vulnerable members of our community to do our utmost,” states the petition. “If we do nothing, then our stated commitments to diversity, justice, and inclusion will reveal themselves to be empty promises and hypocritical lies. At this moment, we cannot afford silence.”

Faculty and students at Brown University also drafted a letter to their administration asking that the campus be converted into a sanctuary for illegal immigrants.”

….Continue reading @ DailyCaller

The Danger of Sanctuary Cities | Apr 2016