Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    ICE Warns California of More Raids After Sanctuary State Law Signed

    ICE Warns California of More Raids After Sanctuary State Law Signed

    “ICE will have no choice but to conduct at-large arrests”

    https://youtu.be/NNKhQn_cNjc

    California Governor Jerry Brown just signed a new law officially making California a sanctuary state.

    ICE has a message for the Governor: So I guess that means we’ll have to step up enforcement raids in your state.

    The Mercury News reports:

    ICE warns of stepped-up raids after California passes ‘sanctuary state’ law

    The day after Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill aimed at preventing local police from helping the Trump administration crack down on illegal immigration, the feds struck back with a threat to raid more workplaces and neighborhoods in California.

    Echoing arguments that opponents have made since it was introduced late last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Tom Homan released a statement Friday saying that Senate Bill 54, the “sanctuary state” legislation, would “undermine public safety” and force his agency to have a greater presence in places where immigrants live and work.

    “ICE will have no choice but to conduct at-large arrests in local neighborhoods and at worksites,” Homan said, “which will inevitably result in additional collateral arrests.” This will happen, he claimed, because the new California law will block ICE agents from gaining access to criminal immigrants at jails and prisons.

    “Collateral arrests” are a controversial practice in which ICE, while attempting to apprehend an undocumented immigrant with a criminal record, sweeps up other undocumented residents such as family or co-workers at the same location.

    Here’s a short video from FOX News about the law:

    ICE has released a statement on this:

    Statement from ICE Acting Director Tom Homan on California Sanctuary Law

    Governor Jerry Brown’s decision to sign SB54 and make California a sanctuary state for illegal aliens – including those who have committed crimes – will undermine public safety and hinder ICE from performing its federally mandated mission. The governor is simply wrong when he claims otherwise.

    SB54 will negatively impact ICE operations in California by nearly eliminating all cooperation and communication with our law enforcement partners in the state, voiding the delegated authority that the Orange County Sheriff’s Office has under the 287g program, and prohibiting local law enforcement from contracting with the federal government to house detainees.

    ICE will have no choice but to conduct at-large arrests in local neighborhoods and at worksites, which will inevitably result in additional collateral arrests, instead of focusing on arrests at jails and prisons where transfers are safer for ICE officers and the community. ICE will also likely have to detain individuals arrested in California in detention facilities outside of the state, far from any family they may have in California.

    Ultimately, SB54 helps shield removable aliens from immigration enforcement and creates another magnet for more illegal immigration, all at the expense of the safety and security of the very people it purports to protect.

    Does California’s decision mean that other states are allowed to ignore other federal laws? That would have been helpful to know when Obamacare was signed into law.

    Featured image via YouTube.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    Milhouse | October 8, 2017 at 4:06 am

    Does California’s decision mean that other states are allowed to ignore other federal laws? That would have been helpful to know when Obamacare was signed into law.

    It’s hard to believe you wrote this in good faith, Mr LaChance. You know better. Congress has no right to coerce states into cooperating with its policies. States have the fundamental constitutional right to disagree with federal laws, and to refuse their help in enforcing them. That is the basis of our union of the states, and denying it would make the entire union illegitimate.

    And this was known when 0bamacare was signed into law. As you surely remember the Supreme Court’s first 0bamacare decision explicitly upheld this, ruling that Congress could not coerce the states into expanding their Medicare programs by cutting off existing Medicare funding if they didn’t. Congress could offer additional funding as an incentive for such cooperation with its wishes, but states had to be free to decline it without any kind of penalty.

    And surely you also remember those brave sheriffs who refused to comply with the Brady Act’s requirement that they conduct background checks on people applying to buy guns, and the Supreme Court’s decision agreeing with them that if Congress wanted these checks done it could have a federal agency do them, but it could not order states or their subsidiaries to do them.

    It’s hard to believe an educated person like you is unaware of the states that, with the Supreme Court’s sanction, forbade their subsidiaries from assisting federal officials in enforcing the fugitive slave laws. Just as ICE in CA, federal slave catchers in PA were completely free to enforce the law using their own resources and those of private people who chose to help them, but nobody working for the state, or for any state subsidiary such as cities and counties, could lift a finger to help them.

    Nor can you be ignorant of all the states and cities that refused to help Treasury agents enforce prohibition. Nobody doubted their right so to refuse, or thought Congress or the president had the power to make them.


       
       1 
       
       0
      Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | October 8, 2017 at 1:30 pm

      “- States have the fundamental constitutional right to disagree with federal laws, and to refuse their help in enforcing them. That is the basis of our union of the states, and denying it would make the entire union illegitimate.-”

      This is patently false. The states have NO Constitutional right to actively refuse to assist in the enforcement of federal laws. States, just like any other entity in the US, are bound by Federal law. The state can not actively enforce such federal laws, but it can not actively assist others in the violation of federal laws. To actively assist in the violation of those laws, is itself a violation of federal law and sometimes state law as well; usually aiding and abetting a criminal or criminal act. If a State feels that the Federal law is unconstitutional, it can file suit to attempt to have it declared so and refuse to follow the law, as it applies to the state until a decision is made by the SCOTUS, the court of original jurisdiction in any dispute between a state, or states, and the federal government.

      People attempt to frame this as the federal government demanding that the states actively enforce the provisions of federal law and this is not the case. What we are talking about here, are contractual obligations which exist under a LE grant program. In order for the state or local authorities to receive LE grants, they must agree to follow existing law AND not hinder or oppose the enforcement efforts of federal agents with regard to federal law. What many sanctuary cities have done, Chicago comes to mind, is to direct their LE personnel to actively thwart the attempts of federal LE agencies by withholding evidence and information regarding illegal immigrants even when such information is directly requested by the federal agency.

      In the case of Prohibition, local LE officers WERE arrested, charged and conviction for actively hindering the efforts of Treasury agents to enforce the Volstead Act.

      State and local governments can probably refuse to detain a person suspected of violating a federal law without a warrant of court order. However, if they actively oppose the legal actions of a federal investigator through withholding information or barring the agent from accessing a person in custody on a state or local charge, this constitutes both a violation of the grant requirements as well as a violation of federal law.


         
         1 
         
         0
        Milhouse in reply to Mac45. | October 9, 2017 at 7:56 am

        You are ranting. There is no such thing as “actively refusing”. Refusal is by definition passive, and if you deny that states have the right to (passively, which is the only possible way) refuse to assist in the enforcement of federal laws then you’re simply ignorant.

        States, just like any other entity in the US, are bound by Federal law.

        Indeed they are. They may not themselves violate those laws. They are not bound to assist in enforcing them. And Congress can’t make a law requiring them to do so. Any such purported law is void, and states are not bound by it.

        The state can not actively enforce such federal laws,

        They can and do, at federal request. But only if they choose to. Even if the state refuses such a request, individual state officers are free to voluntarily comply with it, unless forbidden by state legislation. So said the Supreme Court in one of the fugitive slave cases. What CA has done is precisely what the Court said a state can do.

        it can not actively assist others in the violation of federal laws.

        And CA is not doing so at all.

        What we are talking about here, are contractual obligations which exist under a LE grant program.

        The statute authorizing the grant lists no such obligation. When Congress puts conditions on state funding it must do so unambiguously. It has not done so. The AG has no authority to impose additional conditions.

        What many sanctuary cities have done, Chicago comes to mind, is to direct their LE personnel to actively thwart the attempts of federal LE agencies by withholding evidence and information regarding illegal immigrants even when such information is directly requested by the federal agency.

        Withholding something is by definition passive, not active, and states have the constitutional right to do so, and to order their subsidiaries to do so (or not to do so, as TX has done). Congress has no power to force them to comply with such requests, whether directly by legislation or indirectly by cutting existing funding so drastically as to cross the line between pressure and coercion.

        In the case of Prohibition, local LE officers WERE arrested, charged and conviction for actively hindering the efforts of Treasury agents to enforce the Volstead Act.

        No “sanctuary city” actively hinders ICE agents. CA certainly does not. If you’re claiming that LE officers were arrested, charged and convicted for refusing to cooperate with Treasury agents, exactly as CA now requires its officers and subsidiaries to do, then I’m calling you a liar.

        However, if they actively oppose the legal actions of a federal investigator through withholding information or barring the agent from accessing a person in custody on a state or local charge, this constitutes both a violation of the grant requirements as well as a violation of federal law.

        No, it does not. They have no obligation to provide such information or access, Congress cannot make a law imposing such an obligation, and although it could have made it a condition of the grant in question, it didn’t. It could probably do so now, since the grant is too small for its loss to constitute coercion, but so far it hasn’t.

    More raids? ’bout damn time!


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend