TRAVIS ALLEN FOR
GOVERNOR: End LA RAZA supremacy and the Mex welfare state on our back.
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/05/californias-travis-allen-gops-winning.html
Allen
prioritized the fight against “sanctuary” policies across the state. “I’ve always been against this illegal sanctuary state from the
very beginning,” he said. “Last year in the legislature, I put forth
legislation — AB 1252 — to defund every sanctuary jurisdiction in California,
and of course the Democrats killed that.
California’s Next Lawless Step: Illegal Aliens in Public Office
Just when you think California has finally done it all, they come up with something new to add to their mix of reckless lawlessness. Not content with being a sanctuary state or trying to order private citizens and businesses to possibly obstruct federal immigration enforcement, now they want to let illegal aliens serve in public office.
On May 1, California State Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) introduced Senate Bill (SB) 174, ridiculously named the “California Inclusion Act.” The bill makes anyone “regardless of citizenship or immigration status, … eligible to hold an appointed civil office if the person is 18 years of age and a resident of the state.” This would have the effect of opening up thousands, probably even tens of thousands, of appointed positions in state and local agencies, boards and commissions to illegal aliens.
Under Senator Lara’s bill, as long as a job is appointed rather than elected, and civil rather than military, illegal aliens would no longer be barred from being appointed. Secretaries of whole statewide departments? Criminal prosecutors in the Attorney General’s or local District Attorney’s office? The whole state parole board? Any city or county board? All no problem: suddenly wide open to illegal aliens at the stroke of a pen.
Could the state or local governments pay them, too? Knowingly employing illegal aliens is a federal crime: the law authorizes penalties of up to six months’ imprisonment and a $3000 fine for each alien involved [emphasis added], and notably doesn’t make any exceptions for state or local government employment. But would that matter?
First, the U.S. Department of Justice would have to actually decide to charge the employers criminally, itself an open question. But even if they did, state officials would then likely make some absurd argument (yet again) about how the Tenth Amendment allows them to defy federal law. While this would turn the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution on its head, the ever-creative Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals might happily agree with it. Senator Lara, of course, already says that at least illegal-alien “DACA” recipients would be eligible for pay under his bill, despite the Trump administration’s efforts to wind up that program, and despite multiple courts now having ruled that DACA recipients actually aren’t “lawfully present.”
Serving in public office means exercising sovereignty. It means taking decisions to enforce and impose the potentially heavy-handed power of government on other people, citizens and non-citizens alike. It’s part of why we limit serving on juries to citizens (although California has had its issues with that, too). The California Government Code even still, perhaps surprisingly, defines “the people” within the meaning of state law as only including citizens. But SB 174 is one more step in the direction of making the meaning of the word “citizenship” in California mean nothing. In California’s upside-down world, American citizenship might already fairly be called a detriment, while it’s the illegal aliens who are the ones shrouded in all sorts of benefits and privileges, and now, with this bill, they could effectively be ruling over citizens.
SB 174 specifically says it doesn’t make illegal aliens eligible for elected office, but at this rate, it’s not much of a stretch to see that coming next.
The situation is now disturbingly easy to sum up: “California Can’t Stop Passing Laws To Shield Illegal Aliens.” But overreach always provokes a response, and at some point, hopefully even the people of California will decide they’ve had enough with this kind of foolishness.
THE DEATH of
CALIFORNIA: SHOCKING REPORT OF POVERTY, CRIME AND LA RAZA SUPREMACY
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/05/california-passes-uk-to-become-worlds.html
ONE-THIRD OF ALL
IMPORTED FARM WORKERS END UP ON WELFARE
CALIFORNIA: AMERICA’S FIRST MEX WELFARE STATE…. 49 more to
go…. but nearly there!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/04/california-mexicos-la-raza-supremacy.html
"Over the past decade, the
traditional base of the Republican party — homeowners and small business owners
— has been migrating to states with lower taxes and fewer regulations.
Meanwhile, California continues to attract immigrants — both legal and illegal
— as well as a disproportionate share of the state’s welfare recipients."
OPEN BORDERS:
The Democrat Party’s Weapon of Mass Destruction on the American Worker
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-la-raza-mexican-crime-tidal-wave.html
"Los
Angeles saw all crime rise in 2015: violent crime up 19.9 percent, homicides up
10.2 percent, shooting victims up 12.6 percent, rapes up 8.6 percent, robberies
up 12.3 percent, and aggravated assault up 27.5 percent,"Landry said.”
Charlie Daniels: We
Need a Wall – But That’s Just the Beginning
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/04/charlie-daniels-we-need-wall-but-thats.html
“I believe that if Hillary had been elected she
would have found a way to give amnesty and eventually citizenship to all the
millions of Hispanics who are now here illegally and would have, in theory,
have opened the border so that more and more could cross and be eligible to
vote, until an undefeatable voting block would have been created, putting a
more and more progressive electorate into power.” CHARLIE DANIELS
ILLEGALS VOTING ILLEGALLY
Of course, the game of the Democrats is to avoid
at all costs any of the safeguards against fraud, such as photo ID
requirements. That should tell anyone with integrity what they are
up to. But most media continue to ignore this stain on
democracy. THOMAS LIFSON – AMERICAN
THINKER
JERRY BROWN WILL RETIRE TO A JESUIT MONASTERY AND PRAY OVER
THE MUCKED-UP MESS HE CALLS MEXIFORNIA!
“Liberal governing has
transformed beautiful California into the poverty
capital of America with the worst quality of life. Crazy
taxes,
crazy high cost of living, and crazy overreaching
regulations have crushed the middle class, forcing the middle class to
exit the Sunshine State. All that is left in California are illegals
feeding at the breast of the state, rapidly growing massive
homeless tent cities, and the mega-rich.” LLOYD MARCUS
ILLEGAL IN CA LAW SCHOOL, AND HER ILLEGAL FAMILY SHOVE THEIR
MEX FLAG and the LAWS OF THIS STATE and COUNTRY UP AMERICA’S NOSES!
*
How much welfare, “free” education, “free” healthcare and tax
free mex underground economy have these Mexicans sucked in and yet they wave
their mex flags in our faces.
In a Facebook post in
2016, apparently celebrating her graduation from Santa Clara University School
of Law, Lizbeth Mateo declared, in Spanish: “[E]verything is dedicated to Oaxaca,
Mexico!! to that land that I miss so much.”
It Pays to be Illegal in California
It
certainly is a good time to be an illegal alien in California. Democratic State
Sen. Ricardo Lara last week pitched a bill to permit illegal immigrants to
serve on all state and local boards and commissions. This week, lawmakers
unveiled a $1 billion health care plan that would include spending
$250 million to extend health care coverage to all illegal alien adults.
“Currently,
undocumented adults are explicitly and unjustly locked out of healthcare due to
their immigration status. In a matter of weeks, California legislators will
have a decisive opportunity to reverse that cruel and counterproductive fact,”
Assemblyman Joaquin Arambula said in Monday’s Sacramento Bee.
His
legislation, Assembly Bill 2965, would give as many as 114,000
uninsured illegal aliens access to Medi-Cal programs. A companion bill has been
sponsored by State Sen. Richard Lara.
But that
could just be a drop in the bucket. The Democrats’ plan covers more than
100,000 illegal aliens with annual incomes bless than $25,000, however an
estimated 1.3 million might be eligible based on their earnings.
In
addition, it is estimated that 20 percent of those living in California
illegally are uninsured – the $250 million covers just 11 percent.
So, will
politicians soon be asking California taxpayers once again to dip into their pockets
to pay for the remaining 9 percent?
Before
they ask for more, Democrats have to win the approval of Gov. Jerry Brown, who
cautioned against spending away the state’s surplus when he introduced his $190 billion budget
proposal in January.
Given
Brown’s openness to expanding Medi-Cal expansions in recent years, not to
mention his proclivity for blindly supporting any measure benefitting lawbreaking
immigrants, the latest fiscal irresponsibility may win approval.
And if he
takes a pass, the two Democrats most likely to succeed Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin
Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – favor excessive social spending and are actively courting
illegal immigrant support.
Maybe if California and New York Cared as Much about the Middle Class as
They Do About Illegal Alien…
And if he
takes a pass, the two Democrats most likely to succeed Brown – Lt. Gov. Gavin
Newsom and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – favor excessive social spending and are actively courting
illegal immigrant support.
Economists Arthur Laffer (the guy with the famous curve) and Stephen Moore, a leading
libertarian voice for mass immigration, predict that some 800,000 people will pack up and leave California and New York over the next three years. The
reason they cite for the exodus in their Wall Street Journal op-ed is that the
new federal tax law, which eliminates deductions for state income taxes, will
be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Implicit in their assignment of blame to the federal tax
overhaul is that the people who will be leaving are the ones who pay taxes –
the sort of folks that state and local governments rely to provide a revenue
stream. As such, one would think that these would be the people whose concerns
would get a lot of interest in Sacramento and Albany. But clearly that is not
the case.
For the privilege of living in places like the Bay Area, Los
Angeles, or New York City, you must bear some of the most ridiculous housing
costs in the nation, along with crushing state and local taxes. In
California, be prepared to turn over as much as 13.3 percent of your income to
the state. High-earning New Yorkers fork over a more modest 8.82 percent, but
if you live in the five boroughs you can tack on an additional 3.87 percent in city income taxes. California and New York also have some of the highest sales tax rates in the
country at 8.54 percent and 8.49 percent respectively (and higher in many
cities). And now, as Laffer and Moore point out, you can’t even deduct those
costs on your federal taxes.
One might also think that for all these state and local taxes,
residents could expect the most modern infrastructure, efficient public
transportation, world class public schools, affordable housing, and other
amenities. Ha. No, in Sacramento and Albany they prioritize an ever-growing
list of public benefits and services to immigration law violators; subsidies
and grants to go to college, and legal aid for illegal aliens in deportation
proceedings. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is even threatening to sue the federal government (with taxpayer money, of course) for even trying to
enforce immigration laws.
Some $23 billion of California taxpayers’ money and $7.5 billion of New
York taxpayers’ money is expended on illegal aliens
and their dependent children. For the benefit of the trolls at the Southern Poverty Law Center, the problems of California and New York cannot entirely be
blamed on illegal aliens. Many, many factors have led to the middle class
flight from these states. But one has to wonder why states wouldn’t want to do
as much to woo their tax base into staying as they are doing to attract,
protect, and reward illegal aliens.
Cutting back on benefits and protections for illegal aliens
would not solve all of these states’ problems, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt.
In the meantime, every U-Haul packing up a middle or upper-middle class family
headed out of California and New York represents a loss of vital revenue
necessary to address myriad needs of both citizens and legal immigrants.
Steinle’s
murderer, Jose Zarate and been deported 5xs!
California Goes Rogue
By Mark Krikorian
National Review
Online, April 26, 2018
How the Golden State defies immigration
law
‘I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on
engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” That was
President Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s intention to prevent
enforcement of a federal law within the state. Despite his admiration for
Jackson, President Trump hasn’t yet threatened to start hanging California
politicians. But that state’s “sanctuary” policies protecting illegal
immigrants and obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law echo the long-ago
fight over nullification and states’ rights.
The passage of three sanctuary bills last year
by the state legislature in Sacramento is now the subject of a lawsuit brought
by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was the culmination of a decades-long
process, as mass immigration transformed California’s politics from reddish
purple to deep blue.
The first measure that could be described as a
sanctuary provision was the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Order 40,
enacted in 1979, which prohibited officers from arresting a person for the
federal crime of illegal entry and, unless he was arrested for another crime,
from even inquiring as to legal status. But that order merely instructed police
to abstain from involving themselves in immigration enforcement. In the 1980s,
a more proactive conception of illegal-alien sanctuary spread, as Central
Americans fleeing war in their homelands snuck into the U.S. but did not
qualify for asylum.
At first, only some pro-Sandinista churches
postured as sanctuaries for these illegal aliens. But in late 1985, Mayor (now Senator) Dianne Feinstein signed
a resolution declaring San Francisco a “city of refuge” for illegals. She ordered that “City Departments shall not
discriminate against Salvadorans and Guatemalan refugees because of their
immigration status, and shall not jeopardize the safety and welfare of
law-abiding refugees by acting in a way that may cause their deportation.” The
declaration was followed four years later by a city law formally prohibiting
city employees from assisting federal immigration authorities.
Even measures such as this, which were adopted
by other big cities over the years, were of largely local interest until a new
system, developed at the end of the Bush administration and completed in 2013,
went online. The fingerprints of every person booked by police throughout the
country have long been sent to the FBI. But under the new system, dubbed Secure
Communities, those fingerprints now also go to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). So while in the past the feds didn’t necessarily know
whether cops in San Francisco arrested an illegal alien for, say, a drug
offense, now they do. Every time.
There will still be some illegal aliens who
elude detection if ICE has no record of them because they’ve never interacted
with the immigration authorities. But if police arrest anyone who’s in the
Department of Homeland Security database — who was deported previously, got
turned down for asylum, was picked up by the Border Patrol, overstayed a visa,
or appeared before an immigration judge — ICE learns about it.
There are only so many hours in the day, so not
every arrested illegal alien can be taken into custody. But if ICE wants the
alien because, for instance, he has previously been deported or is a fugitive
from a deportation order, it notifies the local authorities to hold him, as
they would for any other state or federal law-enforcement agency, up to 48
hours after they would otherwise have released him, so that agents can collect
and deport him.
With this new fingerprint-matching system in
place, instead of receiving the occasional hold notice, or “detainer,” cities
and counties with large numbers of immigrants started hearing from ICE
constantly. In some states where large-scale immigration was a recent
development, the political culture had not yet shifted to the left to such a
degree that this new level of cooperation with ICE met objections. But
immigration, legal and illegal, has transformed California’s population and
political culture so profoundly that the pushback there was inevitable.
Of California’s 40 million people, about 15
million are in immigrant households (immigrants and their children under 18),
accounting for more than 37 percent of the state’s population. Not only is that
by far the highest percentage in any state, but the increase in people in
immigrant households in California from 1970 to today — just the increase — is
nearly twice as large as today’s total population in immigrant households in Texas, the state
in second place.
Survey after survey shows that immigrants are
disproportionately big-government liberals. As one overview of the data
concluded, “solid and persistent majorities of Hispanic and Asian immigrants
and their children share the policy preferences of the modern American Left.”
As a result, as University of Maryland political scientist James Gimpel has
demonstrated, in the nation’s largest counties (which are where immigrants tend
to settle), “Republicans have lost 0.58 percentage points in presidential
elections for every one percentage-point increase in the size of the local
immigrant population.”
The results in California are plain to see.
There hasn’t been a Republican in statewide or federal office since Arnold
Schwarzenegger (and he was only nominally Republican). Only 13 of 40 state
senators and 25 of 80 state assemblymen are Republicans. This has enabled
leftist maximalism on a wide range of issues, including immigration.
Even in this environment, the effects of Secure
Communities in identifying deportable aliens were blunted for a time by the
Obama administration’s lax policies. Despite the anti-borders Left and its
kabuki protests that Obama was the deporter in chief, his administration
effectively exempted most of the resident illegal population from immigration
law. Even though ICE continued to be notified of arrested illegals,
administration policy was to ignore all but the worst cases. In the words of
John Sandweg, who headed ICE during part of Obama’s term, “If you are a
run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are
close to zero — it’s just highly unlikely to happen.”
Then came Donald Trump.
It wasn’t just that Trump pledged tough
immigration enforcement in his raw and often coarse manner. It wasn’t just that Hillary Clinton, who said publicly that
she would not deport anyone who hadn’t first been convicted of a violent felony,
won California by 30 points. It was the whiplash from
Obama to Trump that supercharged the sanctuary push in the state legislature.
Democratic politicians, their activist allies, and illegal aliens themselves
had gotten used to Obama’s arrangements and had come to think that was the way
things were going to be from now on. Trump’s reversal of Obama’s laxity fell on
them like a bucket of ice water.
The state took a variety of steps in response
to the return of immigration enforcement. Lawmakers appropriated $45 million
for a fund to help illegals fight deportation. And the state senate appointed
an illegal alien to a state education commission.
But most consequential were three laws designed
to limit the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law. The best
known is Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, the most sweeping measure
of its kind in the nation, making the entire state a sanctuary for illegal
aliens. It prohibits state and local law enforcement from complying with ICE
detainers in most cases. It prohibits notification to ICE about an alien unless
in the past 15 years he’s been convicted of one of a list of the most serious
crimes. It prohibits state and local authorities from allowing ICE to use space
in their jails and from providing ICE any non-public information on suspects.
It restricts state and local participation in any multi-agency task force that
includes ICE.
The second of the three measures attempts to
impose state oversight on any facility ICE uses to detain deportable aliens.
And the final law seeks to shield illegal-alien workers from detection by,
among other things, prohibiting private employers from voluntarily allowing ICE
agents into any non-public area of their business.
The Trump administration has pushed back. The
first step was to threaten to cut off certain Justice Department grants to
sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide; longstanding doctrine limiting the
withholding of federal funds to coerce states makes a broader cutoff unlikely.
A few jurisdictions outside California have changed their sanctuary policies in
response to the funding threat, but the administration’s initiative is tied up
in litigation and, in any case, is unlikely to hurt sufficiently to persuade
hard cases such as California to mend their ways.
That’s why in March the Justice Department
filed suit against California to strike down all or parts of the three
sanctuary laws, claiming that they were preempted by federal law and that they
violate the supremacy clause of the Constitution. (Interestingly, the complaint
cites, among other things, the Supreme Court ruling overturning parts of
Arizona’s SB 1070, which was intended to assist in enforcement of federal immigration laws, on the same
grounds of federal preemption.) But it will be a long time before the case
reaches the Supreme Court; the defendants no doubt hope to drag things out long
enough that President Maxine Waters or Dennis Kucinich can reverse the
policy.
But change may come sooner than that. The
legislature’s overreach has sparked a rebellion of communities seeking
sanctuary from the sanctuary law. The small Orange County city of Los Alamitos
got things rolling by voting to opt out of SB 54 and join the federal lawsuit.
A growing list of other cities has joined the suit as well, as have Orange and
San Diego counties. More cities and counties are likely to join them.
In an attempt to harness this political energy,
two people whose children were killed by illegal aliens have launched a ballot
initiative to repeal the sanctuary laws. Don Rosenberg, one of the parents,
told the Washington Times , “This will be David versus Goliath. We’re clearly
David on this side. But there are millions of Davids here.”
While the steady stream of preventable crimes
by illegal immigrants protected by sanctuary policies keeps the issue before
the public, the very extremism of the Left may supply the five smooth stones
this army of Davids will need to slay the sanctuary Goliath. In February, for
example, Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf warned illegals that an ICE raid was
planned for the Bay Area. Such brazen acts delegitimize sanctuary policies in
the eyes even of moderate voters.
South Carolina eventually repealed its
Ordinance of Nullification. The state’s subsequent acts of resistance against
legitimate federal authority also failed. It’s too early to tell whether
California will succeed where South Carolina did not.
Economists Arthur Laffer (the guy with the famous curve) and Stephen Moore, a leading
libertarian voice for mass immigration, predict that some 800,000 people will pack up and leave California and New York over the next three years. The
reason they cite for the exodus in their Wall Street Journal op-ed is that the
new federal tax law, which eliminates deductions for state income taxes, will
be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
Implicit in their assignment of blame to the federal tax
overhaul is that the people who will be leaving are the ones who pay taxes –
the sort of folks that state and local governments rely to provide a revenue
stream. As such, one would think that these would be the people whose concerns
would get a lot of interest in Sacramento and Albany. But clearly that is not
the case.
For the privilege of living in places like the Bay Area, Los
Angeles, or New York City, you must bear some of the most ridiculous housing
costs in the nation, along with crushing state and local taxes. In
California, be prepared to turn over as much as 13.3 percent of your income to
the state. High-earning New Yorkers fork over a more modest 8.82 percent, but
if you live in the five boroughs you can tack on an additional 3.87 percent in city income taxes. California and New York also have some of the highest sales tax rates in the
country at 8.54 percent and 8.49 percent respectively (and higher in many
cities). And now, as Laffer and Moore point out, you can’t even deduct those
costs on your federal taxes.
One might also think that for all these state and local taxes,
residents could expect the most modern infrastructure, efficient public
transportation, world class public schools, affordable housing, and other
amenities. Ha. No, in Sacramento and Albany they prioritize an ever-growing
list of public benefits and services to immigration law violators; subsidies
and grants to go to college, and legal aid for illegal aliens in deportation
proceedings. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo is even threatening to sue the federal government (with taxpayer money, of course) for even trying to
enforce immigration laws.
Some $23 billion of California taxpayers’ money and $7.5 billion of New
York taxpayers’ money is expended on illegal aliens
and their dependent children. For the benefit of the trolls at the Southern Poverty Law Center, the problems of California and New York cannot entirely be
blamed on illegal aliens. Many, many factors have led to the middle class
flight from these states. But one has to wonder why states wouldn’t want to do
as much to woo their tax base into staying as they are doing to attract,
protect, and reward illegal aliens.
Cutting back on benefits and protections for illegal aliens
would not solve all of these states’ problems, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt.
In the meantime, every U-Haul packing up a middle or upper-middle class family
headed out of California and New York represents a loss of vital revenue
necessary to address myriad needs of both citizens and legal immigrants.
Steinle’s
murderer, Jose Zarate and been deported 5xs!
California Goes Rogue
By Mark Krikorian
National Review Online, April 26, 2018
By Mark Krikorian
National Review Online, April 26, 2018
How the Golden State defies immigration
law
‘I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” That was President Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s intention to prevent enforcement of a federal law within the state. Despite his admiration for Jackson, President Trump hasn’t yet threatened to start hanging California politicians. But that state’s “sanctuary” policies protecting illegal immigrants and obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law echo the long-ago fight over nullification and states’ rights.
‘I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.” That was President Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina’s intention to prevent enforcement of a federal law within the state. Despite his admiration for Jackson, President Trump hasn’t yet threatened to start hanging California politicians. But that state’s “sanctuary” policies protecting illegal immigrants and obstructing enforcement of federal immigration law echo the long-ago fight over nullification and states’ rights.
The passage of three sanctuary bills last year by the state legislature in Sacramento is now the subject of a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice. It was the culmination of a decades-long process, as mass immigration transformed California’s politics from reddish purple to deep blue.
The first measure that could be described as a sanctuary provision was the Los Angeles Police Department’s Special Order 40, enacted in 1979, which prohibited officers from arresting a person for the federal crime of illegal entry and, unless he was arrested for another crime, from even inquiring as to legal status. But that order merely instructed police to abstain from involving themselves in immigration enforcement. In the 1980s, a more proactive conception of illegal-alien sanctuary spread, as Central Americans fleeing war in their homelands snuck into the U.S. but did not qualify for asylum.
At first, only some pro-Sandinista churches postured as sanctuaries for these illegal aliens. But in late 1985, Mayor (now Senator) Dianne Feinstein signed a resolution declaring San Francisco a “city of refuge” for illegals. She ordered that “City Departments shall not discriminate against Salvadorans and Guatemalan refugees because of their immigration status, and shall not jeopardize the safety and welfare of law-abiding refugees by acting in a way that may cause their deportation.” The declaration was followed four years later by a city law formally prohibiting city employees from assisting federal immigration authorities.
Even measures such as this, which were adopted by other big cities over the years, were of largely local interest until a new system, developed at the end of the Bush administration and completed in 2013, went online. The fingerprints of every person booked by police throughout the country have long been sent to the FBI. But under the new system, dubbed Secure Communities, those fingerprints now also go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). So while in the past the feds didn’t necessarily know whether cops in San Francisco arrested an illegal alien for, say, a drug offense, now they do. Every time.
There will still be some illegal aliens who elude detection if ICE has no record of them because they’ve never interacted with the immigration authorities. But if police arrest anyone who’s in the Department of Homeland Security database — who was deported previously, got turned down for asylum, was picked up by the Border Patrol, overstayed a visa, or appeared before an immigration judge — ICE learns about it.
There are only so many hours in the day, so not every arrested illegal alien can be taken into custody. But if ICE wants the alien because, for instance, he has previously been deported or is a fugitive from a deportation order, it notifies the local authorities to hold him, as they would for any other state or federal law-enforcement agency, up to 48 hours after they would otherwise have released him, so that agents can collect and deport him.
With this new fingerprint-matching system in place, instead of receiving the occasional hold notice, or “detainer,” cities and counties with large numbers of immigrants started hearing from ICE constantly. In some states where large-scale immigration was a recent development, the political culture had not yet shifted to the left to such a degree that this new level of cooperation with ICE met objections. But immigration, legal and illegal, has transformed California’s population and political culture so profoundly that the pushback there was inevitable.
Of California’s 40 million people, about 15 million are in immigrant households (immigrants and their children under 18), accounting for more than 37 percent of the state’s population. Not only is that by far the highest percentage in any state, but the increase in people in immigrant households in California from 1970 to today — just the increase — is nearly twice as large as today’s total population in immigrant households in Texas, the state in second place.
Survey after survey shows that immigrants are disproportionately big-government liberals. As one overview of the data concluded, “solid and persistent majorities of Hispanic and Asian immigrants and their children share the policy preferences of the modern American Left.” As a result, as University of Maryland political scientist James Gimpel has demonstrated, in the nation’s largest counties (which are where immigrants tend to settle), “Republicans have lost 0.58 percentage points in presidential elections for every one percentage-point increase in the size of the local immigrant population.”
The results in California are plain to see. There hasn’t been a Republican in statewide or federal office since Arnold Schwarzenegger (and he was only nominally Republican). Only 13 of 40 state senators and 25 of 80 state assemblymen are Republicans. This has enabled leftist maximalism on a wide range of issues, including immigration.
Even in this environment, the effects of Secure Communities in identifying deportable aliens were blunted for a time by the Obama administration’s lax policies. Despite the anti-borders Left and its kabuki protests that Obama was the deporter in chief, his administration effectively exempted most of the resident illegal population from immigration law. Even though ICE continued to be notified of arrested illegals, administration policy was to ignore all but the worst cases. In the words of John Sandweg, who headed ICE during part of Obama’s term, “If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero — it’s just highly unlikely to happen.”
Then came Donald Trump.
It wasn’t just that Trump pledged tough immigration enforcement in his raw and often coarse manner. It wasn’t just that Hillary Clinton, who said publicly that she would not deport anyone who hadn’t first been convicted of a violent felony, won California by 30 points. It was the whiplash from Obama to Trump that supercharged the sanctuary push in the state legislature. Democratic politicians, their activist allies, and illegal aliens themselves had gotten used to Obama’s arrangements and had come to think that was the way things were going to be from now on. Trump’s reversal of Obama’s laxity fell on them like a bucket of ice water.
The state took a variety of steps in response to the return of immigration enforcement. Lawmakers appropriated $45 million for a fund to help illegals fight deportation. And the state senate appointed an illegal alien to a state education commission.
But most consequential were three laws designed to limit the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law. The best known is Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, the most sweeping measure of its kind in the nation, making the entire state a sanctuary for illegal aliens. It prohibits state and local law enforcement from complying with ICE detainers in most cases. It prohibits notification to ICE about an alien unless in the past 15 years he’s been convicted of one of a list of the most serious crimes. It prohibits state and local authorities from allowing ICE to use space in their jails and from providing ICE any non-public information on suspects. It restricts state and local participation in any multi-agency task force that includes ICE.
The second of the three measures attempts to impose state oversight on any facility ICE uses to detain deportable aliens. And the final law seeks to shield illegal-alien workers from detection by, among other things, prohibiting private employers from voluntarily allowing ICE agents into any non-public area of their business.
The Trump administration has pushed back. The first step was to threaten to cut off certain Justice Department grants to sanctuary jurisdictions nationwide; longstanding doctrine limiting the withholding of federal funds to coerce states makes a broader cutoff unlikely. A few jurisdictions outside California have changed their sanctuary policies in response to the funding threat, but the administration’s initiative is tied up in litigation and, in any case, is unlikely to hurt sufficiently to persuade hard cases such as California to mend their ways.
That’s why in March the Justice Department filed suit against California to strike down all or parts of the three sanctuary laws, claiming that they were preempted by federal law and that they violate the supremacy clause of the Constitution. (Interestingly, the complaint cites, among other things, the Supreme Court ruling overturning parts of Arizona’s SB 1070, which was intended to assist in enforcement of federal immigration laws, on the same grounds of federal preemption.) But it will be a long time before the case reaches the Supreme Court; the defendants no doubt hope to drag things out long enough that President Maxine Waters or Dennis Kucinich can reverse the policy.
But change may come sooner than that. The legislature’s overreach has sparked a rebellion of communities seeking sanctuary from the sanctuary law. The small Orange County city of Los Alamitos got things rolling by voting to opt out of SB 54 and join the federal lawsuit. A growing list of other cities has joined the suit as well, as have Orange and San Diego counties. More cities and counties are likely to join them.
In an attempt to harness this political energy, two people whose children were killed by illegal aliens have launched a ballot initiative to repeal the sanctuary laws. Don Rosenberg, one of the parents, told the Washington Times , “This will be David versus Goliath. We’re clearly David on this side. But there are millions of Davids here.”
While the steady stream of preventable crimes by illegal immigrants protected by sanctuary policies keeps the issue before the public, the very extremism of the Left may supply the five smooth stones this army of Davids will need to slay the sanctuary Goliath. In February, for example, Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf warned illegals that an ICE raid was planned for the Bay Area. Such brazen acts delegitimize sanctuary policies in the eyes even of moderate voters.
South Carolina eventually repealed its Ordinance of Nullification. The state’s subsequent acts of resistance against legitimate federal authority also failed. It’s too early to tell whether California will succeed where South Carolina did not.
THE ONCE GOLDEN STATE of
CALIFORNA, NOW A LA RAZA MEX
WELFARE STATE, IS No. 48 OF 50
STATES IN LOWER EDUCATION!
MEXICANS LOATHE LITERACY AND
ENGLISH… SUCH APES THE
GRINGO WHOM THEY HATE!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/08/heres-reason-why-ca-schools-are-no.html
“Mexicans abhor
education. In their country, illiteracy dominates. As they arrive in our
country, only 9.6 percent of fourth generation Mexicans earn a high school
diploma. Mexico does not promote
educational values. This makes them the least educated of any Americans or
immigrants. The rate of illiteracy in Mexico stands at 63 percent." FROSTY
WOOLRIDGE
“Third-generation Latinos are more often
disconnected — that is, they neither attend school nor find employment.” Kay S. Hymowitz
ILLEGALS
VOTING:
WILL
MEXICO ELECT ALL FUTURE U.S. PRESIDENTS?
“Mexicans cheat,
distribute drugs, lie, forge documents, steal and kill as if it’s a normal way
of life. For them, it is. Mexico’s civilization stands diametrically opposed to
America’s culture.” FROSTY WOOLDRIDGE
“Based on that investigation, a federal grand jury in
Sacramento recently returned a nine-count indictment against Gustavo Araujo
Lerma, 62, and his wife Maria Eva Velez, 64. Araujo is charged with
aggravated identity theft, passport fraud, conspiracy to commit
unlawful procurement of naturalization and citizenship, and five counts of
voting by an alien.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY
JUDICIAL WATCH:
ILLEGALS VOTING IN MASSIVE
NUMBERS IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA
''California
is going to be a Hispanic state," said Mario Obeldo, former head of
MALDEF. "Anyone who does not like it should leave."
No comments:
Post a Comment