Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Sanctuary Cities category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Category

The Democrats have a major problem brewing that really can’t be fixed. Thanks to their divisions, Democrats are fighting over immigration. A significant percentage of Democrats openly want open borders. Another significant percentage are fine with open borders but don’t want to talk about it during the campaign. There’s a tiny fraction of Democrats that are actually sane who want the borders enforced. Doug Schoen is a patriotic member of that tiny fraction. In this op-ed, Schoen makes the argument that advocating for open borders will eliminate opportunities for Democrats.

Specifically, he wrote “Not only is Ellison’s statement in itself completely detached from reality, but it seems to suggest that if we cannot have wide open borders, then we must not have free trade at all. These remarks come just weeks after Ellison wore a T-shirt which read ‘yo no creo en fronteras,’ which in English translates into ‘I do not believe in borders.'”

What’s stunning about that t-shirt is that it gives context to his run for Minnesota’s state Attorney General’s office. It’s clear that Ellison will fight law enforcement (through the courts) whose responsibility it is to protect us from drug cartels, gangs like MS-13 and sex and human traffickers. It’s apparent that his only is to pad DFL voter lists. If he has to ignore the law, he’s shown that he’s willing to do that without hesitation.

Further, Ellison has a history of defending cop-killers in the court of public opinion. He did that with convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard, and with Kathleen Soliah. But I digress.

Concerningly, Ellison’s brash statement on immigration is not far out of line with the Democratic Party as a whole. In fact, a Harvard Harris poll from June states that a striking 36 percent of Democrats support “basically open borders”—an inflammatory policy dangerously out of line with mainstream thinking.

Then there’s this:

With the midterms slowly approaching, regaining the support of Independents and moderate Republicans will be key for Democrats in their fight to take back the House. However, light of contentious issues such as immigration where the party has moved further left than ever before, this will be an increasingly difficult demographic for Democrats to appeal to in November. According to a July Gallup poll, immigration is one of the most important issues for Americans heading into the midterm elections, with 22 percent of respondents saying it was the nation’s most important problem.

The Democrats lead in the generic ballot polling but I don’t think it’s a sturdy lead. That’s because I think the Republicans’ closing arguments will devastate Democrats this fall.

Part of the Republicans’ closing arguments should be this insane blathering from Nancy Pelosi:

Saying that Democrats are better at border security is stupid beyond belief. Republicans should also use this interview of Thomas Homan, the retired acting director of ICE, by Harris Faulkner:

When Homan said that the judge ordered the government to stop doing DNA testing because the ACLU filed a lawsuit on the issue, my heart broke. Homan said that “5%-7% of the kids” weren’t a match with the people who claimed to be their parents. Homan then hinted that this judge might’ve just given these kids to sex traffickers.

If Nancy Pelosi wants to have that fight, Republicans should welcome that fight. Thoughtful people don’t release kids to sex traffickers.

For those that ignorantly think that border/immigration enforcement only happens along the southwest US/Mexico border, it’s time to wake up. If you’re one of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s supporters who think it’s time to abolish ICE, it’s time to start thinking. If you’re a Democrat senator living in a red state or a Democrat living in a swing district who has opposed building President Trump’s wall, it’s time for you to start thinking about putting America first instead of putting Chuck Schumer or Nancy Pelosi first.

This article from the Illegal Alien Crime Report website highlights the press release from ICE seeking information about “Ramon Raudel Campos Murillo, a native of Mexico, who sometimes also goes by Raudel or the alias ‘Chilango.'” Murillo “is charged with transporting a minor across state lines for prostitution in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.”

Here’s what’s known about Murillo:

Court documents relevant to the fugitive’s known co-conspirators and associates state that for approximately three years between 2009 and 2012, Campos Murillo managed the operation of an interstate prostitution ring that trafficked multiple women and a known minor across state lines to engage in commercial sex acts. Many of these women were foreign nationals, brought in from all along the eastern seaboard from New York to Virginia. Once they had arrived at the Greyhound bus station in Washington, D.C., they were transported to an apartment in Riverdale, Maryland maintained by the enterprise as a brothel. This illicit operation prostituted more than 100 different women, and operated in multiple locations to include Manassas, Woodbridge, Falls Church, Fairfax, Alexandria, Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Newport News, Baltimore and Delaware. Campos Murillo’s operation typically charged clients $30.00 for 15 minutes of sexual intercourse with the trafficked women, garnering almost half a million dollars in illicit proceeds.

ICE is built to track these animals down and remove them from the US. Along comes a wet-behind-the-ears 28-year-old socialist know-it-all who hasn’t thought things through and she starts yapping about the supposed ‘need’ for abolishing ICE.

It didn’t take long for all of the Democrats’ top tier presidential candidates to start repeating her. Last week, Mark Pocan submitted a bill with the intent of abolishing ICE. That led to Martha McSally and others to put a resolution together to support ICE. Here’s Harris Faulkner interviewing Rep. McSally:

When the vote was taken, 34 Democrats voted not to support ICE. Another 133 Democrats voted present, which is the same as not supporting ICE. Others, like Rep. Tim Walz and Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, skipped the vote entirely.

The truth is that Democrats have tried thwarting the Republicans’ attempts to fix our immigration system. These Democrats have thwarted the Republicans’ efforts because they put putting the party back in power ahead of putting America first. Why would a political party want to abolish an agency that arrests sex traffickers like Ramon Raudel Campos Murillo?

This will sound radical but it’s actually well thought out. A large percentage of Democrats, specifically the ones that want to thwart enforcing immigration laws, aren’t patriots. They’re un-American through and through. A vote for Democrats this November is a vote to keep the immigration status quo intact.

Tuesday night, Beaumont and San Diego became the latest cities to officially reject California’s SB 54 California Values Act, aka California’s Sanctuary State law. In Beaumont, the Beaumont City Council voted 3-2 tonight to approve a resolution asserting that California’s so-called ‘sanctuary state’ law is incompatible with federal law and, therefore, illegitimate. Beaumont is the first Inland Empire municipality to oppose Senate Bill 54, the ‘California Values Act,’ joining Orange County and a number of its cities in challenging the statute’s validity.”

Also on Tuesday night, the “San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 Tuesday to support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California over so-called sanctuary 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 if and when the case moves to a higher court on appeal, said Supervisor Kristin Gaspar, chairwoman of the board.”

I’d like to thank Agnes Gibboney, one of the Angel Moms I’ve had the privilege of interviewing, for tipping me off about the Beaumont vote.

It’s unmistakable that the tide is turning against the Sanctuary advocates. A month ago, Gov. Jerry Brown and California State Attorney General Xavier Becerra were lipping off to President Trump. Now, they’re in full retreat. According to Agnes and others, Californians are speaking up against the Democrats’ anti-safety policies. One of the ‘others’ is Kristin Gaspar, the chairwoman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Ms. Gaspar is also running to replace Rep. Darrell Issa in the US Congress. After Tuesday night’s vote, Fox News’ Ed Henry interviewed Ms. Gaspar about their vote. Here’s that interview:

I found this snippet disturbing:

SB 54 also mandates that schools, health facilities, libraries an courthouses serve as ‘safe zones,’ where undocumented immigrants can come and go without risk of detention.

I don’t see how that’s enforceable since the sidewalks and city streets are public property. It’s possible that SB 54 could suggest those areas as safe zones. I don’t see how California could mandate that those areas be safe zones.

In the end, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors listened to their constituents:

During the announcement of the vote, Gaspar showed printouts of emails she received from each side of the debate. The stack of emails criticizing her for considering support for the lawsuit was not much thicker than a legal pad. The stack of emails asking her to support the Trump administration’s legal challenge was more than a foot tall.

On a political note, Democrats had to think that they’d flip Darrell Issa’s seat after he narrowly defeated Doug Applegate, his Democratic opponent, by 1,600+ votes. With an increase in Republican voter intensity in San Diego, a pretty red district, coupled with Ms. Gaspar’s popularity, I’d say another Republican seat is a bigger challenge for the Democrats than it was a month ago.

Based on the reports I’m getting from southern California, I’m getting skeptical that Democrats will get enough seats from California to flip the House.

Margaret Baker, who lives near the border, told the board that backing the lawsuit will discourage immigrants from reporting crime. “We see this lawsuit as an attack on our safety and the well-being of our community,” she said.

The reports I’m getting from southern California is that significant numbers of illegal immigrants are injuring pedestrians in hit-and-run accidents, with many legal residents getting severely injured. It’s impossible to make the case that shielding these illegal immigrants from prosecution is making San Diego safe.

Facts on the ground are changing the debate more than Jerry Brown can spin things. That truth should frighten Democrats.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A week ago, Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra, California’s governor and state attorney general respectively, were riding high while touting California’s sanctuary state law. Since then, Brown and Becerra have done nothing but backtrack on immigration. Don’t expect their losing streak to end anytime soon. Los Alamitos was the first openly defiant city to challenge SB 54. It wasn’t the last.

Last night, Los Alamitos voted for a second time to opt out of SB 54. By a vote of 4-1, “Los Alamitos Council members voted … to opt out of a state law that prohibited state and local police agencies from informing federal authorities in cases when illegal immigrants facing deportation are released from detention.”

Councilman Mark Chirco was the lone dissenting vote. Afterwards, Chirco said “the council has no legal authority to approve the ordinance and criticized the council members for what he called being irresponsible, stating that the measure will open the city to lawsuits.”

That started the Democrats’ criticism:

Shortly after the vote, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) tweeted that the ordinance is “a blatant violation of the city’s obligation to follow a state law that puts our local resources to use for the safety of our communities rather than toward federal immigration agencies.” The civil rights group previously threatened the city with a lawsuit if it passes the ordinance.

It isn’t surprising that the ACLU has it bassackwards. California doesn’t have the authority to ignore federal immigration policies. Let’s be blunt. That’s what California is doing by not notifying ICE of when illegal immigrants are getting out of jail.

The Democrats’ arguments are worthless as trash:

Omar Siddiqui, a U.S. Congressional candidate in California running to unseat Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, also spoke at the meeting, urging the council to oppose the motion as “our communities are safer when we work with each other and trust each other, not when we operate under a police state.”

Tell that to the Steinle family. This is an outright lie that’s told by Democrats. There’s no proof that verifies that as anything more than spin or theory.

Don’t be surprised if people reject Siddiqui. There’s an anti-sanctuary state backlash building in California. More people are getting tired of California’s failed liberal policies, especially with regards to illegal immigration. They’re tired of hearing how safe their communities are when they aren’t.

It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to figure out that this controversy is increasing voter intensity on the right. People are rejecting the Democrats’ anything goes immigration policies.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This afternoon, a loyal reader of LFR forwarded me an email newsletter from TakeAction Minnesota. Included in that email was a link to this article, which deals with the topics of voting and gun control.

It starts by saying “At last month’s March for Our Lives in Washington, DC, the 20 young people who spoke had a clear message for the hundreds of thousands of protesters: Vote. Specifically, they urged their supporters to vote out of office any lawmaker who stands in the way of gun control. ‘The voting is what we’re pushing here,’ Stoneman Douglas student and #NeverAgain activist Jaclyn Corin said in an interview with Crooked Media before the march. ‘The March is kind of a statement saying, ‘Hey, we’re gonna be voting in November. Watch out—all these people are voting against you.'”

This year, Democrats are pushing 2 things hard — raising the minimum age of buying certain types of guns to 21 and lowering the voting age to 16. Democrats are arguing simultaneously that 16-year-olds are wise enough to make informed decisions on who should represent people in Congress but 20-year-olds are too stupid to safely operate a semi-automatic firearm. Wouldn’t you love to hear David Hogg or Emma Gonzalez explain that?

Actually, the explanation is rather simple. First, Democrats want to flood the polling booths with as many uninformed voters as possible. People that think things through vote for conservatives more often than they vote for Democrats. That’s a statement of statistical fact. It isn’t a statement of derision. Next, raising the age of purchase to 21 is an emotional issue for people. The Democrats’ base will be fired up as a result.

Republicans need to frame this election as a referendum between sensible policies vs. irrational policies. Let’s illustrate:

  1. There’s nothing irrational about enforcing our international borders. There’s nothing sane about opening our borders to drug cartels while fighting an opioid crisis.
  2. There’s nothing irrational about reducing regulations and increasing competition.
  3. There’s nothing sane about increasing regulations that cripple competition.
  4. There’s nothing irrational about moving national guard troops to the Tex-Mex border to prevent human trafficking.
  5. There’s nothing sane about letting human traffickers bring in sex slaves from Latin America.
  6. There’s nothing irrational about shutting down the borders to prevent violent felons from entering the US.
  7. There’s nothing sane about letting violent felons into the US by turning a blind eye towards the Tex-Mex border. That inevitably leads to new members of the Angel Parents ‘club’.

Conservatives, it’s time for you to ask yourselves if you want Congress run by people who won’t protect its citizens by electing Democrat majorities in the House and/or Senate or whether we’ll tell our friends, neighbors, co-workers and church family to get out and vote for sane conservatives, then voting ourselves. What’s required from conservatives is gritty determination to vote. Losing the House and/or the Senate will stop President Trump’s common-sense agenda on immigration, regulations and shutting down gangs like MS-13.

It’s ok to disapprove of President Trump’s tweets. Some of his tweets are inexcusable and shouldn’t be defended. His economic and national security agenda, however, aren’t just defensible. They’re essential.

Finally, it’s essential that all patriots vote to save this republic. I know that sounds a bit melodramatic but it’s where we’re at right now. Democrat progressives hate the principles that this nation was founded on. That’s how they can advocate for raising the minimum age to buy a gun to 21, then immediately argue that it’s essential to lower the voting age to 16. These aren’t sensible arguments. They’re the arguments of irrational people. Liberalism isn’t a political philosophy. It’s a mental disorder.

Ideologues like Gov. Kate Brown, (D-OR), don’t get it when it comes to border security. Their reflexive hatred for President Trump eliminates the possibility of rational thought. This morning, Gov. Brown took to Twitter to state her position on illegal immigration. She said “If @realDonaldTrump asks me to deploy Oregon Guard troops to the Mexico border, I’ll say no. As Commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by [President] Trump’s plan to militarize our border.”

Angel Mom Sabine Durden replied “Do you have 2 lose a loved one at the hand of an illegal and join the many angel families before you get it? This isn’t about ur dislike of @POTUS, but about the SECURITY AND SAFETY of the citizens you are responsible for. Want ur child’s name in a story like mine?” Ms. Sabine then included this picture memorializing her slain son:


Here’s a little background on Sabine and Dominic Durden:

Durden’s son, Dominic, was killed four years ago in a fatal motorcycle crash. On July 12, 2012, Dominic, 30, was on his way to work when an illegal immigrant driving an unlicensed pickup truck took a wrong turn. Dominic was killed instantly.

The driver, Juan Zacarias Lopez Tzun, was an illegal immigrant from Guatemala with a record of drunk driving convictions. His initial sentence included nine months’ jail time, five years of probation, and a restitution fee of $18,800.

Then there’s this:

For Ms. Durden, the hardest part about Dominic’s untimely death was knowing that his killer was permitted to remain in a “sanctuary city” of Riverside County, California, after having demonstrated irreverence for its laws on multiple occasions. “I want my country to be protected, and I want others to never know the kind of pain and grief this causes — not just when your child gets killed, but when it’s avoidable.”

Gov. Brown apparently doesn’t want to hear from people like Sabine Durden. If she took time to listen, it might change Gov. Brown’s mind. That might lead her to get out-of-step with the Democratic Party.

There’s a personal cost that Gov. Brown isn’t considering:

“I’ve been called racist, Nazi, Hitler,” [Sabine] said, adding that she commonly has to report threatening Facebook messages she receives from strangers. But even more upsetting, she shared, are the biting comments from people who she “thought were friends,” telling her that she should “leave things alone and not separate families.” “And then I remind them, ‘What about my family?’ I don’t have one left. My only child is dead,” she said. “When they call me a racist, I show them a picture of Dominic and tell them, ‘That was my son,'” she laughed, referring to Dominic’s mixed race.

It’s time for Democrats to take their first real look at this crisis rather than acting like puppets dancing for campaign contributions from La Raza and other open borders organizations. Thus far, Democrats have demagogued this issue. When someone disagrees, they accuse that person of being a racist. The notion that Sabine is accused of being a racist is disgusting and dishonest. Whoever made that accusation should be publicly humiliated. Period.

This is the third Angel Mom I’ve written about this week. I’m writing about these women because their stories need to be told. I’m writing about things that the MSM hasn’t written about. That’s because they don’t want the real story to be told. This is too important to not get told.

I just finished writing this post, which I titled Applying David Hogg’s principles. (I’m pinning that post to the top of the page for the rest of today.) It’s a fair title because I’m using Hogg’s principles and definitions against him. However, it didn’t do the hero of the story, Mary Ann Mendoza, justice. With that, I’d like to tell LFR readers about Mary Ann Mendoza and her painful ordeal.

Brandon, Ms. Mendoza’s son, tragically was killed by a drunk driver whose blood-alcohol content was .24%. That’s tragic enough but it gets worse. The drunk driver was identified as Raul Silva-Corona, an illegal alien who was a “42-year-old Mexican native” who “remained in the U.S. despite being charged with burglary, assault and leaving the scene of an accident in 1994. He remained here still after pleading guilty to a charge of criminal conspiracy in 2002.”

Naturally, the articles didn’t mention that he was an illegal alien or that he’d been convicted of the crimes listed above. BTW, if letting criminals stay in St. Cloud makes it a welcoming city, then I’d rather be a hostile city. I’m not interested in being a welcoming city if we have to treat illegal aliens kindly. But I digress.

People would’ve understood if Mary Ann Mendoza had passed on the opportunity to become an advocate against lawlessness. Fortunately for us, she didn’t choose that path:

The pointlessness of it all made Mendoza’s path clear. She says she must fight against what she sees as an epidemic that’s largely ignored by the mainstream media, many politicians and most of the American public. “I never got one call, ever, from any politician in Arizona. My son was a police officer. Not one of them gave a crap about it,” she says.

Instead of feeling sorry for herself, she opted to become an advocate fighting career politicians who haven’t lifted a finger to fix the problem. They aren’t trustworthy. Meanwhile, Mary Ann Mendoza is tireless in her pursuit of justice:

To be sure, Mendoza is ideally engineered to be a mouthpiece for the pro-enforcement cause: a grieving, articulate mother whose police officer son was half-Hispanic, in a state on the front lines of the immigration war. She’s aware of the optics, but rejects the notion that she’s being used as a pawn. Mendoza says she’s learned to leverage her story to achieve results she sees as positive, such as creating a new advocacy group for people affected by illegal crime. “There are people who say I’ve politicized my son’s death. I haven’t,” she says. “I’ve aligned myself in a situation where I want to see certain things done so another American family isn’t affected like I was.”

This video tells quite the story:

If politicians (overwhelmingly Democrats) don’t give a damn about protecting us, then it’s time to fire them this November. This is a case of if-you-aren’t-part-of-the-solution-you’re-part-of-the-problem. As Rep. McSally noted in the video, this isn’t just about booting criminals out of the U.S. Border security means much more than that. It’s about stopping human trafficking, preventing MS-13 from setting up shop and interdicting drug shipments from international cartels.

Any Democrat that won’t commit to building the wall immediately should be defeated this November. If they aren’t up for re-election this November, then these Democrats must be defeated the next time they’re up for re-election. This must happen because these Democrats aren’t serious about protecting citizens. They aren’t serious about public safety. This is the litmus test of this election.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the gospel according to David Hogg, politicians who accept money from ‘special interests’ (like the NRA) have “blood on their hands when an innocent dies. If that’s the battlefield that Mr. Hogg wants to fight and die on, let’s have at it. Hogg insists repeatedly daily that politicians (like Marco Rubio) have blood on their hands if they’ve accepted campaign contributions from the NRA.

Let’s apply those principles to illegal immigration. Instead of the NRA, let’s plug in La Raza and Eric Holder or Luis Gutierrez. Let’s swap out the NRA and Marco Rubio. Mary Ann Mendoza lost her son in May, 2014 when her son “was killed in a head-on collision with a wrong-way driver.” The driver, Raul Silva-Corona, wasn’t “deported two decades ago after he was convicted for crimes in Colorado.”

In July, 2014, Ms. Mendoza wrote to then-President Obama, saying “The prosecutors were ‘lenient’ on him and several charges were dismissed. When he was convicted of these crimes (in) 1994 and the government knew he was in the country illegally, why wasn’t he deported? Why are any of these illegal criminals in this country? I am furious that the Federal Government allowed this criminal to stay in this country and KILL my son!” Tonight, Ms. Mendoza was interviewed by Martha McCallum. Here’s that interview:

Democrats insist that people who accept campaign contributions from the NRA have “blood on their hands.” By their definition, politicians who accept campaign contributions from La Raza or other open borders organizations have blood on their hands. By Hogg’s definition, politicians like President Obama, Eric Holder, Jerry Brown and Xavier Becerra have blood on their hands because they’ve let criminal aliens out of jail, only to see them be commit more crimes, including murder, rape and other violent crimes.

BTW, yes, that means that liberals like Jeff Flake, Lindsey Graham and John McCain have blood on their hands, too. But I digress.

Let’s get serious about this. Democrats won’t vote for funding the border wall. Ever. They’ll play gimmicks and say that they’ll vote for funding the wall but they won’t actually vote for funding Trump’s wall. It’s a simple matter of admitting that Democrats are beholden to their open borders special interest allies.

Building the wall is imperative. If you think that walls don’t work, ask Prime Minister Netanyahu and the IDF if they work. Finally, here’s Ms. Mendoza’s letter to President Obama in 2014:

It’s 4 years later and Democrats still haven’t built the wall or secured the border. It’s time we stopped believing that Democrats give a damn about protecting US citizens. The façade is crumbling. It’s a myth to think that they give a damn about anything other than acquiring, then maintaining political power.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Apparently, progressives aren’t as altruistic as they pretend while getting interviewed. Recently, the “Orange County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to scrap its plan to move hundreds of homeless people from alongside the Santa Ana River to temporary shelters in three cities.”

According to the article, “ahead of the meeting, a caravan of 22 chartered buses arrived at Santa Ana’s Hall of Administration carrying more than 1,200 Irvine residents who urged the Orange County Board of Supervisors to scrap the controversial plan to create emergency homeless shelters in their community and others.”

The activists must’ve prohibited altruistic people from boarding their buses. It was stunning to hear that the “meeting was packed with residents who oppose putting emergency shelters in their neighborhoods.” People like Angela Liu, of Irvine, who owns a legal services company, who said “I don’t know. They need to put them somewhere, maybe somewhere else in California. I really don’t know where they can go, but Irvine is beautiful and we don’t want to get destroyed.”

“Who cares?” added Abby Moore, a retiree from Laguna Niguel. “This is not our responsibility; we are not elected to handle this crisis. I just don’t want to be near the homeless.”

Meanwhile, the crisis keeps getting worse:

When Tucker interviewed Fabio, Democrats ridiculed both men. That’s why I’m expecting to get ridiculed, too. That’s fine. The homeless crisis in California isn’t getting better. It’s getting worse without an end in sight. Fabio explained why it isn’t getting better when he stated that “5,700 people paid 37% of California’s state income tax.” Further, Fabio stated that the movie industry has left California for all intents and purposes and the middle class is leaving the state thanks to Jerry Brown’s economic ‘leadership’.

Supervisor Lisa A. Bartlett apologized to the affected cities during the meeting. “There has been a lack of clear information and that has caused unnecessary panic,” Bartlett said. “Nothing was approved or built and no homeless were ever relocated to any of the cities.”

That’s what happens when the progressive checklist is followed to a T. California taxes the middle class while protecting criminal aliens. Jerry Brown came close to ruining California during his first time in office as governor. This time, he’s returned, along with supermajorities of Democrats, to finish the job he started when he was nicknamed Gov. Moonbeam and while he dated Linda Ronstadt.

More than anything, California needs another Reagan to save it from the Brown family. Back in 1966, Reagan defeated Pat Brown, Jerry’s father. Unfortunately, California’s insanity returned with a vengeance.

Xavier Becerra, California’s law-breaking Attorney General, has gone on the record as saying that he’ll arrest law enforcement officers if they communicate with ICE. Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens said “SB 54 makes local law enforcement’s job more difficult and requires bureaucratic processes that could allow dangerous individuals to fall through the cracks of our justice system. My department, however, remains committed to cooperating fully with federal authorities in all areas where I have discretion to remove serious criminals from our community.”

Part of that cooperation involves publishing the release dates of inmates’ release dates. “The release date information applies to all inmates, not just illegal immigrants.”

Becerra isn’t stupid. He’s unprincipled. Becerra said that he’d arrest law enforcement officials who didn’t obey California’s SB 54, California’s ‘sanctuary state law’. In a public appearance, Becerra said “State law is state law. It’s my job to enforce state law and I will do so. We want to make sure that every jurisdiction, including Orange County, understands what state law requires of the people and the subdivisions of the state of California.”

Apparently, Becerra thinks that it isn’t proper for local law enforcement to ignore state law but that it’s proper for states to ignore federal law. In the end, the federal government will win this fight because the federal Constitution gives the federal government authority to write immigration laws and enforce those laws. It prohibits states from writing their own immigration laws. This was recently reinforced in June, 2012, when the Supreme Court ruled against SB 1070.

Sheriff Hutchens isn’t backing down:

She said that she sees this as a public safety issue, adding that she’s certain she’s on firm constitutional footing. If Becerra wants to arrest, then prosecute, Sheriff Hutchens, he’ll lose that fight. When that happens, the floodgates will open and other counties and municipalities will start ignoring California’s sanctuary state law.

At that point, Becerra, Gov. Jerry Brown and other Democrats will become laughingstocks.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,