Jason Riley, a writer for the Wall Street Journal, is a big time amnesty enthusiast. But his recent piece pointed out a strong impetus for cities adopting sanctuary policies, namely the threat of an expensive lawsuit from leftist monsters like the ACLU. Some cities have been sued for cooperating with the feds to deport criminals because the ACLU says it is unlawful.
Riley appeared with Stuart Varney on Wednesday to explain.
Here is the part of Riley’s article that pertains to the ACLU lawsuits aimed at releasing dangerous alien criminals onto American streets:
If San Francisco had been more cooperative with federal authorities, Kate Steinle might still be alive.
[. . .]
This month the administration watered down Secure Communities, renamed it the Priority Enforcement Program, and promised local jurisdictions that the DHS would only issue detainers for felons or other perceived threats to public safety. This may help stem the growth of sanctuary cities and improve federal-local cooperation, but it’s no guarantee. Cities are also under pressure from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union which maintain that cooperating with the federal government on immigration enforcement is illegal.
Court rulings in Oregon and Pennsylvania last year went against local authorities who had detained arrestees for an additional period at the request of the DHS. In Oregon, a federal judge ruled that Clackamas County officials violated the rights of a woman arrested for ignoring a restraining order when they turned her over to DHS officials. The county settled the case by paying the woman $30,000 and picking up her court costs. In a Pennsylvania case involving a man arrested on drug charges, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that local authorities are not required to honor federal detainers. The man sued and was awarded $145,000 in damages and legal fees.
Other cities are taking note, said Mr. Rosenblum. “This local jurisdiction fear of lawsuits, there’s something to that. It’s a big issue, especially in the Ninth Circuit, where the Oregon case was. After that, you saw a big wave of California, Oregon and Washington state counties opting out.” [. . .]
The term “sanctuary city” has become a rallying cry for conservative Republicans seeking stiffer immigration laws. They characterize such places as havens where those in the country illegally are protected from immigration authorities.
The reality behind the phrase is that while some cities actively thumb their noses at federal immigration policies, many refuse to enforce them not because of any moral obligation to immigrants; they fear lawsuits.
Since the fatal shooting of Kathryn Steinle on a San Francisco pier allegedly by an immigrant who was released from jail even though U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sought to deport him for a sixth time, the debate over how to handle cities and counties that refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities has reached a feverish pitch.
On Thursday, House Republicans passed a bill aimed at punishing cities that refuse to share information with federal immigration authorities, which the White House threatened to veto. While the bill doesn’t specifically address the release of immigrants sought by federal authorities for deportation, the Republicans are pitching other legislation to do so.
The vote came after presidential hopeful Donald Trump attacked illegal immigration on the campaign trail.
While notably liberal San Francisco has openly declared itself a haven for all immigrants regardless of their legal status, some of the cities and counties that have stopped detaining immigrants for ICE are politically conservative and are not trying to shield residents from deportation. Continue reading this article
On Monday I traveled to San Francisco to join with a couple dozen other friends of public safety to protest the preventable crimes of illegal aliens. Those crimes are assisted by the policy of Sanctuary Cities, which actively protects illegal alien criminals and allow them to harm and even kill Americans. That government program was responsible for the murder of Kate Steinle who was shot dead by a five-times-deported Mexican felon on July 1.
Kate Steinle has become the symbol of how little the government cares about protecting its law-abiding citizens. As Congressman Trey Gowdy recently remarked, “Those of us who have daughters, saw our daughters in Kate Steinle.” She was walking with her father on a San Francisco pier popular with both locals and tourists, a place known to many Americans. But she wasn’t safe there, because liberal San Francisco stubbornly clings to its extreme sanctuary policy.
SAN FRANCISCO (KRON) — The Pier 14 shooting death of Kate Steinle is a crime that touched a nerve and is sparking a debate in the Bay Area and across the nation about sanctuary cities–and shielding undocumented immigrants.
KRON 4’s Vicki Liviakis shows the protest. The flowers at this make shift memorial are dry, but emotions are still raw.
“She was on this pier with her dad, and the last thing she said to her dad as she died here was help dad,” one protester said. “Now, we look to government to help us but government isn’t helping us when it comes to sanctuary cities.”
A group called Citizens for Safe Cities wants to overturn san francisco’s sanctuary city policy – which they say shielded a known criminal.
Wilfredo Reyes was in the car from which Edwin Ramos shot and killed the three members of the Bologna family, whom he mistook for rival gangsters. Reyes was arrested in North Carolina in July 2012.
Danielle Bologna, who was made a widow by the preventable crime, has been in witness protection for seven years for fear of other diverse gangsters and made an emotional statement to the court that justice cannot be served in this lifetime for the loss of her husband and sons.
She also urged officials to prioritize public safety: “Violent criminals, convicted felons and gang members illegally in the United States should not be shielded by any law enforcement agency. I am begging community leaders to put public safety first so another preventable tragedy for another family is avoided.”
Unlike his gangster pal Ramos, Reyes is not an illegal alien and cannot be deported after serving his prison term. America now has generations of criminal diversity preying upon us.
In a matter of minutes, seven years of wrenching uncertainty ended for a onetime San Francisco family shattered by tragedy.
Wilfredo “Flaco” Reyes, a suspected leader of the MS-13 gang, was sentenced Friday to 10 years in state prison for his role in the mistaken-identity murders of a father and two sons, closing the final chapter of one of the city’s most notorious crimes.
Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were driving just a few blocks from their home in the Excelsior neighborhood in June 2008 when their car was riddled with bullets. A third son, Andrew, survived the attack.
Prosecutors do not believe that Reyes was the shooter but that he was in the car.
“This is for my husband, Tony, my son Michael and my son Matthew Bologna,” Danielle Bologna, who supported Reyes’ plea deal, said through tears in San Francisco Superior Court. “It’s been a long seven years for justice, and we are finally here.
“You have taken so much away from us,” she said to Reyes. “I had a whole family and on the day of June 22, 2008, you destroyed it.”
Investigators determined that the Bolognas were killed in a mistaken gang shooting by Edwin Ramos, another alleged member of MS-13. He was convicted of their murders in 2012 and sentenced to three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole.
Ramos admitted driving the other car, but testified that Reyes had leaned over from the passenger seat and fired the shots, in revenge for the shootings of two MS-13 members earlier that day. Prosecutors believe Ramos was lying about who pulled the trigger.
The case drew controversy when it was revealed that Ramos had, before the killings, been shielded from deportation twice after he committed gang-related crimes as a minor by city juvenile justice officials relying on San Francisco’s sanctuary city law.
That law has been expanded since and, this week, has come under intense scrutiny after a man who was released from County Jail — despite a federal request that he be turned over for deportation — allegedly shot and killed a woman on the Embarcadero. Continue reading this article
The appearance was a typical show of arrogance on the part of the Catholic church, which is arguably as culpable as all the city officials who created and maintained the sanctuary policy of protecting foreign criminals. The church has a history of supporting open borders, even to the point of rejecting pro-safety policies — like the successful Secure Communities program — in order to protect the millions of illegal aliens who reside in this country and steal American jobs.
But Catholic elites campaign against American interests to promote their own issue of preserving and expanding the church via demographic conquest. They are willing to sacrifice public safety to further their own power.
The top Catholics have tried to destroy Secure Communities for years because it was successful in deporting illegal aliens. ICE describes the program as an “information-sharing partnership between ICE and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify criminal aliens“ so it provided a vital connection between feds and local police that is absolutely necessary for enforcement to happen away from the border.
In 2012, the San Francisco Archbishop opposed Secure Communities in a rally held in a major cathedral attended by 2,000, because happy job thieves and criminals are a top priority of the church. “We cannot rest until the laws of our country reflect the laws of God,” opined the Archbishop.
Actually, Jesus said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21), which means to obey the laws of the land. Jesus never said to rob Paul to pay Pedro.
The timing for the anti-enforcement rally was rather insensitive, to say the least. The catholic church was appalling in its arrogant disregard toward crime victims of illegal aliens then, as it is today toward the Steinle family.
Senator Jeff Sessions has a fine publishing operation in his office, demonstrated by his occasional fact sheets of well researched points regarding the failure of Washington to stem immigration anarchy.
Now Senator Sessions has presented the mother of all lists, scary in its length, that enumerates the instances of President Obama dismantling America’s immigration enforcement system. It was posted on Breitbart on Feb 16:
Timeline: How the Obama Administration Bypassed Congress to Dismantle Immigration Enforcement
In September 2011, President Obama said, “We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.” Yet, since that time, and indeed before then, he has systematically voided existing laws and unilaterally created new measures that Congress has refused to adopt under either Democratic or Republican control.
Most recently, the President announced he would do what he once said only an “emperor” could do – grant unilateral amnesty, work permits, and access to government benefits to more than five million illegal immigrants. This unprecedented action, combined with new “enforcement priorities” for Department of Homeland Security personnel that exempt the vast majority of illegal immigrants from the threat of removal, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals directive, the “Morton” memos, and numerous other lesser-reported but far-reaching Executive actions, has threatened not only our constitutional system, but our national sovereignty. Indeed, the idea of national, sovereign borders is being daily eviscerated by the President’s determination to write his own immigration rules in defiance of Congress and the American people.
Below is a detailed timeline of how the Obama Administration systematically dismantled immigration enforcement, undermining the very rule of law upon which our nation was founded and upon which its greatness depends.
January 2009: Obama Administration Ends Worksite Enforcement Actions
In early 2009, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) executes a raid (initiated and planned under the Bush Administration) on an engine machine shop in Bellingham, Washington, detaining 28 illegal immigrants who were using fake Social Security numbers and identity documents. Shortly thereafter, pro-amnesty groups criticized the Administration for enforcing the law. An unnamed DHS official is quoted in the Washington Times as saying, “the Secretary is not happy about it and this is not her policy.” Instead of enforcing the law, the Secretary investigates the ICE agents for simply doing their duty. Esther Olavarria, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, says on a call with employers and pro-amnesty groups that “we’re not doing raids or audits under this administration.”
January 29, 2009: Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano Delays E-Verify Deadline
Former Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano delays the original deadlines for federal contractors to use the E-Verify system, from January 15, 2009, and February 20, 2009, to May 21, 2009. Continue reading this article
“The one [a president] can confer no privileges whatever; the other [the king] can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies.”
– Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 69
Lie #1: Every President has Taken Executive Action on Immigration: No other president has ever issued an amnesty of anywhere near this scope, created it out of thin air, or built it upon a prior executive action instead of a statute. And in the case of President Eisenhower, his executive action was to deport 80,000 illegal immigrants.
Lie #2: Illegal Immigrant Crossings are Down: Actually, this is the third straight year that border crossings have gone up, not to mention the entirely new wave from Central America.
Lie #3: It does not grant citizenship or the right to stay here permanently: Under the royal edict, the work permits can be renewed every three years, and most likely, they will be renewed at the same 99.5% acceptance rate as DACA applications. And once they get Social Security cards, they are going nowhere. So yes, this is permanent. And yes, they will be able to get green cards, which puts them on an automatic path to citizenship: “we are reducing the time that families are separated while obtaining their green cards. Undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of lawful permanent residents or sons or daughters of US citizens can apply to get a waiver if a visa is available.”
Lie #4: Only 5 Million: Make no mistake about it. Obama’s illegal amnesty will not just apply to 5 million individuals. It will apply by default to all 12-20 million illegals in the country as well as the millions more who will now come here to enjoy the permanent cessation of borders and sovereignty. Given the numerous options for people to become eligible for amnesty, ICE and CPB will be restricted from enforcing the law against anyone because each individual has to be afforded the opportunity to present themselves and apply for status. There is no way those who were here for less than 5 years will be deported and there’s no way the new people rushing the border and overstaying their visas will be repatriated.
Lie #5: Deport Felons: Obama claims he is going to focus on deporting felons. Yet, he has done the opposite. 36,000 convicted criminal aliens were released last year, 80,000 criminal aliens encountered by ICE weren’t even placed into deportation proceedings, 167,000 criminal aliens who were ordered deported are still at large, 341,000 criminal aliens released by ICE without deportation orders are known to be free and at large in the US. Again, this is cessation of deportations for everyone. They are leaving no illegal behind.
Lie #6: Don’t deport families: Obama is playing the family card. It works like this: people are encouraged to come here illegally, Obama grants them amnesty, then their relatives all get to come, even though they would otherwise be ineligible under public charge laws. Yet, at the same time, because the bureaucracy will be flooded with applications of illegals, and those are the applications that will be prioritized, those families who came here legally will have to wait longer to be united. There is no longer an incentive to enter the legal immigration process.
Lie #7: They have to pay taxes to stay: Aside from the absurd notion that they would turn someone away for not paying taxes, almost every one of these illegal immigrants lacks a high enough income to incur a net positive tax liability. Hence, by paying taxes, he actually means they will collect refundable tax credits!
Lie #8: Background Checks: Just the thought of a criminal background check of people coming from the third world on a lawless program is a joke. But the reality is that Obama has already done this with DACA, and 99.5% of applications were approved, including those of criminals.
Lie #9: Cracking Down on Illegal Immigration at the Border: Obama promises to beef up resources at the border. But as we’ve seen over the past few years, what good are more agents if they are explicitly intimidated into turning a blind eye. Moreover, there is no promise to build a fence or implement a visa tracking system, so any talk of enforcement is an insult to our intelligence. Moreover, he is unilaterally abolishing the Secure Communities program, the only successful interior enforcement program left after he abolished 287g state-federal cooperation in 2012. At a time when we are facing threats from Islamic terror and deadly diseases, this invitation to the world will present a security nightmare.
Lie #10: Scripture tells us, we shall not oppress a stranger: It’s great to see him quoting the Bible for once, but nice try. There are different variations of this verse throughout the Bible, but each one uses the Hebrew word “Ger” to describe what Obama translates as “stranger.” A Ger is a convert to Judaism. The commandment was not referring to people who illegally migrate to a nation state. And more importantly, it is downright offensive to Americans to insinuate that not granting them benefits is tantamount to oppression, especially given the fact that they have been the biggest recipients of our generous legal system. Moreover, if there is oppression taking place it is to the American taxpayer and worker and those who suffer from gangs like MS-13.
Daniel Horowitz is Senior Editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on twitter @RMConservative.
The feds are particularly silent about the whereabouts of tens of thousands of illegal alien children it has redistributed all around the country, she has learned. The little lawbreakers have privacy rights, the bureaucrats argue.
Nobody cares about their individual identity, but taxpayers have a right to the facts about where the foreigners are being housed, educated and at what cost. Parents need to know whether they need to move their kids to private school if the public classrooms become too academically compromised by diversity.
Plus, there’s no guarantee that the dumped kids will be properly immunized against communicable disease by the time they appear in America’s classrooms. If the kids don’t get immediate first-class school services, then La Raza and the usual suspects will start complaining about anti-hispanic racism. Public health will be a lesser concern compared with jamming foreign kids into classrooms ASAP.
In the video below, amnesty hucksters claim that kiddies will be endangered by hateful racist Americans if shelter locations are revealed. In fact, citizen safety is far more imperiled by the so-called children, most of whom are teenaged (and older) males, some with gang tattoos.
WASHINGTON (WJLA) – Hundreds of demonstrators marched outside the U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency on Thursday, demanding Congressional action on immigration reform. Many were arrested.
This comes as some states continue to struggle with what to do with the influx of unaccompanied children coming across the border.
The government has abruptly shut down operations at Fort Sill in Oklahoma and two other military bases that sheltered more than 7,700 minors the government refers to as “unaccompanied alien children.”
Thousands have been transferred to 150 shelters around the country, mostly group homes run by nonprofits. But try to find out exactly where and the government won’t answer—not the public or reporters, not even members of Congress. Continue reading this article
How stupid are judges to take the word of a stone-cold gangster that he has renounced a life of crime, particularly when the criminal gets a big payoff for the lie, er statement? But that’s what happened in a recent appeals court decision which could set a dangerous precedent.
Besides, if a gangster fears his MS-13 buddies, many of them reside in this country, so there would be no greater safety here than in the alien’s homeland.
KRIS KOBACH: “Once one case like this emerges, where an illegal alien is able to avoid deportation, particularly a criminal one like this guy, then the word spreads in the jails and in the prisons that to avoid being sent home you just have to renounce your gang membership like he did. I fear we’re going to see a lot of gang members all across the United States, illegal alien gang members, and these are very deadly gangs, doing what this guy did now and saying ‘you can’t deport me now.’
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Congressman Randy Forbes (R-Va.) today sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking what the Department of Justice plans to do in light of a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that could endanger our communities by allowing criminal gang members to receive asylum in the United States or withholding of removal by simply claiming that they have renounced their membership in the gang. In the case of Martinez v. Holder, the court ruled that Julio Martinez, an unlawful immigrant from El Salvador, could stay in the United States because he renounced his membership in the notoriously deadly MS-13 gang and returning to El Salvador could jeopardize his safety. This decision encourages fraud and creates a new loophole where gang members can simply claim that they are no longer a member of a gang in order to game the immigration system. This undermines the federal government’s ability to enforce our immigration laws and promote public safety.
Below are excerpts of the letter. To view the full letter, click here.
“We are concerned that based on this decision [by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit], gang members will be able to receive asylum or withholding in the U.S., simply by telling immigration authorities that they have renounced their membership in the gang. In the Martinez case, an MS-13 gang member did just that. Surely it is likely that when gang members are placed in removal proceedings, they will claim that they are no longer a member of a gang and have renounced gang membership in an attempt to circumvent removal. Even aliens who have in fact left gangs were members of criminal organizations and do not deserve the protections of asylum or withholding.
“We are deeply troubled by this decision as it interferes with the Federal Government’s ability to effectively enforce our immigration laws. Decisions such as this are serious impediments to both the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) ability to promote public safety through the removal of deportable aliens who may be involved with organized criminal activity.
“It is no secret that criminal gangs are a continuing national problem … Current and former gang members should not be shielded by our asylum or withholding system. Indeed, the Committee has already marked up legislation, HR. 2278 – the SAFE Act, which clarifies that anyone who is or has been a member of a gang may not receive asylum or withholding on any grounds … While the Committee has done its part, we would like to know what DOJ plans to do to address this problem.”
In a decision of the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court, judges allowed that an illegal alien MS-13 gangster could get on a path to citizenship because he had renounced his gang affiliation. A couple of Republican House members are upset at the precedent that decision would set, but perhaps the judges had merely absorbed the spirit of the immigration expansion bill passed by the Senate last year.
The National ICE Council, an organization of immigration enforcement officers, wrote a letter warning the Senate that the legislation was too permissive toward criminals:
[. . .] Section 3701 of S. 744 states that illegal immigrants who are members of street gangs – most of which are heavily involved in criminal activity and violent crimes in the communities and areas we police – simply have to claim that they renounce their gang affiliation in order to obtain a waiver that would make them admissible to the U.S., and potentially eligible for legalization and eventual citizenship. We anticipate, as should Congress, that many gang members will falsely claim to renounce their association with criminal street gangs to obtain legal status and continue engaging in unlawful conduct in the United States. [. . .]
I checked the final version of the bill which passed, and the forgiveness remains “if the alien has renounced all association with the criminal street gang.”
Could al Qaeda be considered a criminal gang? What if the remaining cutthroats being held at Gitmo claimed to renounce affiliation with their jihad gang — could they claim asylum in America?
In the wake of an appeals court ruling allowing an illegal immigrant gang member to remain in the country because he renounced his membership, a couple of GOP lawmakers are calling on the Justice Department to appeal.
On Jan. 23 in the matter of Martinez v. Holder, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Julio Martinez, an illegal immigrant MS-13 member from El Salvador, could remain in the U.S. because he renounced his membership and that gang members in El Salvador would kill him if he returns.
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and Virginia Republican Rep. Randy Forbes pressed DOJ on next steps, given the grave precedent the ruling set. Continue reading this article
The founder of NumbersUSA appeared on Fusion TV recently to discuss immigration “reform” with open-borders propagandist Jorge Ramos. Jorge wanted to focus on the alleged suffering of illegal alien lawbreakers but Roy argued for consideration of jobless American workers who shouldn’t be further harmed by a mass amnesty and doubled legal immigration.
I may be mis-remembering, but I recall Ramos as speaking English somewhat better in the past. Perhaps a thick Spanish accent is a plus in his new gig. These days he is a major talking head on the new diversity network Fusion which is covering some controversial subjects to appeal to the hip edgy crowd. Rolling Stone characterized Fusion as “a new English-language network aimed at young Latinos and their multicultural peers.”
The attitude seems to be that California should provide this character with mental health treatment, even though Colombia is a civilized country where modern psychiatry is available. It’s arrogant and racist to think that Perez couldn’t get the care he needs at home.
A man accused of performing acrobatic stunts while naked and accosting passengers at the 16th Street BART station in San Francisco last spring was released on his own recognizance, authorities said Wednesday.
Yeiner Alberto Perez Garizabalo, 24, a Berkeley acrobat, was released on the condition that he continues to receive mental health treatment, said Tamara Aparton, a spokeswoman for the public defender’s office, which represents Perez.
Perez is awaiting trial for the May 10 incident, which was caught on video and went viral. The video allegedly depicts Perez doing flips and handstands while naked, and grabbing a BART employee’s genitals and menacing female passengers in between the acrobatics.
Perez’s attorneys said the incident stemmed from a mental breakdown. The district attorney’s office objected to Perez’s release, but was overruled.
Perez has a stay-away order barring him from the 16th Street station as well as the two complaining witnesses, Aparton said.
This is the second post-sentencing bombshell about the case, after the news July 1 that Ramos “killed before”, specifically that he had nailed a gang rival in the Mission but authorities didn’t bother to arrest or deport him.
An alleged gang leader who spent four years on the run after a San Francisco man and two of his sons were shot to death in their car on an Excelsior neighborhood street could soon be on his way back to the city after being arrested in North Carolina.
Wilfredo “Flaco” Reyes, 31, whom police suspect of aiding the man convicted in May of the 2008 killings, was grabbed by San Francisco police and local law enforcement officers as he tried to climb out a window during a raid Monday on a home in Salisbury, N.C., authorities said.
Police had gone to the home in central North Carolina on a tip from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. Extradition proceedings were scheduled to begin Tuesday to return Reyes to San Francisco, where he is wanted on a $5 million arrest warrant on three counts of murder.
Reyes, who is also known as Wilfredo Reyesruano, was a leader of a faction of the MS-13 gang who was with Edwin Ramos when Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were shot to death coming home from a family outing June 22, 2008, authorities believe.
Three life terms Ramos, 25, was sentenced in June to three consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole for the murders. Authorities say he and Reyes mistook one of the Bologna sons for a member of the rival Norteño gang and opened fire on their Honda Civic from a car at Congdon and Maynard streets. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.