Now we see the Democrat allegiance extend toward persons ordered by the court system to be deported, even though some are criminals and gangsters. Protecting public safety [...]]]>
Now we see the Democrat allegiance extend toward persons ordered by the court system to be deported, even though some are criminals and gangsters. Protecting public safety used to be a bipartisan value of public officials, but that has gone by the wayside in the left’s rush toward globalist lawlessness.
One example has been Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who as Speaker of the House has been leading the pack in fighting lawful deportations of foreigners who have exhausted all their options in the American legal system. Some have criminal convictions.
During Pelosi’s weekly press conference on July 11 (transcript), she encouraged aliens to refuse to open the door to federal officers who are there to enforce the law.
Families belong together. Every person in America has rights. These families are hardworking Members of our communities and our country. This brutal action will terrorize children and tear families apart.
At the events that I’ve been going to, recently in Queens and other places – but the Queens one was specifically geared to the Census, and then the raids emerged as part of that discussion – I read them this card: An ICE deportation warrant is not the same as a search warrant. If that is the only document ICE brings to a home raid, agents do not have the legal right to enter a home. If ICE agents don’t have a warrant signed by a judge, a person may refuse to open the door and let them in. An administrative order of removal from ICE or immigration authorities is simply not enough.
Families belong together. Everyone in our country has rights. Many of these families are mixed-status families. We hope the President – we pray that the President will think about this, I would say ‘again.’ Hopefully it’s ‘again.’
In the same presser, Pelosi called President Trump “heartless” for enforcing the law, even though The Hill recently headlined, Trump deporting immigrants at slower pace than Obama: report. The sainted Obama and hated Trump certainly get scored differently by Democrats and their assistants in the press.
All this immigration lawlessness comes with a human cost. Kate Steinle was shot dead in Speaker Pelosi’s district as the young woman strolled with her father on a popular San Francisco pier in 2015.
The illegal alien shooter Francisco Sanchez had been deported several times but said in a jailhouse interview that he returned repeatedly to San Francisco because it was a sanctuary city where he would not be pursued by immigration officials.
Three members of the Bologna family (shown below) were murdered by an illegal alien gangster in 2008, also due to San Francisco’s permissive immigration enforcement.
Yet even with all this blood on her hands, Speaker Pelosi is campaigning for more immigration lawlessness.
]]>Add San Diego County to the changing map below of towns resisting Sacramento’s open-borders lawlessness:
Governor Jerry Brown has become defensive about the uprising against his anti-sovereignty laws, appearing at the National Press [...]]]>
Add San Diego County to the changing map below of towns resisting Sacramento’s open-borders lawlessness:
Governor Jerry Brown has become defensive about the uprising against his anti-sovereignty laws, appearing at the National Press Club to defend his radical globalism.
.@GriffJenkins confronts CA Gov. Jerry Brown after he takes his sanctuary fight to our nation’s capital pic.twitter.com/d2LlmJoS8P
— FOX & friends (@foxandfriends) April 18, 2018
Fox reporter Griff Jenkins confronted the governor in the video above, making his point by using a preventable crime story as an example. It probably would have been better to use the Kate Steinle death at the hands of an illegal alien in San Francisco as a cautionary tale since it is better known. The admitted killer, the five-times-deported Francisco Sanchez, said in a jailhouse interview that he returned repeatedly to the city because he knew San Francisco was a sanctuary from immigration enforcement.
Here are more details of the San Diego vote:
]]>San Diego County supervisors vote 3-1 to support the Trump lawsuit against California sanctuary laws, San Diego Union-Tribune, April 17, 2018
The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California over laws that the state passed last year to limit its role in immigration enforcement.
The county will file an amicus brief at the first available opportunity, likely if and when the case moves to a higher court on appeal, said Kristin Gaspar, supervisor for the county district stretching from Miramar to Encinitas and Escondido and chairwoman of the board.
The San Diego County supervisors who voted to support the lawsuit said for them, it was about public safety.
“We’re talking about people who are crossing the border illegally, coming into this county and committing a crime and them being let loose probably to commit another crime,” said Dianne Jacob, supervisor for the district that covers East County. “That creates a public safety issue and creates a problem in our neighborhoods.”
She worried about terrorists crossing the border illegally, she said.
“This is a different day than it was 20, 30, 40 years ago,” Jacob said. “That’s why it was important for us to stand up, as controversial as it was.”
Gaspar said San Diego was safer before SB 54 went into effect.
“The status quo was safer in San Diego,” she said, adding that now immigration officers make more arrests out in the community because they can’t make those arrests at jails. “The best place for ICE to be is in the jail and not out in the community.”
During the announcement, Gaspar showed printouts of emails she received from each side of the debate. The stack of emails criticizing her for considering supporting the lawsuit was not much thicker than a legal pad. The stack of emails asking her to support the Trump administration’s legal challenge to California was well over a foot thick.
Gaspar, Jacob and Supervisor Bill Horn, who represents the northernmost part of the county, voted to support the lawsuit. Supervisor Greg Cox, whose district covers the South Bay, voted against it. Supervisor Ron Roberts, who represents central San Diego, was traveling abroad and did not attend the meeting.
Cox said immigration issues need to be solved in Washington.
“The board’s vote is a largely symbolic move that will create fear and divisiveness in our region, waste taxpayer funds and create distrust of law enforcement and local government within many communities,” Cox said.
The Department of Justice filed the lawsuit against California at the beginning of March over three laws.
SB 54, the law that received the most publicity when it passed, allows officers to turn unauthorized immigrants over to federal immigration enforcement agencies only if they have committed crimes listed in the legislation. It says local police cannot participate in task forces that are focused on immigration enforcement.
It also requires the California attorney general to set policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, libraries and hospitals.
Assembly Bill 103 prohibits local governments across California from adding new contracts with the federal government for civil immigration detention or expanding old ones. It also requires the California Attorney General’s Office to monitor conditions in existing immigration detention facilities in the state.
AB 450 prohibits employers from voluntarily allowing immigration officials into non-public areas of the workplace unless the officers have judicial warrants. It also requires employers to notify employees about upcoming immigration inspections.
(Continues)
Perhaps Attorney General Jeff Sessions aims to resurrect his [...]]]>
Perhaps Attorney General Jeff Sessions aims to resurrect his failing reputation after a year of somnambulant activity from the DoJ. There’s nothing like more deportations to cheer up the base.
In the video below, attorney Harmeet Dhillon briefly underlined the crux of the action, that the federal government rules in immigration matters: “The law points out that the Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution requires that the federal government has the exclusive authority over immigration laws in our country.”
It’s long past time California got a smackdown for endangering Americans citizens with its open-borders extremism.
Below, Kate Steinle was killed in San Francisco by a five-times-deported illegal alien Mexican who returned to the city because of its sanctuary policy.
Here are more details about the lawsuit:
]]>Justice Department suing California over sanctuary laws, Washington Times, March 6, 2018
Attorney General Jeff Sessions opened a new front in the legal war over California’s sanctuary city policies Tuesday, asking a federal court to halt three state laws that prohibit police and businesses from cooperating with federal agents.
The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Sacramento, says those laws not only trample on the federal government’s powers to set national immigration policy, but endanger communities by freeing criminals back onto the streets.
“The Department of Justice and Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Mr. Sessions will say in a speech Wednesday to the California Peace Officers Association, where he’s expected to announce the lawsuit.
The move comes just days after California Attorney General Xavier Becerra accused the Trump administration of “terrorizing” immigrant communities with an enforcement sweep that netted more than 200 deportable migrants in the state’s bay area.
Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf sparked controversy after she tipped immigrants off to the sweep. Federal officials said she may have helped as many as 800 criminal migrants escape deportation officers.
The White House confirmed last week that Ms. Schaaf is under investigation for her actions.
Sanctuary cities have been a major focus of President Trump, who in 2015, just after announcing his presidential bid, seized on the killing of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who had been released from jail under San Francisco’s sanctuary policy.
(Continues)
But those with any memory (or honesty) recalls the triple murder of the Bologna family in 2008 by an illegal alien thug who was not deported despite having a criminal record in San Francisco. The shooter, Salvadoran Edwin Ramos was clearly a dangerous character, a known gang member who had earlier been arrested for assaulting a passenger on a bus and attempting a robbery of a pregnant woman, yet he was not deported because San Francisco shielded him.
All of these violent deaths were preventable crimes had San Francisco co-operated with the feds on immigration enforcement, but the liberals running the city think they know better.
Below, Tony Bologna and his two sons were shot to death by an MS-13 gangster a short distance from their home in San Francisco as they returned from a family picnic.
The San Francisco Chronicle poked some memories on Sunday, when a front-page story reminded readers of the Bologna deaths. The writer, Vivian Ho, is a court reporter with experience with murder cases. She appeared numerous times on LA’s John and Ken Show to discuss the case with the radio hosts who have a strong interest in immigration enforcement.
]]>Kate Steinle case: After crimes by immigrants, families see pain politicized, By Vivian Ho, San Francisco Chronicle, December 9, 2017
Before the Steinles, there were the Bolognas. On a cool summer day in 2008, the San Francisco family was torn apart by a senseless act that thrust the city and its immigration policies into the national spotlight.
A little more than seven years before Kate Steinle was fatally shot on Pier 14, Danielle Bologna lost her husband and two of her sons in a mistaken-identity gang hit by an MS-13 member who had been shielded from deportation twice by city juvenile justice officials relying on San Francisco’s sanctuary laws.
The cases ended differently, with the MS-13 killer sent to prison for life and the homeless undocumented immigrant accused of shooting Steinle acquitted Nov. 30 of murder and manslaughter charges after saying he had fired accidentally.
But both families had to deal with an aftermath in which the tragedies stopped being solely their own, in which their pain became a talking point in the tempestuous debate over U.S. immigration, in which they had a loud voice but in a conversation they couldn’t control.
“I felt like my family was just nothing,” Bologna, 57, told The Chronicle in a recent interview. “No one even really cared, though they liked to blame each other for this or that. And I was just left trying to make the best for my two surviving children.”
(Continues)
Below, the accused Mexican illegal (left), earlier known by the alias Francisco Sanchez, admitted in a jailhouse confession that he shot Kate Steinle as she strolled on a popular San Francisco pier with her [...]]]>
Below, the accused Mexican illegal (left), earlier known by the alias Francisco Sanchez, admitted in a jailhouse confession that he shot Kate Steinle as she strolled on a popular San Francisco pier with her father.
The shooter is now addressed by the name Jose Ines Garcia Zarate and had been deported five times as a convicted felon. Authorities released him from a San Francisco jail several weeks before the shooting rather than contact ICE so he could be deported. The city’s sanctuary policy dictated no cooperation with the feds on immigration enforcement which allowed the Mexican to remain in the city and kill.
Even with the history of carnage, which includes the murders of three members of the Bologna family by an illegal alien gangster, San Francisco remain stuck on its dangerous sanctuary policy which puts diversity fawning ahead of public safety.
]]>As San Francisco trial opens in killing of Kate Steinle, prosecutor says, ‘He meant to shoot’, SFgate.com, October 23, 2017
The San Francisco murder case that ignited a national debate over immigration policy went to trial Monday with attorneys sparring not over politics but the case’s central legal question — whether the killer of Kate Steinle on Pier 14 intended to fire in her direction or accidentally shot a gun he said he found under a bench.
A city prosecutor said in her opening statement that Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, 45, brought the stolen pistol to the waterfront location, pointed it toward Steinle and pulled the trigger on July 1, 2015.
The public defender representing the Mexican citizen said he found the gun in a T-shirt on the pier moments before the shooting, and that after he unwrapped the bundle the gun discharged a bullet that ricocheted off the concrete and struck Steinle in the back.
By the afternoon, the trial’s first witness introduced the Steinle family’s heartbreak into the courtroom. The victim’s father spoke of the confusion he felt as his daughter spoke her final words: “Help me, Dad.”
The trial in front of Superior Court Judge Samuel Feng opened to broad interest fueled by the political firestorm that followed it. Garcia Zarate, who was homeless and had a record of drug crimes, was wanted for deportation by federal agents when his San Francisco jailers set him free 2½ months before the shooting under the city’s sanctuary laws.
But the job of the jury sitting at the Hall of Justice is to put aside those politics. It is Garcia Zarate’s intentions on the day he killed Steinle that could mean the difference between a conviction for second-degree murder or manslaughter, or an acquittal. [. . .]
Before the shooting, Garcia Zarate had been on track for a sixth deportation after serving 46 months in prison for felony re-entry into the country. But his course changed when he was transferred from federal custody to San Francisco jail in March 2015 on an old warrant alleging he fled marijuana charges in 1995.
When city prosecutors discharged the case, the Sheriff’s Department released Garcia Zarate despite a federal request to hold him for deportation. Then-Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi cited the city’s sanctuary policies, which limit local cooperation with immigration enforcement and seek to encourage undocumented people to feel comfortable having a relationship with city agencies.
(Continues)
The Sacramento Bee headlined its Saturday front page with the lawsuit story:
A state that has had terrible crimes committed by illegal aliens should be embarrassed by having its disregard of law enforcement further highlighted. Kate Steinle was shot dead while strolling with her father on a popular San Francisco pier by a five-times-deported Mexican who said he returned to the city because of its sanctuary policy.
In 2008, three members of the Bologna family were murdered in a mistaken gang hit by stupid illegal alien Edwin Ramos who had been coddled by San Francisco authorities despite his violent record as an MS-13 gangster.
Further south in sanctuary Los Angeles, high-school football star Jamiel Shaw was shot dead just a few doors from home by illegal alien Pedro Espinoza who was so violent in jail — like attacking a police officer who was interrogating him — that the 18th Street gangster should have been incarcerated as long as possible. But he was released onto city streets instead of being deported and killed Jamiel 28 hours later on March 2, 2008.
Isn’t it basic to imprison and/or deport dangerous illegal aliens to protect the innocent? It seems like common sense, but liberal officials believe otherwise. The list of dead Americans will not make them budge.
]]>State set to sue over ‘sanctuary city’ cuts, Sacramento Bee, August 5, 2017
Stockton, San Bernardino among those losing feds’ anti-crime funds
California is poised to sue the Trump administration over the president’s latest attempt to punish jurisdictions tagged by the Justice Department as “sanctuary cities” that harbor undocumented immigrants, according to two sources close to the case.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra — in conjunction with other California city and county attorneys — is considering charging the Justice Department with violating the Constitution by threatening to take crime-fighting funds away from cities and states that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration agents, according to those sources.
“The cities and states affected by these provisions have strong arguments to make in court that these conditions are illegal,” said a former Justice Department official familiar with California officials’ thinking. “If Congress wanted these requirements to be part of the grant funding decision, they would have written it into the law.”
California’s concern stems from an announcement last month by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who warned that jurisdictions that do not assist federal immigration agents seeking to deport undocumented immigrants would no longer get funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant.
California was allocated nearly $18 million under that program in Fiscal 2017. To get future grants, municipalities will have to allow federal immigration agents access to detention facilities, and provide 48-hours notice before they release inmates who are wanted by federal authorities on suspicion of being in the country illegally.