Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

California’s ‘sanctuary state’ status closer to becoming reality

California’s ‘sanctuary state’ status closer to becoming reality

. . . . despite warnings of unintended consequences

California has moved one step closer to becoming a sanctuary state, one in which its law enforcement agencies are prevented from cooperating with increasingly busy federal immigration agents.

With minor changes to win over moderates, a polarizing California bill to keep California’s law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration agents cleared a key hurdle Monday and will head to the full Senate for a vote.

Senate Bill 54 is perhaps the Legislature’s highest-profile act of defiance against the Trump administration, which is seeking to enlist the help of local police to carry out its promised crackdown on illegal immigration. The proposal would prohibit local and state agencies from using state resources to communicate with federal agents, with a few exceptions — such as task forces involving federal and local agencies.

…The bill officially titled the California Values Act advanced Monday on a party-line vote, despite opposition from the California State Sheriffs’ Association and other groups, at a packed and testy Senate appropriations committee hearing. The sheriffs association remained opposed even after the recent amendments, such as one that would ensure the feds receive a 60-day notice before certain violent felons are released from state prison or local custody. Previously, the bill wouldn’t have allowed such explicit communication about an inmate’s release.

As one would suspect, illegal aliens are thrilled at the sanctuary they may soon receive.

Not everyone marching at the Capitol Wednesday was a U.S. Citizen, but all 1,500 of them are proud Californians.

“I went through tough times myself, me and my family, when we came to the States,” Mario Fuentes said.

Fuentes drove from Los Angeles to march and rally at the Capitol to share his story with state legislators. He is a former refugee from El Salvador. He fears President Donald Trump’s immigration and deportation policies will hurt families.

“I would say 99 percent of those families are good families. Hard working families. Just like my family,” Fuentes said.

The crowd of marchers urged lawmakers to support SB 54, commonly referred to as the “Sanctuary State Bill.”

I anticipate that the bill will receive a warm welcome in the state Senate, which is headed by Kevin De León. Legal Insurrection readers will recall that de León recently admitted that half his family is under deportation threat.

However, he has just received a letter from Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell, who voiced opposition to the bill and echoed sentiments from sheriffs in Southern California’s other counties. In part, McDonnell warns of the unintended consequences of this measure becoming law.

In his March 9 letter to de Leon, McDonnell said the bill would prevent the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department from responding to requests by federal immigration agents to be notified when its jails are housing inmates who might be subject to deportation.

LASD runs all of the county’s jails. McDonnell said the department’s current practice is to release inmates being investigated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, directly into the custody of their agents.

If that transfer process is severed, McDonnell said the result would be ICE agents fanning out into neighborhoods across the region in search of undocumented immigrants with orders for deportation.

“SB 54 would not allow the safe transfer of custody; rather it would force immigration enforcement agents into our communities in order to search out and find the person they seek,” McDonnell said. “While doing this, they will most surely cast a wide net over our communities, apprehending and detaining those not originally the target of the enforcement actions.”

I suspect not every Californian is going to be upset at the prospect of more deportations. In fact, many will be interested in how to make such deportations permanent.

President Trump has reached out to offer condolences by calling the fiancé of Sandra Dunn, who was killed in a car crash by an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times.

It is just the latest in a series of gestures by President Trump to call attention to crimes committed by immigrants, as he seeks to tighten immigration, build a border wall, and cut off refugees from countries he considers a threat.

Duran’s fiancé, Rodrigo Macias, appeared on “Fox & Friends” on Wednesday to talk about his loss as well as immigration policy, declaring that ‘Our system failed us.’

Yes, our state legislators and their misguided priorities are the biggest contributor to the failure.

As the rest of the country battles with the deep state, Californians must contend with the failed state.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

When dealing with California, it is hard to be certain what the actual intended consequences are. They think differently out there.

I’de give you both a thumbs up, but that feature seems to have been disabled.

So much fail in this, and so many unintended consequences. Imagine the number of illegal aliens who will migrate to California, hastening the collapse of the state. If lefties can learn from the disaster about to occur (I know, I know, big “if,” seeing they never learned from decades of economic failure in the USSR), maybe the rest of the nation can come to its senses and abandon this ridiculous stance.

Watch for:

increased welfare applications
increased unemployment
increased crime
lower tax revenue as people who can afford it will flee
higher unsolved crime as demoralized police leave the force

Oh, it’s going to be some ride.

I’d let CA know that lack of cooperation is a two-way street.

Pelosi Schmelosi | March 19, 2017 at 7:02 pm

I find it interesting that CA can tell the Feds to stick it but AZ cannot.
Anyway, one-third of all welfare recipients reside in CA. Let’s see what happens when their funding gets cut.

    Dejectedhead in reply to Pelosi Schmelosi. | March 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm

    If the SCOTUS rules that the Sanctuary State bill is permissible…I’ll know once and for all that we’re playing against the left with stacked decks.

      Milhouse in reply to Dejectedhead. | March 20, 2017 at 2:28 am

      If the SCOTUS rules that the Sanctuary State bill is permissible…I’ll know once and for all that we’re playing against the left with stacked decks.

      On the contrary, since there is no possible argument that this bill is not permissible, it won’t even get to the SCOTUS. Every lower court at every level will affirm what is firmly established law, that the state law is valid, and SCOTUS will deny cert.

      This is not even a slightly doubtful case. Two centuries of US jurisprudence says California can do this, and to rule otherwise would be dishonest and stacking the deck. But the sheriff’s letter correctly describes the likely result: more federal enforcement rather than less. and while they’re about it they might start enforcing federal drug laws as well, and there’d be nothing the state could do about it.

    I find it interesting that CA can tell the Feds to stick it but AZ cannot.

    What on earth are you talking about? AZ is absolutely free to refuse to enforce federal law and nobody has ever suggested that it can’t. What it can’t do is the exact opposite; it can’t perform a federal function when the feds have told it not to.

Liberty Bell | March 19, 2017 at 7:30 pm

Hey California. Take a gander at 10 U.S.C § 332

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

    Milhouse in reply to Liberty Bell. | March 20, 2017 at 2:31 am

    There’s nothing unlawful about a state refusing to be commandeered by the federal government. That is its absolute constitutional right, and any attempt by the president to do as you suggest would be criminal. If the US code says otherwise, then the US code is void and illegal.

Liberty Bell | March 19, 2017 at 7:34 pm

To my “comrades” in California – insurrections comes at a price. You may want to brush up on 10 U.S.C. § 333 –

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

Your District Court buddies won’t be able to help you once this act is invoked.

    Milhouse in reply to Liberty Bell. | March 20, 2017 at 2:35 am

    Yes, they will. They will correctly order all state and federal forces to refuse the president’s illegal order, and to arrest him for issuing it. Such a blatant attempt to suppress a state’s constitutional rights would also get him impeached.

      Liberty Bell in reply to Milhouse. | March 20, 2017 at 8:45 am

      Sorry its not a States Rights issue. Immigration is a plenary power of the Federal Government. The State of California cannot codify or encourage violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324. If a United States Immigration Officer lawfully inquires “Sheriff do you have any aliens in your jail?”, the answer must be responsive, truthful and non-evasive.

        Milhouse in reply to Liberty Bell. | March 21, 2017 at 3:37 pm

        Sorry, you are wrong. It is very much a state’s rights issue. The federal government has no power to commandeer a state’s resources. If the state tells the sheriff not to answer that question he must not answer it, and it makes not the slightest difference what the US code has to say about it.

If the bill passes, the first action from the Feds should be to deport the half de Leon’s family that is subject to deportation.

    Milhouse in reply to Dejectedhead. | March 20, 2017 at 2:36 am

    assuming that an investigation reveals that he’s telling the truth, and not just making things up for political cred, then yes, that would be a perfectly legitimate response.

The bottom line is that California can refuse to work for the feds, or to allow any of its subsidiaries to work for the feds, but it can’t stop the feds from doing their own work.

Look at the bright side–hundreds of millions saved that otherwise would have gone to CA law enforcement.

    Milhouse in reply to iconotastic. | March 21, 2017 at 4:13 pm

    It may not be as high as that. Congress can condition new funding on compliance with its wishes, and it can withhold existing funding to encourage a state to comply, but it can’t cut existing funding by so much that the state is effectively left with no choice but to comply. Reagan-era precedent says a 5% cut in relevant funding is small enough to pass muster, but I doubt the courts would allow anything over 10%, let alone cuts to funding that’s irrelevant to the issue at hand.

TrickleUpPolitics | March 20, 2017 at 7:38 am

This will cause a constitutional crisis because it strikes a blow at “we the people have formed a union”. Do we really want states to start passing laws about which federal laws they refuse to enforce? That way lies chaos and the end of these United States of America. The fact that it will be done to protect people who are not even citizens of the USA boggles my mind.

    What do you mean “start”? Where have you been for the last 230 years? We the people of the states formed a union of those states, in which we specifically reserved to those states the right to do exactly this. And they have jealously guarded that right ever since. If the feds were now to start forcing the states to enforce federal law, that would strike a blow at the foundation of this union, and make it illegitimate.

Let’s assume California passes the law making it a sanctuary state and let’s assume that this status is tied up in the courts for years as will likely be the case. This now raises a question.
>
If California is a sanctuary state and allows for the illegal voting of illegal immigrants to take place “legally”, then what does the country do with California’s electoral votes in a Presidential election?

    Milhouse in reply to Cleetus. | March 21, 2017 at 3:53 pm

    Every state has always had the right to decide who may vote. They are only restricted in deciding who may not vote; they can’t deny the vote to otherwise eligible citizens on the grounds of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, age above eighteen, or the non-payment of any tax. Beyond that they can restrict or extend it as they please, and it’s none of anyone else’s business, because their representation remains the same, and it’s their business how thick or thin they want to spread it. (More precisely, if they restrict the vote, other than for committing crimes, their representation goes down, but if they expand it their representation doesn’t go up.)

    But as of now there’s no proposal in California to let even legal aliens vote, let alone illegal ones, so what are you talking about?

The proposal would prohibit local and state agencies from using state resources to communicate with federal agents….

Were I a state or local LEO, here’s what I would do, and what I’d advise my coworkers to do:

After the agency arrests suspects who are in the country illegally, finish out your shift. After you clock out, on your way out the door, take five minutes and call up ICE on your personal cell phone. (Hell, I’d buy a few $20 pre-paid phones with my own funds, just for this purpose.)

This way, ICE gets notified, but no state or local resources are being used to do it — not even my paid work time, since I’m off the clock. As we’re holding the suspect(s) anyway for non-immigration-related charges, if ICE wants them, they just have to show up.

Just my $0.02.

    Milhouse in reply to Archer. | March 21, 2017 at 3:57 pm

    The state could probably prosecute you for abusing your position and the information you obtained through it, just as if you leaked information to reporters, or to a business that was taking commercial advantage of it.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend