Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

California Senate passes controversial “Sanctuary State” Bill

California Senate passes controversial “Sanctuary State” Bill

As the feud with Trump continues, the Golden State’s descent into madness is nearly complete.

http://time.com/4724121/california-sanctuary-state-bill-passes-senate-immigration/

One of my favorite TV shows airing this season is “Feud“, which depicts the legendary rivalry between Joan Crawford (Jessica Lange) and Bette Davis (Susan Sarandon) during their collaboration on the psychological thriller, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

Another legendary feud is currently taking place between President Donald Trump and California’s political leaders. The policy conflict has now substantially escalated after the state senate approved “Sanctuary State” legislation bill that bars local and state law enforcement from using their resources to help federal immigration authorities.

The 40-member body approved Senate Bill 54, introduced by Sen. President Pro Tem Kevin de León, on a 27-12, party-line vote. It now heads to the Assembly.

“We are trying to make our communities safer and be intelligent about this,” de León said. “No rhetoric and no bluster.”

Facing heavy opposition from law enforcement, the Senate leader accepted several amendments to the bill over the last month.

As a professional who applies regulations, this development is very perplexing. After all, states that have their own safety guidelines must have rules that are at least as stringent as federal rules. How is the state senate able to trump federal immigration laws…so to speak?

However, constitutionality never seems to be a serious consideration to those in Sacramento. Interestingly, our political leaders might be shocked to learn that the federal government, including those who will be doling out tax dollars, already consider California a “Sanctuary State” anyway!

The Department of Homeland Security added the entire states of California and Connecticut to its list of U.S. jurisdictions that hinder cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in detaining illegal immigrants.

Both states had enacted legislation called “Trust Acts,” allowing local law enforcement to ignore ICE’s requests to detain certain illegal immigrants in custody. However, the legislation maintains that an illegal immigrant would be detained if the individual had a criminal past.

So, when the inevitable grant-slashing occurs, perhaps our state can open up a GoFundMe page!

Austin is in Travis County, where its so-called sanctuary policy has already cost it $1.5 million in state funding that would have paid for drug courts, veterans’ courts, and aid to domestic violence victims.

…State Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, whose district includes part of Austin, told The Daily Beast the $1.5 million loss will have “a tremendous impact.”

“It’s going to have a pretty big effect on not just veterans, but family violence cases, you name it,” he said. “It’s a big deal.”

“You have our governor and the president playing political football with people’s lives,” he added.

So Rodriguez started a crowdfunding page, Travis County #StrongerTogether, to try to raise enough money to offset the lost $1.5 million. So far, according to the site, which went live in early February, has raised about $136,000—less than one tenth of the lost funding.

The GoFundMe approach will probably go over better than the looming gasoline tax that is already on the California legislature’s docket. Furthermore, the “Sanctuary State” bill may not as popular as the politicians believe, either.

“Don’t get caught up with ‘I hate Trump’ fever,” said Sen. Joel Anderson (R-Alpine). “SB54 is the wrong direction.” Sen. Anderson collected 41,000 petitions signed by “ordinary Californians,” opponents of SB 54, but de León would not allow either a photo of the thousands of petitions, or the 10 boxes of petitions inside the Senate Monday.

Since de León doesn’t want them to be seen, I decided to share a view of the documents here.

https://www.facebook.com/search/str/Joel+Anderson%2C+petition/keywords_top

Dawn Wildman, founder of the California Tea Party Groups, indicates that citizen activists are doing what they can to persuade our Assembly members to nix Senate Bill 54. “We working hard to make sure our Assembly members know exactly how unhappy many Californians are about this bill, and they are are concerned about the consequences that will impact them directly should it pass,” Wildman said.

However, should it pass and be signed by Governor Jerry Brown, the state’s descent into anti-Trump madness will be complete and the only thing left will be the dance on the beach.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“We are trying to make our communities safer and be intelligent about this,” de León said. “No rhetoric and no bluster.”….
Up Is down, black is white…….Californians murdered by illegal aliens are currently unavailable for comment.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to herm2416. | April 5, 2017 at 4:51 pm

    Screw De Leon and the burro he rode in on. He’s a menace and should be deported. Dang, I’d love to see that happen!

California has it’s George Wallace moment.

From the Statehouse in Sacramento they are proclaiming –
“Illegal Immigration Today. Illegal Immigration Tomorrow. Illegal Immigration Forever!”

    Milhouse in reply to MattMusson. | April 5, 2017 at 9:34 am

    Wallace was not refusing to enforce federal law; he was enforcing a purported state law that the fourteenth amendment forbids states to have. Thus it was not a law and he had no right to enforce it. In this case it’s the exact opposite; the constitution does not give Congress the power to commandeer state resources for federal law enforcement, and therefore the tenth amendment forbids it from doing so, and empowers the states to forbid their officers from using their time — a state resource — in such a manner.

      MattMusson in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2017 at 9:40 am

      Tomato. Tomahto. It’s all Nullification to me.

      I’ll propose the same solution I’ve proposed before, and what I would do if I were Sheriff or CLEO.

      Buy one or more pre-paid cell phones with personal funds (they’re not expensive), to be kept at the reception desk. When an illegal immigrant is being held on other, unrelated charges, an officer/deputy on break/lunch or after-hours may (but is not required to) take a few minutes’ personal time and use those phones to notify ICE that we have a suspected illegal immigrant in custody. ICE can then do with that information whatever they want.

      Since the state/county/city is not paying for these phones and the officers/deputies are not making the call “on the clock”, no department resources are being expended (only the officers’ “working” time is a state/county/city resource). A Sheriff/CLEO can’t require officers to make that call, but he/she can make the non-department resources available for those who choose to use them (and encourage the practice, unofficially).

      Now, the department still can’t honor ICE detention requests to hold the suspect for longer than their unrelated crime allows, but if ICE is quick enough they might be able to nab them while the locals still have them in custody.

      At the very least, a federal paper-trail of criminal complaints is created and the suspect is on ICE’s radar.

      Just my $0.02.

        Milhouse in reply to Archer. | April 5, 2017 at 4:12 pm

        Non-public information they learn in the course of their employment belongs to the (city or) state, and the (city or) state can make it illegal for them to disclose it to ICE.

          Arrest records are generally considered public information. Many departments (my county included) make them searchable on the Internet even by non-LEOs. Thus the protections against disclosure of “non-public information” shouldn’t apply.

      Milwaukee in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2017 at 8:33 pm

      Milhouse: you seem to be very enthusiastic about explaining why there is little the Federal Government can do to stop communities from being “sanctuary” cities. Why?

      When I first heard of the notion, it seemed reasonable. Say a woman has been assaulted, and she is of illegal immigration status. She is afraid to call the police as a victim, as she might be found out and deported. So she doesn’t call. That seems to need our sympathy. However, the reality of sanctuary cities seems to be that unscrupulous individuals game the system to take advantage.

    buckeyeminuteman in reply to MattMusson. | April 5, 2017 at 12:01 pm

    Now all Trump needs to do under his Title 10/Title 32 authority is enact the California National Guard to forcefully remove the Governor from obstructing the doorway/federal law and the George Wallace moment will be complete!

As a professional who applies regulations, this development is very perplexing. After all, states that have their own safety guidelines must have rules that are at least as stringent as federal rules. How is the state senate able to trump federal immigration laws…so to speak?

Million dollar question.

    Milhouse in reply to amwick. | April 5, 2017 at 9:26 am

    The answer is that they’re not trumping or in any way interfering with federal regulations. ICE is completely free to enforce federal law in California, and no city or state official will lift a finger to prevent it. What this bill will do, if it becomes law, is prohibit them from lifting a finger to help it either. The tenth amendment gives states the right to refuse to enforce federal law, and Congress has no right to commandeer any state resources, including even one second of any state or local officer’s time, to help it enforce its laws. If it wants them enforced it must provide its own officers with all the resources they need to do so, and if it needs information that only state officials have then tough luck.

    Prigg v Pennsylvania says that while federal law can’t compel state officials to cooperate in federal law enforcement, they are free to do so voluntarily “unless prohibited by state legislation“. This is precisely the sort of state legislation that the Supreme Court anticipated. To the best of my knowledge, no later decision has overruled this.

      Thanks for the background! Since CA’s insanity can directly impact the other 57 states in our union, I think the time to revisit this issue legally may have arrived.

        Close The Fed in reply to Leslie Eastman. | April 5, 2017 at 10:11 am

        Just cut out their fed money. That’ll solve it and totally constitutional.

        That’s how Jimmy Carter made every state adopt the damn “double nickels” in the 70s. If the state’s speed limit wasn’t 55 mph, they lost federal money.

          Milhouse in reply to Close The Fed. | April 5, 2017 at 4:18 pm

          You can’t cut all money to the; you can only cut grants that are related to law enforcement or immigration, and then only those that are new, and only if the cut is small enough that they still have a meaningful choice. If the cut is so big that it’s a metaphorical gun to the state’s head it’s unconstitutional coercion.

          iconotastic in reply to Close The Fed. | April 5, 2017 at 4:51 pm

          AG Sessions is already going down that path for ending DoJ grants to cities and states identified as sanctuaries. Given the desperation that these communities have for even the smallest amount of federal funding this should have some effect.

          But even greater effect would be to (1) find and detain illegal aliens wherever you find them, (2) use ways to ensure that state identification represents residency status (force that by disallowing a non-conforming license use for TSA purposes), and (3) require all employers to use e-verify or face potential criminal charges.

          I suspect that many illegal aliens will self-deport when faced with an unforgiving environment.

          Milhouse–i do think that the federal government can require government employers to use e-verify; that doesn’t seem like commandeering.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2017 at 11:31 am

      Actually, City of New York v. United States, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court, did at least partially overrule Prigg v. Pennsylvania.

      “…The City’s scope-of-state-sovereignty argument relies principally upon language in Printz, 117 S.Ct. at 2384, and New York, 505 U.S. at 168, 112 S.Ct. 2408, that suggests that states may not be denied a bona fide choice as to whether or not to participate in a federal regulatory program.   In the City’s view, such a choice includes the power to forbid even voluntary cooperation by state and local officials and workers in such a federal program.   We do not read these cases so broadly.

      …In the case of Sections 434 and 642, Congress has not compelled state and local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program.   Nor has it affirmatively conscripted states, localities, or their employees into the federal government’s service.   These Sections do not directly compel states or localities to require or prohibit anything.   Rather, they prohibit state and local governmental entities or officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. See Printz, 117 S.Ct. at 2376.

      … We therefore hold that states do not retain under the Tenth Amendment an untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by state or local officials with particular federal programs.   Given that the City’s challenge to Sections 434 and 642 is facial and that the Executive Order is on its face a mandatory non-cooperation directive relating solely to a particular federal program, we need not locate with precision the line between invalid federal measures that seek to impress state and local governments into the administration of federal programs and valid federal measures that prohibit states from compelling passive resistance to particular federal programs.   It suffices to say that, at least in the context of the City’s facial challenge, Sections 434 and 642 are of the latter variety…”

      The 10th Amendment is not an absolute license that allows states or municipalities to prohibit any and all voluntary cooperation with federal authorities.

      Good luck with insisting, Feinstein-like, that 1842 case is a “super-precedent.”

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | April 5, 2017 at 12:01 pm

        When was City of New York upheld by the Supreme Court? Denial of cert is not an upholding of the decision appealed. And without such an upholding Prigg stands.

          Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2017 at 9:09 pm

          So you’re saying that the SCOTUS let such a clearly unconstitutional decision stand?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 6, 2017 at 6:01 am

          It does so regularly. Something like 99% of cert applications are denied.

          Arminius | April 5, 2017 at 9:09 pm

          So you’re saying that the SCOTUS let such a clearly unconstitutional decision stand?

          See: all Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act cases. See Specifically Traitor John Roberts analysis. See additionally refusals of Constitutional challenge regarding spending bill (PPACA) being initiated in the US SENATE as opposed to the US HOUSE as Constitutionally required.

      alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2017 at 12:37 pm

      As you pointed out, States may choose to not help the Feds, but I suspect California is push the envelope and attempt to hinder law enforcement and set up a “George Wallace Moment”.

      Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2017 at 6:13 pm

      Kee-rect. It’s just another version of those cities/states that have passed laws prohibiting city/state resources to assist the ATF.

      We were trying to get the same law passed in Tennessee, but our chickenshit valiant legislators have punted it to January 1st, 2018.

Is Kevin DeLeon the guy who said half his family is illegal (and probably using fake SSN’s, hence deportable?)

“… de León would not allow either a photo of the thousands of petitions, or the 10 boxes of petitions inside the Senate Monday.”

He can keep a photo or posterboard out? What kind of nonsense is that?

If all of California is going to open itself to protecting illegal immigration then the Federal Gov should shut down the crossings between Mexico and California. They then would need to set up entry and exit points for the whole state. This seems like the only way to make sure that illegals aren’t leaking out of California to the rest of the US.

    Milhouse in reply to scaulen. | April 5, 2017 at 9:37 am

    The federal government could indeed close the border crossings in California; but it could not restrict movement between California and its neighboring states. Freedom of interstate movement is protected by the constitution.

      MarkJ in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2017 at 10:46 am

      I’d reckon 7ou’re overlooking the fact that Trump wouldn’t need to restrict movement between California and its neighbors. Based on California’s continuing and increasing defiance of federal law, Trump would be well within his rights to invoke the Insurrection Act.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act

        Milhouse in reply to MarkJ. | April 5, 2017 at 12:06 pm

        Nonsense. California is not in any way in insurrection, and any such attempt by Trump would make him instantly impeachable. California is not in any way preventing federal officials from enforcing federal law, it is simply declining to help them, which is its absolute right under the tenth amendment, which Congress has no authority to override.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | April 5, 2017 at 9:00 pm

      And then the states bordering Kali could set up checkpoints, as Kali has done, to ensure no contraband enters their states. If you’ve ever driven into Kali you know you’ll be stopped and asked about illicit fruits and vegetables which are a danger to Kali’s agriculture.

      Perhaps ICE could do the same as well.

      Of course, everyone is still free to travel. Just not with dangerous items like fruits and vegetables contrary to state law. Or whatever.

      I imagine the sight of those checkpoints might make certain people nervous about leaving the Sanctuary State (formerly known as the Golden State). Which would be fine with me.

    Close The Fed in reply to scaulen. | April 5, 2017 at 10:12 am

    Great idea.

    Close The Fed in reply to scaulen. | April 5, 2017 at 10:13 am

    To Scaulen, I mean:

    Great idea.

The irony of the signs is amusing. They demand “due process for all” and “sanctuary” at the same time.

IOW, they demand notice and a right to be heard in court on their law-breaking, and at the same time they demand immunity from the legal consequences of their lawbreaking after they have received their due process.

You can’t have it both ways, amigos.

I know of a Pastor who got in trouble because of that kind of “Drama” going on behind closed doors. In fact, he was so unlucky that he somehow managed to run into that kind of behind closed doors “drama” 8 times in 8 months, with 8 different women. But he swore none of it was his “fault”, it was the women who made him do it. (seriously, he did)

Yeah, he got let go because of his “bad luck”.

It is time for the Justice Department to use the Voting Rights Act to ensure that California has free and fare elections not tainted by the votes of ineligible illegal aliens. California should be given the same scrutiny that recalcitrant Southern States were given under the Voting Rights Act until just recently.

The Justice Department should treat California just like recalcitrant Southern States were treated in the 1960’s. The citizens of California deserve a Republican form of Government.

    dystopia in reply to clerk. | April 5, 2017 at 11:08 am

    Are the anti-white racists who have grabbed control of the reins of Government in California any better than segregationist bigots of half a century ago? White privilege my a**.

    The Justice Department should protect California’s hard working citizens from the multi-culturalist bigots who have subverted the rule of law by allowing illegal aliens easy access to voter registration.

    tom swift in reply to clerk. | April 5, 2017 at 1:03 pm

    Even better—1876, the Tilden-Hayes election. A complicated case, but to oversimplify, the electors from states which couldn’t guarantee a reasonably secure and legal election were ignored, leaving the Electoral College entirely in the hands of the other states. Not that that necessarily made things better, but at least voter fraud didn’t win outright.

So embarrassing to live in this liberal hell-hole of a state sometimes.

Rather than cut funding, which will hurt many good conservative citizens in this state, my wish is for Trump to just send in massive amounts of ICE agents and conduct intensive sweeps.

Make it be known that any city, county or state that refuses to cooperate with ICE agents will be subject to hoards of agents rounding up illegals everyday. Make it known that there will be ZERO tolerance on these round-ups. Students, dreamers, children… ALL will be deported!

Let’s see how long these “sanctuaries” stay intact with that kind of pressure.

Other states can rejoice as California becomes the dumpster state for violent criminal illegal aliens.

California State Legislature wants to be a sanctuary state. Wow! Not the whole state mind you, just the liberals. So, now we can see what Erik Holder has been up to and his handiwork in action.

Emigration reform is not forthcoming.

As the feud with Trump continues, the Golden State’s descent into madness is nearly complete.
————–
LOL, California is pretty ingenious when it comes to digging deeper and deeper long after you were sure they hit bottom.
I’ll bet they can go much farther into madness than you’d ever imagine Leslie. Dare them and they’ll prove it.

    Milwaukee in reply to 4fun. | April 5, 2017 at 8:29 pm

    My thoughts exactly. Clearly Leslie’s experience must be somewhat limited in regards to self-destructive behaviors and mental illness and evil. As Einstein is quoted as saying “The difference between genius and stupidity is that there are limits to what even genius can do.”

It is possible to cut certain funds to sanctuary cities and states. Certainly it makes sense to prioritize enforcement in these places and do it in a very visible way. A few selective prosecutions of people who aid illegals would also help.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend