Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Texas Gov. Abbott Signs Bill to Ban Sanctuary Cities on Facebook Live

Texas Gov. Abbott Signs Bill to Ban Sanctuary Cities on Facebook Live

Critics: Oh no he didn’t!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QFAz5AMHJI

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill to effectively ban sanctuary cities in the state. Thing is, Abbott signed the bill on Facebook Live without giving any notice, which has left his critics with spinning heads. From Fox News:

Abbott took the unusual step of signing the bill on Facebook with no advanced public notice. He said Texas residents expect lawmakers to “keep us safe” and said similar laws have already been tested in federal court, where opponents have already been hinting the bill will be immediately challenged.

“Let’s face it, the reason why so many people come to America is because we are a nation of laws and Texas is doing its part to keep it that way,” Abbott said.

The law faces opposition from law enforcement in Texas, including all major police chiefs in the state. They do not like that police can “inquire about the immigration status of anyone they detain, a situation that can range from arrest for a crime to being stopped for a traffic violation.”

Abbott’s law “also requires police chiefs and sheriffs — under the threat of jail and removal of office — to comply with federal requests to hold criminal suspects for possible deportation.” Elected officials can “face up to a year in jail and lose their posts if convicted of official misconduct.”

Abbott released this statement on Sunday:

“As Governor, my top priority is public safety, and this bill furthers that objective by keeping dangerous criminals off our streets,” said Governor Abbott. “It’s inexcusable to release individuals from jail that have been charged with heinous crimes like sexual assault against minors, domestic violence and robbery. There are deadly consequences to not enforcing the law, and Texas has now become a state where those practices are not tolerated. With this bill we are doing away with those that seek to promote lawlessness in Texas.”

As part of the legislation, entities and officials that do not comply with the law could face the following penalties:

A civil penalty for entities in violation of the law of up to $25,500 for each day of the violation.

A class A misdemeanor for a sheriff, chief of police, or constable who fails to comply with federal immigration detainer requests

Removal from office for any elected or appointed official who does not comply with the law.

It will go into effect on September 1.

Critics Cry

Remember, Abbott did this on Facebook Live without giving anyone prior notice. His critics cried foul since his approach avoided “demonstrations opponents planned for later in the week when they thought he was going to put his signature on the legislation.” The Washington Post continued:

“I’m not sure all of that is positive,” someone wrote in response. “Coward,” wrote another. “Afraid of all the police chiefs who spoke out against the bill?” said a third.

“Quite frankly I think it was a cowardly way to do it,” State Rep. César Blanco, a Democrat representing El Paso, said in an interview with The Washington Post. “I think he wanted to get it done quickly with less friction.”

It was unusual for the governor to skip the typical fanfare and ceremony surrounding the signing of a bill, and to sign it in a way that did not include the speaker of the house or the lieutenant governor.

“This is red meat for his base,” Blanco said. “This for his primary voters, not for mainstream Texas.”

Texas state Rep. Victoria Neave (D) stated that many thought Abbott would sign the bill on Monday and make the signing “more public especially since this was one of his top priorities.”

People did swarm to the governor’s mansion on Sunday night to protest the bill:

Immigrant rights activists shouted “here to stay” and held up a banner with a words, “Abbott is a racist.”

“Today, on a Sunday, on the Lord’s day, he decides to sign this bill,” one protester shouted into a megaphone. “This bill that will terrorize communities.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 8, 2017 at 11:49 am

Today is a Great Day in Texas!

Committing a felony is now doubly illegal in Texas. They need to start holding these politicians and officials PERSONALLY responsible and PERSONALLY liable to fines and jail time. If that’s what it takes, do it!

    rdmdawg in reply to Pasadena Phil. | May 8, 2017 at 12:11 pm

    That’s right! Hold politicians personally accountable to the actions of illegals that they allow to remain. Charge them with Criminal Accessory to every crime these illegals commit.

    Milhouse in reply to Pasadena Phil. | May 8, 2017 at 5:10 pm

    It’s not even singly illegal, and won’t be until September.

Pretty funny – a bunch of Democrat activists are all upset because Abbot didn’t give them a heads up advance warning of when and how he would do this, and as a result they couldn’t’ get all their stunt protests organized and coordinated.

It’s a good day to be a Texan! But isn’t every day?

“The law faces opposition from law enforcement in Texas, including all major police chiefs in the state. They do not like that police can “inquire about the immigration status of anyone they detain, a situation that can range from arrest for a crime to being stopped for a traffic violation.””

The few times that I have been stopped for a traffic violation, the first words were “may I see your license, registration and insurance card.” And, I got tickets for not switching my license & tags to the new state within the required time.

So, not charging someone for driving drunk without license, proper registration and insurance because they are illegally in this country but charging me if I drive drunk is discrimination against citizens.

    Tom Servo in reply to Liz. | May 8, 2017 at 1:10 pm

    What a surprise – some police chiefs (specifically those from Austin and San Antonio) were unhappy about a bill which allowed ordinary citizens to hold them accountable for their actions.

      Rick the Curmudgeon in reply to Tom Servo. | May 8, 2017 at 10:46 pm

      Is this the same group of Chiefs of Police that show up to piss and moan and predict Armageddon every time there is any legislation proposed which relaxes Second Amendment infringement?

    Petrushka in reply to Liz. | May 8, 2017 at 3:08 pm

    Yes, I recall some forty years ago getting a speeding ticket just outside Chicago. Because I was and “alien” (had and out of state drivers license) I had to follow the cop to the nearest courthouse and pay the fine in cash.

    So what’s changed?

When you think about it, it’s pretty sad that we need a new law ordering law enforcement to enforce the existing ones.

    n.n in reply to snopercod. | May 8, 2017 at 12:45 pm

    The civil rights of the People and our Posterity progressed under the Pro-Choice establishment and civil rights corporatism. People and interests have diverse qualifications, even diametrically conflicting, of that monotonic change. The law, of course, as well as individual rights, suffers from progressive corruption under a pro-choice or selective interpretation.

    Milhouse in reply to snopercod. | May 8, 2017 at 5:09 pm

    It’s sad that you think one of the most fundamental principles of our republic is sad. It is fundamental to our constitutional liberty that states and their subsidiaries have no duty to enforce federal law. In the absence of any state law on the matter, it’s up to each official or subsidiary whether to voluntarily do so (with federal permission). Therefore if a state’s legislature wants that state and its subsidiaries to do so it must make a law telling them to. Conversely, if it wants them not to, it must make a law saying that. The TX legislature has taken option A, CA is pursuing option B; the constitution sees both exactly the same way.

The [class] diversitists, anti-nativists, minority leaders, and abortionists have one less place to hide the collateral damage from their social justice adventurism. Now onto emigration reform, including CAIR forced by Obama et al adventures through Africa, Asia, and Europe.

    Great idea! I’m 100% in support of unlimited emigration!

      Actually, I was referring to original emigration, specifically the causes and motives for mass emigration. The immediate causes are there, not here, and there is not an unmanageable global power, and in the present refugee crises, was forced by the people who now ostensibly offer aid.

        I was thinking more along the lines of encouraging anyone who wants to leave the country to just leave. Just sign here to revoke your US citizenship and get on the boat.

          Their departure would suggest an enmity with America, and implies a failure to assimilate and integrate with the natives (i.e. the People and our Posterity). That would be fine. Immigration should not exceed the rate (before abortion) of assimilation and integration. It should also not act as a cover-up of anthropogenic forcings (e.g. elective regime changes, extrajudicial trials, progressive corruption) and prevent emigration reform.

JackRussellTerrierist | May 8, 2017 at 1:00 pm

Calling Abbott a coward is laughable. The opposite is the case. This bill took some courage from legislators and the governor. What he did was poke a finger in the eye of the SJW morons.

This should have covered judges, too. That’s a disappointment.

I can hardly wait until the new law strikes Travis County. 🙂

I love my Governor!

It will go into effect on September 1.

More delay. Must be too much Democratic miasma in the air.

It this will be a good law in four months, it would be an even better law now.

    Liz in reply to tom swift. | May 8, 2017 at 11:19 pm

    The delay probably relates to a state constitution or law about when a new law goes into effect. It gives the agencies time to get their act together, we hope.

    In Oklahoma – “Emergency Clause – a provision, requiring two-thirds approval by both houses, that allows a measure to become effective immediately upon the signature of the Governor or at a specified date. A law cannot become effective fewer than 90 days after sine die adjournment without an emergency clause.”

    Here is a link that summarizes the effective dates by state –

    http://statescape.com/resources/legislative/bill-effective-dates.aspx

“The law faces opposition from law enforcement in Texas, including all major police chiefs in the state. They do not like that police can ‘inquire about the immigration status of anyone they detain, a situation that can range from arrest for a crime to being stopped for a traffic violation.'”

The police chiefs may oppose the bill, but that isn’t the same as saying the law faces opposition from law enforcement. Most rank-and-file cops see the chief as an administrator and something of a politician. Not a cop.

It is very common for union reps for the cops, such as a representative from the Police Benevolent Association, when given the opportunity to testify on a legislative matter to object to the idea that the police chiefs speak for their members. They’ll quite often have a wildly different, sometimes the exact opposite, position on a matter.

That’s why, for instance, the National Border Patrol Council is the union for non-supervisory Border Patrol agents and support personnel. There’s a separate outfit for supervisors, the Border Patrol Supervisor’s Association, which isn’t exactly a union but provides its members with many of the same benefits such as legal defense.

There are two groups because their interests aren’t at all the same. It was common during the Obama years to see the president of the NBPC on TV being extremely critical of the administration and their “leaders” at DHS and CBP and their policies that prevented them from doing their jobs. Securing the border.

I know the official position of the NBPC is that they support Trump’s wall. And they they derisively admit that Obama-era leftovers at DHS and CBP will do everything they can to stop it from going up.

You can’t at all assume that the police chiefs were speaking for the officers in their departments. The most you can say is they were speaking only for themselves and the mayors, city managers, and city councils that hired them. And keeping their jobs depend on keeping those people happy.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend