ICE Warns California of More Raids After Sanctuary State Law Signed
“ICE will have no choice but to conduct at-large arrests”
California Governor Jerry Brown just signed a new law officially making California a sanctuary state.
ICE has a message for the Governor: So I guess that means we’ll have to step up enforcement raids in your state.
The Mercury News reports:
ICE warns of stepped-up raids after California passes ‘sanctuary state’ law
The day after Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill aimed at preventing local police from helping the Trump administration crack down on illegal immigration, the feds struck back with a threat to raid more workplaces and neighborhoods in California.
Echoing arguments that opponents have made since it was introduced late last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Tom Homan released a statement Friday saying that Senate Bill 54, the “sanctuary state” legislation, would “undermine public safety” and force his agency to have a greater presence in places where immigrants live and work.
“ICE will have no choice but to conduct at-large arrests in local neighborhoods and at worksites,” Homan said, “which will inevitably result in additional collateral arrests.” This will happen, he claimed, because the new California law will block ICE agents from gaining access to criminal immigrants at jails and prisons.
“Collateral arrests” are a controversial practice in which ICE, while attempting to apprehend an undocumented immigrant with a criminal record, sweeps up other undocumented residents such as family or co-workers at the same location.
Here’s a short video from FOX News about the law:
ICE has released a statement on this:
Statement from ICE Acting Director Tom Homan on California Sanctuary Law
Governor Jerry Brown’s decision to sign SB54 and make California a sanctuary state for illegal aliens – including those who have committed crimes – will undermine public safety and hinder ICE from performing its federally mandated mission. The governor is simply wrong when he claims otherwise.
SB54 will negatively impact ICE operations in California by nearly eliminating all cooperation and communication with our law enforcement partners in the state, voiding the delegated authority that the Orange County Sheriff’s Office has under the 287g program, and prohibiting local law enforcement from contracting with the federal government to house detainees.
ICE will have no choice but to conduct at-large arrests in local neighborhoods and at worksites, which will inevitably result in additional collateral arrests, instead of focusing on arrests at jails and prisons where transfers are safer for ICE officers and the community. ICE will also likely have to detain individuals arrested in California in detention facilities outside of the state, far from any family they may have in California.
Ultimately, SB54 helps shield removable aliens from immigration enforcement and creates another magnet for more illegal immigration, all at the expense of the safety and security of the very people it purports to protect.
Does California’s decision mean that other states are allowed to ignore other federal laws? That would have been helpful to know when Obamacare was signed into law.
Featured image via YouTube.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Remember. This isn’t about turning the police into immigration enforcers.
This is about preventing police from turning over CRIMINALS that have ALREADY COMMITTED OTHER CRIMES to ICE.
Moonbeam and the disgusting liberals are ordering police to release CRIMINALS from jail rather than turn them over to ICE, knowing damn well that the odd of an illegal alien actually turning up for trial are nonexistent.
ICE needs to take Jerry Brown into custody……….
Maybe they should take you into custody. They have just as much right to arrest you as him.
It is precisely about just that.
Criminals who have served their time are entitled to be released. So are alleged criminals who’ve been granted bail.
Alleged criminals. And turning them over to ICE guarantees they won’t turn up for trial, because they’ll be out of the jurisdiction.
CA is simply seceding in steps. The parable of the boiled frog comes to mind but in this case, the frog is committing suicide.
This also consistent with the left’s selective enforcement of the laws which does require the breakdown of the rule of law. The “thinking” is that they now have a law that requires the non-enforcement of laws. The logic is something to behold. Are the consequences unintended or are the desired?
A state standing on its constitutional rights is hardly a step toward secession.
This is hilarious. ICE will be arresting DREAMERS that T-rump wants to grant amnesty because Moonbeam won’t help with the detention of criminal illegals.
It is depressing to see the level of obsession that you have for Trump. Nowhere in this piece are Dreamers mentioned. Nowhere in this piece is Trump mentioned. Yet, just like CNN and the rest of the anti-Trump individuals in this country, YOU somehow how to use this to take a negative dig at the President. So sad. It is also annoying.
How sad. No refutation of the facts behind the comment, just another cultist attack on anyone who mentions #realism.
Sorry, I had to catch my breath after laughing at THAT statement. Your becoming more like CNN everyday.
Fact. Nowhere in the article, or anywhere else, has anyone mentioned ICE arresting Dreamers. This “fact” was wholly made up by you. As to whether or not Trump wants to grant amnesty to the Dreamers, yjid only becomes relevant IF he actually grants it. Now, Trump is duty bound to enforce the laws passed by Congress, his personal feelings aside. And, so far, unlike his predecessor, he has been enforcing those laws, including reversing the totally unconstitutional dreamer EO.
So, until President Trump, unilaterally, grants amnesty to Dreamers, then you have NO argument. All you have is hate.
Your post is just another Never-Trumper cultist attack on the voice of reality.
“And, so far, unlike his predecessor, he has been enforcing those laws, including reversing the totally unconstitutional dreamer EO.”
No. The EO stands, and has now for about nine months.
Additionally, he’s stated, unequivocally, that it WILL stand for AT LEAST another SIX months.
You want an acid-test of his intentions…?
Post a link to the T-rumpian disclaimer of that.
Or when the guy was fired.
You’re the delusional one. I deal in #realism. You deal in blind faith.
Sorry, Rags, but this is not accurate. The Obama Dreamer EO WAS revoked. Trump announced that as a sign of compassion the would honor the existing work permits, to allow Congress to change the law, if it wished, but would only consider those which were set to expire before March 2018 and for which renewal requests were received prior to October 05, 2017. This a compromise which benefits both the nation which allowed this program to exist and the people directly affected by the program. If the people, through their elected representatives, decide to change the legal status of the DACA, they can do that. If they choose not to, then the DACA people will be deported when their permits expire, or if they commit any crimes.
I suggest that you read the link that you posted, carefully. Dougherty agreed that the Dreamer population would be a benefit to the nation, if they were citizens. There is NO evidence which contradicts this. He said that Dreamers should be barred PERMANENTLY from acquiring citizenship, IF THEY ARE GRANTED LEGAL STATUS. As we all know, only Congress can grant them said LEGAL status. He further stated that Trump agrees that citizenship should be on the table. The meaning of this point is a little vague. But, we can allow the possibility that it means Trump is sympathetic to the Dreamers position. To grant amnesty would require an act of Congress.
What none of this means is that Trump will take any extra-legal or illegal action to allow Dreamers to stay here, indefinitely, nor that he will provide them with any official amnesty from deportation. So, the Presidents PERSONAL feelings are moot here, unless he acts illegally or unconstitutionally to implement them.
“He said that Dreamers should be barred PERMANENTLY from acquiring citizenship, IF THEY ARE GRANTED LEGAL STATUS. As we all know, only Congress can grant them said LEGAL status.”
You’re a liar. Anyone can listen to the actuality. You’ll do anything to try to whitewash you Great Goad Cheeto.
“This way lieth madness”.
The article says ICE will arrest illegal aliens it hadn’t intended to go after, because they’d been keeping their noses clean, if it comes across them while pursuing the criminal ones. Why would that not include DREAMers, to whom Trump would like to give amnesty?
Why would it?
Because they precisely fit the description of whom ICE says it will now arrest as by-catch.
This is pure racist paternalism by Brown. I thought he new better, but sadly he has reverted to his Father’s style Democrat.
This “law” simply proves that to some elected officials, and their supporters we are no longer a nation of laws.
We are a nation where many of the people who are supposed to protect the citizens that elected them have chosen to protect illegal aliens that might harm the citizens. And will flout laws as they see fit.
On the contrary, it upholds the law that states are free not to help enforce federal laws. You are the one flouting that fundamental principle.
Oregon has been a immigration accessory state for a long time, especially around the Portland area. So, ICE had to start hanging out around the courthouse to pick up some of these people. Needless to say all the libs got quite upset. The presiding judge wrote a letter to the feds asking them not to hang around the court house. The libs as usual do not understand that actions have consequences.
One pro tem judge conspired with an illegal to avoid waiting ICE agents by letting the illegal use an exit that is for court personnel only.
One time ICE briefly detained on the street the wrong person, mistaken identity. Of course, this was front page news. Nobody considered that if ICE had been allowed to retrieve the correct person at the jail there never would have been a case of mistaken identity.
Portland Oregon is also homeless mecca. It has gone so far with tent cities that they now allow homeless to camp along the sides of the interstate highways. No doubt some of them are illegals.
That shows you how much Leftist-Progressives & Democrats HATE humanity.
I very much doubt any of them are illegal immigrants. Crazy people have neither the mental nor the material resources it takes to successfully make it over the border, or even to try.
One of the things that keeps the Democrats in control of California is the huge immigrant population of the major cities. And a significant number of those immigrants are here illegally. With California’s motor-voter system and extremely lax ID vetting for state ID cards and DLs [its state issued ID can not be used for air travel] it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a significant number of illegal immigrants vote and vote Democrat. Perhaps this is not so insane, from a California Democrat political self defense point of view.
That is absolutely correct, and Moonbeam wants to expand their participation, give them free UC education, etc.
CA is lost.
Pretty much. I wonder how long before my California liberal daughter-in-lawyer starts complaining about an illegal taking her job:
Lawbreaking only succeeds while people are willing to tolerate it. Step up the raids, and if the governor tries to intervene arrest him on obstruction of justice charges.
What makes you think the governor would try to interfere with ICE doing its job, so long as it does so with its own resources?
Is at why he is blocking private entities, like landlords for example, from cooperating with ice? Why would he do that? It can’t be because of government resources.
He isn’t, as far as I know.
It’s not about government resources. It’s about the state’s disapproval of federal immigration laws, exactly like the Northern states disapproved of the fugitive slave laws. But those states did not break the law by interfering in any way with federal slave catchers doing their job, so long as they did it only with their own resources and those of individuals who were willing to help them. Tell me why you think Brown would break the law by interfering with ICE.
OK, I’ve found what you’re talking about, and you’ve been misled by the usual very bad reporting. Reporters know nothing about anything, but they think they know something about the law, and they don’t. It is now illegal for CA landlords to disclose what they know or suspect of their tenants’ immigration status with the intent of harassing or intimidating them, retaliating against them for the exercise of their rights, influencing them to vacate a dwelling, or recovering possession of the dwelling. It is not illegal for them to cooperate with ICE, if they so choose, by reporting suspected illegal immigrants because they believe it to be their civic duty, and the law explicitly permits them to comply with “any legal obligation under federal law”. The law also forbids them from threatening to report tenants to ICE for the purpose of influencing them to vacate a dwelling, but that’s already a crime in every state under the heading of extortion.
It would be illegal for the state to prohibit its citizens from reporting known or suspected violations of the law. Harassment is an entirely separate issue. Now if the statute read, ” It is now illegal for CA landlords to disclose what they know or suspect of their tenants’ drug dealing, drug manufacture, prostitution operation, chop shop operation, human trafficking and slavery operation, etc. with the intent of harassing or intimidating them, retaliating against them for the exercise of their rights, influencing them to vacate a dwelling, or recovering possession of the dwelling…” people would go ballistic. If the information that a person is violating the law is accurate, or even reasonable, then communication of that information to the relevant LEA has to be allowed. This is the whole basis for how our law enforcement system works.
Not if it’s done for the purpose of harassment, intimidation, retaliation, or personal gain, which is what this CA law prohibits. If it’s done out of civic duty it remains legal in CA, as elsewhere.
As I pointed out, it’s illegal everywhere to threaten to report someone to ICE in order to influence them to vacate a dwelling.
Also, of course, that was the legislature, not the governor, who merely assented to it.
It’s an obvious move, but still a good one.
Assuming ICE actually does it, and it’s not just bluster.
They need to start targeting those who are helping criminals to avoid extradition.
You start targeting that support base and we can call that a start.
Start putting these people away! Introduce them to an adult concept called consequences and make them understand that their actions have very real consequences for them!
Illegal immigration was an anathema to Cesar Chavez, Cakifornia’s Patron Saint of Migrant and Immigrant Rights. He had no problem reporting illegals to immigration authorities, yet he is celebrated with an official state holiday.
No saint, that guy:
The dubious legacy of César Chávez:
Chavez was a beneficiary of a media diaper almost the same size as obama’s.
It’s hard to believe you wrote this in good faith, Mr LaChance. You know better. Congress has no right to coerce states into cooperating with its policies. States have the fundamental constitutional right to disagree with federal laws, and to refuse their help in enforcing them. That is the basis of our union of the states, and denying it would make the entire union illegitimate.
And this was known when 0bamacare was signed into law. As you surely remember the Supreme Court’s first 0bamacare decision explicitly upheld this, ruling that Congress could not coerce the states into expanding their Medicare programs by cutting off existing Medicare funding if they didn’t. Congress could offer additional funding as an incentive for such cooperation with its wishes, but states had to be free to decline it without any kind of penalty.
And surely you also remember those brave sheriffs who refused to comply with the Brady Act’s requirement that they conduct background checks on people applying to buy guns, and the Supreme Court’s decision agreeing with them that if Congress wanted these checks done it could have a federal agency do them, but it could not order states or their subsidiaries to do them.
It’s hard to believe an educated person like you is unaware of the states that, with the Supreme Court’s sanction, forbade their subsidiaries from assisting federal officials in enforcing the fugitive slave laws. Just as ICE in CA, federal slave catchers in PA were completely free to enforce the law using their own resources and those of private people who chose to help them, but nobody working for the state, or for any state subsidiary such as cities and counties, could lift a finger to help them.
Nor can you be ignorant of all the states and cities that refused to help Treasury agents enforce prohibition. Nobody doubted their right so to refuse, or thought Congress or the president had the power to make them.
“- States have the fundamental constitutional right to disagree with federal laws, and to refuse their help in enforcing them. That is the basis of our union of the states, and denying it would make the entire union illegitimate.-”
This is patently false. The states have NO Constitutional right to actively refuse to assist in the enforcement of federal laws. States, just like any other entity in the US, are bound by Federal law. The state can not actively enforce such federal laws, but it can not actively assist others in the violation of federal laws. To actively assist in the violation of those laws, is itself a violation of federal law and sometimes state law as well; usually aiding and abetting a criminal or criminal act. If a State feels that the Federal law is unconstitutional, it can file suit to attempt to have it declared so and refuse to follow the law, as it applies to the state until a decision is made by the SCOTUS, the court of original jurisdiction in any dispute between a state, or states, and the federal government.
People attempt to frame this as the federal government demanding that the states actively enforce the provisions of federal law and this is not the case. What we are talking about here, are contractual obligations which exist under a LE grant program. In order for the state or local authorities to receive LE grants, they must agree to follow existing law AND not hinder or oppose the enforcement efforts of federal agents with regard to federal law. What many sanctuary cities have done, Chicago comes to mind, is to direct their LE personnel to actively thwart the attempts of federal LE agencies by withholding evidence and information regarding illegal immigrants even when such information is directly requested by the federal agency.
In the case of Prohibition, local LE officers WERE arrested, charged and conviction for actively hindering the efforts of Treasury agents to enforce the Volstead Act.
State and local governments can probably refuse to detain a person suspected of violating a federal law without a warrant of court order. However, if they actively oppose the legal actions of a federal investigator through withholding information or barring the agent from accessing a person in custody on a state or local charge, this constitutes both a violation of the grant requirements as well as a violation of federal law.
You are ranting. There is no such thing as “actively refusing”. Refusal is by definition passive, and if you deny that states have the right to (passively, which is the only possible way) refuse to assist in the enforcement of federal laws then you’re simply ignorant.
States, just like any other entity in the US, are bound by Federal law.
Indeed they are. They may not themselves violate those laws. They are not bound to assist in enforcing them. And Congress can’t make a law requiring them to do so. Any such purported law is void, and states are not bound by it.
The state can not actively enforce such federal laws,
They can and do, at federal request. But only if they choose to. Even if the state refuses such a request, individual state officers are free to voluntarily comply with it, unless forbidden by state legislation. So said the Supreme Court in one of the fugitive slave cases. What CA has done is precisely what the Court said a state can do.
it can not actively assist others in the violation of federal laws.
And CA is not doing so at all.
What we are talking about here, are contractual obligations which exist under a LE grant program.
The statute authorizing the grant lists no such obligation. When Congress puts conditions on state funding it must do so unambiguously. It has not done so. The AG has no authority to impose additional conditions.
What many sanctuary cities have done, Chicago comes to mind, is to direct their LE personnel to actively thwart the attempts of federal LE agencies by withholding evidence and information regarding illegal immigrants even when such information is directly requested by the federal agency.
Withholding something is by definition passive, not active, and states have the constitutional right to do so, and to order their subsidiaries to do so (or not to do so, as TX has done). Congress has no power to force them to comply with such requests, whether directly by legislation or indirectly by cutting existing funding so drastically as to cross the line between pressure and coercion.
In the case of Prohibition, local LE officers WERE arrested, charged and conviction for actively hindering the efforts of Treasury agents to enforce the Volstead Act.
No “sanctuary city” actively hinders ICE agents. CA certainly does not. If you’re claiming that LE officers were arrested, charged and convicted for refusing to cooperate with Treasury agents, exactly as CA now requires its officers and subsidiaries to do, then I’m calling you a liar.
However, if they actively oppose the legal actions of a federal investigator through withholding information or barring the agent from accessing a person in custody on a state or local charge, this constitutes both a violation of the grant requirements as well as a violation of federal law.
No, it does not. They have no obligation to provide such information or access, Congress cannot make a law imposing such an obligation, and although it could have made it a condition of the grant in question, it didn’t. It could probably do so now, since the grant is too small for its loss to constitute coercion, but so far it hasn’t.
More raids? ’bout damn time!