Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Oakland Mayor Warns of ICE Raids, Defends Sanctuary City Policies

Oakland Mayor Warns of ICE Raids, Defends Sanctuary City Policies

Obstruction of justice?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu-4QjFySF0

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf (D) warned on Twitter over the weekend of impending ICE raids, which has caused backlash from the feds.

Schaaf has defended her actions and swore she would protect her city’s status as a sanctuary city.

The Warning

In the press release Schaaf tweeted, she “encouraged all undocumented residents to consult immigration resources” after she found out that ICE planned raids for the Bay Area. She said she didn’t want to scare people, but did this to protect them. From NBC Bay Area:

Although ICE has used activity rumors in the past as a fear tactic, Mayor Schaaf continued to explain that she felt it was her duty to give families a fair warning of a possible threat.

“My priority is for the well-being and safety of all residents — particularly our most vulnerable — and I know that Oakland is safer when we share information, encourage community awareness, and care for our neighbors,” said Mayor Schaaf in the press release.

Reports indicate that federal agents “detained at least four people in Northern California on Sunday.” We do not know if this was part of the raid Schaaf tweeted about. There haven’t been any arrests in San Francisco.

Schaaf stated that the city will not help ICE with any raids. The Oakland City Council even voted “to clarify that the city’s Police Department won’t provide any assistance, including traffic support, to ICE officials if they conduct any raids in the city.” City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan took issue with a raid in August that had assistance from the department and said that it’s “not acceptable for the Oakland administration to collude with ICE, as this federal agency is targeting non-criminals, harassing people based on their national origin, and undermining our justice system.”

Feds Response

Needless to say, the feds did not rejoice over Schaaf’s announcement. From CBS SF Bay Area:

Former federal prosecutor Tony Brass says putting out a public warning about a planned immigration sweep may have crossed the line.

“She’s on the threshold of obstruction of justice for doing what she did,” Brass said. “Because you put agents in danger. You put the police in danger and you put neighbors in danger.”

Schaaf disagrees. She said, “I was sharing information in a way that was legal and was not obstructing justice, and it was an opportunity to ensure that people were aware of their rights.”

Still, there could be repercussions.

“What’s going to happen is that federal agents are going to stop talking to local police agencies,” Brass said.” And the reason that communication is so vital is for safety. For safety of everybody.”

Media asked Schaaf “if she is willing to go to jail to defend Oakland’s policies” and she gleefully replied YES. She claimed that “[T]he level of fear and anxiety in this community is at unconscionable levels.” She also believes that the city is “exercising” its own right to be a sanctuary city and scoffed at the suggestion that the federal government retaliate “against jurisdictions that are exercising their right to have sanctuary policies.” She believes that is illegal, not her warning people of impending raids.

ICE gave her a refresher:

ICE released a statement Monday saying that sanctuary cities like Oakland are “not immune from federal law” and that their refusal to cooperate by handing over immigration violators with criminal records, both increases the danger of something going wrong in a raid and increases the chances that people who ICE isn’t even looking for will get caught up in the raids as well.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I asked this on the Forum page yesterday…

Has 8 U.S. Code § 1324 ever been used to prosecute anyone?

Maybe it’s time to test the law…

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/26/oaklands-mayor-just-committed-felony-warning-illegal-aliens-ice-coming/

Either use it or take it off the books.

last time i looked, it was a federal felony to aid & abet illegals in avoiding ICE…

#LockHerUp! and take the LA Mayor & City Council with her.

Former federal prosecutor Tony Brass says putting out a public warning about a planned immigration sweep may have crossed the line.

They’re all pansies. So what the hell happened? FDR didn’t tell a joint session of Congress that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor may have been an act of war.

    But does the good mayor actually know anything ?

    Trump was saying the other day that he may pull all ICE agents out of California .. which prompted “ancient astronaut theorists” to suggest that this meant there was a huge ICE raid coming.

    Canto28 in reply to tom_swift. | March 1, 2018 at 4:00 pm

    Right, wimpy language.

regulus arcturus | February 27, 2018 at 3:19 pm

Sure looks and sounds like obstruction.

At the very least, it is extremely legally dangerous.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to regulus arcturus. | February 28, 2018 at 12:37 pm

    “Media asked Schaaf “if she is willing to go to jail to defend Oakland’s policies” and she gleefully replied YES.”

    On one hand I would like to see her prosecuted and jailed.

    But on the other, it would be really funny if someone abducted her and dropped her at the south end of latin America, hopefully with nothing, no ID, no money, and maybe with no clothing. It would be interesting to see how she was treated.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | February 27, 2018 at 3:26 pm

Mayor Schaaf?

Really?

She must be a close kin of Adam Schiff.

Hey Mayor Schaaf, you just guaranteed all your illegals will be shipped out soon. Cause all the EVIL you criminal politicians are doing turns into the OPPOSITE results you wish for.

Mayor Schaaf for brains……..

Can’t beat her logic. Law abiding illegal immigrants, AKA Invaders, shouldn’t be arrested and prosecuted for breaking the law, since they obviously are not breaking US immigration law by being here, because they’re law abiding…

“I know that Oakland is a city of law-abiding immigrants and their families who deserve to live free from the constant threat of arrest and deportation.”
______________

What a load of leftist claptrap. If they were actually “law-abiding immigrants” they would not BE in any danger of arrest and deportation.

This corrupt woman is illegally shielding illegal aliens and deliberately assisting them in violating this nation’s laws.

She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. Americans are sick and tired of these leftist hypocrites who think they have some natural entitlement to only obey laws that they personally agree with.

The Feds could “leak” they are going to conduct a raid and then not do it. After about 15 of these false alarms, they could actually raid so there is some credibility. This would create great anxiety and drive away her “citizens.” Jack with her.

Subotai Bahadur | February 27, 2018 at 3:54 pm

If the laws of this country can be flouted by anyone, with no legal process and without amendment by Congress or the courts, then we are not a country. Which is the goal of the Democrats. Nullification of laws is the bright line that justifies either legal process against those doing the flouting or the imposition of sovereign force by military means.

Yes, the mayor has crossed an ethical line. But, it’s not clear whether she has actually violated 8 U.S.C. 1324. Her “warning” was general in scope and didn’t provide any specifics. Hopefully, AG Sessions will look into this matter. Nonetheless, prosecuting the mayor would make her a cause celebre and it is unlikely that a Bay area jury would convict her.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | February 27, 2018 at 4:00 pm

Might be Wonderful, Wonderful, if the United States would invade California!

    I suggest Trump declaring California the only “sanctuary” state by withdrawing ICE and ramping ICE in all other states. Flood the zone and do a Cloward and Piven on them. With Trump talking of pulling ICE… could this be the tactic?

Holy mackerel.

That woman’s so stupid – she’s cockeyed.

Go figure.

Here’s a thought-question (some of you are clearly excused)…

I drive through a notorious speed-trap town and note the local LEO set up to apprehend other motorists. As I leave the area, I blink my lights to warn approaching drivers.

Have I “obstructed justice”?

Or have I, in fact, fostered the ends of public safety?

Note that I am NOT even implying that I approve of what the mayor did; I don’t. But I will say that, unless someone can name a statute on point, this is a permissible exercise of free speech.

    iconotastic in reply to Ragspierre. | February 27, 2018 at 6:10 pm

    I don’t see where she broke any law. At least not any law I would want to have on the books. She is clearly a grandstanding asshat but that is Oakland’s problem, not mine. And I suspect it won’t take very long before her crying “wolf” gets old and tired.

    Maybe if ICE leaked that they were going to raid the Oakland administration buildings for illegal aliens things might get a lot more fun very quickly.

    As someone who’s been pulled over in AL and ticketed for that, yep.

    But that’s because there are laws about when you may use high-beams. For example, if there’s another car ahead of you, the officer isn’t ticketing you for “obstruction of justice”, he’s ticketing you for operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner because those flashing high-beams encourage the driver(s) ahead of you to swerve.

    It’s that old “officer’s / prosecutor’s discretion” again. At least in this case, using that discretion to prosecute this crook would be in the interest of American citizens.

      Ragspierre in reply to SDN. | February 27, 2018 at 6:36 pm

      You are one of the “excused”, and for the following…

      1. nobody said anything about “high-beams” (if you haven’t figured it out, you can switch you low-beams on and off), and

      2. you didn’t deal with the questions posed, but went off into deflection.

        Flashing lights would draw the same response, and for the same reason, you dishonest a$$hole. And the point is extremely relevant: the prosecutor can take the action you performed, find a law that it violates, and bust you, because both of you know why you ACTUALLY did it. So my ass, you may kiss.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 27, 2018 at 6:55 pm

        No, stupid, lying POS, your BS is NOT relevant, you’re full of shit as to “finding an offense”, and there’s actually a body of appellate law saying the scenario IS protected speech.

        You can’t answer honestly.

        But thanks for helping…again…with the demonstration…!!!

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | February 27, 2018 at 7:04 pm

    I drive through a notorious speed-trap town and note the local LEO set up to apprehend other motorists. As I leave the area, I blink my lights to warn approaching drivers.

    Have I “obstructed justice”?

    Or have I, in fact, fostered the ends of public safety?

    See here

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | February 27, 2018 at 7:21 pm

      You ALSO failed to answer the questions:

      Have I “obstructed justice”?

      Or have I, in fact, fostered the ends of public safety?

      “The situation is a special case of warnings to hide one’s illegal conduct because the police are coming — “’abort the plan to rob the store” or “flush the drugs down the toilet.”’

      This is crap from Volokh (a rather rare occurrence) because it has nothing to do with any “plan” to violate the law, but a warning to ABIDE STRICTLY by a posted speed limit (often set more for municipal revenue than public safety).

        Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | February 27, 2018 at 7:26 pm

        Covered in the article.

        When I’ve blogged about this in the past, some people have argued that flashing headlights should be protected because it’s encouraging legal behavior (slowing down) rather than illegal behavior, but I don’t think that can dispose of the issue: Many lookouts do the same, e.g., when a lookout warns would-be robbers to abandon their plans because a police car is driving by. [UPDATE: Remainder of paragraph added.] Moreover, a headlight flasher’s warning to speeders seems likely to (and probably intended to) slow them down only until they get past the police car — they’d just be postponing their illegal act by a few seconds. That’s why the “he’s only trying to get people to be law-abiding” argument strikes me as weak; what he’s actually doing (and trying to do) is decrease the cost to drivers of breaking the law.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | February 27, 2018 at 7:38 pm

          You STILL cannot deal with the questions posed, and you rely on a remarkably stupid argument (an innocent motorist warns approaching traffic of a notorious speed trap versus a robber’s confederate look-out).

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 27, 2018 at 8:41 pm

          But is he innocent if he makes himself a confederate of all those wicked speeders? How do you actually distinguish the cases, without resorting to the Potter Stewart test?

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | February 27, 2018 at 9:01 pm

          “But is he innocent if he makes himself a confederate of all those wicked speeders?”

          You’re making an ass of yourself. WHAT “wicked speeders”…???

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 28, 2018 at 12:25 pm

          From the law’s point of view those speeders are lawbreakers, just like bank robbers and axe murderers and pot smokers and people who remove the tag from the mattress. What objective distinction can you draw here?

    CaliforniaJimbo in reply to Ragspierre. | February 27, 2018 at 9:50 pm

    Ok I’ll take a stab. You have taken an action which encourages a potential law breaker (speeder) into compliance prior to LEO witnessing the crime.
    An illegal immigrant can not rectify their illegal status unless they leave the country. Assuming the mayor isn’t telling illegals to hurry up and self deport prior to being apprehended, they still remain illegal whether apprehended or not.

    Speeding requires a witness. Could be a LEO with a radar gun or someone timing them. Of course you could flag down a LEO and admit to your speed. I suspect the LEO would test you for drugs.

    The mayor specifally warned illegals so they can avoid apprehension. Their crime is not like speeding which requires a witness. They do not possess valid ID that they are a citizen. They are in violation and need to make amends

    Not a lawyer just my opinion.

      Ragspierre in reply to CaliforniaJimbo. | February 28, 2018 at 6:56 am

      That’s pretty valid, and I agree the mayor has done a wrong thing.

      The question is about whether she did a thing that is a crime. I can’t find one.

      And, like a lot of laws, I think we should either use 8 U.S. Code § 1324 or repeal it. I doubt that it would obtain in this case, but it comes close.

      If we’re serious about stifling this sanctuary nonsense, we’re going to need a good law on the books to cover the gaps in current law.

Mayor Schaff has gone full John C. Calhoun on the nullification issue. You never go full Calhoun.

I suggest Trump declaring California the only “sanctuary” state by withdrawing ICE and ramping ICE in all other states. Flood the zone and do a Cloward and Piven on them. With Trump talking of pulling ICE… could this be the tactic?

I really like this !!!

If the mayor picks and chooses which Federal law she likes, my pick and choose is removing the FAA Air Traffic Control from the Oakland airport?

    alaskabob in reply to aloysius9999. | February 27, 2018 at 9:30 pm

    If there was a specific planned ICE operation then this is aiding illegals and intentionally compromising federal enforcement. Would ICE have to prove she found out before hand… if notified… she should be toast, if anyone in local las enforcement was formally notified she should be toast.

    Maybe the mayor should watch episodes of “Orange is the new Black” to bone up on her potential new digs,

How about a SWAT raid on the mayor, at 3am like they did to Flynn.

    Ragspierre in reply to beagleEar. | February 27, 2018 at 6:22 pm

    It was Monofart, not 3 am, with a warrant, and not a SWAT team.

    Would you really approve of that, just as a means of “getting evenism”?

      alaskabob in reply to Ragspierre. | February 27, 2018 at 9:01 pm

      It was about tea time in London and the FBI dropped by for tea and crumpets. Formal dress issued. Must have been a royal time.

      As for the headlight flashing… the difference is the warned motorist may speed up after the trap, but an illegal will always be an illegal after the alert.

        Ragspierre in reply to alaskabob. | February 27, 2018 at 9:24 pm

        Really? About 6am on the east coast is “tea time” (4 o’clock) in London…??? I dun tenk so, Loooocy…!!!

        The issue isn’t what the speeder/illegal alien MIGHT do. It IS about what the person issuing the warning DID that was ILLEGAL.

        Do try to stay focused…

She’s untrustworthy … hope she gets kicked out of office.

    Ragspierre in reply to PODKen. | February 27, 2018 at 9:42 pm

    “Forget it, Jake. It’s Oakland…”

    She’s the very person to represent that very corrupt place. I’ll bet they love her!

Isn’t it amazing how people like this mayor is giving in and supporting groups like illegal aliens in an effort to get their vote in the next election? I just wonder how big a voting bloc the illegal alien vote is in places like Oakland.

Bitterlyclinging | February 28, 2018 at 7:43 am

Mexifornia is a runaway train headed toward secession and a wrecking.
This will not end well.

Cleetus, just wait, it won’t be too long before the California legislature passes a law removing U.S. citizenship as a requirement for voting.

She calls the law breaking illegals there “our immigrant community”. Sounds so nice.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend