Small California city rejects “Sanctuary State” law
Los Alamitos is now the most legal city in the Golden State.
As “The Most Interesting Governor’s Race” in the nation continues, it is now being reported that the leading candidate was a bit testy in a description of America’s leading immigration enforcement officer.
Gavin Newsom, the Democratic lieutenant governor of California, referred to Thomas Homan, acting director of the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, as an “a plus prick” in an email he recently sent to his sister from his official government account.
“No doubt in my mind they will target us – the ice director is an a plus prick this is a personal / political strategy , get ready,” Newsom, the second-in-command to Gov. Jerry Brown, wrote, according to a new report, in a Feb. 28 email to Hilary Newsom.
The senior state official was referring to comments the Democratic mayor of Oakland, Libby Schaaf, made in February when she warned residents of a forthcoming standard immigration enforcement action by ICE.
Perhaps some of the reason for the peevishness is that not all the forces aligning against California’s “Sanctuary” politicians is external. A small city in southern California has just rejected the illegal-immigration-embracing policies.
Orange County’s second-smallest city voted Monday night to exempt itself from California’s so-called sanctuary law, which limits cooperation between local agencies and federal immigration authorities.
The Los Alamitos City Council voted 4-1 following more than two hours of heated testimony from residents on both sides of the issue.
…Someone shouted out to Councilman Warren Kusumoto, who introduced the legislation, “great American patriot!” while someone else screamed out “America first.”
Kusumoto said the issue was not about immigration.
“This council is looking out for the constituents in our city,” Kusumoto said.
Mayor Troy Edgar said he hoped mayors in other cities consider similar local legislation. And his message was clear: “As the mayor of Los Alamitos, we are not a sanctuary city.”
The video outside and within the council chambers show culture clash that was occurring just prior to the decision, demonstrating not all the sane and rational Californians have left.
There are other pockets of resistance throughout the state. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors recently approved a resolution saying the county is not a sanctuary jurisdiction. Huntington Beach and Buena Park civic leaders are planning to discuss changing their “Sanctuary” status. El Cajon Mayor Bill Wells led efforts among local officials opposed to Senate Bill 54 (which became the Sanctuary State law), and could perhaps use Los Alamitos as an inspiration.
Will the rejection succeed?
[Mayor Pro Tem Warren Kusumoto] acknowledged the ordinance might set off a legal battle but said that doesn’t concern him, adding the vote has important symbolic meaning.
“Is it going to hold up? I don’t know,” he said. “I just want to protect our community. It’s that simple.”
Arguably, Los Alamitos is now the most legal city in the Golden State. It’s streets are likely not paved with used needles and human waste, either….unlike the city Newsom once governed.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Another small pocket of American sentiment needing to be snuffed out in the Long March to perfection by the State. Watch the enlightened cities bus and dump their finest underserved members in this town.
The problem with California is that there are too many Americans in the state.
Shasta county was the unofficial state prison dumping ground throughout the 1990’s for all sorts of violent criminals.
Newsom knows his official correspondence are subject to the Brown Act. The outing of that email? Makes him a Sanctuary State Crusader against teh evil ICE Jihadists.
Google execs lent Newsom’s wedding party the use of their Moffet Field hanger and 747 and no one even cared. Payola in plain sight.
Dateline: next Monday.
California, notorious for its nullification of federal law, to sue cities which seek to nullify California state law.
And so it goes, lesser magistrate.
It may make for good sound bites, but no, Los Alamitos is not legal, it’s brazenly defying the law. This is very simple and easy to understand: CITIES ARE NOT STATES. The relationship between a city and its state is not the same as that between a state and the USA.
The USA is a federation of sovereign states; states are not federations of cities.
Cities are creatures of the states, and are completely subservient to them. The state created the cities and it can destroy them, merge them, split them, or do whatever it likes to them, and it can certainly give them orders. They have no tenth amendment rights against the state.
The USA is also a creation of the states, not vice versa. They made it, it didn’t make them. It can’t change their boundaries without their consent, it certainly can’t destroy them, and while it can give them orders, those are strictly limited by the constitution, including the tenth amendment.
And one of the things the tenth amendment protects is the states’ right to resist federal law by refusing to enforce it. States must obey federal law themselves, but they need not make their citizens do so. And Congress cannot make a law ordering them to do so. States can make laws ordering their subsidiary entities, e.g. cities, to help ICE (as Texas has done) or not to help it (as California has done). Both laws are equally binding. Austin is resisting the TX law and Los Alamitos is resisting the opposite CA one. Both should find themselves in big trouble if they continue.
This is an interesting theory, but you are completely wrong, in this case.
What you have here is a bono fide political subdivision [an incorporated city] which is simply stating that, in the opinion of the leaders of that city, the so-called sanctuary city law is unconstitutional and unconstitutionally vague and that they will not follow that law. Law enforcement agencies do this all the time. As it is actionable if an unconstitutional law is followed, the local city or agency can not follow the law until a court declares that law to be constitutional. It then becomes the responsibility of the state to bring this before a court for a decision.
This is entirely proper and is historically defensible. The California Sanctuary law prohibits its citizens and political subdivisions from assisting federal officials in the enforcement of federal laws, which are applicable within the jurisdiction in which they reside. This flies in the face of hundreds of years of common law, which not only grants a citizen the freedom to report violations of constitutional and constitutionally enacted laws, which apply to the jurisdictions in which they exist, but makes it the moral duty of citizens to report such violations of law. The definition of what constitutes “assisting” federal LE officials is also unconstitutionally vague, here, except where it specifically instructs people to engage in illegal activities, which is unconstitutional. If a political subdivision, or its employee or agent, has knowledge of a violation of law, either state or federal, willfully deciding not to notify the appropriate enforcement agency, or worse, actively working to hinder the enforcement of such laws, can itself be a violation of law [accessory to the crime or obstruction of justice]. And, no legislative body can order its citizens to commit a criminal offense.
Of course anyone who thinks a law unconstitutional may take a chance by defying it, getting arrested and tried, and hope the court will take their side. But if they lose they suffer the consequences. They don’t get to argue that they shouldn’t be punished because the state had to wait for a court to endorse the law before enforcing it. The same is true here. Being a “bona fide political subdivision” doesn’t buy them anything. Political subdivisions have no rights against their state, unless the state constitution grants them. They are creatures of the state and must obey whatever state law tells them.
Yes.
Statutes always override common law. It doesn’t matter how many centuries old a common law principle may be, it disappears the moment the legislature makes a law saying otherwise. So if the state prohibits you from assisting the cops, you may not assist them, and appealing to the common law won’t help you.
However, as regards private citizens it may be that they have a duty under federal law, which would override state law. Certainly Congress could make a law imposing such a duty, or at least explicitly permitting voluntary assistance, and that would override any contrary state law.
But when it comes to the state’s own officers, they are not citizens, they are state servants, and must obey their master’s instructions. And since the state itself is entitled to refuse all assistance in enforcing any federal law it doesn’t like, it may order its servants to do likewise.
You seem to be under the impression that this is a new issue. But it’s a very old one, and the law is well settled. This issue is exactly the same as the Fugitive Slave laws in the first part of the 19th century, and California is doing nothing but repeating what the northern states did then. And the Supreme Court said that states could not ban federal slave catchers from operating in their territory, but they could by legislation prohibit state magistrates from exercising the authority that the federal law conferred on them.
You are making a distinction which does not exist. A political subdivision has exactly the same “protections” when choosing to ignore a state law as a state does when it chooses to ignore a federal law. That protection is whether the law in question is constitutional.
In the case of the California Sanctuary law, the citizens , employees and the political subdivisions of the state of California have two options with regard to federal enforcement of immigration laws. They can violate the California law and risk the penalty for that, or they can obstruct and hinder the enforcement of federal law and risk the penalties for that. In the case of the California law, its constitutionality is not only unproven, but is extremely suspect. In the case of federal laws concerning aiding and abetting a criminal or criminal enterprise being an accessory to a criminal act and obstruction of justice, these laws are proven and wholly constitutional. So, which law would one stand a better chance of avoid prosecution for?
Now, if refusing to assist a LEO in the performance of his duty is a criminal offense and the state instructs a citizen, under penalty of law, to so refuse, then the state becomes a conspirator to violate the law. And, under the law, no government body can force a citizen to violate the law. That is unconstitutional use of governmental force. So, no, a state can not order its citizens not to assist federal enforcement of a constitutional law. This included the employees of a state government.
Finally, you are repeating the totally false mantra of the illegal immigration supporters with regard to state authorities enforcing federal laws. Here is the unvarnished truth. State authorities can NOT enforce federal laws at all, unless the federal law in question specifically grants them that power, or the individual state agents are also sworn members of a federal law enforcement agency. The reverse is also tru8e. Federal agents have no authority to enforce state laws, either. In fact, in most states, state LEOs may not enforce the laws of lower political subdivisions; i.e. state police can not enforce county or municipal ordinances and county sheriffs can not enforce municipal ordinances. See so the works? So, voluntarily assisting federal LEOs, short of arrest or other forceful measures, is is not enforcing federal law.
As to the old Slave Catcher law cases, the point there was that all the SCOTUS really said was that the federal government could not co-opt the state officers and employees without the consent of the state. This is entirely different than what is happening with immigration enforcement today. No state or local official is being compelled to assist federal LEOs in the enforcement of federal law.
Understand?
1) state and local officers are not being forced to enforce federal immigration law nor are they even being asked to assist, other than to honor immigration detainers to the point where they notify iCE, before they release the person in their custody. They do not have to hold him, but it would be nice if they notified the appropriate agency of his pending release.
2) No state or local lE assets are being compelled or co-opted to assist federal LE in the enforcement of federal law.
3) It is a violation of federal law to actively obstruct the enforcement of federal law or to assist any other in obstructing such enforcement.
4) No governmental entity in the US can COMPEL any citizen to violate any constitutional and constitutionally enacted law. To do so, place the state entity at risk of violating the law.
By the way, a state has no RIGHT to RESIST any federal law, unless that law is unconstitutional. And, in the case of immigration law, the courts have already declared it constitutional. If a state does not like it, that state can try to get the US Congress to change that law, but the state can not simply ignore it. An it certainly can not order its citizens to assist in the violation of or obstruct the enforcement of that law.
States do have the right to passively resist constitutional federal laws they don’t like, not by disobeying them but by refusing to enforce them on others. If the law requires a state to do something, and that demand is constitutional, then it must of course comply; but a law requiring the state to help enforce federal law within its territory is inherently unconstitutional and need not be obeyed.
I’m not sure whether you disagree with this; perhaps you assumed I meant active resistance, i.e. outright disobedience or obstruction, such as arresting ICE agents. They certainly can’t do that. But if an ICE agent wants to enter premises without a warrant, they can refuse him entry, and arrest him if he trespasses. And they can order their subsidiaries to do the same. I tend to think they can also so order their citizens, unless Congress has made a law saying otherwise.
states have NO authority to ENFORCE federal law, unless they are granted that authority by the US Congress and, as you pointed out, the federal government can not force state agents to enforce federal laws which federal law authorizes them to enforce, without the consent of the state. And, as I have already pointed out, there is no law forcing state and local agents to enforce federal immigration laws. The idea that the federal government is forcing state and local authorities to enforce federal immigration laws is simply a myth.
Now, as to the right of a state to resist any federal law, this is also bogus. State governments, as well as the citizens of those states are bound to obey any federal law which is deemed to be constitutional. There is no if and or buts about that.
Now as to your illustration concerning denying an ICE agent the right to enter and examine a premise. A citizen can exercise his private property rights, under the Constitution, to unwarranted search and seizure and many do so. There are a few exceptions. If the property is a business which is engaged in interstate commerce the federal government can regulate that business and can include the right of a federal LEO to inspect such premises without a warrant. There are a few other exceptions in areas where the federal government has constitutional regulatory authority. And a state may educate its citizens in with regard to those constitutional protections. So, the state can not order the a private citizen NOT to allow anyone of his choosing, including and ICE agent, onto his property at any time that he wishes. This would be a violation of the personson’s private property rights. Just as the federal government can not violate a cityizen’s rights, neither can a state.
What works best for the citizenry of the US has always been cooperation between the law enforcement agencies of various jurisdictions. The free exchange of information as well as access to files and records is necessary to effective law enforcement. What California did was to cutoff both the exchange of information and any constitutional assistance to federal LE with regard to immigration laws. What has happened now, is that the federal immigration officials are not transferring violators, in their custody, to California local and state authorities, for trial, because there is no guarantee that those officials will return those people to federal custody. Slippery slope.