Rep. Luna Refers Four Democratic Mayors of Sanctuary Cities to DOJ
“I’m not doing that to an effort to bully you guys, but I do believe that your policies are hurting the American people.”
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) told four Democratic mayors of sanctuary cities she referred them to the Department of Justice (DOJ) because she believes they are breaking federal laws.
She told Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams:
After this line of questioning, it’s very clear that these policies that you have all implicated are active and alive and well in your cities are in direct violation with U.S. Title VIII Code, Subsection 1324 and is a federal offense.
But you all speak about a broken immigration system. And yet here you guys are aiding and abetting in that entire process. I want to be very clear about something. Open border policies, which is something that you guys are talking about, hurts people on both sides, meaning the people that are coming here illegally and the American citizens as well.
I do not think you guys are bad people, but I think that you are ideologically misled which is why, unfortunately, based on your responses, I’m going to be criminally referring you to the Department of Justice for investigation and as soon as I leave here, these will be going over to Pam Bondi.
I’m not doing that to an effort to bully you guys, but I do believe that your policies are hurting the American people, and you can make that known with the evidence that you can present to the Department of Justice, but if you guys continue doing what you’re doing, you’re not going to help anyone. You’re going to hurt more people, and, that’s exactly why I’m tired of it. The american people are tired of it.
I just referred the sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for CRIMINAL investigations based on evidence from their own comments and policies, proving that they were breaking federal law.
Open borders ideologies hurt people on both sides. If you hold federal office… pic.twitter.com/wt2swTOnru
— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) March 5, 2025
The DOJ does not have to open an investigation. Luna’s referral is only a formal notice.
Luna made the declaration during a House Oversight hearing with the four mayors.
Only Adams has taken steps to work with federal law enforcement to stop illegal aliens, especially those who are wanted for or already convicted of violent crimes.
Johnson tried to boast about Chicago, claiming homicides have gone down in the city.
Yeah…other crime has gone up. Don’t forget Johnson has a 7% approval rating. He faces constant badgering from constituents about illegal aliens and shelters in their neighborhoods.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Luna is outright lying here. Nothing these cities are doing violates 8 USC 1324. The cities are not bringing anyone in, they are not transporting them, and they are not concealing, harboring, or shielding them.
They are simply refusing to turn them in to the feds, or to make it easy for the feds to find them. There is no law and there can’t be any law requiring them to do those things. They are exercising a sacred constitutional right, and any attempt to coerce them into cooperation with ICE is a worse crime than illegal immigration. It is a violation of Luna’s oath of office, and of Bondi’s or Homan’s or anyone else who tries to coerce them.
Remind me the legal definition of “Harboring”?
“Harbor” is not defined in § 1101, which is where I would expect to find any specialized definition for the purposes of 8 USC ch 12, so I assume it has its ordinary definition.
Since it must describe an action rather than a refusal to act, it seems to me that the only way a city could “harbor” anyone would be to have them live on city property somewhere, and conceal them there. Of course having them live in a shelter openly and notoriously designated for that purpose would not be “harboring”, since there’s no attempt at concealment. But having them camp out in the mayor’s office would probably do it.
Similarly when ICE comes knocking on the door, refusing to let them in without a warrant would be perfectly lawful, but sneaking the aliens out the back door while stalling ICE at the front would not be. Nor would it be lawful to refuse admission to ICE if they come with a warrant.
Oops, forgot to close that tag!
Oh. States are NOT required to extradite criminals with warrants to other states.
Good luck with that one.
Then we shall use a standard definition.
“The act of sheltering a criminal, or wanted, person.”
They are *harboring*.
Don’t let your legal sense override your common sense. Courts, for example, are subject to bills of attainder. If they knowingly refuse to turn a criminal to ICE, that is harboring.
By definition.
But they’re not doing that. They’re not doing anything that hides them; they’re just refusing to do anything that will reveal them, and the constitution protects their right to do that (so long as their state is OK with it).
You’re making a distinction. there is no *difference*.
A criminal court knows they have a person in their custody
They know that person is *wanted* in a crime (crossing the border illegally is a crime).
They have the legal responsibility to turn that person over to ICE.
(A *civilian* may not have that responsibility. But an officer of the law or the court *does*.)
Related question: If a person is released from court, but has an outstanding warrant from another state, are you going to argue the releasing state is under no legal obligation to enforce it?
They have the legal responsibility to turn that person over to ICE. No, they do not. Not only does no law require it, no law can require it. The constitution protects their right to refuse.
No state is required to execute another state’s warrants.
States are required to honor extradition requests from other states. So, has the other state requested extradition?
In any case, we’re not talking about states’ relations with each other, we’re talking about their relation with the federal government, and the law on that is clear: They have a constitutional right to refuse any cooperation with the federal government, and the federal government may not use funding as a means to compel them. The president may not even use it to persuade them; Congress may, but only to persuade, not to compel.
8 U.S Code § 1324: (A) Any person who— (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
~~~~~~~~~~
Nowhere in the section quoted does it say that a person must both harbor and conceal the illegals in order to violate the section. The word “or” is important. It’s a violation to conceal or harbor or shield from detection or attempt to conceal or harbor or shield from detection a person who has illegally entered the country.
Conceal or harbor or shield. Not and but or.
1. Concealing an illegal is a violation
2. Harboring an illegal is a violation
3. Shielding an illegal from detection is a violation
And sanctuary cities and the city officials that enforce sanctuary laws are in violation of #2 as they are knowingly harboring illegals within their city limits. Whether or not they conceal the illegals is irrelevant. Violation of any one of the conditions set out in the federal regulation is a violation of federal immigration law.
How about “accessory after the fact” given that the folks ICE is going after regularly commit crimes?
They’re not helping people commit any crimes. In fact the whole point is that when these people commit crimes they arrest and hold them until they’ve completed their sentence or have been ordered released. What they refuse to do is hold them for ICE, and not only does no law require them to do that, no law can require them to do that.
They’re helping criminals evade LE post-offense. Hence, “accessory after the fact.”
If those cities are in ANY way helping the illegals, they are aiding and abetting them. Period.
ANY WAY.
And they have the constitutional right to do so. Congress cannot make that illegal, or punish it in any way.
There is no fundamental right involved that allows harboring people that have violated federal laws and likely under orders of removal.
Cite the right to protection you are invoking.
They are not harboring anyone. They are simply refusing to obey orders from federal officials. The tenth amendment protects their right to do that.
This has been a fundamental part of our constitutional order for over 200 years.
“simply refusing to obey orders from federal officials. The tenth amendment protects their right to do that.”
To say that’s all they are doing is ridiculous, as is using the 10th Amendment, unless it’s a zero sum world no matter what the issue.
OK Milhouse, allow me to enlighten you,..harboring is knowingly assisting one in the avoidance of an arrest or other legal proceeding
Wrong. That would be criminal behavior, and there is no “constitutional right” to commit it.
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
I understand your stance. I assume you are right, though I dislike it. Couldn’t AG Bondi use RICO and the thinnest of reeds to connect them to illegals through a multiperson link and get them that way. The crime if illegal entry is already there. Sure they are not harboring or “technically” doing anything. Just like other mob bosses.
RICO is a conspiracy law. They are not conspiring with anyone.
Besides which, you’re ignoring the fact that they’re exercising a constitutional right, which means any law you can find that would violate that right is automatically invalid. You can’t ever get around constitutional rights by citing statutes.
OMG,…if one of these Mayors includes another in their effort to harbor an illegal alien, that is a conspiracy
In spite of the fact that you appear the one misstating the statute, what is as bad is being so absolute about matters that are uncertain at best. What makes you judge and jury?
The statute states: “(iii)knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place,”
There are also arguable violations of paragraphs (iv) and (v). You have no clue about underlying facts. You may not agree with what Luna did, but premature judgment does what?
You are ignoring the constitution. No statute can override the constitution. That means no federal statute can compel a state to do what the federal government wants it to. Whether it’s helping federal officials catch a fugitive slave or an illegal alien, busting a rum runner, changing its speed limit or drinking age, establishing an insurance exchange, or even so simple a thing as carrying out a background check on someone. The feds simply can’t order the states around.
10th Amendment argument is silly. There are no fundamental rights that override the federal compelling interest. Get real!
No statute can override the constitution.
And yet there are gun control laws galore that openly mock the 2A, and people were prohibited from going to church during “covid”…. I’m sure we can come up with other instances of government trampling on the Constitution….
How about “aiding and abetting,” a charge that covers a lot of ground.
Or “obstruction.”
Knowledge: Awareness of the individual’s status (e.g., fugitive, illegal entrant).
Intent: Purposefully acting to shield or aid the person.
Active Conduct: Taking steps like hiding, providing false statements, or offering resources, as opposed to merely failing to report someone.
GROK
” …they are not transporting them, and they are not concealing, harboring, or shielding them.”
They are being referred to the Department of Justice for investigation. Once DOJ start investigating, there’s no telling what an investigation might uncover.
But it violates the constitution to investigate someone for exercising a constitutional right, without grounds to believe that a law is being violated.
Even if there is a right, which is highly debatable, there are other superior rights in the conflict. You treat it as absolute and call people like Luna a liar.
It is not debatable at all. This right has been upheld for over 200 years, and there are no rights superior to the constitution.
Of course it is debatable. Stop with the foolish pronouncements and vague references to the Constitution.
This is a silly because we dont actually know if that is the case UNTIL the investigation is held. Just because you SAY it is the case doesnt mean it is the case.
That will come out of the investigation and if they are covered by the constitution then they are safe.
tell that to the 1/6ers
Illeagals don’t have any constitutional rights
First of all, yes they do. The constitution says so, and if you disagree then you are against the constitution.
But that is not the point here. We are not discussing the illegal aliens’ rights, but the states’ rights, as exercised by the cities. And the right of every state to refuse to cooperate with the federal government’s wishes is thoroughly established and has been upheld for over 200 years.
When a State or city is asked to turn over illegal in custody, and the State/city doesn’t “cooperate,” this is a form of obstruction. Any willful act that allows or is meant to allow criminal suspects to escape from law enforcement officers’ lawful efforts to apprehend them is obstruction.
Try sheltering a criminal suspect in your home, see the police coming, and provide him with a hiding place to keep the police from finding him, and see how fast you’re charged with obstruction of a police officer.
Non-compliance can only mean hands-off. Action taken to prevent LEOs from enforcing the law is obstruction. Don’t tell LE that an illegal is in custody? Fine (maybe). LE becomes aware you’re holding an illegal and asks you to turn him over when he’s going to be released, and you let him go, that’s obstruction because the act was a willful and meant to thwart the execution of the law. (Arguably, any action or inaction intended to thwart LE’s apprehension of a criminal suspect is obstruction. Because the avowed avowed purpose of providing “sanctuary” is to disrupt/prevent LE operations, sanctuary State/city officials have labeled themselves as willful obstructionists.)
Im sorry Dave but you are wrong…naturally I am just getting in before Justice Milhouse tells you how wrong you are.
You just have to take what ever Justice Milhouse says on faith 😉
How does putting up illegals in hotels not constitute harboring?
Also the last time I checked, the Civil War established preeminence of federal law over state and local laws.
The Constitution says the federal government has exclusive authority over immigration and border control (national defense). The 10th Amendment reserves authority to the States that hasn’t been delegated to the federal government.
Otherwise, the statutes are clear. Sanctuary State and city officials are violating federal law. They don’t have a right to ignore federal law because the States surrendered their native jurisdiction over immigration and border control when they ratified the Constitution.
8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv) is clear and unambiguous,…if you harbor an illegal alien and by doing so it results in the death of any person, you are subject to the death penalty,..this should be made clear to these Mayors
Whether or not Millhouse advises us that it is valid, that certainly looks like plenty of justification to lock some mayors up, a la Jan 6. A little solitary confinement here, no charges for months there, etc.
It’s only a PROCESS, not a PUNISHMENT, right?
Their rules.
It doesn’t matter one iota to these radical leftist majors if something that Trump wants to do to help Americans really will be beneficial; they will adamantly oppose it no matter what, because TDS is a real mental health disorder. They will support absolutely nothing if it is proposed by Trump. And until the people that elect them finally realize this and vote them out, they will continue to suffer the consequences of putting liberals in charge.
When the hell are you people going to grasp that Milhouse knows absolutely nothing about the law?
That he simply regurgitates the propagandistic interpretations of law that his masters best think will demoralize you?
His whole purpose is to make you believe that you are powerless in the face of the leftist legal machine which always outflanks the right through the quote-unquote actual law.
Milhous is often spot-on. When he’s not, he usually makes some good points and his comments provoke thought. I agree he’s off-base here. In fact, unusually so.