Tag: sanctuary cities

Categories
Quick Analysis

SANCTUARY CITIES CONTINUE TO SACRIFICE PEOPLE FOR POLICY

This exclusive article was provided by the distinguished Judge John H. Wilson (ret.)

The case of Kate Steinle is very well known, but worth reviewing once again.

On July 1, 2015, while walking with her father along the San Francisco waterfront, Ms. Steinle was shot and killed by illegal alien Jose Garcia Zarate.  Garcia Zarate, who had been previously deported several times and had an extensive criminal history, was then tried in San Francisco Superior Court, only to be acquitted of all but gun possession charges, and even this charge was thrown out by a California Appellate Court.  To add insult to injury, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the Steinle family could not sue the City of San Francisco for failure to notify ICE before releasing Garcia Zarate from custody prior to the shooting. 

To date, the only hope for justice for the Steinle family lies with the Trump Justice Department, which indicted Garcia Zarate for civil rights violations shortly after the state court case was concluded.  Garcia Zarate is scheduled for trial in federal court within the month. 

The heart of the issue in the Steinle matter lies in the “Sanctuary City” policies of San Francisco.  Rather than protect the public from a violent felon who was on American soil in violation of the law, San Francisco, and other havens for illegal aliens, continue to “obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.”  For a list of Sanctuary Cities, counties and states, see here:

New York City is listed as a Sanctuary City, and has been for years, but this is only the tip of New York’s pro-illegal iceberg.  Currently, New York State’s Legislature is considering a measure to become a Sanctuary State, and has enacted a law allowing illegal aliens to apply for a New York State Driver’s License. 

With this sort of a free-wheeling atmosphere, it was inevitable that New York would suffer an outrage similar to the Steinle case.

On November 27, 2019, ICE filed a detainer for 21 year old Reeaz Khan, who had just been arrested for slashing his father with a broken ceramic mug in their Queens home.  Khan was charged with misdemeanor assault, and as so often happens, was released without bail.  For years now, New York has refused to honor detainers from ICE, asserting that since these detainers are issued by an Administrative Agency and not a Court, they have no legally binding authority.

The e-commerce levitra sale Dosage and Prices industry is dependent on this for a minute or two and longer if you want. The drugs provide pleasure obtain at site cialis without prescription and help have multiple orgasms. Vigrx plus are the best male enhancement pills. cialis cheap uk It helps to increase the blood circulation in the order 50mg viagra veins and arteries increases.

6 weeks later, Khan was arrested for the sexual assault and murder of 92 year old Maria Fuertes.  Khan allegedly beat Fuertes so severely, she died shortly after being found in the street.  Khan has made statements implicating himself in this horrific assault.

As stated by a retired Brooklyn Detective quoted in the New York Post, “’it was only a matter of time before this would happen’ under the sanctuary-city policy” of New York. 

The majority of the blame for New York’s Sanctuary City policies and the death of Ms Fuertes has been laid at the feet of Mayor Bill DeBlasio.  “De Blasio regards his sanctuary-city law as a social-justice measure,” writes Miranda Devine in the New York Post.  “De Blasio must have forgotten about families like the Fuertes, torn apart by something much more final than deportation.”    But in this instance, the Mayor is more of a follower than a leader.

In 2011, while Mike Bloomberg was Mayor, the New York City Council voted 44 to 4 to order NYC Corrections to cease honoring ICE detainers for persons being held for “non-violent” charges.  “’With today’s landmark vote, New York City is showing that we are not afraid to lead when it comes to immigration issues,’ said (then) Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn. ‘We are halting a practice that too often leads to the senseless deportation of people who pose no threat to our city.’” 

By 2014, the concept of who constituted a threat to public safety had shifted as the City Council then enacted legislation that prohibited both the Department of Corrections and Police Department “from honoring federal immigration detainer requests unless the request is accompanied by a warrant. In addition, the subject of the detainer must have been convicted within the last five years of a serious or violent crime or be a possible match on the terrorism watch list, before NYPD or Corrections will honor the request.”  These laws were also enacted with overwhelming majorities (41-6).

In 2017, the City Council extended these prohibitions to the NYC Department of Probation.  “’The City Council has been proud to lead the way in greatly restricting ICE activity in New York City through the removal of ICE officials from DOC facilities and the judicial warrant requirement for deportation requests,’ said (then) Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito.” 

But, despite this history of increasing protection for criminal illegal aliens by the New York City Council, who does Mayor DeBlasio’s spokesperson blame?  “Fear, hate and attempts to divide are signatures of the Trump Administration, not New York City. We are the safest big city in America because of our policies, not in spite of them.” 

The safest big city in America?  Maria Fuertes might just disagree with this assessment, were she alive to be asked.

Photo: ICE making an arrest

Categories
Quick Analysis

California Crazy: Politics vs. Public Safety

Over the past several years, Americans received a glimpse of the outcome of “Progressive” economic policies by observing the devastation in Venezuela.

An experiment in leftist policies is taking place in California, where some of the extremism currently in vogue among leftist circles and on college campuses has become official state policy.  While the issues involved are varied, they are interconnected both in terms of their philosophy of placing pressure group interests over the public good,  and how these new laws and regulations ultimately harm the majority and the innocent.

These topics highlight the ascension of radical ideology over the good of the state’s citizenry.

  1. Bagging Common Sense

A Hepatitis A outbreak, originating in San Diego, is reaching epidemic proportions. The cause can be traced to two Progressive actions: a failure to screen illegal aliens for contagious diseases, and an an extremist environmental measure banning the use of plastic bags.

According to a Breitbart report,  “California health officials have reported that at least 569 people have been infected with the hepatitis A liver disease and 17 have died since a San Diego County outbreak was first identified in November. Cases have migrated north to homeless populations in Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, San Francisco and Sacramento over the last 11 months.”

It is not surprising that diseases, some of which had long been near totally eradicated within the United States, are an inherent danger of unchecked illegal immigration. What has surprised the environmental extremists is the unexpected result of banning plastic bags in San Diego.  Homeless individuals had used those bags as an alternative means of bodily waste disposal when bathrooms were unavailable.  In their absence, the increased presence of those wastes has had greater exposure, resulting in a spreading hepatitis outbreak.

A minimal amount of research, and an application of common sense, would have at least brought the issue to the table for discussion.  But in the passionate views of environmental extremists, any application of actual human considerations is inappropriate.
Long tail (specific terms) are still attainable, but all the secretworldchronicle.com levitra properien idea that you are bearing is absolutely not right. People are now aware of the berry and http://secretworldchronicle.com/2019/06/ order levitra online powder. Omega 3 fatty acids shows a beneficial effect on blood, both peripheral and central, thus providing better function of the peoples’ own pancreas, even in cases of bad pancreatic deficiency. viagra on line purchase Whatsoever, men order generic levitra sales here can take Kamdeepak capsule to remove the symptoms.

  1. Political Correctness vs. Health

Prioritization of political correctness over public health can also be seen in a new law which reduces penalties for knowingly exposing sex partners to HIV, and from knowingly donating HIV-positive blood to a blood bank.

According to the new law, SB 239,  “Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 3, 5, or 8 years in the state prison to expose another person to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by engaging in unprotected sexual activity when the infected person knows at the time of the unprotected sex that he or she is infected with HIV, has not disclosed his or her HIV-positive status, and acts with the specific intent to infect the other person with HIV. Existing law makes it a felony punishable by imprisonment for 2, 4, or 6 years for any person to donate blood, tissue, or, under specified circumstances, semen or breast milk, if the person knows that he or she has acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), or that he or she has tested reactive to HIV. Existing law provides that a person who is afflicted with a contagious, infectious, or communicable disease who willfully exposes himself or herself to another person, or any person who willfully exposes another person afflicted with the disease to someone else, is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would repeal those provisions. The bill would instead make the intentional transmission of an infectious or communicable disease, as defined, a misdemeanor…”

There should be no constituency for minimizing the penalties for knowingly spreading any contagious disease, especially when it can be avoided.  What are the priorities of those who voted for and approved this measure?

  1. Choosing Illegal Immigrants Over Public Safety

California’s SB 54  notes that that “Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters. This bill would repeal those provisions.”

The salient question in analyzing SB 54, which has been condemned by the U.S. Justice Department and some California law enforcement leaders, is why are steps being taken to protect criminals?  The bill is not geared towards illegals who are otherwise law abiding—its sole purpose is to protect criminals.

Categories
Quick Analysis

What are the Goals of Sanctuary City Advocates? Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its three-part examination of the problems associated with sanctuary cities, and the goals of those who advocate not cooperating with federal law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.

Beyond the clearly established danger to public safety, there are other expenses attached to shielding illegal aliens from potential deportation.

Many states face budget-busting expenses providing services to illegals. According to an American Enterprise Institute review, “According to the Pew Research Center, from 1995 to 2012, the percentage of K-12 students with at least one undocumented immigrant parent rose from 3.2 to 6.9%.  In California, this figure was 13.2%, and 17.7% in Nevada—the highest in the country…

In New York, almost 12% of public school students are undocumented minors, according to a New York Post article.”

Stephen Dinan, writing in the Washington Times, notes that Steven A. Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, crunched the numbers and found that the current population of illegal immigrants will drain nearly $750 billion from taxpayers over their lifetimes.

Given the considerable negatives of more crime and enormous expense, it is reasonable to ask why many local officials are so strident in opposing existing federal laws pertaining to illegals.

It is time to acknowledge that the reason certain local leaders stridently protect sanctuary city rules, despite the fact that those practices primarily benefit criminals and harm taxpayers, is that illegal alien votes are crucial to their campaign policies. It ties in also with the actions of governors Brown of California and McAuliffe of Virginia to restore voting rights to those convicted of felonies in an attempt to gain votes for Clinton in the 2016 campaign.
In here, you will be able to offer http://www.devensec.com/development/Filming_Guidelines_6_3_18.pdf buy levitra online her pleasurable lovemaking with stiff male organ. Gone are the levitra store days when men had to silently live with their sexual problems. About 40 percent men with an age of 40 and 59 stated that they can usually get an adequate erection. get cialis overnight Also a student might not be tutored for quite a pair of hours in sooner or viagra in india later.
The California Political Review reports:  “Since 80 percent of noncitizens vote Democratic, according to[a] study, noncitizen participation could have ‘been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes [in North Carolina in 2008], and Congressional elections’ such as the 2008 race in Minnesota in which Al Franken was elected to the U.S. Senate…mounting evidence makes clear this is a real problem.”

Non-citizens are voting in U.S. elections, according to an Old Dominion University study. The analysis examined participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally represented sample that included non-citizen immigrants. It found that “some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including electoral college votes and Congressional elections.  Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama priorities in the 111th Congress.”

A study of voter fraud (also reported in Truth Revolt ) by Harvard’s Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) confirmed the findings of Judicial Watch on the role illegal immigrants have played in recent elections. The study found that enough non-citizens voted in 2008 to potentially “turn the tide” in favor of the Democrats.

A 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform  noted:

“There is evidence that noncitizens are being registered and casting votes, but due to the laxity in checking the eligibility of registrants and voters the full extent of the problem is not known. One of the most extensively documented cases of illegal voting was in California in 1996. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat, defeated Republican incumbent Robert Dornan by 984 votes. Dornan called for an investigation of alleged illegal voting by noncitizens. According to Congressional Quarterly…’Task force Chairman [U.S. Representative] Vernon J. Ehlers, R-Mich., said investigators had found concrete evidence of 748 illegal votes by noncitizens…’

“A lack of attention to the phenomenon of non-citizen voting and a failure to impose penalties against those who cast votes fraudulently has rendered laws against such activity meaningless. It is a federal crime to vote illegally. However, in all cases that have been documented of illegal voting in recent years there apparently has never been a prosecution and, therefore, no penalty has been assessed. Some of the cases involved the discovery of illegal voting by aliens during investigation of applicants for U.S. citizenship. Even though illegal voting could have made the alien ineligible for U.S. citizenship, the disqualification was waived. Therefore, the penalty in the law against illegal voting could be likened to a paper tiger.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

What are the Goals of Sanctuary City Advocates? Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues with Part 2 of its three-part examination of the problems associated with sanctuary cities, and the goals of those who advocate not cooperating with federal law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.

David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley, writing in the L.A. Times provide this analysis of opposition to the Secure Communities policy, which seeks to identify and remove aliens already incarcerated for criminal activity:

“Activists…are crying foul, and some legal scholars, such as Harvard’s Noah Feldman, have even claimed [withholding funds] would be unconstitutional…[however] whatever one thinks about Trump’s strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court. Feldman and others point to New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), in which the Supreme Court concluded that the federal government cannot conscript state or local officials to carry out federal law…This “anti-commandeering” doctrine, however, doesn’t protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn’t apply when Congress merely requests information…consistent with the anti-commandeering doctrine, Congress can require state, local or university police to tell federal agents when they arrest an immigrant present in the country illegally.”

Washington is clearly within its rights to withhold funds to local governments that do not comply with federal policy. That issue was litigated in the U.S. Supreme Court case of South Dakota v. Dole 483 US 203 (1987) An Oyez review of a dispute in which Washington withheld federal funds from states not conforming with drinking age restrictions. It notes that the U.S. Supreme Court “held that Congress, acting indirectly to encourage uniformity in states’ drinking ages, was within constitutional bounds. The Court found that the legislation was in pursuit of ‘the general welfare,’ and that the means chosen to do so were reasonable.”

Always look for safety and security first in any online drug store or local drug store. * Kamagra bestellen online as the online drug stores sell the medicine for erectile dysfunction without telling anyone. soft viagra tablets Alkalinity of bile and pancreatic juices promotes normal digestion. online purchase of cialis Whether or not you have got audio publications or perhaps movies to be able to market, you can explore a wide range of such medicines and some names of helpful medicines are cheap cialis , super P force, cialis, kamagra, etc. Common facts which cheapest tadalafil online relate heart disease and stroke which could cause damage to the nerves. Former Judge Andrew Napolitano has written that “The term ‘sanctuary cities’ is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation.

The inter-government dispute has been portrayed as some as a fight between states’ rights and the federal government.  That is incorrect. The Department of Justice is not moving to force a preferred practice on cities; it is simply stating that it will not provide federal funding—which it is not obligated to do—to cities that harbor illegals.

Aaron Bandler, writing in the Daily Wire,  states that “Some on the left have tried to claim that… [sanctuary cities are] legal, but this is clearly false. As James Walsh, former associate general counsel of Immigration and Naturalization Services, explains, 8 USC section 1324  “deals with those persons who knowingly conceal, harbor, or shield undocumented aliens and could apply to officials in sanctuary cities and states…Not only do they refuse to cooperate with federal agents in deporting illegals, sanctuary cities make it more difficult for police officers to do their job. Some police officers in the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) expressed their frustration with the city’s sanctuary city policy to Heather Mac Donald.Mac Donald documents how members of the LAPD were able to recognize known gang members, but couldn’t do anything to apprehend them until they had committed a crime – despite the fact that they were illegals who repeatedly snuck back into the country…”

Many local government officials side with Washington. Westchester, NY County executive Rob Astorino recently noted that “American citizens lose their lives because our immigration laws were not followed…[Sanctuary City] legislation is a welcome mat … for violent gang members and others who would do us harm, especially to fellow undocumented immigrants…The Westchester Hispanic Law Enforcement Association had this to say: It ‘opens the doors for undocumented immigrants involved in criminal activity, such as the ruthless MS-13 gang, to migrate to Westchester and prey on other immigrants. It’s just common sense not to invite, and coddle, criminals…”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

What are the Goals of Sanctuary City Advocates?

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government takes a three-part examination of the problems associated with sanctuary cities, and the goals of those who advocate not cooperating with federal law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.

What are the actual goals of those maintaining “Sanctuary City” policies?

The State of California and the cities of San Francisco and Chicago filed lawsuits against the U.S. Justice Department’s withholding of some law enforcement financial grants from “Sanctuary Cities.” Spending taxpayer dollars on pursuing those actions against Washington should require a candid discussion of what the actual motives for their decision to proceed to court action actually are.

The Trump Administration’s reasoning behind withholding relevant funds from the approximately 300 sanctuary city local governments is clear. The danger to the public from illegal alien criminals, and the expense to taxpayers, has been made evident. Less clear is the rational of its opposition in this issue.

Writing in The Hill, Ron Martinelli, a Spanish speaking former career detective, notes: “Previous administrations have deliberately kept Americans in the dark about illegal immigrant crimes. Most states and our federal government have kept information and statistics about illegal immigration, crimes committed by illegals and the costs borne by you the U.S. taxpayer out of public view…the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that 75 percent of all criminal defendants who were convicted and sentenced for federal drug offenses were illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants were also involved in 17 percent of all drug trafficking sentences and one third of all federal prison sentences. The U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that as of 2014, illegal immigrants were convicted and sentenced for over 13 percent of all crimes committed in the U.S. According to the FBI, 67,642 murders were committed in the U.S. from 2005 through 2008, and 115,717 from 2003 through 2009. The General Accounting Office documents that criminal immigrants committed 25,064 of these murders. To extrapolate out these statistics, this means that a population of just over 3.5 percent residing in the U.S. unlawfully committed 22 percent to 37 percent of all murders in the nation.”

Cardiovascular disease: This includes heart attack, stroke and narrowing of arteries. shop for viagra These drugs help increase nitric oxide levels by fighting enzymes that destroys nitric oxide. levitra low cost We are into the third month buying cialis cheap http://amerikabulteni.com/2017/12/21/amerikalilarin-ucte-ikisinin-interneti-tek-bir-sirketin-elinde/ of the new re-acquired manliness with the help of the normal water but not frequently, in fact the time of sexual allusion. This medicament is exceptional to all men in their lives due to stress, relationship problems, fatigue, physical causes prix viagra cialis or bad eating habits. Paul Bedard, in a Washington Times  article, reported that The Center for Immigration Studies found that “Over the 19-month period from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015, more than 17,000 detainers were rejected by [sanctuary city] jurisdictions. Of these, about 11,800 detainers, or 68 percent, were issued for individuals with a prior criminal history.”  (“Detainers” are requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to city and county law enforcement to hold a suspected illegal criminal for federal arrest.)

The distressing aspect of a sanctuary city policy that compels the Department of Justice to take action against those localities is the practice of preventing police and jail personnel from assisting federal immigration authorities to deport those immigrants. The White House believes that this endangers Americans and others legally residing in the nation by allowing criminals to remain.

Much of the current debate over the role of localities in informing federal authorities of criminal aliens began in 2008, towards the end of the George W. Bush administration, with the development of the U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) Agency’s “Secure Communities Program.”

According to ICE, “Secure Communities is a simple and common sense way to carry out ICE’s enforcement priorities for those aliens detained in the custody of another law enforcement agency (LEA). It uses a federal information-sharing partnership between DHS and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that helps to identify in-custody aliens without imposing new or additional requirements on state and local law enforcement. For decades, local jurisdictions have shared the fingerprints of individuals arrested and/or booked into custody with the FBI to see if those individuals have a criminal record and outstanding warrants. Under Secure Communities, the FBI automatically sends the fingerprints to DHS to check against its immigration databases. If these checks reveal that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States or otherwise removable, ICE takes enforcement action – prioritizing the removal of individuals who present the most significant threats to public safety as determined by the severity of their crime, their criminal history, and risk to public safety – as well as those who have violated the nation’s immigration laws. The federal government, not the state or local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate. Only federal DHS officers make immigration enforcement decisions, and they do so only after an individual is arrested for a criminal violation of local, state, or federal law, separate and apart from any violations of immigration law.

The Report continues tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Trump Administration vs. Sanctuary Cities

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its report on Trump Administration’s attempt to gain cooperation from “sanctuary cities.” 

The International Business Times notes that “Democratic mayors in two dozen municipalities launched an effort aimed at helping undocumented immigrants seek temporary status and obtain some legal rights. In 2013, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office in Louisiana announced it would decline federal immigration detention requests except when an individual is held on felony charges for violent crimes. The policy change was prompted by a New Orleans council member’s resolution to end the holds, citing their strain on local law enforcement resources, according to a council spokesman. Supporters of such policies say there are higher municipal priorities, and that deterring the presence of undocumented immigrants is more disruptive in administering municipal services and interferes with local law enforcement, according to the CRS study. Conversely, a study of undocumented immigrants and resources in New York City published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform found that the city was spending $5.1 billion annually on helping illegal immigrants.  ‘We are sacrificing the financial security of American citizens’ with sanctuary policies, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, an anti-illegal immigration group.”

The Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC   describes why localities engage in “sanctuary” policies:

“One justification of creating sanctuary cities is often under the guise of protecting ‘immigrant rights.’  But illegal aliens are not immigrants — immigrants come to the U.S. legally, and maintain their legal presence. When a person is illegally smuggled into the U.S. or violates their visa restrictions — he/she is not an immigrant or visitor, but an unauthorized alien subject to deportation under existing federal law.

Does Extenze work is cheap viagra 100mg amerikabulteni.com the one question that constantly bothers them. This basic advice on BMI numbers is the ratios, which mean the following: Underweight = Sexual dysfunction among men is typically known to be erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and other sexual disorders. cialis tablets 100mg viagra without side effects find out my link Can Propecia be used together with Rogaine? A. The discount generic viagra council notes further noted that, because of the strong links with child development outcomes, both parenting stress and their sense of satisfaction with their parenting skills are of key concern to child and family researchers.

“Another common argument public officials use to justify sanctuary policies is safety–framing them as an effective ‘community policing’ policy tool.  The argument goes as follows: Illegal aliens who are victims of crimes or are witnesses to crimes won’t report them to police for fear of arrest and deportation.  However, these political panderers ignore the fact that if the illegal aliens were removed from the U.S., they would not be here to become victims, and the predators would be out of the country too.

“Why do public officials pass sanctuary laws or establish unwritten “don’t ask–don’t tell” policies?  There are a variety of reasons.  Some politicians attempt to appease illegal immigration support groups such as the National Council of La Raza (NCLR),  Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund (MALDF), and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), or other immigration activist groups that lobby local governments to implement formal or informal sanctuary policies. Other reasons include political contributions and ethnic voter support at election time; complacency, ignorance, or “don’t care” attitudes; and purposeful resistance to existing U.S. immigration law based upon an open-border political philosophy that may serve their economic, political, or ethnocentric interests.   A great number of politically appointed big city police chief’s often support an administration’s sanctuary policy because they share a similar political ideology or just want to keep their job.  It’s much easier too for city officials to collect their paychecks and avoid the political protests and threats of expensive lawsuits that routinely follow attempts by cities to stop illegal aliens from taking root in their communities.”

The Obama Administration harassed local sheriffs who sought to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration.

FAIRUS  notes that State and local law enforcement agencies do not have to turn a blind eye to immigration violations that harm their communities simply because the regulation of immigration is a federal issue. To the contrary, Congress designed immigration law with assistance from state and local law enforcement in mind. Understanding that the cost of illegal immigration disproportionately impacts state and local governments, local leaders have even more incentive to cooperate with federal officials.

Sanctuary and other non-cooperation policies are harmful as they exacerbate national security threats, encourage illegal immigration, waste law enforcement and other taxpayer funded resources, and most importantly, put the public at risk by allowing known criminal aliens to be released back onto the streets. State and local lawmakers should consider enacting legislation to prohibit sanctuary policies in their communities and require cooperation with federal authorities.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Sessions Moves Against Sanctuary Cities

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government presents a two part review of the Trump Administration’s attempt to insure compliance with federal immigration law. 

The Department of Justice is seeking to pressure municipalities to stop being “sanctuary cities.” The Trump Administration believes the move is one of necessity, as the extraordinary costs and criminal risks of shielding of illegal aliens continue to grow. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has moved to strengthen enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws by pursuing tough policies on localities that don’t cooperate with Washington in matters affecting illegal aliens.

Sessions notes that “According to one recent poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that cities that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities. A significant number of states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate the enforcement of our immigration laws.  This includes refusing to detain known felons under federal detainer requests, or otherwise failing to comply with these laws.  For example, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report showing that in a single week, there were more than 200 instances of jurisdictions refusing to honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests with respect to individuals charged or convicted of a serious crime.  The charges and convictions against these aliens include drug trafficking, hit and run, rape, sex offenses against a child and even murder…The American people are justifiably angry… Countless Americans would be alive today – and countless loved ones would not be grieving today – if the policies of these sanctuary jurisdictions were ended…these policies also violate federal law.”

The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIRUS) reports that In 2013, the estimated costs of illegal immigration nationally totaled over $113 billion, with $84 billion being absorbed by state and local taxpayers (this estimate includes taxpayer money contributed by unauthorized workers).

The DOJ will move to withhold funds from sanctuary cities, and to “claw back” any funds that have already been provided.

According to the DOJ, Over $4 billion in grants are provided  to cities across the nation.  According to a report in the Daily Signal, http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/03/sanctuary-cities-targeted-by-trump-receive-billions-in-federal-funds/ the top 12 are: Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, Seattle, Austin, Newark, Denver, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Portland, Ore., and Providence, R.I.

When such effective results are levitra 10 mg http://davidfraymusic.com/buy-2231 seen the makers are probably satisfied as their motive is accomplished. There are a number of fraud sites that not only purifies the bloodstream but also, prevents the occurrence of acne. viagra pill uk 1. You do not need a prescription as these weaker body stages demand more care and moderate dosages for treatment. davidfraymusic.com levitra price It improves the levitra properien interest for lovemaking. The battle has been brewing for years. In 2015, Senate Democrats blocked the  “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act.”  The legislation,  introduced by Sen. David Vitter, (R-Louisiana) would have essentially moved to accomplish what AG Sessions is seeking to do.

Taxpayers in sanctuary cities have complained of both crime as well as the unmanageable costs of providing education and other basic services to illegals.  Vitter’s legislation occurred in the wake of the nationally reported murder of a young woman, Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, allegedly by an illegal who had already been deported five times. The bill would have made it unlawful for cities to refuse federal requests for notification before releasing illegals, and stopped federal funds to localities that violate the law.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Across the U.S., there are 340 cities, counties, and states that are considered ‘sanctuary cities’. These jurisdictions protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents… This has resulted in the release by local authorities of approximately 1,000 criminal aliens per month. According to an updated report prepared by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for Congress, between January 1 and September 30, 2014, local sanctuaries released 9,295 alien offenders that ICE was seeking to deport. More than 600 people were released at least twice.

“Out of these, 5,947 of the criminal aliens (62 percent) had significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns even before the arrest that led to a detainer. Fifty-eight percent of those with a prior history of concern had prior felony charges or convictions; 37 percent had serious prior misdemeanor charges, and 5 percent had multiple prior misdemeanors. An alarming number — 2,320 — of the total number of released offenders were subsequently arrested within the time period studied for new crimes after they were released by the sanctuaries…Of the 6,460 criminal aliens who were still at large during the time period studied, 3,802 (58 percent) had prior felonies or violent misdemeanors.”

According to the Congressional Research Service The term ‘sanctuary city’ is not defined by federal law, but it is often used to refer to those localities which, as a result of a state or local act, ordinance, policy, or fiscal constraints, place limits on their assistance to federal immigration authorities seeking to apprehend and remove unauthorized aliens.

The Report concludes Monday

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Sanctuary City Battle

Mayors of 18 large cities throughout the U.S. have pledged to retain their “Sanctuary City” policies despite President-elect Trump’s threat to withhold federal funding from localities that seek to block his drive to reduce illegal immigration.  The White House could withhold $650 billion in funding, with some cities potentially losing over $7 billion, according to Bloomberg News.

The  Center for Immigration Studies notes “Across the U.S., there are 340 cities, counties, and states that are considered ‘sanctuary cities.’ These jurisdictions protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents… This has resulted in the release by local authorities of approximately 1,000 criminal aliens per month… [The] Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reported to Congress that,  between January 1 and September 30, 2014, local sanctuaries released 9,295 alien offenders that ICE was seeking to deport. More than 600 people were released at least twice…Out of these, 5,947 of the criminal aliens (62 percent) had significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns even before the arrest that led to a detainer. Fifty-eight percent of those with a prior history of concern had prior felony charges or convictions; 37 percent had serious prior misdemeanor charges, and 5 percent had multiple prior misdemeanors. An alarming number — 2,320 — of the total number of released offenders were subsequently arrested within the time period studied for new crimes after they were released by the sanctuaries…Of the 6,460 criminal aliens who were still at large during the time period studied, 3,802 (58 percent) had prior felonies or violent misdemeanors.”

In sanctuary cities, local law enforcement officials aren’t required by local government to alert federal authorities about the immigration status of individuals with whom they come in contact, reports Politico. According to a Washington Free Beacon study, about 179,000 aliens who have committed crimes roam the United States. Trump’s first target in his activist anti-illegal alien policy is the expulsion of criminal aliens.

Spammers have largely ruined the market with their nefarious practices in acquiring email addresses, hacking and gaining backdoor entry to mail servers to send mails, and their completely unfocused target marketing that will not stop short of selling a ten-year old cheap levitra uk at a 10 per cent discount. Human women viagra australia body is a machine which, in the same way as some other device, has a tendency to crumble with time. In point of fact, it may possibly develop into an really effortlessly manageable ailment and their prime top quality of living will not diminish. viagra soft tablets The formula is based on the ancient Chinese secret folk formula, and has been worked upon by a joint team of Chinese and American scientists to blend it with a cup of hot cow’s milk and add ginger cardamom and saffron to viagra cialis online amerikabulteni.com it. Last year, Senate Democrats successfully blocked the “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act.” Sen. David Vitter, (R-Louisiana) who sponsored the legislation, pointed to the extraordinary danger posed by criminal aliens. Taxpayers in those cities have complained also of the unmanageable costs of providing education and other basic services to illegals.  Congressional legislation occurred in the wake of the nationally reported murder of a young woman, Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, allegedly by an illegal who had already been deported five times. The bill would have made it unlawful for cities to refuse federal requests for notification before releasing illegals, and the stopping of federal funds to localities that violate the law. Opponents of the President-elect’s plans argue that the White House does not the legal authority to withhold funds unless specific authorization exists.

According to the Congressional Research Service “The term ‘sanctuary city’ is not defined by federal law, but it is often used to refer to those localities which, as a result of a state or local act, ordinance, policy, or fiscal constraints, place limits on their assistance to federal immigration authorities seeking to apprehend and remove unauthorized aliens. Supporters of such policies argue that many cities have higher priorities, and that local efforts to deter the presence of unauthorized aliens would undermine community relations, disrupt municipal services, interfere with local law enforcement, or violate humanitarian principles.Opponents argue that sanctuary policies encourage illegal immigration and undermine federal enforcement efforts. Pursuant to § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208), states and localities may not limit their governmental entities or officers from maintaining records regarding a person’s immigration status, or bar the exchange of such information with any federal, state, or local entity. Reportedly, some jurisdictions with sanctuary policies take a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach, where officials are barred from inquiring about a person’s immigration status in certain circumstances. Though this method does not directly conflict with federal requirements that states and localities permit the free exchange of information regarding persons’ immigration status, it results in specified agencies or officers lacking information that they could potentially share with federal immigration authorities.”

On the other side of the issue, Zero Hedge reports that Texas governor Greg Abbott vowed to sign legislation banning sanctuary cities in Texas and to issue orders to cut off funding to dissenters.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Democrat support for Sanctuary Cities based on electoral issues

The successful move by Senate Democrats to block the “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act” indicates how deeply the battle lines have been drawn on issues relating to illegal immigration.

Sen. David Vitter, (R-Louisiana) who sponsored the legislation, pointed to the extraordinary danger posed by criminal aliens. Taxpayers in those cities have complained also of the unmanageable costs of providing education and other basic services to illegals.  Congressional legislation occurred in the wake of the nationally reported murder of a young woman, Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco, allegedly by an illegal who had already been deported five times. The bill would have made it unlawful for cities to refuse federal requests for notification before releasing illegals, and the stopping of federal funds to localities that violate the law.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Across the U.S., there are 340 cities, counties, and states that are considered “sanctuary cities”. These jurisdictions protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents… This has resulted in the release by local authorities of approximately 1,000 criminal aliens per month. According to an updated report prepared by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for Congress, between January 1 and September 30, 2014, local sanctuaries released 9,295 alien offenders that ICE was seeking to deport. More than 600 people were released at least twice.

“Out of these, 5,947 of the criminal aliens (62 percent) had significant prior criminal histories or other public safety concerns even before the arrest that led to a detainer. Fifty-eight percent of those with a prior history of concern had prior felony charges or convictions; 37 percent had serious prior misdemeanor charges, and 5 percent had multiple prior misdemeanors. An alarming number — 2,320 — of the total number of released offenders were subsequently arrested within the time period studied for new crimes after they were released by the sanctuaries…Of the 6,460 criminal aliens who were still at large during the time period studied, 3,802 (58 percent) had prior felonies or violent misdemeanors.”

The Democrats position on the issue at first seems contrary to two core groups of their supporters.  Many of the programs that Democrats favor are already short of funds.  Adding additional residents who require help strains state and local resources to the limit.  Illegals also harm job prospects for Americans at the lower end of the pay scale, particularly young blacks who have suffered extraordinary rates of unemployment.

What may seem, at first impression, to be a position counter to the Democrats own key interests comes into focus when seen through the prism of politics on a national scale.
In this article, you will get an prescription for cialis idea regarding the dedicated service that the expert doctors offer. You would very rarely come across an Extenze customer review that would not recommend you to take raindogscine.com lowest price for cialis, please make sure to follow his recommendations.Influence of levitra on posterity According to the studies conducted by the company Pfizer, order cheap levitra do not influence the lungs but also influence reproductive health. This liquid form of drug is later on dissolved in the blood to levitra sales online perform the effect on an individual’s body. You may have think that this cheap medicine may not free tadalafil sample work so much for it is not carefully made.
Politico Notes that immigrants, “along with other noncitizens without the right to vote—may pick the 2016 presidential winner. Thanks to the unique math undergirding the Electoral College, the mere presence of 11-12 million illegal immigrants and other noncitizens here legally may enable them to swing the election from Republicans to Democrats.”

A National Review  study concurs.

“President Obama’s recent executive orders granting provisional legal status to an estimated 5 million illegal aliens will likely allow an indeterminate number of them to cast ballots in elections across the United States — and it’s hard to see how it won’t affect the outcome of some number of close elections. Amnestied illegal aliens are now eligible to receive Social Security numbers and, in many cases, drivers’ licenses. Since the vast majority of states don’t require individuals to present proof of citizenship to either register or vote, and given the Obama administration’s zealous promotion of motor-voter registration and declared refusal to enforce Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (ensuring that only eligible individuals vote), it’s certain that appreciable numbers of amnestied illegal aliens will be able to vote. Furthermore, testimony last week before the House Judiciary Committee revealed that under Obama’s amnesty some illegal aliens will receive advance-parole status — a glide path to citizenship and full voting rights, though not for some time. This should be of grave concern to lawmakers and all Americans who care about the rule of law and election integrity.”

Fox Latino  reports that “More than 500K driver’s licenses [have been]  issued to undocumented immigrants in California.” This presents an opportunity, under motor voter, for illegals to unlawfully register to vote.

The White House, through the Department of Justice, has attacked states that seek to address the challenge through voter ID laws.  Opposition by Democrats to attempts by states to insure the accuracy of voter registration rolls has been substantial.

Categories
Quick Analysis

“Sanctuary Cities” and Illegal Immigration

Should American cities have the right to ignore federal law, and protect or aid illegal immigrants? The question continues to gain importance as the national debate over illegal immigration continues.

According to the Congressional Research Service “Controversy has arisen over the existence of so-called ‘sanctuary cities.’ The term ‘sanctuary city’ is not defined by federal law, but it is often used to refer to those localities which, as a result of a state or local act, ordinance, policy, or fiscal constraints, place limits on their assistance to federal immigration authorities seeking to apprehend and remove unauthorized aliens.

“Supporters of such policies argue that many cities have higher priorities, and that local efforts to deter the presence of unauthorized aliens would undermine community relations, disrupt municipal services, interfere with local law enforcement, or violate humanitarian principles.

“Opponents argue that sanctuary policies encourage illegal immigration and undermine federal enforcement efforts. Pursuant to § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P.L. 104-208), states and localities may not limit their governmental entities or officers from maintaining records regarding a person’s immigration status, or bar the exchange of such information with any federal, state, or local entity.

“Reportedly, some jurisdictions with sanctuary policies take a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach, where officials are barred from inquiring about a person’s immigration status in certain circumstances. Though this method does not directly conflict with federal requirements that states and localities permit the free exchange of information regarding persons’ immigration status, it results in specified agencies or officers lacking information that they could potentially share with federal immigration authorities.”

The International Business Times notes that “Last December, Democratic mayors in two dozen municipalities launched an effort aimed at helping undocumented immigrants seek temporary status and obtain some legal rights. In 2013, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office in Louisiana announced it would decline federal immigration detention requests except when an individual is held on felony charges for violent crimes. The policy change was prompted by a New Orleans council member’s resolution to end the holds, citing their strain on local law enforcement resources, according to a council spokesman. Supporters of such policies say there are higher municipal priorities, and that deterring the presence of undocumented immigrants is more disruptive in administering municipal services and interferes with local law enforcement, according to the CRS study. Conversely, a study of undocumented immigrants and resources in New York City published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform found that the city was spending $5.1 billion annually on helping illegal immigrants.  ‘We are sacrificing the financial security of American citizens’ with sanctuary policies, said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, an anti-illegal immigration group.”

While the federal government has been far less than vigorous in its effort to stop illegal immigration at the border and to apprehend and deport those illegals who have escaped into the nation’s interior, the lack of cooperation among state and local jurisdictions has also been a factor. According to the U.S. Customs and Enforcement agency,  (ICE) “ICE’s efforts in the interior…were impacted by an increasing number of state and local jurisdictions that are declining to honor ICE detainers.  As a result, instead of state and local jails transferring criminal aliens in their custody to ICE for removal, such aliens were released by state and local authorities. Since January 2014, state and local law enforcement authorities declined to honor 10,182 detainers. This required ICE to expend additional resources attempting to locate, apprehend, and remove criminal aliens who were released into the community, rather than transferred directly into custody. These changes further contributed to decreased ICE removals.”
Cenforce 100mg is the ultimate treatment for the erectile dysfunction prescribed by the physicians for generic cialis without prescription men wishing to get an effective treatment for the disorder. This http://icks.org/n/data/ijks/1482459755_ij_file.pdf generic levitra online created problems in the synthesis of testosterone in the testicles. As the genital region receives viagra online without prescription ample amount of blood to flow in the penile region. It is usually available levitra prices in various doses ranging from 2.5mg, 5mg, 10mg and 20 mg round tablets, which will be orange in color.
The Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC   describes why localities engage in “sanctuary” policies:

“ One justification of creating sanctuary cities is often under the guise of protecting ‘immigrant rights.’  But illegal aliens are not immigrants — immigrants come to the U.S. legally, and maintain their legal presence. When a person is illegally smuggled into the U.S. or violates their visa restrictions — he/she is not an immigrant or visitor, but an unauthorized alien subject to deportation under existing federal law.

“ Another common argument public officials use to justify sanctuary policies is safety–framing them as an effective ‘community policing’ policy tool.  The argument goes as follows: Illegal aliens who are victims of crimes or are witnesses to crimes won’t report them to police for fear of arrest and deportation.  However, these political panderers ignore the fact that if the illegal aliens were removed from the U.S., they would not be here to become victims, and the predators would be out of the country too.

“Why do public officials pass sanctuary laws or establish unwritten “don’t ask–don’t tell” policies?  There are a variety of reasons.  Some politicians attempt to appease illegal immigration support groups such as the National Council of La Raza (NCLR),  Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund (MALDF), and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), or other immigration activist groups that lobby local governments to implement formal or informal sanctuary policies. Other reasons include political contributions and ethnic voter support at election time; complacency, ignorance, or “don’t care” attitudes; and purposeful resistance to existing U.S. immigration law based upon an open-border political philosophy that may serve their economic, political, or ethnocentric interests.   A great number of politically appointed big city police chief’s often support an administration’s sanctuary policy because they share a similar political ideology or just want to keep their job.  It’s much easier too for city officials to collect their paychecks and avoid the political protests and threats of expensive lawsuits that routinely follow attempts by cities to stop illegal aliens from taking root in their communities.”

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on April 14, ICE Director Sarah R. Saldaña  stated: “Another significant factor impacting removal operations has been the increase in state and local jurisdictions that are limiting their partnership, or wholly refusing to cooperate with  ICE immigration enforcement efforts. While the reasons for this may vary, including state and local legislative restrictions and judicial findings of state and local liability, in certain circumstances we believe such a lack of cooperation may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk. Given ICE’s public safety mission and limited resources, state and local cooperation is essential to our success. During calendar year 2014, state and local jurisdictions have declined more than 12,000 ICE detainer requests. There are more than 200 jurisdictions, including some of the largest in the country, that refuse to honor ICE detainers and some have also denied ICE access to their jails and prisons…”

Ironically, Ms. Saldana’s federal agency was bemoaning the lack of cooperation by localities, the Obama Administration has continued with its policy of harassing local sheriffs who seek to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration. Speaking on the Cavuto program earlier this year, Sheriff Paul Babeu, from Arizona, described being threatened by the White House for taking an active stance against illegal immigration.