Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signs “sanctuary cities” bill into law
by Patrick Svitek
Gov. Greg Abbott signed a ban on “sanctuary cities” on Sunday, putting the final touch on legislation that would also allow police to inquire about the immigration status of people they lawfully detain.
Senate Bill 4 makes sheriffs, constables, police chiefs and other local leaders subject to Class A misdemeanor charges if they don’t cooperate with federal authorities and honor requests from immigration agents to hold noncitizen inmates who are subject to deportation. It also provides civil penalties for entities in violation of the provision that begin at $1,000 for a first offense and climb to as high as $25,500 for each subsequent infraction. The bill also applies to public colleges.
The final version of the bill included a controversial House amendment that allows police officers to question a person’s immigration status during a detainment — perhaps including traffic stops — as opposed to being limited to a lawful arrest. It has drawn fierce opposition from Democrats and immigrants rights groups, who are already gearing up for a legal battle against the law.
Tarrant County Sheriff Bill Waybourn weighs in on the Texas bill.
Abbott defended the legality of the law Sunday, saying key parts of it have “already been tested at the United States Supreme Court and approved there.”
That could soon come to a test. Sunday night’s signing prompted a fast and negative reaction from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, or MALDEF, which referred to the new Texas law as “a colossal blunder” and promised to fight it, “in court and out.”
As with most every rule and regulation, there was a distinct reason for its creation.
He had said it was especially needed after Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez announced earlier this year that her department would reduce its cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Governor Abbott, by the way, makes an excellent and purposely-forgotten and avoided point that almost half of the people crossing our southern border these days are not Mexican. They stem from a much wider variety of countries.
Meaning: the law isn’t racist — though Mexican groups would insist you think that — it is instead protecting lawful Americans within the United States, legal Mexicans included, from those who would act as criminals, do them harm, by simply barnstorming the nation in great numbers.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott takes a step in the proper direction.
Texas House Passes Bill to Jail ‘Sanctuary’ Sheriffs, Police Chiefs
by Bob Price
The Texas House passed a tough anti-sanctuary bill containing provisions making it a crime for sheriffs and chiefs of police to refuse to cooperate with immigration officials. They could also be removed from office for providing “sanctuary” for the criminal illegal aliens in their jails.
How did this come to be such an issue? Predominantly when Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez (D) proclaimed her jurisdiction lawless insofar as her nestling arms became a sanctuary for illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico. Straw, meet camel’s back. Shake hands and come out legislating. So Texas did.
Senate Bill 4 finally passed the Texas House Thursday afternoon by a vote of 94-53 along party lines.
Following the bill’s final passage in the House, the Texas House Republican Caucus sent out a statement saying the bill ensure federal immigration laws that are on the books will be followed and enforced in Texas. The caucus stated the bill prevents local entities from creating policies that threaten public safety.
“The purpose of this legislation is to protect Texans from criminals who are here illegally. We are trying to make sure those bad actors are detained until we can determine their status, ” said House Administration Committee Chairman Charlie Geren (R-Fort Worth). “This bill will not affect law abiding citizens, only those that are in trouble with the police.”
Of particular gall to Leftists and lawbreakers is this aspect of SB4, which provides penalties for those in law enforcement who fail to comply.
SECTION 5.02. Chapter 39, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 39.07 to read as follows:
Sec.39.07.FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH IMMIGRATION DETAINER
REQUEST. (a) A person who is a sheriff, chief of police, or
constable or a person who otherwise has primary authority for
administering a jail commits an offense if the person:
(1)has custody of a person subject to an immigration
detainer request issued by United States Immigration and Customs
(2)knowingly fails to comply with the detainer
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c)It is an exception to the application of this section
that the person who was subject to an immigration detainer request
described by Subsection (a)(1) had previously provided proof that
the person was a citizen of the United States.
Caucus Chairman Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound), said, “House Republicans have proven time and time again that we are committed to protecting the rule of law and keeping our communities safe. We will continue to work tirelessly to pass legislation that ensures the safety of Texans, such as Senate Bill 4.”
The crime imposed would be a Class A misdemeanor for not complying with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers.
The measure was passed by the Texas Senate in early February.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott has steadfastly said that he would sign the bill and has pushed for its passage. It would go into effect on September 1.
So what was happening in Travis County at the behest of and with the support of Sheriff Sally Hernandez? From the TexasTribune.com:
Report: Travis County released dozens of undocumented inmates wanted by feds
by Julian Aguilar
Travis County officials declined dozens of requests from federal immigration agents to hold inmates in the days leading up to the county’s recent showdown with Gov. Greg Abbott over its new “sanctuary” policy.
And people say law enforcement isn’t politicized? Locally? Federally? Alphabet agencies?
The White House’s first-ever report on local governments that don’t cooperate with federal immigration agents shows Travis County officials declined dozens of requests to hold inmates in the days leading up to the county’s recent showdown with Gov. Greg Abbott.
Between Jan. 28 and Feb. 3, Travis County sheriff deputies declined more than 140 requests – known as detainers – from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to hand over undocumentedimmigrants for possible deportation, according to the report from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Travis County was far and away the Texas leader in declining ICE detainers, according to the report, which mentioned only two other Texas counties. Williamson County declined four recent detainers and Bastrop County declined three.
Last month, Abbott pulled state grant funding for Travis County programs after Sheriff Sally Hernandez, a Democrat, said after her 2016 election victory that she would only honor detainer requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on a limited basis.
This is Sheriff Sally “Sanctuary Sally” Hernandez. She thinks the law is flexible and only a mere suggestion or hint.
Isn’t it odd that all the law enforcement officials who take the greatest umbrage to the enforcement of laws on the books and cooperation with federal law enforcement all have Mexican last names? I don’t see, for example, very many officials with the last name of “Martin” or “Washington” or “Vang” or “St George” or “Jackson” or “Nguyen.” I wonder why that might be?
Sheriff Sally Hernandez. Sheriff Ed Gonzalez. Sheriff Lupe Valdez. Chief Art Acevedo. Anyone besides me start to sense something of a theme here?
Yet: a recent poll reveals that Texans overwhelmingly support (by 93 percent), a police officer being able to check a person’s immigration status when they are arrested for a crime.
What is it with law enforcement in Leftist cities and some courts who seem to think the law does not apply to them, and that they may either selectively choose to flaunt it entirely or interpret it in a fashion that is not in keeping with precedent or the letter of the law itself?
What happens to a nation when those tasked with upholding the law are now those who break the very statutes they are sworn to obey?
What, then, becomes the true purpose of law enforcement or the judiciary?
To pick and choose? To tick off boxes on a sheet as if you were ordering a sandwich? “I’ll have ham but no pickles”?
“I’ll enforce rape laws but I won’t enforce drug laws or those having to do with illegal aliens”?
Gonzalez reportedly told those gathered at the rally that Senate Bill 4 will make local communities more dangerous and is bad public policy.
Bad for illegal Mexicans. Bad for illegal aliens. Bad for breakers of our laws.
When the enforcers of our laws decide which laws they will selectively enforce, how long will it be before the populace decides which laws it will obey?
Oh, right. That’s happening already, albeit on a smaller scale. I’m suggesting a national scale. A scale far, far beyond that of any law enforcement response. You are pushing, Leftists, for a Second Civil War.
What happens when citizens individually — like the government — arbitrarily decide what laws they will or will not obey? Then en masse?
I am watching American law enforcement disintegrate right before my very eyes. These so-called “law enforcement officers” dishonor their oaths and dishonor myself and those who put in years of service to our communities. They dishonor those who fought and died behind those laws and for those laws, from the soldier to the beat cop.
If you don’t care for laws, stay out of law enforcement.
But that would be too judgmental now, wouldn’t it?
The Latest: Judge in Hawaii puts Trump’s travel ban on hold
by the Associated Press
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson issued his ruling Wednesday after hearing arguments on Hawaii’s request for a temporary restraining order involving the ban.
His ruling prevents the executive order from going into effect Thursday.
More than half a dozen states are trying to stop the ban, and federal courts in Maryland, Washington state and Hawaii heard arguments Wednesday about whether it should be put into practice.
Hawaii argued that the ban discriminates on the basis of nationality and would prevent Hawaii residents from receiving visits from relatives in the six mostly Muslim countries covered by the ban.
The state also says the ban would harm its tourism industry and the ability to recruit foreign students and workers.
Roughly the same argument as before. Judges don’t seem to understand the law, as federal Judge Derrick Watson may be educated but fails to grasp the immediacy and plain text of 8 USC 1182, as well as Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787. He also takes not into consideration the actions of Mr Obama in 2011 and 2015, as well as the immigration drought between roughly 1921/1924 to 1965.
Trump: “I will not stop fighting for the safety of you and your families. Not today. Not ever. We’re going to win it.”
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.
A Justice Department attorney is arguing that there’s no need for a judge in Hawaii to issue an emergency restraining order against the revised travel ban issued by President Donald Trump.
Jeffrey Wall of the Office of the Solicitor General said during a hearing Wednesday that plaintiffs have said little about harm from the ban that was not speculative.
He said Hawaii is making generalized allegations.
Wall said if the judge is inclined to issue an injunction, it shouldn’t be nationwide and should be tailored to the claims raised by Hawaii.
Federal judge in Wisconsin blocks impact on Syrian family as other courts mull broader relief.
President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban executive order suffered its first legal setback Friday as a federal judge blocked the directive’s potential impact on the family of a Syrian refugee living in Wisconsin.
Madison-based U.S. District Court Judge William Conley issued a temporary retraining order at the request of the Syrian man, who is referred to as “John Doe” in court filings. The judge, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said Trump’s new executive order cannot be used to delay the man’s effort to bring his wife and 3-year-old daughter from the wartorn country to the U.S., but is limited to the individuals involved in the case.
As you can see the effect is limited in scope and quite pointedly focuses on one Syrian man’s family.
Do not doubt, however, that every Leftist and sympathetic federal judge aren’t in deep talks at this very moment in an attempt to craft the perfect eliminatory argument.
The major differences between the first and second Trump EO:
Iraq is no longer included as a banned country as it will provide extra vetting;
Iran, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia are still included in the travel stay;
Green Card holders may enter even if from the above listed countries;
President Trump signed a new travel ban Monday that administration officials said they hope will end legal challenges over the matter by imposing a 90-day ban on the issuance of new visas for citizens of six majority-Muslim nations.
In addition, the nation’s refugee program will be suspended for 120 days, and the United States will not accept more than 50,000 refugees in a year, down from the 110,000 cap set by the Obama administration.
One the most significant unmentioned differences? The absence of national protests. Do we see a tiny crack in the Leftist/anarchist armor?
Judge Napolitano weighs in on President Trump’s second Executive Order:
One bit of information you likely did not hear, a video, regarding President Trump’s first travel stay, was from a US Marine recently serving in Iraq.
As you might expect, his video created quite a stir in February, because he dared to ask probably the most important question as yet unasked by the American Media Maggots. Sean Hannity had this response.
Lance Corporal Steven Gern, 42, who worked as a contractor in Iraq starting in 2005, posted his video on February 1, and told Fox News he was evacuated from Iraq the next day because of it.
In the video, Gern said he had spoken to a group of Iraqi men about the travel ban, without getting into specifics. “My simple question was, ‘As an American, if I went out in town right now, would I be welcome?’ And they instantly said, ‘Absolutely not, you would not be welcome.’ And I said, ‘OK, so what would happen if I went out of town?’ And they said the locals would snatch me up and kill me within an hour.”
He states the obvious when he says:
“The Iraqis, in general, have very little respect for any America –regardless of whether you’re a Marine, a contractor, or a civilian—they have very little respect for you,” Gern told Fox News. “The United States pumps more and more money and it’s not appreciated –why don’t we just take care of our own?”
Gern told Fox News he has not had contact with his company, and is concerned about losing his job after posting the video, but felt it was necessary.
The question then becomes: under what legal theory will President Trump’s travel stay be attacked this time? That said, kudos to the Trump administration for continuing their persistence regarding this extremely important issue.