Category Archives: Rule of Law

Texas Governor Abbott vs Travis County

Posted on by

Just as elections have consequences, we may finally be turning the corning on the corresponding axiom of “actions have consequences.”

First, the story from Statesman.com:

Abbott: Governor’s office to cut funding for Travis County after immigration policy change

by Tony Plohetski and Katie Hall

6:10 p.m. update: Soon after newly elected Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez announced she would be scaling back her department’s cooperation with federal immigration agents, Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted that his office will cut funding “for Travis County adopting sanctuary policies.”

“Stiffer penalties coming,” his tweet says.

This week, the American-Statesman reported that she had notified the county that it would soon no longer be complying with federal agents’ requests in many cases. The county consequently could lose up to $1.8 million in grants because the governor’s office requires compliance in order to receive grants. 

Gov. Greg Abbott said via Twitter in response to the Statesman’s report, “I’m about to up the ante. No more sanctuary cities in Texas.”

The Travis County sheriff’s office has a $169 million budget, according to the county’s budget website. The $1.8 million would represent 1 percent of that budget.

Earlier: In a major policy shift that is already being met with controversy, Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez on Friday announced that she is scaling back the amount of aid her department provides federal immigration agents in detaining suspects who may be in the country illegally.

Traditionally, the county has honored nearly all requests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold a suspect booked into jail when agents have wanted to investigate their status further.

However, effective Feb. 1, sheriff’s officials will honor so-called immigration holds or “detainers” placed by federal authorities only when a suspect is booked into the Travis County Jail on charges of capital murder, aggravated sexual assault and “continuous smuggling of persons.” 

Sanctuary cities/counties/states do in fact violate federal law no matter what bias-enhanced fake news Leftist websites may indicate. That is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996. It specifically requires states and municipalities to cooperate with federal authorities when it comes to immigration enforcement. That is 8 USC section 1324.

To put the issue into perspective, I always enjoy including this quote from CSU Fresno Professor Victor Davis Hanson, a wonderful author as well.

Much of the rural West opposes the Endangered Species Act. Can Wyoming declare that federally protected rats and bugs are not protected inside its state borders, when such pests obstruct construction of dams or highways? Many conservatives oppose federal restrictions on gun sales. Could Oklahoma City declare hand-gun purchases within its city-limits free of federal firearms statutes? Perhaps Little Rock could ignore a Supreme Court ruling and announce that gay marriage is not legal within its jurisdiction. On what rationale would liberals in California object to such nullifications — that neither state nor city had the right to ignore a federal law or to obstruct the law enforcement duties of federal officials?

On a positive note, H.R. 83 was introduced on January 5th by Representative Lou Barletta (R, PA 11th), the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, which would cease federal funding to sanctuary regions or entities for one year. As Barletta said, “they would not get one federal cent.” We’re talking potentially billions of federal dollars of highway, education and medicaid cash.

We are a nation of laws operating under the rule of law. If we have no rule of law, then most any city, county or state may arbitrarily decide which laws they wish to obey or disregard. Therefore, if that stands, it logically follows that the individual likewise has the freedom to obey or disregard the laws that he or she chooses, when he or she chooses.

It is the path to chaos.

The time is now to stop the chaos, and establish and reaffirm discipline and sovereignty.

BZ

 

 Share

We’ve lost the border, we’ve lost our sovereignty, we’ve lost the Rule of Law

Posted on by

Mexican LEOs at the BorderMexican law enforcement officers on the Mexican side of the border, April of 2014, photo taken from the American side.  Why are they hiding their faces?  See below.

When you lose your borders, you lose control over who enters your country, when, and for what reason.  You lose control over your right to determine your country’s future.  In essence, you lose your sovereignty.

And when you have a president and a DC administration that eschews laws already extant regarding your borders, for political reasons, you lose the Rule of Law.  When DC can pick and choose which of its laws to hold, you lose the Rule of Law.

Holding to law then becomes easier to eschew and disregard.

Why and how is our border porous, beyond the obvious means?  Please read this, from the WashingtonTimes.com:

Feds: Armed Mexican troops, police regularly jump border to cross into U.S.

by Stephen Dinan

More than 500 armed Mexican troops or police have strayed across the border into the U.S. over the past decade, according to numbers the Homeland Security Department provided to Congress on Tuesday that shed new light on how often the international boundary is violated by official agents.

The information comes even as the U.S. is trying to earn the release of Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi, who has been held by Mexican authorities since the beginning of April, when he drove through an official port of entry into Mexico while carrying firearms.

“Strayed.”

You read it here.  Mexican Federales and military units regularly cross the border into the United States from Mexico — to the point where there are meetings to negotiate and defuse the situations.  To wit:

Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said in a letter to Rep. Duncan Hunter that such instanced, known as “incursions” are “infrequent” but happen often enough that Mexico and the U.S. have created special liaison units to help negotiate the situations.

Mr. Kerlikowske said there have been about 152 instances, involving a total of 525 armed Mexican military or law enforcement, who have been documented encroaching on the U.S. side of the border since Jan. 1, 2004.

At the point when we should be getting more serious about our borders, we are allowing them to leak like sieves and — further — we are corralling up those youngsters who are now entering illegally, putting them on conveyances and then dispersing them many miles AWAY from the US/Mexico border so that they may never be tracked and never be found, with the brain-glazingly ridiculous command to “go back from whence you came.”

Oh yes.  I’m sure they’ll get right on that.  Self-deportation.  That works so well.

Just one question: why are those persons bused further AWAY from the border itself?

This is absolute insanity.  I repeat: insanity.

If I were a USBP officer or an ICE officer with even ONE ounce of courage or fidelity or integrity, I would cringe at wearing the uniform.  I would feel guilty for drawing a paycheck.  I would hate to go to work knowing that, ultimately, I am responsible for the diminishment of my country and the corruption of our Rule of Law.

I would ask: should I even wear this uniform at all?

And: what does the oath I took actually mean, when I originally swore in?

Cowardice asks the question: is it safe?  Expediency asks the question: is it politic?  Vanity asks the question: is it popular?  But an actual conscience asks the question: is it right?

BZ

 

 Share