Category Archives: Illegal Immigrants

US: cut aid to countries refusing immigrant returns

Posted on by

Remember this number: H.R. 82, the Criminal Alien Deportation Act of 2017.

From FoxNews.com:

Law would cut off aid to countries that refuse to accept illegal immigrant criminals

by Malia Zimmerman

A proposed law that would punish countries that refuse to take back their illegal immigrant criminals is two years too late to save Casey Chadwick, but the Texas congressman behind it figures it’s the least Washington can do.

Chadwick was murdered in 2015 by Jean Jacques, an illegal immigrant from Haiti and one of thousands freed onto U.S. streets each year after they serve prison time because their homelands refuse deportation. But a proposal by Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, the Criminal Alien Deportation Enforcement Act, would force such countries to take back their citizens or risk losing foreign aid and travel visa privileges.

Babin’s bill would require the Department of Homeland Security report to Congress every three months the names of uncooperative countries. The federal government would then withhold foreign aid to those countries while the State Department would suspend travel visas.

Rep Babin is re-introducing his original H.R. 5224 from last year. This year, the content of the bill is as follows:

Criminal Alien Deportation Enforcement Act of 2017

This bill amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to prohibit financial assistance to a foreign country that refuses or unreasonably delays the acceptance of an alien who: (1) is a citizen, subject, national, or resident of such country; and (2) has received a final order of removal from the United States.

A country shall be deemed to have refused or unreasonably delayed acceptance of an alien if it does not accept such alien within 90 days of receiving an authorized repatriation request.

The Department of Homeland Security shall submit a report to Congress every three months that: (1) lists the countries that refuse or unreasonably delay repatriation; and (2) includes the total number of aliens who were refused repatriation, organized by country, detention status, and criminal status.

A listed country shall be subject to U.S. entry and financial assistance prohibitions unless it issues appropriate travel documents: (1) within 100 days after such report’s submission for aliens convicted of a crime committed in the United States, and (2) within 200 days after such report’s submission for all other aliens.

A victim (or an immediate family member thereof) of a crime committed by any alien who has been issued a final order of removal shall have standing in federal district court to enforce entry and financial prohibitions.

The Immigration and Nationality Act is amended to: (1) discontinue granting visas to a subject, national, or resident of a listed country unless the country has issued the appropriate travel documents pursuant to this bill; and (2) grant standing to enforce such provision in federal district court to a victim (or an immediate family member thereof) of a crime committed by any alien who has been issued a final order of removal.

Tucker Carlson speaks with Rep. Babin about the bill.

Can anyone, I ask, make any cogent argument whatsoever against the bill? I would care to hear any argument against same. The bill is nothing more than the application of common sense.

It’s no secret that Mr Obama’s policies regarding illegal immigrants acted in the interests of Mexico and illegals globally, and not in the interests of the United States — with the exception of the voting benefits to Demorats and cheap labor to some Republicans. Both sides are wrong on the issue in those arenas.

This is a bill whose time is quite well overdue.

BZ

 

 Share

Bill introduced to defund “sanctuary cities”

Posted on by

US mayors and governors don’t have the power to defy the federal government. Or do they? Are there legal teeth in Donald Trump’s words to “defund sanctuary cities”?

Representative Lou Barletta (PA, 11th) introduced a bill on Thursday that would grow a nice set of chompers and provide consequences for defiance of federal law. From Barletta.house.gov:

BARLETTA’S 1ST BILL OF 115TH CONGRESS: DEFUND SANCTUARY CITIES

Stops Federal Funding for Cities Failing to Cooperate with Immigration Officials

WASHINGTON – Congressman Lou Barletta (PA-11) today introduced the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 83, which will stop all federal funds from flowing to states or localities which resist or ban enforcement of federal immigration laws, or flatly refuse to cooperate with immigration officials.  The bill is the first piece of legislation introduced by Barletta in the 115th Congress and represents the third time the congressman has introduced the measure.  In 2011, the bill was the first piece of legislation he ever introduced as a member of Congress.  He introduced it a second time in the 114th Congress in 2015.

“One of the principal duties of the government is to protect its citizens, and the idea of sanctuary cities runs completely counter to that responsibility,” Barletta said.  “Too many mayors and local governments think that they are above federal law and place their own ideology ahead of the safety of their residents.  This bill will stop that practice by saying to these sanctuary cities, ‘If you refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, you will lose your federal funding.’”

The Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act prohibits any federal funding for a minimum period of one year to any state or local government which has a policy or law that prevents them from assisting immigration authorities in enforcing federal immigration law.  The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) lists about 300 such localities in the United States.  Barletta’s bill directs the attorney general to compile an annual list of such cities and issue a report on any particular state or locality upon request from a member of Congress.  A state or local government would only regain federal funding eligibility after the attorney general certifies that its laws and policies are in compliance with federal immigration statutes.

The issue is this: 300 cities already refuse to cooperate with federal authorities over detainer requests from ICE officials, making illegals shielded from deportation — even those accused or convicted of felonies — as there is nothing in existing law obligating a city, county or state to cooperate, with no legal consequences when those entities fail to work with ICE.

Does anyone recall when then-Arizona Governor Jan Brewer passed a bill mandating state illegal immigrant enforcement that was tougher than the federal standard? Obama stated the US “cannot have fifty different immigration policies,” which the US Supreme Court affirmed. However, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and that ruling may lend precedent, credence and authority to Barletta’s bill.

The Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act 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.

The map above, provided by the Center for Immigration Studies, shows the location of US sanctuary cities, counties and one Leftist state, Fornicalia.

Then there is this point from CIS.org:

Tackling Sanctuaries

By Dan Cadman, Jessica Vaughan December 2016

Key Findings

This report examines the justifications given by sanctuary jurisdictions for their policies, and finds them to be largely unfounded:

  • Cooperation with immigration enforcement has not been shown to undermine community trust nor cause immigrants to refrain from reporting crimes; there are better ways to address issues of access to police assistance without obstructing enforcement;

  • Simply cooperating with federal immigration agencies does not turn local officers into de facto immigration officers, because federal officers make the decisions on which aliens are targeted for deportation;

  • Such cooperation is not very costly for local jurisdictions because the removal of criminal aliens spares future victims and saves future supervision, incarceration, and social services costs to criminal aliens. In addition, cooperative localities can receive partial reimbursement for their incarceration costs.

  • Claims by some local law enforcement agencies that they need a warrant in order to hold aliens for ICE are dubious but can be accommodated by the issuance of ICE administrative warrants.

The Trump administration has a number of tools available at its disposal and within the confines of executive authority to address the problem of sanctuaries and the public safety problems they create.

Here’s how to do so:

  • Rescind the Obama administration actions and policies that encourage and enable sanctuaries, including clarifying that local agencies are expected to comply with detainers;

  • Cut federal funding to sanctuaries;

  • Initiate civil litigation to enjoin state or local laws and policies that egregiously obstruct enforcement of federal immigration laws and regulations;

  • Selectively initiate prosecution under the alien harboring-and-shielding statute, which is a federal felony; and

  • When requested, issue administrative warrants to accompany detainers as a reasonable accommodation to state or local concerns. Negotiating over which aliens will be subject to detainers, as is current policy, is not a reasonable accommodation.

  • Direct ICE to begin publishing a weekly report providing the public with information on all criminal aliens released by the sanctuaries.

Please read the excellent but somewhat lengthy article here.

Representative Barletta’s H.R. 83 is an important bill submitted at the proper time. Barletta is correct; we’re either a nation of laws or we are not. We either obey the rule of law or we do not. If we do not — by allowing sanctuary cities, counties and states to stand, in direct contradiction of federal law — then we undermine ourselves.

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

Rep Tom McClintock (R) 4th, weighs in on CA’s hiring of Eric Holder

Posted on by

It was discovered yesterday that California taxpayer dollars will be funneled into the pockets of ex-US Attorney General Eric Holder and his firm, Covington & Burling, in order to fight the Trump administration on behalf of the State of California. For background, please see this.

SHR Media, of which I am a part, discussed the issue Wednesday night on the Sack Heads Radio show. Before the show, however, I attempted to acquire a response from the California Attorney General’s office but was unsuccessful.

I next contacted the office of my former 4th District representative, Tom McClintock, first speaking to Bill George in Rocklin, and followed with an email in order to see if I could solicit Rep McClintock’s opinion on the hiring of former AG Eric Holder.

Representative McClintock was kind enough to respond the very next day, and had this to say:

1.     This is a huge vote of no confidence in Xavier Becerra, who as incoming Attorney General would otherwise be responsible for representing the state government’s perspective in the courts.  Implicitly, legislative leaders are saying they don’t trust Becerra’s competence and need to bring in outside counsel.  I don’t disagree with them in this assessment.  Normally, the Attorney General would decide whether he needed additional legal counsel for a specific case – it looks like legislative leaders have made this decision for him.

2.     Since the administration has not taken office and therefore has not yet taken any official actions, it is hard to see specifically what Holder et al are being hired to contest.  Placing them on general retainer once again voices no confidence in Becerra and, given the partisan political connections involved, has the appearance of a political payoff.  Holder is also a curious choice as the only Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress.

3.     An essential component of federalism is the ability of a state to assert its constitutional powers and prerogatives and to challenge federal authority through our legal system.  If they have no confidence in Becerra, they have every reason to hire outside counsel and every right to challenge federal actions.  Although I obviously strongly disagree with them on policy, I think state legal challenges to federal action are healthy.  This is certainly preferable to recent Democratic attempts to nullify federal law by refusing to obey or enforce it.   Democrats started the discredited and defeated doctrine of nullification in the antebellum era and have revived it with “sanctuary” and non-enforcement policies in recent years.   

I wholeheartedly concur with Rep McClintock’s assessment of incoming AG Becerra. It’s, to me, something of a resounding slap in the face. Particularly in light, as Rep McClintock aptly points out, of the fact that Holder was held in contempt of Congress in 2012.

This is, essentially, the State of California posturing for the Leftists within and without; chest-puffing if you will. Holder’s retainer comes directly out of the budgets of the Senate and Assembly. Will Holder’s consultancy extend beyond the “initial” three months? Quite possibly.

Thanks kindly to Tom McClintock and Bill George for assisting me in the matter and their rapid response.

BZ

 

 Share

California hires former AG Eric Holder to fight Trump

Posted on by

The rampant insanity continues unabated in the state of the insane.

I truly am “behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia.”

My taxpayer dollars are going to be used to fight taxpayers. Meaning, I’m funding the state to fight my philosophy.

From SacBee.com:

California Legislature to pay Eric Holder to challenge Trump administration

by Taryn Luna

The California Legislature has hired the firm of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as outside counsel to assist legal challenges posed by conflicts with the Trump Administration, Democratic leaders announced Wednesday.

Holder’s firm, Covington & Burling, will advise the Legislature “in our efforts to resist any attempts to roll back the progress California has made,” said Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon in a joint statement on Wednesday.

As I said, my taxpayer dollars going to fight me. $75,000 in fact.

The Assembly and Senate have agreed to split the firm’s $25,000-a-month fee for an initial three-month period. “Given the urgency, intensity and complexity of the work, these terms are eminently fair and consistent with industry standards,” Assembly spokesman Kevin Liao said in a statement. “The initial agreement extends for a minimum of three months, at which time the parties will mutually and more specifically assess the evolving federal landscape and determine what overall scope of work will be required to meet California’s challenges going forward.”

Fornicalia politicians admit that illegals voted for them.

“This is a critical moment in the history of our nation,” Rendon and de León said. “We have an obligation to defend the people who elected us and the policies and diversity that make California an example of what truly makes a nation great.”

Note: “We have an obligation to defend the people who elected us.” Why would lawful Fornicalians require defense?

State legislative leaders have struck a defiant tone against President-Elect Donald Trump. The day after the election Rendon and de León issued a statement praising California, which voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, and pledging to protect the state from Trump policies that may hurt the economy or infringe on the rights of people living in the state.

“I am honored that the Legislature chose Covington to serve as its legal advisor as it considers how to respond to potential changes in federal law that could impact California’s residents and policy priorities,” Holder said in a statement, “I am confident that our expertise across a wide array of federal legal and regulatory issues will be a great resource to the legislature.”

But wait. Do I detect some potential conflict of interest here?

De León has connections to Covington that extend beyond Holder.

Really? In what fashion?

Dan Shallman, a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office, is the brother of John Shallman, whose Southern California-based political consulting and advertising agency serves as the longtime consulting house for de León and several other California elected officials. It is paid a $10,000 a month retainer by the California Democratic Party. This summer, Shallman Communications hired de León’s daughter, Lluvia de Milagros Carrasco, a recent graduate of Saint Mary’s College in Moraga, to work as an account coordinator.

There is going to be, clearly, a fight. First, a court fight. But possibly, in time, a civil fight that will extend across the nation.

Either the rule of law wins, or the rule of law loses.

If the rule of law loses and entire states can flaunt laws, then why should any other state — or, for that matter, you and me — obey state or federal laws? If the rule of law loses, the precedent will have been set.

This is a place that, trust me, California and Leftists nationally do not want to go.

BZ

P.S.

Can you now see the vital importance of the Second Amendment and the First Amendment?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy

 Share

Trump correct about voter fraud

Posted on by

Why and how, you ask? It is conventional wisdom that California put Hillary Clinton over the top (slightly) with regard to the number of votes tallied, as opposed to the electoral college. The difference was roughly one million votes.

Is it, then, merely co-inky-dink that the number of illegal immigrants with drivers licenses in California is also at roughly the one million mark?

A report was issued recently which indicated 800,000+ illegal immigrants were issued licenses in California alone. California passed a law (AB 60) two years ago which allows illegals to acquire licenses. Twelve states now allow illegals to possess drivers licenses. From IBTimes.com:

California DMV: 800,000 Undocumented Immigrants Got Driver’s Licenses Under State’s Controversial AB 60 Law In 2 Years

by Seerat Chabba

A controversial California law has allowed thousands of undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses at a time when President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office next month, vowed to crackdown on illegal immigration.

AB 60 was implemented on Jan. 1, 2015 and allowed an estimated 806,000 undocumented residents to receive driver’s licenses in the next two years, according to Department of Motor Vehicles statistics cited by Mercury News.

The month of November, which saw Trump being elected as president of the United States, also marked the issuing of 14,000 of these licenses by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in California as offices remained packed with immigrants hoping to make the most of the opportunity.

Does the California DMV plan to share their information about illegals to, say, investigatory agencies? Uh, no. Not just no, but hell no.

“The California Department of Motor Vehicles takes very seriously the protection of personal information for all license holders,” the DMV reportedly said Tuesday, addressing privacy concerns.

The problem with the law allowing states to issue licenses to illegals stems from the 9/11 Report following that tragic event. It concluded that illegals should not be eligible for licenses.

Despite that, the federal government allowed licenses to be issued by states, but only if the card is obviously and clearly different — which, by the way, California’s license is not. Please describe to me the immediate and obvious differences you see.

Additionally, as we all know, drivers licenses are a gateway to quite a number of other services, offers, entitlements and perquisites enjoyed by lawful citizens. One of those is: voting.

How many persons staffing voter stations in California know — or even care — about the differences in the two cards? California has stated it’s going to be a “sanctuary state.” I’d say that’s quite a clear statement with an obvious point: California couldn’t care less about the legal status of persons living there. And they sure as hell aren’t going to deport illegals. California doesn’t want to deport criminals or even murderers (witness Kate Steinle) who are illegal.

Then there is the California Motor Voter Law. And therein lies the crux of the biscuit.

From Breitbart.com:

California Licenses 800K Illegal Aliens as Motor Voter Law Looms

by Michelle Moons

Over the last two years, the Golden State has licensed over 800,000 illegal aliens to drive, and as the new motor voter law AB 1461 goes into effect in 2017, anti-Trump lawmakers are vowing to fight the Trump administration on attempts to enforce immigration law.

Meaning: it’s going to get even worse in California than it is now. We already know local voter precincts in California didn’t challenge Mexicans or illegals who stepped towards a voting booth in November possessing a license for that is fundamentally indistinguishable from that of a lawful citizen. It would be judgmental and poor form to do so, particularly if you are a Mark I, Model I GOWP.

AB 60 went into effect on January 1, 2015, inviting well over a million illegal aliens in California to apply for driver licenses with lawmaker promises that their non-citizen status would not be shared with immigration authorities.

With the law about to hit the two-year mark, the California Department of Motor Vehicles announced that 806,000 illegal aliens have been granted driver licenses, according to the Bay Area’s Mercury News. 14,000 of those licenses were issued in November of this year.

In 2017, new motor voter law AB 1461 will go into effect, automatically registering most licensed California drivers to vote. As the Mercury News points out, concerns have been raised about the crossover of AB60 illegal alien licensees being illegally registered to vote as a result. Some lawmakers have claimed there are safeguards against such a case.

But fear not; California legislators are actively planning to stymie any and all attempts to deport illegals and instead shield them to the best of their abilities.

Former Assemblyman Luis Alejo, author of AB 60, offered reassurance to illegal aliens that he had spoken with Gov. Jerry Brown’s office, the DMV, and state legislative leaders who are all “committed to protecting all the information submitted to the DMV by AB60 applicants,” according to the Mercury News. Alejo pledged to fight against the Trump administration on illegal immigration and to do “everything possible” to maintain AB 60.

Already, ladies and gentlemen, you inherently know where Clinton got her vote count nudge. I haven’t even addressed the issue of illegal signups and other voter fraud venues to include the living dead and voting machines that defaulted to HRC. Voter fraud was sufficient to hand HRC the popular vote in November. Trump was correct.

But wait.

If you thought the Demorats cheated in this election, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

BZ

 

 Share