A number of County councils in California have voted to join the lawsuit against the state over Senate Bill - 54, aka the Sanctuary City bill, as well as AB 450 and AB 103. They effectively enforce a policy of non-cooperation with federal immigration officials, thereby limiting their ability to remove illegal aliens from the state of California.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Prohibits state and local law enforcement from holding illegal aliens on the basis of federal
immigration detainers, or transferring them into federal custody, unless they’ve been convicted in
the last 15 years for one of a list of 31 crimes, or are a registered sex offender: if not, they may only
be held with a warrant from a federal judgev
Prohibits state and local law enforcement from asking anyone about their immigration status
Prohibits state and local law enforcement from sharing any information with federal immigration
authorities that is not available to the general public
Prohibits state and local law enforcement from using any of their money or personnel to
“investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes”
Prohibits state and local law enforcement from allowing federal immigration authorities to use
space in their facilities
Limits how and when state and local law enforcement can contract with federal immigration
authorities
Grants discretion to state and local law enforcement to cooperate even less with federal
immigration authorities than the bill authorizes them to, but not more
Is near-universally recognized and described by both its supporters and opponents as a sanctuary
state bill: protects illegal aliens at the expense of citizens, will increase illegal immigration to
California, and sends the message that illegal aliens are welcome everywhere in the state
The implications of this act are wide ranging, and local lawmakers are forced to enact legislation prohibiting sanctuary cities, restrict funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, demand state cooperation with federal authorities,
and grant victims of sanctuary cities a voice via lawsuit against the state.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Why should state and local leaders oppose them?
SANCTUARY POLICIES THREATEN PUBLIC SAFETY.
According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement estimates, roughly 2.1 million criminal aliens are living in the U.S., over 1.9 million of which are removable. These criminal aliens continue to live in communities and engage in further criminal activity when state and local law enforcement are prohibited from cooperating with federal immigration officials. SANCTUARY POLICIES ARE EXPENSIVE.
Illegal immigration is a huge burden to state and local governments, costing taxpayers an estimated $113 billion in 2013. A majority of this expense – $84 billion – is borne by state and local taxpayers. These costs come in the form of educational, healthcare, welfare, and law enforcement expenditures to illegal aliens and their families. By giving them a place to live and work where they can go undetected, sanctuary policies encourage further illegal immigration that only serves to increase these costs. SANCTUARY POLICIES CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL LAW.
In 1996, Congress adopted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act to prohibit state and local governments from restricting their employees from sharing and receiving information regarding illegal aliens with the federal government. Sanctuary policies that shield criminal aliens from the administration of federal law conflict with the execution of immigration law as Congress intended. SANCTUARY POLICIES THREATEN NATIONAL SECURITY.
It is no secret that Americans face serious threats from terrorist organizations. With the FBI pursuing hundreds of active extremist investigations, federal agents are stretched thin and depend heavily on intelligence provided by state and local law enforcement. By impeding cooperation with federal immigration officials, sanctuary policies create an environment where terrorists and other criminal aliens can go undetected and uninterrupted. SANCTUARY POLICIES ARE UNFAIR TO LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.
Tolerating illegal immigration and providing a "safe haven" for illegal aliens is unfair to immigrants who respect our nation's laws. In addition to waiting months or years to come here, legal immigrants abide by the entry, employment, health, and processing laws and regulations set by our government. Besides giving future prospective immigrants little incentive to follow the law, sanctuary policies are an affront to those who do it the right way.
This lawsuit challenges three California statutes that reflect a deliberate effort byCalifornia to obstruct the United States’ enforcement of federal immigration law, toregulate private entities that seek to cooperate with federal authorities consistent withtheir obligations under federal law, and to impede consultation and communicationbetween federal and state law enforcement officials.
The first statute, the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” Assembly Bill 450 (“AB 450”),prohibits private employers in California from voluntarily cooperating with federalofficials who seek information relevant to immigration enforcement that occurs in placesof employment.
The second statute, Assembly Bill 103 (“AB 103”), creates an inspection and reviewscheme that requires the Attorney General of California to investigate the immigrationenforcement efforts of federal agents.
The third statute, Senate Bill 54 (“SB 54”), which includes the “California Values Act,”
limits the ability of state and local law enforcement officers to provide the United Stateswith basic information about individuals who are in their custody and are subject tofederal immigration custody, or to transfer such individuals to federal immigrationcustody.
The provisions of state law at issue have the purpose and effect of making it moredifficult for federal immigration officers to carry out their responsibilities in California.The Supremacy Clause does not allow California to obstruct the United States’ ability toenforce laws that Congress has enacted or to take actions entrusted to it by theConstitution. Accordingly, the provisions at issue here are invalid.
The first county council to revolt was that of Los Alamitos, which as a California charter city has extra powers to pass local laws exempting it from state policy.
In March, the small city of Los Alamitos was the first to announce that they would put their commitment to federal law over state regulations, drafting an ordinance that would let them opt out of state-level sanctuary laws. Emboldened, other cities in Orange and San Diego Counties are drafting exemption ordinances of their own. They’re the conservative mirror to the wave of liberal sanctuary citieslike West Palm Beach, Fla., and Dallas County, Tex., that have pushed back against their conservative home state’s strict immigration enforcement.
In response to the sanctuary laws, Orange County sheriffs have previously defied state law by providing ICE with information on inmates in custody.
The Orange County Sheriff’s Department, whose leadership opposes the new California sanctuary law that limits cooperation with federal immigration officials, announced Monday that it is now providing public information on when inmates are released from custody. As of Monday, March 26, an existing “Who’s in Jail” online database includes the date and time of inmates’ release – a move agency officials say will enhance communication with its law enforcement partners. The release date information applies to all inmates, not just those who are suspected of being in the country illegally. But the goal is to assist agents with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.
Orange County then voted to join the lawsuit, and soon after San Diego joined them in Trump's lawsuit against the state.
At this time, 13 cities and counties have joined the lawsuit. Will it be successful? Should the lawsuit have gone ahead? Leave your opinions below.
Re: Californian counties join Sanctuary City Lawsuit
This is a difficult issue to find information on, as it is already over a month old and seems to have been inflated by Fox to provide a good news story for the Government:
Very dry stuff really, and nothing more than grassroots politics in motion. Some Republican controlled counties have supported the Government. There really is nothing more to note here.
Will they succeed? Their involvement will make no difference to the outcome. The political influence and economic clout of these Republican controlled counties cannot hope to stand against those of the Sanctuary Cities. Their support for the Government really is little more than a local footnote to the issue.
Last edited by removeduser_487563287433; May 02, 2018 at 08:01 PM.
Californian counties join Sanctuary City Lawsuit
Originally Posted by Himster
Reply With Quote
