Citing politics, sanctuary cities and CRIME, there’s an EXODUS out of California

(National SentinelUnsustainable: In the past few years more people are leaving many California cities than coming, despite the lure of good-paying high-tech jobs and other opportunities.

There are a number of reasons for the net outflow of California’s residents, but the principal causes are the high cost of housing, illegal immigrant crime, and the state’s far-Left politics.

“I loved it here when I first got here. I really loved it here. But it’s just not the same,” Carole Dabak, a retired engineer who’s lived in San Jose for 40 years, told local station KPIX.

She’s preparing to sell her home for about $1 million then buy a bigger home for less than half the price near Nashville, Tenn., where she has family and will retire.

Dabek cites crowding, crime, and politics as the reasons for her own exodus.

“We don’t like it here anymore. You know, we don’t like this sanctuary state status and just the politics here,” she said.

KPIX describes the outflow of people as a “mass exodus.”

Russell Hancock of Joint Venture Silicon Valley said, “Silicon Valley has been this place that is growing. And it was mostly growing because…people relocating here and relocating from other parts of the world. That’s changing.”

The company’s own survey found that people are moving to Sacramento, Austin and Portland, Oregon.

“You can’t even contemplate getting into the housing market here,” Hancock said. “And I don’t mean just service workers, I mean highly skilled professionals. The tech elite are having a hard time affording reasonable housing in Silicon Valley. So this is difficult, this makes it very difficult for employers trying to recruit.”

KPIX reported that nationwide the biggest migration centers are Phoenix, Las Vegas, Atlanta, and Nashville.

Others who have left California have cited the state’s high taxes and growing number of homeless people living in the streets.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Report: 675 ‘Sanctuary’ jurisdictions preventing ICE from locating, removing TERRORISTS

(National SentinelHomeland: A new report from the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general says that 675 local and state jurisdictions are refusing to help federal immigration officials with  “detainer” requests to hand over illegal immigrants who have been arrested for breaking local laws.

By refusing to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement requests, the local jurisdictions are also helping to shield terrorist suspects, the report, which was published earlier this month and titled, “ICE Faces Challenges to Screen Aliens Who May Be Known or Suspected Terrorists,” says.

Some local law enforcement agencies will not honor ICE immigration detainer requests, which further impacts (Enforcement and Removal Operations)’s ability to take criminal aliens into its custody and apply (the Known or Suspected Terrorist Encounter Protocol) to identify possible terrorist connections,” the report said, as noted by the Media Research Center.

The IG noted that ICE “may have missed opportunities to identify, apprehend, and adjudicate the status of aliens posing the highest risk to public safety and national security” because of the jurisdictions’ failure to cooperate.

“Based on source data provided by ERO’s Law Enforcement Systems and Analysis unit, we determined that approximately 675 jurisdictions nationwide declined to honor more than 29,269 ICE immigration detainers from January 2014 through May 2017,” the report said.

Detainer requests are sent to local law enforcement agencies when ICE believes a suspect who has been arrested may be in the U.S. illegally.

“When law enforcement agencies fail to honor immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission,” ICE’s Detainer Policy reads.

The IG report makes four recommendations.

One, KSTEP should be expanded to require “periodic screening of aliens under supervision” because, at present, the program does not require continued screening of the 2.4 million illegal immigrants in ICE custody.

Two, ICE should ensure that ERO offices have all necessary communication facilities.

Three, ICE should assess its current resources to see if more officers are needed.

Four, the agency should “strengthen its quality control program by defining clear oversight responsibilities.”

“Mitigating and reducing any vulnerability is vital to our nation’s security,” Acting Inspector General John Kelly said. “We are pleased with ICE’s response to heed our findings by initiating the process to implement all recommendations.”

The Trump Justice Department is also stepping up enforcement actions against sanctuary jurisdictions. Last week DoJ sent letters to 23 cities demanding proof they are complying with federal immigration laws.

The letters warned the jurisdictions they will face legal action in federal court unless they reverse policies that shield illegal immigrants from deportation.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Trump’s plan for ‘some’ DACA recipients: ‘Morph’ into citizens but NOT quickly

(National SentinelImmigration Reform: President Donald J. Trump appeared to soften his tone toward so-called “Dreamers” on Wednesday, suggesting to reporters that he would back a plan that would allow some of them to “morph” into citizens over a period of years.

“We’re going to morph into it, it’s going to happen over a period of 10-12 years,” Trump said, when asked if an immigration deal will include a pathway to citizenship for the illegal immigrants previously covered under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty program.

“If somebody’s worked hard, if they’ve done a great job, it gives you an incentive to do a great job,” Trump said. “They’ve worked hard, They’ve done terrifically, whether they have a little company, or whether they work, whatever they’re doing, if they done a great job, I think it’s a nice thing to have the incentive after a period of time to become a citizen.”

Trump signed an executive order in September countermanding President Obama’s EO establishing the program. He gave Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix.

Reports have said that a bipartisan Senate plan to offer full citizenship to DACA recipients on a much quicker timeframe that also did not include enough concrete border security measures was rejected out-of-hand by the president.

Trump said when he signed his order last fall that he empathized with DACA Dreamers, but that Congress should have been permitted to address the issue via legislation, not through presidential executive action.

Obama’s EO was set to be challenged by nearly a dozen states as unconstitutional before Trump ended the program.

A federal judge in the liberal Ninth Circuit has since issued a stay, banning Trump’s order  from taking effect until lawsuits aimed at keeping DACA in place work their way through federal courts.

“Terming the government’s decision to end DACA ‘arbitrary and capricious’ and based on a flawed legal premise, Judge William Alsup ordered that the program must continue to renew applications from those previously covered until lawsuits regarding those affected are resolved, even though new applications for Dreamer status did not have to be processed,” Jurist reported.

But on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Department of Justice’s request for an expedited review of the lower court’s order.

As for Trump’s overall approach to immigration, reform advocates have praised his administration’s ongoing efforts to crack down on others in the country illegally and to rein in sanctuary cities.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

It BEGINS: Justice Dept. warns 23 ‘Sanctuary Cities’ LEGAL ACTION is coming

(National SentinelImmigration Deformed: The Department of Justice on Wednesday warned 23 so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions they will face legal action in federal court unless they reverse policies that shield illegal immigrants from deportation.

As reported by The Daily Caller, DoJ sent letters to several major cities including Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles requesting documents that prove they are in compliance with federal immigration laws.

In particular, sanctuary jurisdictions have to prove they are complying with 8 United States Code 1373, a section of the federal statutes that prohibit cities and jurisdictions from enacting laws restricting communication between local officials and federal immigration agents.

Previously, the Justice Department sent similar requests to the 23 jurisdictions, but department officials said the responses they got back didn’t provide enough information to prove or confirm compliance with Section 1373.

“I continue to urge all jurisdictions under review to reconsider policies that place the safety of their communities and their residents at risk,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. “Protecting criminal aliens from federal immigration authorities defies common sense and undermines the rule of law.”

Jurisdictions that fail to provide information requested by the DoJ by Feb. 23 will then receive a federal subpoena compelling the cities to provide documentation, the letters said.

The DC noted further:

The DOJ has tried to pressure sanctuary cities by threatening to withhold certain federal funds, as part of the Trump administration’s broader crackdown on illegal immigration. Last year, Sessions revised the eligibility guidelines for Byrne criminal justice grants, requiring applicants to honor federal immigration detention requests, give immigration agents unfettered access to local jails, and comply with Section 1373.

In response to a lawsuit from the city of Chicago, a federal judge blocked the first two rules, but allowed the Section 1373 requirement to stand. The DOJ letters sent Tuesday specifically tying future Byrne grants to compliance with the section.

“Failure to comply with section 1373 could result in the Justice Department seeking the return of FY2016 grants, requiring additional conditions for receipt of any FY2017 Byrne JAG funding, and/or jurisdictions being deemed ineligible to receive FY2017 Byrne JAG funding,” the DoJ said.

The affected jurisdictions are:

Chicago; Cook County, Ill.; New York City; the state of California; Albany, N.Y.; Berkeley, Calif.; Bernalillo County, N.M.; Burlington, Vt.; the city and county of Denver, Colo.;  Fremont, Calif.; Jackson, Miss.; King County, Wash.; Lawrence, Mass.; City of Los Angeles, Calif.; Louisville, Ky.; Monterey County, Calif.; Sacramento County, Calif.; the city and county of San Francisco; Sonoma County, Calif.; Watsonville, Calif.; West Palm Beach, Fla.; the state of Illinois and the state of Oregon.

“We’ve given them federal dollars — your taxpayer dollars — to cooperate with federal law enforcement,” DOJ spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores told Fox News. “They didn’t have to take that money, but they did.

“And when they took it, they said they would comply with federal law. So what we’re saying is if we find out you’re not complying with federal law, we’re taking the tax dollars back,” she added.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement chief Thomas Homan has said the department should find a way to prosecution local officials if they continue to block federal enforcement of immigration laws.

Earlier this month, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielson confirmed during a Senate hearing that her agency had indeed been in contact with federal prosecutors to see what legal actions could be taken against local officials who implement and uphold sanctuary laws.

Also, ICE and other immigration enforcement agencies are planning to send hundreds of agents to sanctuary cities in an effort to identify those in the country illegally and deport them.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Trump admin planning BIGGEST roundup of ILLEGAL aliens in DECADES in ‘sanctuary state’ of California

(National SentinelLaw Enforcement: The Trump administration is planning to send hundreds of immigration agents to California as part of a massive operation to locate and deport people in the country illegally.

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, the “massive sweep” is intended to send a message to the state and other “sanctuary cities” that the administration is serious about enforcing federal immigration laws.

“U.S. immigration officials have begun preparing for a major sweep in San Francisco and other Northern California cities in which federal officers would look to arrest more than 1,500 undocumented people while sending a message that immigration policy will be enforced in the sanctuary state, according to a source familiar with the operation,” the paper reported.

“The campaign, centered in the Bay Area, could happen within weeks, and is expected to become the biggest enforcement action of its kind under President Trump, said the source, who requested anonymity because the plans have not been made public,” the paper added.

Democrat-dominated California passed “sanctuary state” legislation last fall, which forbids state and local law enforcement officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. Gov. Jerry Brown signed it and it took effect Jan. 1.

Federal immigration officials including ICE Director Thomas Homan criticized the law and called a dangerous precedent for other states.

He has also called on the Justice Department to look into ways it could hold officials of sanctuary jurisdictions criminally liable. On Tuesday Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielson confirmed during a Senate hearing that her agency had indeed been in contact with federal prosecutors to see what legal actions could be taken against local officials who implement and uphold sanctuary laws.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Nielsen revealed to Senate Judiciary Committee members.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Mystery signs appear in ‘Sanctuary State’ California; WELCOME illegal aliens, felons, GANG members

(National SentinelTrolling: Mysterious, official-looking highway signs have been posted in several locations around California “welcoming” illegal aliens, MS-13 gang members and others because “Democrats need the votes.”

The signs state that California is an “Official Sanctuary State,” adding that “Felons, Illegals and MS13 [gang members] [are] welcome.”

The signs are similar to one put up by an activist in the city of Malibu last year, claiming it was a “Sanctuary City” and that “Cheap Nannies and Gardeners Make Malibu Great,” but “Boyle Heights Not So Much.”

The state signs are plastered with the Great Seal of California and a donkey, one of the symbols of the Democratic Party, Fox News reported.

California became a “sanctuary state” after Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation passed in October. The state’s policies of refusing to assist federal immigration officials puts it at odds with the Trump administration, which is cracking down on illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

 

ICE chief compares Trump to previous 6 presidents, much to Mexico’s angst

(National SentinelBorder Security: The acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement gave an assessment of President Donald J. Trump’s leadership on immigration during Fox News morning program on Monday.

“I’ve been doing this for 34 years. These criminal aliens, they victimize the very communities they live in too,” Tom Homan told the hosts of “Fox & Friends.”

The acting ICE chief was also clear that illegal aliens who engage in criminal behavior are not just harming the societies they enter, they are hurting the entire immigrant community from which they came.

“These immigrant communities, they don’t want criminals in their streets either,” Homan said.

“And as far as push back on this president, let me tell you something, under this president — this president has done more for border security and public safety than any of the six presidents I’ve worked for,” he added.

Building a border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and shoring up internal immigration enforcement were cornerstones of Trump’s campaign. The issue has been credited with helping him defeat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

During his interview with Fox & Friends, Woman also addressed the recent acquittal of the illegal alien who killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco.

As reported by Fox News Insider, Homan said he was “sickened” and “stunned” by the jury’s decision to acquit Jose Ines Garcia Zarate of murder and manslaughter charges in Steinle’s death.

“This isn’t the America I grew up in,” Homan told Fox & Friends.

“For a city to knowingly release a public safety threat back into the public is just ridiculous,” he added.

Homan has also been one of the most vociferous critics of so-called “sanctuary cities” — jurisdictions whose elected leaders have passed ordinances preventing their police departments from cooperating with federal immigration officials to deport those in the country illegally.

San Francisco is one such jurisdiction.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions pose a threat to the American public by refusing to work with ICE and allowing egregious criminal offenders back into the community to put the lives of the public at risk,” Homan said in June, according to Newsweek.

Trump nominated Homan to become permanent ICE director in November, but his nomination is subject to Senate confirmation.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

OUTRAGE: Illegal who killed Kate Steinle found NOT guilty

(National SentinelSanctuary City: A jury in San Francisco acquitted the illegal alien who killed Kate Steinle, 32, the woman President Donald J. Trump used as justification for his proposed border wall.

The case also highlighted “sanctuary city” policies like those in Bay Area metropolis in which local police are not permitted to cooperate with federal immigration officials in identifying and removing people in the U.S. illegally.

Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, of Mexico, had been caught and deported from the U.S. multiple times. He had been released from jail under a sanctuary policy when he killed Steinle, even though federal immigration officials were trying to detain him.

The acquittal outraged the president, who took to Twitter Friday morning to express his anger and disappointment at the decision.

“A disgraceful verdict in the Kate Steinle case! No wonder the people of our Country are so angry with Illegal Immigration,” he wrote.

“The Kate Steinle killer came back and back over the weakly protected Obama border, always committing crimes and being violent, and yet this info was not used in court. His exoneration is a complete travesty of justice. BUILD THE WALL!”

He added: “The jury was not told the killer of Kate was a 7 time felon. The Schumer/Pelosi Democrats are so weak on Crime that they will pay a big price in the 2018 and 2020 Elections.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936437372706836480

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936551346299338752

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/936553863255031809

Attorney General Jeff Sessions also responded to the verdict by blasting sanctuary city policies.

“San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle,” he said.

Local media following the trial seemed as though they expected a guilty verdict, The Washington Post reported.

The CBS station in San Francisco called the verdict “shocking.”  “Stunning,” said the San Francisco Chronicle.

Jim Steinle, Kate’s father, who was with her when she was killed, said he was “saddened and shocked,” the Chronicle reported. “Justice was rendered, but it was not served.”

Matt Gonzalez, the lawyer for Garcia Zarate, defended the ruling and even brought up the Russian collusion investigation of the Trump administration as a deflection.

“For those who might criticize this verdict — there are a number of people who have commented on this case in the last couple of years …. Let me just remind them they are themselves under investigation by a special prosecutor in Washington, D.C. and they may soon avail themselves of the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, so I ask that they reflect on that before they comment or disparage the results of this case,” Gonzales said.

As for the verdict, the Post reported:

After deliberations that began on Nov. 21, Garcia Zarate, 45, a Mexican citizen, was found not guilty of murder, as well of the lesser charges of involuntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon. He was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, which carries a sentence of up to three years. Federal immigration officials said they would now deport Garcia Zarate.

Garcia Zarate’s multiple deportations become a rallying cry for Trump during his campaign last year. As a candidate, Trump pledged to build a wall along the length of the U.S.-Mexico border and to enforce all immigration laws.

Steinle was shot by Garcia Zarate on July 1, 2015, as she walked with her father along the crowded Pier 14 in San Francisco. Jim Steinle testified that they heard a gunshot and that shortly thereafter his daughter fell to the ground.

“Help me, dad,” was the last thing she said to him, he testified in court.

The bullet had been fired from a .40 caliber handgun Garcia Zarate had stolen from a nearby car of a ranger with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

The bullet pierced Kate Steinle’s aorta, and she died hours later at a hospital in San Francisco.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Federal judge who struck down Trump order withholding sanctuary city funding has a disturbingly partisan past

(National SentinelPoliticized Judiciary: The federal judge who just struck down President Donald J. Trump’s executive order limiting some federal funding to cities who violate immigration laws and grant requirements with “sanctuary” laws has a disturbingly political past and is “a clear partisan” for the Democrats.

The judge, William Orrick III, who sits on California’s Northern District, temporarily blocked Trump’s order in April. However, he has now issued a permanent injunction in a suit brought by the city and county of San Francisco and Santa Clara County, claiming the order was not constitutional, Reuters reported.

Orrick was nominated by President Obama and confirmed by the Senate in 2013. He has bundled at least $200,000 in donations for the former president and has donated $38,000 to political action committees that supported Obama, according to The Federalist.

Meanwhile, Fox News added that Orrick gave $51,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

As reported by the Washington Times, in 2015 Orrick issued a temporary restraining order against the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life organization that was documenting on video the negotiation and sale for profit of aborted fetal body parts by officials of Planned Parenthood.

He justified his ruling by claiming leaders of the National Abortion Federation, which requested the order, had legitimate concerns for the safety of their leaders, even though the group was not involved in the undercover stings.

“NAF would be likely to suffer irreparable injury, absent an ex parte temporary restraining order, in the form of harassment, intimidation, violence, invasion of privacy, and injury to reputation, and the requested relief is in the public interest,” Orrick said at the time, according to CNN.

Ironically, during his confirmation hearing in the Senate, Orrick claimed that “politics has no place in the courtroom.”

“My varied legal background is evidence that I will treat all litigants fairly and with respect, and that I will not let my personal views interfere with the administration of justice,” he claimed.

In an appearance on Fox News‘ “Fox & Friends” morning program, former U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah said there is a simple fix to the issue.

“If [Orrick is] saying that Congress has not given the president proper authorization, guess what? The reauthorization for all of the funding of the federal government moving forward has to happen by Dec. 8,” he said.

“One or two sentences placed into that funding bill — which will pass — will solve this problem — give the president the authority” to enforce his previous order, the former congressman added.

Chaffetz continued: “This person is a clear partisan. He has no desire to help the president or what not, but Congress has the responsibility to give the president this option and they can do it week after next.”

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

DoJ to ‘sanctuary’ cities: This is your final warning

(National SentinelImmigration Reformed: The Department of Justice has issued one last warning to 10 so-called “sanctuary city” jurisdictions in defiance of federal laws, telling them they have until Oct. 27 to submit evidence they are in compliance or risk losing grant money.

Onlineshoes.comAs reported by the Washington Times, letters were sent by DoJ to Cook County, Illinois,  Chicago, New Orleans, New York City, and Philadelphia that they did not appear to be in compliance yet and could stand to lose millions in federal law enforcement grants.

The money is only supposed to go to jurisdictions complying with section 1373 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, which states that grant recipients cannot adopt laws and/or policies that restrict communications with federal immigration authorities “regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

Two other jurisdictions — Milwaukee County, Wisconsin and the state of Connecticut — were told Wednesday that a preliminary assessment found no evidence that their laws violated 1373, the Times said. Earlier, the department cleared Clark County, Nevada — home to Las Vegas — and Miami-Dade County, Florida.

“I commend the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office and the State of Connecticut on their commitment to complying with Section 1373, and I urge all jurisdictions found to be out of compliance in this preliminary review to reconsider their policies that undermine the safety of their residents,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “We urge jurisdictions to not only comply with Section 1373 but to establish sensible and effective partnerships to properly process criminal aliens.”

Believe it or not, the Obama administration first raised the specter with these jurisdictions their sanctuary policies were in violation of U.S. immigration laws, the Times said, so the Trump administration is merely following up on that effort.

However, it was not at all clear that the Obama regime would have ever followed up on ensuring compliance, considering most of those jurisdictions adopted sanctuary policies long ago and still received federal grant money.

We’re sure, however, that Sessions’ DoJ will follow through.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

Federal court upholds most of Texas law banning so-called ‘sanctuary cities’

(National SentinelImmigration: A largely Democrat-appointed three-judge federal appeals panel ruled on Monday that key parts of a Texas law aimed at blocking cities from becoming so-called “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants could take effect, with some quick changes the court ordered.

As reported by the Washington Times, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 3-0 that localities under the state law were required to hold on to illegal immigrants for pickup by deportation officers.

While saying Texas’ law, known as SB4, was clumsy, the court said changes could be quickly made by the state legislature for most of it to go into effect.

The Times:

The…decision appears to mark the first time a high-level federal appeals court has said states can demand that their localities comply with detainer requests, which are the crux of the sanctuary city issue.

“Enforcing immigration law helps prevent dangerous criminals from being released into Texas communities,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office defended Texas’ law.

The ruling by the three judges – two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee – is just a temporary victory, however, as it stays parts of an injunction issued by a lower district court. The full appeals court will more arguments on the law later this year.

That said, the ruling represents a rare occasion that Democrat-appointed federal judges ruled in favor of tougher immigration enforcement in the Trump age. It is also a victory for President Trump’s Department of Justice, which was backing Texas in the case.

Texas is one step closer to ending the dangerous sanctuary policies that prevent federal law enforcement from keeping criminal aliens off the streets and keeping Texans safe,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said.

The Times noted further:

The key part of the ruling prevents localities from blocking their officers and deputies from cooperating with federal immigration authorities who ask for information or help.

More critically for enforcement, localities must comply with “detainer” requests to notify federal officers when a target is being released and to hold them for up to 48 hours beyond the time they would otherwise be set free based on the state or local charges.

Little by little, the Trump administration is chipping away at cities’ illegal sanctuary policies through a combination of Executive Branch authority, statutory law, and federal courts.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

Another Left-wing judge blocks Trump admin’s effort to end sanctuary cities

(National SentinelImmigration Reform: Passing laws in American mean nothing anymore when federal judges and Left-wing interest groups can simply overrule them by fiat.

That’s what happened again over the weekend, when a lone federal judge in Chicago — 80-year-old U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber — ruled that the federal government must continue paying out grant money to cities, counties, and other jurisdictions even though they are violating the immigration-related terms of the grants through passage of “sanctuary city” polices.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the Justice Department would begin withholding funds through the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant, which doles out nearly $400 million to state and local agencies each year. He imposed three conditions on jurisdictions seeking the funds; Leinenweber’s ruling blocks two of the three, including the requirement that jurisdictions receiving grant money (which is taxpayer money, just to be clear) must cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

But as reported by the Washington Times, Leinenweber, in response to a lawsuit by the city of Chicago, said in his ruling: “The harm to the city’s relationship with the immigrant community if it should accede to the conditions is irreparable. Once such trust is lost, it cannot be repaired through an award of money damages.”

The Times further noted “that Mr. Sessions exceeded his authority by adding conditions to the Byrne grants that require cities to allow federal agents into their prisons and jails and require cities give immigration agents at least 48 hours notice that they intend to release illegal immigrants from custody.”

Frankly, that’s outrageous. The grants are doled out based on provisions and requirements that stem from federal law, not some presidential or attorney general whim. Those laws were constitutionally enacted and signed by duly-elected presidents. In short, they should be beyond rapproach, especially by a single federal judge. In this case, the judge ruled that the attorney general does not have complete statutory authority to formulate grant policy based on law.

Leinenweber’s ruling wasn’t a total loss for DoJ, however, as the Times noted:

The judge ruled that the attorney general does have the authority to impose a third grant condition, which requires that jurisdictions comply with section 1373 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. That law prohibits state and local governments from restricting communications with federal immigration authorities “regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

He wrote in his 41-page ruling the argument “boils down to whether state and local governments can restrict their officials from voluntarily cooperating with a federal scheme.” He noted that Chicago failed to show a likelihood of success in that argument.

“The most natural reading of the statute authorizes the Attorney General to require a certification of compliance with all other applicable federal laws, which by the plainest definition includes Section 1373,” he added.

Equally outrageous: The ruling comes as yet another American was killed by another illegal alien in another sanctuary city — San Francisco.

The federal judiciary fails in its constitutional construct every time it refuses to protect American citizens by allowing lawbreaking local officials to get away with imposing policies that kill.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

Another illegal alien kills another American in the sanctuary city of San Francisco

(National SentinelImmigration: An illegal immigrant who was actually being monitored by federal immigration officials was nevertheless free to murder another American citizen in the mother of all sanctuary cities, San Francisco.

As reported by Breitbart News, Erick Garcia-Pineda, 18, was wearing an ankle monitor placed by immigration officials when he allegedly murdered 23-year-old Abel Ezquivel.

More:

Four days before the murder, Pineda allegedly stole a San Francisco Police officer’s service pistol from a police vehicle. Days later, the illegal immigrant allegedly used the gun to murder Ezquivel.

Following the murder, Pineda was later arrested and detained for unrelated battery charges. Police say they noticed the illegal immigrant’s monitoring bracelet and used it to link Pineda to several other crimes, including five robberies and two other shooting incidents.

Pineda, according to NBC, was attempting to obtain asylum in the U.S., claiming he was under threat of the MS-13 gang.

It was unclear why Pineda was wearing a tracking device, but what is clear is that he had not been previously arrested for being in the U.S. illegally.

And now, another citizen has been killed.

Every single official in San Francisco (and other U.S. cities) responsible for implementing and enshrining sanctuary policy should be held legally responsible for this and previous deaths of American citizens killed by people in the country illegally.

That’s the best way for the Trump administration to begin rolling back these insane, criminal policies.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

Miami sides with Trump, agrees to drop ‘sanctuary city’ status

(National SentinelImmigration: At least when it comes to immigration policy, President Donald J. Trump has helped make the city of Miami great again.

Officials there have decided to comply with the Department of Homeland Security’s reporting requirements regarding incarceration of illegal aliens. The city was rewarded recently by notification from the Trump administration that Miami was no longer considered a “sanctuary city” and thus would not be subject to loss of federal law enforcement funding.

As the Miami Herald reported:

For the first time since it began extending the detentions of local inmates sought for deportation, Miami-Dade County received word from Washington that it won’t be treated as a community giving “sanctuary” to immigration violators.

An Aug. 4 letter to Mayor Carlos Gimenez from the Justice Department said “there was no evidence” Miami-Dade was out of compliance with an immigration provision of a federal police grant worth about $480,000 this year to the county.

Shortly after President Donald Trump took office promising an immigration crackdown, Gimenez reversed a 2013 county policy and ordered Miami-Dade jails to begin honoring requests by immigration officers to extend the detentions of people in local custody who are also being sought for possible deportation.

Miami-Dade is the only large jurisdiction known to have made that kind of change, which the County Commission endorsed in February.

Last week Attorney General Jeff Sessions advanced his previous threat to cut off law enforcement grants to cities that were not in compliance with notification requirements regarding the detainment of people in the country illegally.

The city of Chicago has become the first to announce it would legally challenge the Justice Department over its potential loss of some $3 million in funding that the city was going to use to purchase new police vehicles. Apparently Mayor Rahm Emanuel and his legal team believe their city should be exempt from following federal law and grant requirements regarding the reporting of illegal aliens in their midst.

Either way, Trump and the Justice Department have the rule of law on their side and at least one major metropolis understands that. It will be interesting to see how many more follow Miami’s lead, though the most likely outcome is that other cities will wait to see how Chicago’s lawsuit fares in court.

It begins: Chicago will be first to file lawsuit against Trump administration’s ​threat to cut sanctuary city funding

(National SentinelImmigration policy: The court battles aimed at stopping the Trump administration from punishing law-breaking cities over immigration policy have begun.

Unmoved by the stunningly brutal violence on the city’s south side, where hundreds of mostly black men are gunned down and killed every year, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has been stirred to act instead to stop the Justice Department from cutting off millions in funding over his “sanctuary city” policy. Defending illegal immigrants

Defending illegal immigrants is more important to Emanuel than defending law-abiding victims from being gunned down in their own neighborhoods.

The Washington Times reports:

Specifically Mr. Emanuel said the city will sue in federal court to stop Attorney General Jeff Sessions from restricting the use of Byrne Justice Assistance Grants which are federal funds awarded annually to state, local and tribal jurisdictions to assist with law enforcement personnel, training and equipment.

Chicago has planned to use $3.2 million in Byrne grants this year to buy vehicles for the city’s police department, but the Justice Department said last month that the city and more than 200 others risk losing funds for protecting illegal immigrants.

“We’re not going to actually auction off our values as a city, so Monday morning the city of Chicago is going to court, we’re going to take the Justice Department to court based on this,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said during an interview that aired Sunday on WLS radio 890, set to air Sunday, The Chicago Tribune reported Friday.

“We find it unlawful and unconstitutional to be, as a city, coerced on a policy,” added Mr. Emanuel, a second-term Democrat who served in the administrations of Presidents Clinton and Obama before being elected mayor in 2011.

Perhaps Emanuel should actually read the Constitution. If so, he would discover what is known as the “supremacy clause” — Article VI, Clause 2 — which establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land, not edicts from Left-wing mayors.

More than that, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants have specific compliance rules including this one: Cities receiving these grants must assist federal agencies charged with enforcing immigration laws. That means reporting the presence of illegal aliens in their cities, not adopting policies that shield illegal immigrants from deportation.

“So-called ‘sanctuary’ policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said last week when announcing the funding crackdown. “These policies also encourage illegal immigration and even human trafficking by perpetuating the lie that in certain cities, illegal aliens can live outside the law.

“From now on, the Department will only provide Byrne JAG grants to cities and states that comply with federal law, allow federal immigration access to detention facilities, and provide 48 hours notice before they release an illegal alien wanted by federal authorities. This is consistent with long-established cooperative principles among law enforcement agencies,” he added.

Chicagoans should demand their mayor to comply with grant requirements which help better protect them instead of wasting tax money on baseless lawsuits because of misplaced concern for people who aren’t even citizens.