Sanctuary Cities

California “Sanctuary State” bill a Trojan horse in waiting

June 28, 2017 By Richard Eber 12 Comments

If the Republican Party of California were to have a secret wish list, they would be in favor of the Assembly passing the Senate Bill 54 “Sanctuary State” legislation that has already gained approval by a party-line 27-12 tally in the Senate.

Given the nature of the legislation where state law enforcement would refuse to co-operate with federal agencies to locate and deport undocumented residents who run afoul with the law, why would the GOP desire passage and have Governor Brown sign the bill that they have bitterly opposed?

The answer is simple. When SB-54 backfires with federal funds being taken away from California law enforcement along with what is sure to be a higher crime rate, voters are bound to take out their frustrations out at the ballot box. The Republican Party of California despite having less than one third of the seats in the Legislature and no statewide office holders may well find itself in a place to gain power once again that has long eluded them.

With California’s tight budget impaired by pension shortfalls for State workers and public assistance given to undocumented residents, losing funds from Washington, D.C., might not prove to be universally popular. Law enforcement and victims of crime are especially effected by the collateral damage SB-54 brings. This is especially true in suburban areas where the sanctuary city movement is weakest.

Where the state would be especially vulnerable is if illegal aliens/undocumented residents are not turned over to ICE and then commit serious crimes. How this could is justified by political leaders such as SB-54’s sponsor Assemblyman Kevin de Leon and candidate for governor Gavin Newsom? Is it possible to hold a pro law and order stance while trying to rationalize the victimization of the next Kate Steinle?

Even if Federal law enforcement funds being taken away from California by the Trump administration are replaced by revenues from the state budget, critics will surely claim sanctuary city legislation will result in fewer pot hole type repairs being taken care of. Even in the highly taxed progressive Golden State, there may limits of how far residents can be pushed in the name of social justice.

Public safety workers in general have been under attack by liberals in California and throughout the rest of the country. From New York with Mayor Bill de Blasio reigning in the police, to Chicago, Ferguson, Los Angeles and San Francisco, law enforcement has been put under increased scrutiny, especially in their dealings with African American citizens.

Use of deadly force, racial profiling and statistical analysis has placed law enforcement in a difficult position trying to justify their policies. Combined with civilian review boards, body cameras and politically correct interrogation procedures, those in Blue have had to adapt to what charitably can be termed defensive law enforcement procedures.

Also playing a role in the battle against crime circa 2017 has been the increased number of unprovoked violent attacks on police officers. It doesn’t take a genius to determine that this alarming trend has been enhanced by negative media coverage they have received from the fifth estate.

The bad press received by policeman has wormed its way into the local political spectrum. Recently, a group of about 400 protesters crashed a Berkeley City Council meeting to protest their involvement at an Urban Shield Expo put on by the department of Homeland Security.

The purpose of Urban Shield is to show new equipment, strategies and practice exercises to assist some 40 law enforcement agencies combat terrorist threats and violent demonstrations. As might be expected the prisoner rights organization Critical Resistance opposed advanced tactical training for law enforcement on the grounds it is oppressive, racist and discriminatory against racial minorities.

Despite a demonstration, shouting match and a couple arrests, even liberal Berkeley did not cave in (at least not that night) to having their police department skip the free federal training program. It was likely a good decision because in the past, law enforcement has been placed in multiple precarious situations in the wacky world of this progressive college town.

However, what occurred in Berkeley is not an isolated incident in California where virtually every aspect of law enforcement is challenged by well meaning groups who don’t especially like those who wear a badge. The first places they attack are any proposals to expand and modernize county jail facilities. Such tactics are the antithesis to the “build it and they will come” school of thought.

What makes this worse is that Federal dollars pay for most of these improvements. Sanctuary city proponents believe that not providing holding cells for illegal alien felons is an important component to their opposition to the activities of ICE.

Anyone wearing a uniform is subject to scrutiny by liberal media critics. Recently, extensive coverage was given to a hunger strike by some 72 inmates at Folsom correctional Institute. Sympathy was given to the prisoners who claimed lousy food, lack of exercise, isolation, poor medical care and substandard vocational training was making their lives miserable.

What wasn’t mentioned is that this group were not exactly Boy Scouts. They are serious felons who are part of an Administrative Segregation Unit. This means that those in this group have been accused of committing serious crimes while being incarcerated (including rape, murder, assault and drug smuggling). When in this program the state tries to determine if they should be prosecuted in order to add time to their mostly lengthy sentences. So if security is a bit tight with them …

Even with law enforcement being sliced and diced by progressive leaders in California, there is no move currently going on to do away with those who protect us from the bad guys. They play an important role when any type of trouble from robbery to domestic abuse ensues. A love-hate relationship has always existed between the two groups. This is why it is important for political leaders in Sacramento to be careful in their criticism of the police because one never knows when they will be needed.

Such an ever present reality is why Gov. Brown should be a follower of Aesop’s Fable reminder of “look before you leap” when it comes to signing SB-54 into law. Even though Brown is half way out the door in his fourth term, he should consider what might happen to his legacy if the sanctuary cities legislation backfires and brings his old Republican enemies into having a real say in state government once again.

Sb-54 may well turn out to be a Trojan horse in waiting. So beware of what you wish for Jerry!

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Richard Eber, Sanctuary Cities, Sanctuary State

Let localities opt out of sanctuary status

May 9, 2017 By Jon Coupal and Melissa Melendez 3 Comments

Grandstanding California politicians seem intent on outdoing each other in finding new ways to appear to be resisting the policies of our new president. Efforts to ban cooperation by local agencies with the federal government on immigration issues include working to make California a “sanctuary state.”

As prominent elected officials beat their chests in defiance of federal law, they ignore the fact that their actions could jeopardize the wellbeing of millions of Californians who depend on the hundreds of billions of dollars Washington provides our state, the majority of which goes to support vital services to our most vulnerable citizens.

While the governor and the majority of the members of the Legislature seem intent on putting California’s share of federal dollars at risk — sort of like playing Russian roulette only the gun is aimed at the heads of taxpayers and the needy — there is an alternative. Assembly Bill 536 (by this column’s coauthor Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez) would protect the billions of dollars California currently receives in federal funding.

Assembly Bill 536 allows counties to opt out of any state laws that may result in a loss of federal funding. By electing not to implement a state law that jeopardizes funding, counties will then work directly with the federal government to receive the allocations to which they would otherwise be entitled.

While the majority of lawmakers may see themselves as heroically standing up for their principles, they don’t speak for millions of California who depend on federal dollars to help them survive. And they do not speak for taxpayers who do not want to pay new taxes to make up for the mistakes of irresponsible politicians and their misguided laws.

This is not a trivial issue, although one might think so after listening to the Sacramento leadership. Approximately 40 percent of California’s budget is allocated through the federal government. California receives $368 billion in federal funding, or about $9,500 for each Californian. The funding is most prominently used for welfare benefits and retirement pensions; however, the federal government spends money in various capacities in California — from infrastructure upkeep and maintenance, to assisting refugees.

Here are a few examples of what is at stake:

California’s Department of Health Care Services received almost $54 billion from the federal government in order to provide health care services to millions of low-income and disabled Californians each and every day.
California’s Department of Education receives almost $12 billion from the federal government, which include K-12 and higher education.
California’s Department of Social Services, which is responsible for the oversight and administration of programs serving California’s most vulnerable residents, receives $7 billion from the federal government. Those programs include food stamps, child welfare and veteran services to state a few.

Average Californians are desperately in need of sanctuary. They are the ones in need of a “safe space” where they are protected from the frivolous yet dangerous actions of the self-aggrandizing political elite who are gladly putting the welfare of so many at risk. Lawmakers should pass Assembly Bill 536 and allow county boards of supervisors to spare their constituents from a disruption of federal benefits.

Jon Coupal is the president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Melissa Melendez is the Assembly representative for California’s 67th Assembly District.

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: AB536, Jon Coupal, Melissa Melendez, Sanctuary Cities

California Democrats’ Sanctuary Includes Violent Criminals

February 6, 2017 By Hector Barajas 6 Comments

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D-Paramount) have been clear that they oppose California allowing the state or its sanctuary cities from cooperating with immigration officials unless the individual committed a violent crime.

Under California law, throwing acid at someone or rape of an unconscious, intoxicated or mentally ill victim is not considered a violent crime. Neither is vehicular manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, arson, solicitation of murder or exploding a destructive device or explosive with intent to injure.

A recent article by Jazmine Ulloa, Los Angeles Times makes this clear distinction:

After being accused of rape, Andrew Luster jumped his $1-million bail and was later captured in Mexico by a bounty hunter on TV.

Ventura County prosecutors said he drugged three women and videotaped the assaults, and a jury convicted him of 86 counts of poisoning, sexual battery and rape of an unconscious or intoxicated person. But with none of his offenses listed among the 23 crimes that California considers “violent” felonies in its penal code….

In drawing the line at crime violence, why would Kevin de Leon and Anthony Rendon extend sanctuary and protection to predators like Andrew Luster?

While Eric Holder will be in Sacramento tomorrow, collecting his $25,000 a-month-taxpayer-funded-check from the state’s taxpayers via our Legislature, he needs to be the adult in the room and ask the Democratic leadership to remove their rose-colored glasses and realize that there are distinctions between “hardened criminals,” “undocumented immigrants,” and those who perpetrate the abbreviated state list of “violent crimes.”

Ending “sanctuary city” ordinances does not mean that law enforcement in those communities become “quasi immigration enforcement officers.” Rather, it reopens the door to the real need of providing continued cooperation between law enforcement and immigration officials and ensuring societally dangerous and violent criminals are identified, detained and deported. They should also include those convicted of gang activities, rape, arson or those who sexually assault the elderly or mentally ill victims.

The following crimes are not covered by the definition of violent crimes under recently passed Proposition 57:

Vehicular manslaughter
Human trafficking involving a minor
Battery with personal infliction of serious bodily injury
Throwing acid or flammable substance
Assault with a deadly weapon
Assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer or firefighter
Discharging firearm at an occupied dwelling, building, vehicle or airport
Rape where victim legally capable of giving consent
Rape by intoxicating substance
Rape where victim unconscious of the act
Rape/sodomy/oral copulation of unconscious person or by use of date rape drugs
Rape by threat of public official
Inflicting corporal injury on a child
Domestic violence
Arson of a structure or forest land
Arson of property
Solicitation to commit murder
Grand theft firearm
Assault with a deadly weapon by state prison inmate
Any felony involving the personal use of a deadly weapon
Holding a hostage by state prison inmate
Exploding a destructive device or explosive with intent to injure

Hector Barajas is a partner at Merino, Barajas & Allen, a California strategic communications and public affairs firm. As a nationally recognized expert on Latino politics and public policy issues, he serves as an on-air political analyst for Univision and Telemundo.

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Anthony Rendon, Eric Holder, Kevin de Leon, Sanctuary Cities, Ventura County

Bill making CA a sanctuary state is approved Senate committee

February 1, 2017 By Katy Grimes 17 Comments

Opportunistic California Democrats are presenting bills to refute the recent immigration executive orders of President Donald J. Trump, to protect Americans.

Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, the author of Senate Bill 54, says that ”immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community” and all attempts to enforce immigration laws create fear of the police among “immigrant community members” who fear “approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes.”

Despite the wave of refugees coming to the United States from Syria and Iraq under the Obama administration, California Democrats are denying national security issues, in favor of political opportunism. California is home to the largest illegal-alien population in the country, with 35 sanctuary cities. President-elect Trump has vowed to build a border wall and deport immigrants that have a criminal record, which he estimates to be two-three million.

Several bills authored by Senate Democrats in the California State Legislature are meant to be a thumb in the eye of President Donald J. Trump over immigration laws.

SB6 by Sen. Ben Hueso would create a state program to fund legal representation for illegal aliens facing deportation, and AB3 by Assemblyman Rob Bonta would create taxpayer-funded training for defense attorneys and public defenders on immigration law for illegal aliens.

The third bill, SB54 by Sen. Pres. Pro Tem Kevin de León, heard Tuesday in the Senate Public Safety Committee, seeks to restrict local police and sheriffs from working with federal immigration enforcers. SB54 prohibits law enforcement from responding to federal requests for notification when a jail houses someone who might be the subject of an immigration enforcement action. Whether the immigrants are here legally or not, and whether they have committed crimes in the United States, this bill effectively prohibits communications between local law enforcement and federal authorities.

SB54 specifically prohibits almost all cooperation and communication with federal immigration authorities.

Sen. Pres. Pro Tem Kevin de León and California Democrats essentially want to bar state and local resources from being used for immigration enforcement. De León said Tuesday the cost to California to help U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detail suspected illegal immigrants is $65 million.

Proponents of SB54 claimed the Trump administration’s executive order is just more racial profiling, and California’s long-standing history of welcoming immigrants overrides illegal immigration enforcement.

Concerned about releasing criminal illegal aliens back into society, Sen. Jeff Stone, R- Temecula, asked repeatedly for assurances that the bill would not allow this. “When we have dangerous felons, undocumented felons, in prison, should they NOT be deported and prosecuted under the law?” Stone asked de León. Stone said he was concerned they will be released back into communities and cause heinous crimes, similar to what happened to Kate Steinle, who was murdered by a five-time deported criminal illegal alien.

Stone said the bill was making California a sanctuary state, if passed in its virgin form. Stone tried to get de León to agree to an amendment regarding criminal illegal aliens, but de León resisted.

“The bill decouples criminal acts from immigration statute,” de León said. “It doesn’t stop ICE from doing their job,” dodging the question.

Stone questioned de León again, asking if he would “be supportive of any amendment to allow local law enforcement to pick up dangerous criminal immigrants.”

“It’s not necessary,” de León said. “There is nothing stopping ICE from getting the individual.”

Another dodge from Stone’s question, splitting hairs. Stone asked if local law enforcement would be able to assist ICE only in cases of criminal illegal aliens, and de León replied, there is nothing stopping ICE from doing this – no mention of local law enforcement assistance.

“What is particularly alarming is a very false dichotomy, fueled by hyperbole and rhetoric,” said Committee Chairwoman Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. “All of us wand hardened criminals prosecuted under the law. We are watching now a pitting of the people against each other – of immigrants. That is not right.” Skinner talked again, for the third or fourth time in two days about “easily manipulable fear,” and said “the state of California will not be compliant with authoritarian policies.”

Cynthia Buiza of the California Immigrant Policy Center, a witness at the hearing in support of SB54, launched into an out-of-order editorial, calling Trump’s order “anti-immigrant, zenophobic and propaganda,” explains more from her organization’s website: “The California Values Act answers the ugly slurs of xenophobia with a simple but profound truth: all people are created equal. Against Trump and other forces who seek to demonize and persecute immigrants, the Golden State must embrace and defend our common humanity and deepest values. Getting law enforcement out of painful deportations, protecting the integrity of public spaces, and rejecting any registry which target Muslims will send a potent message to the nation – and the world.”

From the Bill:

SB-54 would, among other things, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies and school police and security departments from using resources to investigate, detain, detect, report, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, or to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal program requiring registration of individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or national or ethnic origin, as specified. The bill would require state agencies to review their confidentiality policies and identify any changes necessary to ensure that information collected from individuals is limited to that necessary to perform agency duties and is not used or disclosed for any other purpose, as specified. The bill would require public schools, hospitals, and courthouses to establish and make public policies that limit immigration enforcement on their premises and would require the Attorney General, in consultation with appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies for use by those entities for those purposes.

SB54 passed the Senate Public Safety Committee along party lines.

This article was originally published by the Flash Report

Filed Under: Trending News Tagged With: Ben Hueso, Jeff Stone, Kevin de Leon, Rob Bonta, Sanctuary Cities, Sanctuary State

Will Taxpayers Come to the Aid of Sanctuary Cities?

January 28, 2017 By Joel Fox 23 Comments

President Donald Trump started the process of denying federal grants to cities that don’t cooperate with federal immigration laws. Mayors of many large California cities, but not all, have declared they will resist the order and keep sanctuary status for undocumented immigrants. If the president is eventually successful in denying funds to sanctuary cities will local taxpayers bail out cities with additional tax revenue? That would be the ultimate test of voters’ support or rejection of sanctuary city policy.

We are a long way from that point but it is worth considering. Congress has to approve the reduced revenue to sanctuary cities. Lawsuits will be adjudicated since challenges are bound to be filed claiming the federal government cannot deny funds for local policies. Local government leaders in California also promise to establish funds for individuals to defend themselves against federal immigration deportation actions. These lawsuits and legal defense funds will add to taxpayer costs.

The debate over sanctuary for illegal immigrants is being fought on moral grounds. One side calls it a human rights issue. The other side asks how long civil society can function if people or institutions pick and choose the laws they will obey.

But support for and against the sanctuary policy may ultimately be measured in dollars and cents.

One indication of support or lack thereof for sanctuary policy is a poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Government Studies. That poll showed 73 percent opposed the idea of sanctuary cities and that opposition was across the political spectrum. Yet, a more recent poll from the Hoover Institution had an even split on the question of sanctuary cities.

IGS director Jack Citrin points out that the poll results depend on how the question is asked. “In the IGS Survey which simply focused on cooperation with federal authorities in the case of someone arrested and detained, a large majority opposed non-cooperation, but this declined and became more polarized by party and ideology in the Hoover question which gave reasons for each position and noted that police chiefs felt this might deter cooperation in solving other crimes,” he said.

Citrin notes that Trump’s opposition to the policy tends to polarize the attitude of voters.

So will taxpayers be willing to support politicians defiance with their dollars, especially as some officials advocate for more taxes to increase traditional government services?

Citrin’s view: “This would be a good test of public opinion, particularly if the price was simply to hand over people charged or convicted as criminals. California has been willing to raise taxes recently, but mainly taxes on the rich. This kind of a tax might have a chance in highly liberal communities which now are exuding bravado and resistance but again depending on the framing and the size of the tax it wouldn’t be a slam dunk.”

This piece was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

Filed Under: Top Stories Tagged With: Donald Trump, Hoover Institution, Sanctuary Cities