San Diego County Board of Supervisors Fails To Repeal ‘Reckless Super Sanctuary Policy’

‘This is a reckless measure that actively shields illegal immigrant criminals from deportation, even after committing horrific crimes’

In a 2-1 vote with one abstention on Tuesday, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors failed to repeal its “super sanctuary” policy that blocks San Diego County agencies from assisting ICE.

The policy dates back to December 2024, when then-Supervisor Nora Vargas brought forth the motion for county agencies to not assist ICE unless they have an arrest warrant signed by a state or federal judicial official. Submitted as a way to help “Trump-proof” San Diego County and protect migrant families, the measure passed 3-1. However, since then, the measure has been frequently challenged. Vargas herself left office in January despite winning reelection, citing “safety and security reasons”.

Supervisor Jim Desmond, seeing the board shift, then brought forth a new measure to repeal the policy limiting cooperation with ICE. The measure would also have the County Commissioner report back within 180 days on the data related to any transfers or notifications during the past year to federal immigration authorities and provide recommendations on where to go from there. Desmond said that the law “had nothing to do with deportations” and was about not impeding the County sheriff from their duties in dealing with crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

“This is for the people in jail that have been tried, convicted, and sentenced and we let ICE know they’re here,” said Desmond before the Tuesday vote. “This is not about mass deportations or sweeps or anything like that. This is only for the people in jails in San Diego County.”

However, strong opposition from the migrant community and remaining Supervisors who supported the December policy bogged the chances of the motion passing down, resulting in a 2-1 with one abstention vote on Tuesday. With a seat still empty, the motion needed three out of the four supervisors to vote yes. In the end, only Supervisors Desmond and Joel Anderson voted yes, while Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe voted no and Terra Lawson-Remer abstained.

“The outcome was deeply disappointing,” Desmond said on Tuesday. “This was not about politics. This was about ensuring that criminals – child abusers, burglars and violent offenders – are removed from our communities. Instead, fear and misinformation won the day, leaving law-abiding residents at greater risk.”

Steppe, meanwhile, noted that she voted no because it is the federal government who ultimately enforces immigration, not the County.

“I really don’t think it’s in our best interest to continue to invest in even higher levels for our local law enforcement to do the federal government’s job,” said Steppe.

Immigration groups praise the decision, saying that the repeal would make it harder for ICE to conduct deportations.

“What Trump is doing goes against our human rights,” said Jose, an immigrant advocate in San Diego, to the Globe on Tuesday. “If ICE wants help here, they’ll need warrants and to focus on only getting criminals, not families.”

Sanctuary cities resist Trump’s deportation plan. It could cost their residents. | Opinion

The doubling down on sanctuary city promises will likely draw more migrants to those communities, which some mayors have welcomed despite the heavy costs.

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston recently became the latest Democratic leader to engage in a chest-pounding call to arms in resistance to the incoming Trump administration’s plan to deport people who entered the United States unlawfully.

Click here to SUBSCRIBE to CA Political Review 

While a post-election poll by YouGov for CBS News shows that a massive 73% of adults want President-elect Donald Trump to prioritize the repatriation of illegal migrants, the mayor pledged to not only have Denver police “stationed at the county line to keep (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) out” but also that “you would have 50,000 Denverites there.”

Johnston said it would be like a “Tiananmen Square moment” and answered yes when questioned whether he’d be ready to go to jail.

That moment soon passed, however, as lawyers apparently explained to the mayor that armed resistance to the federal government is often called – wait for it – insurrection.

It appears that Johnston was not keen on becoming the Jefferson Davis of the left, so he backpedaled, stating, “Would I have taken it back if I could? Yes, I probably wouldn’t have used that image.”

Yet, Johnston is not alone in pledging resistance to repatriation efforts. Cities are reaffirming or adopting sanctuary city status, including most recently Boston. The cities pledge to continue their ban on any cooperation with the federal government in detaining or removing unlawful migrants. Other mayors are pledging to use city funds to pay for the defense costs of those fighting deportation.

The doubling down on sanctuary city promises will likely draw more migrants to those communities, which some mayors have welcomed despite the heavy costs of housing, education and other city services.

Immigration proved to be one of the top issues for voters in this year’s election, which brought control of both houses of Congress and the White House to the GOP. Citizens overwhelmingly supported new tough immigration measures, including deportations.

With Democratic cities joining the “resistance,” they may find the costs even higher. Congress cannot compel cooperation without triggering constitutional concerns. In Federalist #46, James Madison recognized the right of state officials to oppose federal policies, including  “the refusal to co-operate with officers of the Union.” 

In cases such as Printz v. United States (1997), which involved federal requirements that states cooperate on gun control measures, the Supreme Court enforced an anti-commandeering line that allowed states to refuse such federal orders.

Opinion:Working-class voters bet big on Trump. Here’s how he can pay them back.

Cities rely on federal money to pay for migrant services

However, this is a two-way street. Just as cities and states do not have to carry water for the federal government, the federal government does not have to supply the water to the states. The second Trump administration and Congress can play hardball by barring federal funds in various areas for these cities.

With their status as sanctuary cities, housing, law enforcement and social programming costs will continue to rise. Many of those budgets are heavily infused with federal funding. However, if cities resist or frustrate federal policy, there are ample reasons why the federal government might restrict funding.

Click here to read the full article in USA Today

‘Sanctuary’ cities are getting their grants despite threats

Sanctuary StateAbout 18 months after the Trump administration threatened to withhold law enforcement grants from nearly 30 places around the country it felt weren’t doing enough to work with federal immigration agents, all but one have received or been cleared to get the money, the Justice Department said.

In most cases, courts chipped away at the crackdown that escalated in November 2017 with letters from the Justice Department of former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to 29 cities, metro areas, counties or states it considered as having adopted “sanctuary policies” saying those policies may violate federal law.

Of those 29 jurisdictions — which include cities as large as Los Angeles and as small as Burlington, Vermont — only Oregon has yet to be cleared to receive the grants from 2017, a Justice Department spokesman told The Associated Press this week.

Vermont officials announced Monday that they had been told the state Department of Public Safety would be getting $2.3 million in law enforcement grants that had been blocked. Vermont had not joined any of the legal cases, instead corresponding directly with the Justice Department. …

Click here to read the full article from the Associated Press

Riverside to consider declaring it’s ‘not a sanctuary city’

ImmigrationRiverside is joining the ranks of Inland cities debating California’s sanctuary state law.

Councilman Chuck Conder asked at the Tuesday, April 24, City Council meeting that a discussion of the sanctuary state law be put on the council’s May 8 agenda.

“I request that, in the soonest possible timeframe, an item be agendized to discuss and adopt a resolution of the City Council declaring Riverside, being a city of laws, publicly affirm that we are not a sanctuary city,” Conder said.

The discussion will most likely be held at the regular June 12 City Council meeting, City Clerk Colleen Nicol said Wednesday after consulting with Interim City Manager Lee McDougal. The city’s sunshine resolution requires a resolution and report be prepared at least 12 days before the meeting. …

Click here to read the full article from the Press-Enterprise

Top Ten Lesser-Known Aspects of Oakland Mayor Schaaf’s “Sanctuary City” Policies

10. Illegals sporting gang tattoos can join “pot luck” lunch with Mayor every Thursday.

9. “Assault” style weapons banned within the city, except for illegal fugitive felons.

8.  “Schaaf” means sheep in German. Like we’re stunned.

7. The City of Oakland respectfully asks that ICE and other Federal agents not converse with Oakland residents, except to explain available Federal benefits.

6. Tough new “3 murders and you’re out” policy for illegals.

5. Apply for your Oakland “no-questions-asked” ID card, get free “NO ONE is ILLEGAL” t-shirt.

4. High-wattage megaphones supplied to key city workers, in case ICE agents are sighted unexpectedly.

3. New “dateillegal.gov” Oakland-dating website attracting interest from 47 states

2. Visit special City Hall kiosk announcing: “I’m illegal and I vote.” Get personal ombudsman and social worker assigned to you.

…and the NUMBER ONE LESSER-KNOWN ASPECT OF OAKLAND MAYOR SCHAAF’S “SANCTUARY CITY” POLICY is:

1. Mayor swears she has a “What is Illegal?” tattoo, but coyly says she can’t show it to us.

“Your Weekly American Top Ten list” is intended as humorous commentary, and not as real news.

To subscribe to the “Top Ten” for free, please visit www.gipperten.com 

Sanctuary cities lose $53 million in federal funds

The Justice Department’s move to withdraw criminal justice funds to sanctuary cities shielding criminal illegals, including rapists and murderers, from deportation, could cost them as much as $53 million.

A new analysis of the proposal pushed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions finds that the sanctuary states of California, Oregon and Illinois, with the biggest sanctuary cities of Los Angeles, New York and Chicago would get hit hardest.

The Center for Immigration Studies has listed areas in jeopardy of losing their Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, which it called “the largest source of federal criminal justice funds for state and local authorities.”

Some cities have sued to stop the administration.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been eager for the funding crackdown because some 300 sanctuary jurisdictions block their agents from entering jails to arrest criminal illegals. Instead, they have to wait until the illegal immigrants are arrested and ICE officials say that makes it a far more dangerous situation than in a jail. …

Click here to read the full article from the Washington Examiner

San Francisco Judge Blocks Trump’s Sanctuary City Order

Sanctuary cityU.S. District Court Judge William Orrick III issued a permanent injunction Monday against President Donald Trump’s executive order directing that federal funds be withheld from “sanctuary city” jurisdictions.

The original order, issued January 25, aimed to “Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law.”

San Francisco and Santa Clara County challenged the order, which Orrick blockedtemporarily in April on the grounds that it was too broad and infringed on the powers of the legislative branch to control federal spending.

In response, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum clarifying the Department of Justice’s interpretation of the order, stipulating that the federal funds to be withheld would be limited to discretionary grants from the department to local law enforcement authorities.

But the judge said in July that memorandum was not enough to stop other agencies from interpreting the executive order in a broader sense, and that the memorandum could easily be withdrawn.

In his ruling on Monday, Judge Orrick said:

[E]ven if the President had spending powers, the Executive Order would clearly exceed them and violate the Tenth Amendment’s prohibition against commandeering local jurisdictions. It is so vague and standardless that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and is void for vagueness. And because it seeks to deprive local jurisdictions of congressionally allocated funds without any notice or opportunity to be heard, it violates the procedural due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment.

The Trump administration has already appealed Orrick’s original, temporary order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Congress could also enforce President Trump’s policy simply by enacting legislation to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities — assuming Orrick’s 10th Amendment concerns about commandeering are overcome.

Proponents of sanctuary cities celebrated Monday’s ruling, while opponents remain incredulous that any part of the United States could defy federal immigration law under the protection of the courts.

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice told Breitbart News: “The District Court exceeded its authority today when it barred the President from instructing his cabinet members to enforce existing law. The Justice Department will vindicate the President’s lawful authority to direct the executive branch.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Ian Mason contributed to this story.

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

Texas governor signs ban on so-called ‘sanctuary cities’

As reported by the Associated Press:

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday night signed what he calls a ban on so-called “sanctuary cities” that allows police to ask about a person’s immigration status and threatens sheriffs with jail if they don’t cooperate with federal authorities. He did so over intense opposition from immigrant-rights groups and Democrats, who say the law echoes Arizona’s immigration crackdown in 2010 that prompted national controversy and lawsuits.

Abbott, a Republican in his first term, took the unusual step of signing the bill on Facebook with no public notice in advance. He said Texas residents expect lawmakers to “keep us safe” and said similar laws have already been tested in federal court, where opponents have said the bill likely will be immediately challenged.

“Let’s face it, the reason why so many people come to America is because we are a nation of laws and Texas is doing its part to keep it that way,” Abbott said. His spokesman, John Wittman, later said they chose to sign the bill on a Facebook livestream because that’s “where most people are getting their news nowadays.”

The bill cleared a final hurdle this week in the Republican-controlled Legislature over objections from Democrats and immigrant rights supporters who’ve packed the Texas Capitol. They call it a “show-me-your-papers” measure that will be used to discriminate against Latinos. …

Click here to read the full article