He said :
… I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification. That’s what you need to survive, to work. They are eligible for massive deportation.
Testifying before the Senate Public Safety Committee, De Léon defended the widespread practice by illegal aliens of using fraudulent documents to work and obtain taxpayer-paid benefits, dismissing any concerns California citizens may have about being the target of identity theft.
In an interview the following day on KPCC 89.3’s Air Talk with Larry Mantle, De Léon expressed outrage that President Trump’s executive order would include those who possess fraudulent documents or committed identity theft to obtain a Social Security number.
“Someone simply who received or purchased a [fraudulent] Social Security card down at McArthur Park, or elsewhere in my district would be eligible immediately for mass deportation,” De Léon said (at 11:45 in the link above).
“He’s trying to deputize police officers — and with the suspicion of someone being a criminal or having a broken taillight, that they themselves, as a local police officer, could call the ICE agents immediately and have that person deported without even legal due process.”
Arrest him as an accessory to a crime, deport all of the ones with fake or stolen documents.
Anyone that thinks it is ok to commit identity theft is a criminal.
This does not make it right. We have here someone that has broken the law and is laughing at our country and bragging about the fact that past administrations have not enforced them. A perfect example of who is scratching who's back. (Let's suppose his family member was guilty of rape, what do we do just ignore that? We say well that's different, according to who though and what standards do we have. If we are not going to enforce the laws than we should take them off the books. He is trying to disregard the law by using the example of a broken tail light when there is more behind the scene. I also wonder how much welfare money has been feed to his family? The issue of illegal aliens is being made light of and every ISIS member that comes into the country is not necessarily going to complete the act of attacking us but can serve the purpose of ISIS by feeding the information to others.
The judge who has temporarily suspended Trump's travel ban.....has overstepped his authority:
Immigration is regulated at the federal level, chiefly under the rules established in 1952 with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 was enacted to curb illegal immigration, denying welfare benefits to undocumented immigrants and strengthening sanctions against employers who hire them.
The U.S. Congress has control over all immigration-related regulations, while the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws.
The federal government's jurisdiction over immigration law has consistently been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. Additionally, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution is generally interpreted to mean that federal laws trump state laws, except for certain matters constitutionally left to the states.
However, many states have passed legislation that limits undocumented immigrants' access to public benefits, directs state and local police to check the legal residence status of arrestees and other directives that affect immigrants. Lawmakers pressing for immigration-related state laws typically cite a lack of federal enforcement and the need to conserve limited state resources, while some cite security concerns.
But are such state laws constitutional? While state lawmakers have articulated a genuine interest in limiting illegal immigration, there is no clear line in the sand. See State Immigration Laws for a regularly updated, state-by-state directory.
Perhaps the most notorious state attempt at regulating immigration is Arizona's S.B. 1070, signed into law in 2010. The U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers "crossed a constitutional line" with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements, including the requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.
Other states have passed laws with similar police directives, including Oklahoma and Utah. In addition to enforcement measures, many of the state laws addressing immigration mandate the use of E-Verify to check the employment eligibility of job applicants; require identification for voting purposes and impose restrictions on public benefits, such as food stamps and non-emergency medical care at state clinics.
Pending legislation in Arizona and Indiana directly challenge the 14th Amendment's provision granting automatic citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. Proponents of such laws argue that the amendment's interpretation should be narrowed to exclude children who are born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants, positioning their controversial bills for eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nearly all state laws affecting immigration are challenged either through litigation by immigrants' rights and civil liberties groups or by the federal government. Provisions that require proof of citizenship or legal residence, in addition to directives for law enforcement to check the immigration status of those deemed "suspicious," have prompted lawsuits over perceived racial profiling. Critics say laws requiring a photo ID for voting, meanwhile, violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
A lawsuit by the South Carolina Hispanic Leadership Council and other parties against the state of South Carolina alleges the state's latest immigration law (S.B. 20) is unconstitutional. Among its grievances, plaintiffs claim the law's enforcement provision violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection and due process. The law requires state and local police to check the immigration status of any individual who is stopped.
Plaintiffs make the following claim in their complaint:
Individuals perceived as "foreign" by state or local law enforcement agents will be in constant jeopardy of harassment and unlawfully prolonged detention and arrest.
The federal government has challenged many of these state laws on the basis of jurisdiction, claiming that a "patchwork" of different immigration laws would not fix the country's immigration system. A DOJ brief accompanying its challenge of the Arizona law included the following statement:
Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.
A recently enacted Alabama law, considered similar to Arizona's S.B. 1070, also was reviewed in a federal court but the judge upheld the provision requiring legal status checks during routine traffic stops. Since another federal judge blocked a similar provision in Arizona's law, U.S. Supreme Court review is more likely.
This is a constantly evolving area of law that is far from settled.
Deport them all, especially De Leon, he should know better!
If he knew and let it happen what does this say about him. These sanctuary cities are giving illegals everything while we pay for it.
If that's the case, he should IMMEDIATELY set about getting them LEGAL! This is nothing to joke or brag about.
To get them "legal", they must be sent back to their home country and if their politician family member helped them illegally enter this country or to illegally stay in this country, he also must be stripped of his citizenship (IF any is extant for him) and then he must be sent back to his home land.
We do not need any illegal aliens holding public office.
you have that right. like the fox guarding the hen house.
same Jackas**that came up with the Gun laws in Califoreignia.. makes laws and clueless about firearms... he did pass the one law that exempts the politicians active and retired including family members from the same very laws.. so its ok for him to own banned items, but the citizens cant.. it also excludes law enforcement active and retired including family members....
Those who have a "false Social Security card" are criminals and should face arrest and deportation. They have committed fraud and ID theft! Arrest and deport them!
I ABSOLUTELY agree. And that includes Barak OBAMA !