Irony: Obama DOJ’s Immigration Suit Against AZ Laid Foundation For Trump’s Suit Against CA

  President Donald Trump’s Justice Department filed a suit against the state of California on Tuesday modeled after one brought against Arizona by former President Barack Obama’s DOJ, which affirmed the federal government’s authority to set immigration policy.

By Randy DeSoto
March 7, 2018 at 11:13am

 In 2010, then Attorney General Eric Holder sued Arizona over state law S.B. 1070, which — in accordance with federal law — required any aliens in the United States to have proper identification at all times, and empowered state law enforcement officers to attempt to determine immigration status during “lawful stop, detention or arrest” for other suspected crimes.

 Additionally, it barred state and local officials or agencies from restricting enforcement of immigration laws, and imposed penalties on sheltering, hiring or transporting unregistered aliens.

“Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,” Holder stated at the time regarding his decision to sue Arizona over the law. “Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.”

 Holder further argued that the Constitution “forbids” Arizona from replacing federal policy “with its own state-specific immigration policy.”

 The Supreme Court, by-in-large, agreed with the Obama administration’s argument, finding immigration law is the purview of the federal government. However, it did affirm the ability of state law enforcement officials to seek to ascertain the immigration status of those stopped for other suspected criminal activity.

“The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

 Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ DOJ plans to make exactly that point in a case filed in federal court in Sacramento.

 He announced the case in the state’s capital on Wednesday. “A refusal to apprehend and deport (illegal aliens), especially the criminal element, effectively rejects all immigration law. It’s a rejection of law and creates and open borders system,” he told a gathering of state and local law enforcement officials.

 Sessions specifically singled out Oakland’s Mayor Libby Schaff, who tipped off criminal illegal aliens of an impending Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid in the city.

“So here’s my message to Mayor Schaff,” Sessions said. “How dare you, how dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical open borders agenda?”

Politico reported the DOJ’s suit against California is modeled after the one brought by the Obama administration.

 RELATED: Federal Judge Secures Massive DACA Win For Trump… Changes Underway ...

 The lawsuit alleges obstruction of federal immigration enforcement and targets three “sanctuary state” focused laws passed by the legislature in 2017.

 S.B. 54 prohibits state and local officials from sharing information with federal immigration officials and also bars the transfer of certain immigrants into federal custody.

 A.B. 450 forbids private employers from cooperating with the federal government with immigration enforcement at the workplace.

 Finally, A.B. 103 attempts to regulate detention facilities used by the federal government to hold immigration prisoners.

 California Gov. Jerry Brown accused the Trump administration of pulling a “political stunt” by filing the suit.

“At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!” Brown wrote on Twitter.

 Meanwhile, the Golden State’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra claimed that the new laws are in compliance with the Constitution and other federal laws.

“We’re following the Constitution and federal law,” he told reporters in a conference call on Tuesday. “We’re doing nothing to intrude in the work of the federal government to do immigration enforcement. We recognize and respect that the federal government has authority over immigration enforcement.”

https://www.westernjournal.com/irony-obama-dojs-immigration-suit-ag...

 

Views: 102

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If the President and AG Sessions were actually interested in stopping California from aiding and abetting, from felony harboring illegal aliens they would arrest and prosecute the State Officials who actively engage in such unlawful practices.  However, it is obvious they are not interested in enforcing the law, by holding those violating the law accountable, under the law.

It is time that the people demand their State and Federal officials obey the laws.... or be charged and prosecuted for ignoring them.  There are many Federal Statutes that can be applied to the illegal conduct of State Officials (elected, appointed or civil service). Do it... enforce the law, stop with the BULL SHIT. The People are not fooled or pleased by such CRIMINAL CONDUCT... That's right, the AG and President are both guilty of 'Misprions of a Felony' for failing to prosecute those they know are breaking our laws.  Obstruction of Justice may also apply where they deliberately ignore the law and permit individuals to violate the laws of the United States.

P/S There is no Federal Law which permits  'Prosecutorial Discretion'.  Prosecutorial Discretion' is a fancy term for 'Selective Prosecution' and 'Misprision of a Felony', both are unlawful acts. It is time that the People demand that the law is enforced... Stop prosecutorial discretion and the phony civil lawsuits, which ignore the underlying criminal conduct.

It is time that the people demand their State and Federal officials obey the laws....LMAO over that......

Until the People take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING THEIR SERVANTS the rule of law and Constitutional government will never return to America.  Laughing will not help... spoofing what is necessary will not help... Hank will not help.

Lawsuits do not belong with violating law. Arrests are what is called for. This is nonsense, wasting our money and more time. Time is short and getting shorter. He needs to make some arrests, according to the law. All of this is nonsense.

Absolutely, civil lawsuits are not what the law calls for... those violating or obstructing the law have committed CRIMINAL OFFENSES and need to be charged, arrested, arraigned and tried... and if found guilty by a jury of their peers JAILED and FINED.

It is the Deep State and the Establishment who have perpetrated this hoax on America... that the political and senior bureaucrats should not be arrested for crimes committed while in office... Instead, taxpayer dollars are being wasted by suing these miscreants and the State; levying the legal costs, fees, and lost time, for such actions on the taxpayers.  Stop this insanity now.

Arrest the Governor of California, the Attorney General, the mayors, and city councils/county supervisors for every sanctuary city and county in the State... arraign them and have them post a bond or keep them in jail until they are tried and either convicted or acquitted.  In any event, these individuals are not above our criminal statutes... they are breaking the law by 'obstructing justice' and aiding and abetting illegal alien trafficking among other crimes.

The President needs to advise them all that they have 30 days to conform to the laws of the United States or they WILL BE ARRESTED and tried for their crimes.  No one is above the law. That includes governors, Attorney Generals, Mayors, City Councils, and senior bureaucrats in the government who choose to obstruct justice or to 'aid and abet' illegal alien trafficking... felony harboring is a crime, not a civil case.  Deal with the criminal conduct using the Criminal statutes, not civil suits.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary VarvelPolitical Cartoons by Chip Bok

ALERT ALERT

‘Restrictive’ Gun Control Did Not Prevent Christchurch Massacre

 New Zealand requires licensing and in-depth background checks for would-be gun owners, but neither gun control policy prevented Friday’s attacks in Christchurch that killed nearly 50 people.

The University of Sydney’s GunPolicy.org describes New Zealand’s gun control as “restrictive,” because owning guns in that nation is not a guaranteed right but a privilege extended by the government.


Moreover, before legally owning a gun, residents must acquire a license. The acquisition of that license involves passage of a background check that “considers criminal, mental health, medical, addiction and domestic violence records.” Third party references must also be provided to authorities during the license procurement process and interviews are conducted with the applicant’s immediate family.

Even after licensing, New Zealanders cannot buy a handgun or “military style” semiautomatic without providing an acceptable explanation for why they want such a firearm. Additionally, those firearms must be registered with the central government upon acquisition.

It is illegal to sell a gun to anyone without a license, which means the background checks for license acquisition are universal; they cover all gun sales and transfers. And in the event that an individual is buying a gun from a friend or neighbor instead of retail, “the buyer… is obliged to pass official background checks before taking possession.” Also, “the number and type of firearms which can be sold by a licensed gun dealer to a single gun owner is limited to one pistol, military style semi-automatic firearm, or restricted firearm per acquisition permit.”

Further, gun show sales are highly regulated in New Zealand.

Democrat lawmakers in the U.S. are promoting many of these very gun controls–universal background checks, licensing, more gun show regulation, limits on the number of guns that can be purchased, etc.–arguing that these measures will make Americans safe. It is not yet clear how the killer in Christchurch acquired his weapons, yet we see that these gun controls did not prevent an attack that killed nearly 50 unarmed innocents.

More than one mosque was attacked in Christchurch, and the shooters who converged on a mosque in Linwood were reportedly chased by an apparent attendee who happened to be armed for self-defense.

Truth About ISIS Bride

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service