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: 70

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 Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service