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.”


Views: 61

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.




Reporter Kicked Out Of Michelle Obama
Conference For Violating ‘Black Girl Code’

The Black Entertainment Television channel recently hosted a conference in south Florida for black women known as “Leading Women Defined,” which featured a casual conversation between former first lady Michelle Obama and former senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett.

But according to the New York Post’s Page Six, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who was in attendance was booted from the remainder of the conference after she wrote an article about some of the comments Obama had made during the discussion.

Robin Givhan, a fashion critic and staff writer for The Washington Post, documented the highlights of the friendly chat between Obama and Jarrett.

Some of the highlights of the conversation included the former first lady’s thoughts on President Donald Trump’s inauguration as the Obamas prepared to leave the White House, the role she played during the 2008 election, her difficulty settling in as “the spouse” to the president, how she described her White House garden as a “subversive act” to garner trust with the public and her upcoming memoir. Of course Givhan also wrote about what Obama was wearing … after all, she is a fashion critic.

But following the publication of the article, according to Page Six, BET demanded Givhan leave the conference early amid claims that she had violated a “sacred space” by publishing the content of the conversation.

They also canceled a panel discussion that Givhan initially had been asked to moderate.

However, Page Six noted that BET’s claim that Obama’s discussion was “private” and not intended to be shared with anyone else outside the small gathering in attendance didn’t hold up to scrutiny given the fact that BET itself posted clips from the discussion on its site.

Furthermore, Jarrett also posted those clips on social media and told everyone to “tune in” to the network so they could hear what Obama had to say.

Shortly thereafter, the dispute descended into a sharp back-and-forth on social media between Givhan and others who were irked at what she had done, as can be seen on Givhan’s Twitter feed.

Several of her critics asserted that the conversation had been “off-the-record” — an assertion Givhan flatly denied — and one user claimed the reporter had “violated a sacred trust” between black women.

Another said what she had done was a “complete violation of journalistic ethics and Black girl code, all at once,” while still another asserted through a hashtag that Givhan was “#notoneofus,” as if she were being banished from the exclusive realm of accepted professional black women.

For their part, a BET representative told Page Six that Givhan had been “invited as a guest (not working press) to moderate a fashion panel,” and noted that her travel and lodging expenses had been paid for by the network.

“She was made aware that it was an intimate conversation in a sacred space of sisterhood and fellowship,” the rep added.

Neither Givhan nor representatives for Obama responded to requests for comment on the report from Page Six.

If the WaPo reporter really was instructed ahead of time that the conversation between Obama and Jarrett was “off the record” and a private affair, but published anyway, then BET was justified in booting her from the remainder of the conference — though the mean-spirited commentary she received on social media still crossed the line.

But if Givhan received no prior warning on the matter — and given the fact that BET itself published the conversation later — then this is just a major display of hypocrisy and unnecessary infighting.

What do you think?


© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service