Judges Issue Final Ruling, Illegals Scurry As Texas Senate Bill ENFORCED

The Mexican American defense Fund and other leftist groups were thwarted by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, The unanimous decision says that Texas may institute Senate Bill 4 provisions that make it a penalty for not cooperating with federal immigration officials.

The Mexican American Defense Fund and other leftist groups were thwarted by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday. The unanimous decision says that Texas may institute Senate Bill 4 provisions that make it a penalty for not cooperating with federal immigration officials.

Texas has won an important court ruling concerning illegal aliens. A unanimous ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned Clinton-appointed Judge Orlando Garcia’s decision on August 31. The state is able to demand that local law enforcement comply with detainer requests by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed it as a clear victory, which will permit the state to “enforce the core” of the law. This means that although the panel hasn’t considered the entire scope, the state is able to mandate cooperation between federal immigration agents and local jails under the “anti-sanctuary city” measure.

The state of Texas passed Senate Bill 4 months ago and Governor Greg Abbott signed the legislation back in February. However, Texas has not been allowed to implement the law that was legally instituted because a few immigrants’ rights activists in a couple of cities and outside interests like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took the state to federal court and challenged the legality of the measure.

The "anti-sanctuary city" law was duly signed back in February, but since then, liberal groups have fought it in court.

The “anti-sanctuary city” law was duly signed back in February, but since then, liberal groups have fought it in court.

After Garcia issued a halt to the law taking effect last month, the state appealed the decision. The new ruling overturns Garcia’s halt that went into effect one day before the law was supposed to. Now, Texas can enforce the detainer provision, but the other issues will be thrashed out in November.

These include the ability to punish local law enforcement personnel who don’t abide by federal and state law concerning the detainment of illegal aliens. The ruling does provide the ability to pursue some penalties against officials who defy it, but at this point the extent is vague. The bill also includes sanctions on colleges and universities that ignore citizenship status and protect illegal students. These details will be ironed out later.

Charles Perry added the provision about colleges during the debate. He said, “The college campus aspect was needed because we’ve had a lot of rhetoric from some of the college campuses [saying] this is what we’re going to go out and do.”

Texas Attorney General Paxton has had to fight tooth and nail every time the elected body of lawmakers pass a new measure that liberals don't like.

Texas Attorney General Paxton has had to fight tooth and nail every time the elected body of lawmakers pass a new measure that liberals don’t like.

The bill was hotly debated in the state legislature. One lawmaker notified ICE when protesters who carried signs announcing their “undocumented” status were seen outside.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has praised the measure and the Department of Justice filed arguments supporting the state law. Other attorney generals did likewise, sending a clear picture that the majority of Americans don’t want the wanton destruction of citizenship to occur. Liberals promote the Open Boarders agenda that aims at reestablishing serfdom, conservatives want to protect individual liberty.

Originally, Houston, Dallas, and Austin had sued the state concerning the legality of Senate Bill 4. The main reason for opposition of the bill stems from a supposed Fourth Amendment violation and the fact that penalties are vague for law enforcement officials who won’t comply.

So-called sanctuary cities will no longer be protected in Texas and now, law enforcement officials can be penalized for non-compliance with federal immigration law.

So-called sanctuary cities will no longer be protected in Texas and now, law enforcement officials can be penalized for non-compliance with federal immigration law.

Many people feel that Texas should forget sanctions and just arrest the sheriffs and police chiefs who break the federal and state law.

Liberal news outlets are connecting the legislation with President Trump. Although the Texas congress has had the bill in the works since before Trump handily won the election, for some reason liberals want to connect him with what they see as a racist measure. The truth of the matter is that the bill has nothing to do with race and everything to do with sovereignty.

The three judges on the appeals court, one which was appointed by Clinton and the other by Barack Obama, obviously take their oath seriously. The law was passed and does not violate any supposed constitutional protections because these illegal aliens are not being deprived of life, liberty or property.

These people are lawbreakers, and as such, are subject to justice. It’s not a violation of constitutional rights to put someone in jail if they’ve broken the law.

Paxton said in a statement, “Enforcing immigration law helps prevent dangerous criminals from being released into Texas communities,” and he’s absolutely correct. The number of illegal violent crimes is outrageous, but it would still be unacceptable if one single person was raped or murdered by an illegal alien.

Immigration must be held in respect. Allowing people to flood the nation without proper documentation is dangerous and wrong. Texas earned a victory yesterday when it was allowed to implement a law that was legally passed. By trying to stop the state from putting it into effect, liberal activists groups are essentially rebelling against the republic that provides all Americans’ freedoms. Fortunately, the haters of liberty have failed.

https://conservativedailypost.com/judges-issue-final-ruling-illegal...

Views: 27

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

BREAKING: Maine GOP Gov Has Enough, Executive Order Drawn Up As Illegals Stunned

Governor of Maine, Paul LePage, plans to issue an executive order concerning sheriffs’ cooperation with ICE agents. The move is causing liberal outrage because it seeks to protect citizens.

As the immigration debate in Texas has been tentatively decided by federal appeals court, a Governor in Maine is drawing the ire of illegal alien proponents across the country. Governor Paul LePage said yesterday that he may remove a couple sheriff’s for lack of cooperation with federal immigration officials.

On the Laura Ingraham show, LePage was referring to a “couple of sheriffs who say they’re not going to work” with Federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

“So, there’s likelihood that you’re going to be hearing some stories about some sheriffs being removed from their duties,” LePage said.

LePage said yesterday that the new executive order would allow him to remove any sheriff who didn’t cooperate with federal immigration officials. In Maine, the elected post is subject to oversight and LePage does have that power.

The move comes in the wake of Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce’s letter to ICE this month. He wrote that he would no longer hold illegal aliens in jail past the date of their release. He says that he wants to protect the citizen taxpayers from a wrongful imprisonment lawsuit, but conveniently avoided mentioning the danger of violent crimes that may be committed by an illegal alien who was released.

The democrat sheriff derided the governor saying, “maybe he doesn’t have all the facts.” Joyce said the policy to let illegals go free without a specific warrant was checked out by the county’s lawyers. They say, like others, that illegal aliens have constitutional protections.

However, that argument is debatable, especially with the new members of the supreme court now in place. Decisions over the last two decades have provided a modicum of rights to anyone in the world under the United States constitution. Basically, if someone comes here, liberals have made it possible for them to receive some basic benefits.

The Cumberland County Sheriff has told ICE that without a warrant, he will not incarcerate criminals after their release date.

The Cumberland County Sheriff has told ICE that without a warrant, he will not incarcerate criminals after their release date.

It was determined, in part, by Texas. The Supreme court ruled that illegals had to attend public school, even though they are not citizens. Of course, everyone knows how that has turned out. America now has an entire activist group who demand citizenship without having earned it legally.

The issue in Maine could be repeated throughout the U.S. Sheriffs are generally elected in each county. A number of conservatives put it like this: Sheriffs are generally on the side of the citizen, but police are federal officers and take orders from the government.

What LePage is proposing might remove that citizen protection in another state, if adopted. While in theory, this seems like a good plan, in reality, in the wrong hands it could favor the leftist agenda. For example, what if a sheriff decided that it was wrong for the federal government to enact some new seizure policy or law? That elected representative could be ousted for trying to protect his county.

LePage plans to put pressure on elected officials to comply with federal immigration law. The new order will help keep citizens in the border state safe.

Maine state law already allows the governor to remove sheriffs who don’t comply with federal law, so a new precedent wouldn’t be established. If complaints from the county commission are filed, the governor has the right to remove the sheriff after a hearing.

Here, it would be a win-win. Liberal interpretations of the law concerning illegal aliens would be halted, and the state would be safer without criminals on the streets.

LePage is actually trying to combat the incessant push toward globalism. During the Obama administration, he announced that Maine would no longer participate in the “refugee resettlement” program, and now the state is no longer accepting them.

He also said that the state has requested that ICE “investigate a few organizations.” The executive order will ensure that sheriffs do cooperate with federal officials and LePage’s comments seem directed at Joyce, although he did not name him specifically.

Cumberland County officials referred to the governors remarks by defending their sheriff. However, that is not stopping LePage. Press Secretary Julie D. Rabinowitz wrote in an email, “the safety and security of the children, families, and citizens of the State of Maine is the Governor’s first responsibility. As a state established under the authority of the Constitution of the United States of America and of the State of Maine, the State must do its duty and work cooperatively at the federal, state and local level to enforce the laws that maintain our nation’s sovereignty and keep us safe.”

The governor also has said that he will not give terrorists the chance to “settle in Maine.” He was referring to the two 9/11 attackers who flew from Canada to Maine and Adnan Fazeli. As the governor of a border state, he intends to keep citizens safe.

“We’ve had our problems,” LePage said. “We’re a border state and unfortunately, some do come in from Canada and that’s been a problem. Some come by boat. We have 3,600 miles of coastline. It is a problem.”

Liberals are going nuts over the comments, so the move is obviously a good one that will protect the nation from criminals and terrorists.

https://conservativedailypost.com/maine-gop-gov-enough-executive-or...

from post  "...A number of conservatives put it like this: Sheriffs are generally on the side of the citizen, but police are federal officers and take orders from the government...."

Sheriffs are to protect and defend both the federal and the state constitutions, and they are elected by the locals, so yes, they should be on the side of the citizen. But the second part of that referring to local police forces as agents of the federal government is not true. They are to be vetted, trained and hired locally, so their loyalty should be to the people at the local level.

It was 0bozo's goal to have a federal police force. If that has happened without us knowing, then he won. If it happened, it was like the frog in the pot again, with feds sending more and more paramilitary gear to the local police, with the result that local police would reactively change their loyalty. Not a good thing if that is true.

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