Thread: Against 'Sanctuary Cities'

Against 'Sanctuary Cities'
Wednesday, 21 Jul 2010 10:12 PM

Frustrated at the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration law, a Republican congressman introduced a bill demanding that the attorney general also take action against so-called "sanctuary cities," which discourage immigration enforcement.

Rep. Duncan Hunter's bill is the latest step as lawmakers seek to inject themselves into the debate and force their colleagues to take a stand on the contentious Arizona law. One of those moves failed Wednesday when Republicans tried, but failed, to have the Senate vote on blocking the government's lawsuit against Arizona.

Mr. Hunter's bill, for which he started soliciting co-sponsors Wednesday, would stop the Justice Department from pursuing its lawsuit against Arizona until Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. submits a plan to Congress outlining how he would bring sanctuary cities into compliance with federal law.

A majority of voters tell pollsters they back Arizona's law, and Mr. Hunter said the government overstepped its bounds by singling out a state he says is only trying to help federal authorities meet their responsibility to enforce the country's borders.

"The federal government is being inconsistent," said the lawmaker, whose district includes San Diego and other areas just north of the California-Mexico border. "They're saying we don't want a patchwork of laws, and that's why they're suing Arizona, but at the same time they allow sanctuary cities ... to passively impede federal law."

Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Mr. Holder, did not respond to a request seeking comment Wednesday. But in a statement to The Washington Times last week, Ms. Schmaler said the Arizona law and sanctuary ordinances are not the same.

"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called 'sanctuary cities' have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," she said. "That's what Arizona did in this case."

In a subsequent e-mail, Ms. Schmaler said the DOJ would review new local ordinances to determine if they conflict with federal immigration law, which requires states and localities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration laws. But she was silent on existing policies.

The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of any detained person about whom they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.

Arizona officials have said the federal government has failed in its responsibility to police the borders, and the state is experiencing a crime wave spurred by illegal immigration. They have said the new law is meant to fill in the gaps in enforcement.

Seven lawsuits have been filed against the state, with arguments ranging from a violation of federal prerogatives on immigration to accusations that it will inevitably result in racial profiling.

"The Arizona immigration law is one of the most recent and obvious examples of racial profiling. [The law] states that race or color should not be factors justifying an officer's 'reasonable suspicion' to demand a person's papers, but how else will an officer act on this vague definition of suspicion?" wrote Laura Murphy and Jasmine Elliott of the American Civil Liberties Union D.C. office in a blog post last week.

The hearing on the DOJ lawsuit begins Thursday at the U.S. District Court in Phoenix.

The Arizona law has become a dividing line in the debate over how to tackle illegal immigration. Convinced they have a winning issue, Republican campaigns have eagerly sought to pin down Democratic congressional candidates on where they stand, arguing voters should know whether members support Arizona or the Obama administration. More than 80 members of Congress have signed on to a legal briefing supporting Arizona.

Mr. Hunter's bill would stop the Justice Department from pursuing its lawsuit against Arizona until Mr. Holder submits a plan to Congress outlining how he would bring sanctuary cities into compliance with federal law.

Mr. Hunter acknowledged that his bill faces an uphill battle in the House, where Democrats hold a substantial majority. Asked about the proposal Wednesday, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declined to comment, noting the legislation had yet to be introduced.

On Wednesday, senators voted 55-43 on a parliamentary move that blocked Sen. Jim DeMint from raising the issue as part of a debate over extending unemployment insurance.

But the South Carolina Republican is likely to try again on upcoming bills.

"It makes no sense in a free country, in a democracy where we're built on the rule of law, for the federal government to try to intimidate the people of Arizona, who are only trying to protect themselves," Mr. DeMint said.

A 2007 report from the Justice Department's inspector general found 15 cities that don't regularly inform federal authorities when they arrest an illegal immigrant, and 10 cities that wouldn't regularly tell authorities when a known illegal immigrant was being released from custody, either of which could be viewed as shielding illegal immigrants from detection.

The IG report said two jurisdictions - Oregon, and the city and county of San Francisco - acknowledge themselves as sanctuaries. It also said many cities categorized as sanctuaries include language in their policies requiring local authorities to cooperate to the extent required by federal law.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/hunter-sanctu ... /id/365307

No doubt this bill will meet the same fate as the last one. Snuffed by Democrat traitors.

REGION: Hunter wants Obama to crack down on 'sanctuary cities'
Congressman introduces bill to block fed lawsuit against Arizona immigration law

By EDWARD SIFUENTES
Posted: July 22, 2010 7:57 pm | 1 Comment

Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-El Cajon, introduced a bill Thursday that would force the Obama administration to act against cities that protect illegal immigrants, also known as sanctuary cities.

The bill, called the Sanctuary City Prevention Act of 2010, is an effort to undermine the Obama administration's legal fight against the controversial Arizona immigration law, which says that police officers must check the immigration status of those stopped or arrested if police suspect they are in the U.S. illegally.

In its lawsuit, the Justice Department argues that the Arizona law interferes with federal authority on immigration.

"It's ironic that the basis of the Obama administration's lawsuit against Arizona is that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, but it refuses to do anything about the sanctuary cities that actually impede effective enforcement," Hunter said Thursday.

The two-page bill says the federal government should not participate in the lawsuit against Arizona until Attorney General Eric Holder submits a plan to Congress to enforce immigration laws in any city or state that has a policy to disobey the laws.

Joe Kasper, a spokesman for Hunter, said the bill is expected to face stiff opposition. Hunter's 52nd Congressional District covers much of East County and parts of North County, such as Poway and Ramona. It stretches just north of the U.S.-Mexico border from Otay Mesa to the Imperial County line.

"No question, the bill faces an uphill fight in the House given the Democrats' substantial majority, but we are in fact considering the option of offering the legislation as an amendment to the next appropriate appropriation bill," Kasper said. "That would force members to take a position for or against sanctuary cities."

Sanctuary city ordinances were inspired, in part, by a religious effort in the 1980s in which religious groups gave shelter to illegal immigrants and refugees from Central America. At the time, federal immigration policy made it difficult for refugees fleeing civil conflict to obtain asylum in the U.S.

Several California cities have declared themselves sanctuary cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles. The term sanctuary city is a controversial, but largely symbolic label that covers various policies adopted by local governments.

Those policies include everything from prohibiting city employees from cooperating with immigration authorities to requesting that immigration agents not shout "police" when entering the homes of suspected illegal immigrants, because they would associate federal immigration agents with local police and lead to more crimes going unreported.

Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Holder, told The Washington Times recently that sanctuary ordinances and the Arizona law are not the same.

"There's a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law," Schmaler said.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told Congress in 2007 that he was not aware of any city "that actually interferes with our ability to enforce the law."

Hunter called the Obama administration's position hypocritical.

"If the administration believes that Arizona is contributing to a patchwork of laws that will ultimately impede federal enforcement, then it needs to be consistent," he said.

www.nctimes.com

All goes back to the federal laws that local enforcement has been doing for years.

Bank robberies are the thing that makes me look at the all new and improved
financial 2000 page bill that was yet to be read and passed thru congress.

Get the lawyer's on that Bill.


I can spell a GATT and Healthcare bill equally.

Thank you Congressman Hunter for attempting some common sense legislation.

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-5493--0-0.html

Judicial Watch has filed some lawsuits in the past about the issue of Sanctuary Cities allegedly violating Federal law. The 2 most noteworthy lawsuits involve Laguna Beach & San Francisco. JW lost-out in Laguna Beach, but had some success in San Francisco:


http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/ ... bor-site-l

Judicial Watch Petitions California Supreme Court to Review Laguna Beach Day Labor Site Lawsuit
View Discussion Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC -- January 6, 2008
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling in a Judicial Watch taxpayer lawsuit against the City of Laguna Beach, California, related to the Laguna Day Worker Center, a taxpayer funded day labor site that assists illegal aliens in finding employment. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit on behalf of Laguna Beach taxpayers Eileen Garcia and George Riviere, who seek to prevent any further expenditures of taxpayer funds for the site (Garcia, et al., v. City of Laguna Beach, et al.).

On November 26, 2008, a California Court of Appeal ruled in favor of the City of Laguna Beach in an unpublished opinion, prompting Judicial Watch's petition to the state's high court on January 5, 2009."This Court should grant review to resolve this important question of law that has significant and continuing consequences in communities across California," Judicial Watch argued in its petition. "Like many communities, the City of Laguna Beach...has sought to regulate the street-side solicitation of employment by day laborers. Also like many communities, the City has chosen a course of action that runs directly contrary to federal immigration law."

The City of Laguna Beach has expended taxpayer funds to operate the Laguna Day Worker Center since 1999. The center does not verify whether day laborers are eligible to work in the United States. According to several studies, the large majority of day laborers are in the United States illegally and therefore are not eligible to work in the United States.

According to public records, the City of Laguna Beach has given over $200,000 in grant money to the South County Cross Cultural Council, a non-profit organization, to manage the facility. The City of Laguna Beach also uses taxpayer funds to provide portable restroom facilities, trash removal, and to pay for leasing the property from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).

Federal law prohibits the hiring of an undocumented worker, or referring an alien for employment for a fee, knowing the alien is not authorized for such employment. Federal law also requires verification of eligibility to work in the United States.

"The City of Laguna Beach continues to violate federal immigration law by helping illegal aliens obtain employment," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "This lawsuit is of great importance to the citizens of California. Communities across the state continue to waste taxpayer funds on day labor sites for illegal aliens in violation of federal law. The California Supreme Court can help put an end to this illegal practice once and for all."



http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/ ... ary-policy

California Appellate Court Rules Against San Francisco Sanctuary Policy
View Discussion City Must Follow State Law Requiring Police Officers to Report Suspected Aliens Arrested on Drug Charges to Feds
Contact Information:
Press Office 202-646-5172, ext 305

Washington, DC -- October 23, 2008
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that the First District Court of Appeal for the State of California has ruled in a Judicial Watch taxpayer lawsuit that the San Francisco Police Department must comply with a state law requiring police officers to notify federal authorities when they arrest a person for various narcotics offenses whom they suspect to be an alien, legal or illegal [Fonseca v. Fong, Case No. A120206].
The appellate court reversed a lower court ruling that the SFPD was not required to obey the law because the law in question, Section 11369 of the California Health and Safety Code, invaded the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration. Rejecting this argument, the appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to determine if the SFPD's policies comply with Section 11369. According to the appellate court ruling issued on October 22, 2008:

...Section 11369 does not require any state or local law enforcement agency to independently determine whether an arrestee is a citizen of the United States, let alone whether he or she is present in the United States lawfully or unlawfully. Nor does the statute create or authorize the creation of independent criteria by which to classify individuals based on immigration status... All of those determinations, as well as the duty to tell an arrestee who may be in this country unlawfully to either obtain legal status or leave, are left entirely to federal immigration authorities...the statute is therefore not an impermissible state regulation of immigration.

As a result of the appellate ruling, San Francisco must now end its sanctuary policy that protects aliens arrested for certain drug offenses from being reported to ICE.

Judicial Watch's co-counsel, who initiated the case in the trial court, is California attorney David Klehm, who has over 20 years of civil litigation and judge and jury trial experience throughout Southern California.

Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code (Section 11369) states: "[w]hen there is reason to believe that any person arrested for a violation [of any of 14 specified drug offenses] may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters." However, as Judicial Watch argued on behalf of San Francisco resident, Charles Fonseca, the SFPD prohibited police officers from complying with this law. As evidence of the SFPD's illegal behavior, Judicial Watch quoted a statement from the San Francisco Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that noted a "bare minimum of cooperation" between administrators of the San Francisco County Jail and ICE.

"This landmark ruling strikes at the heart of the sanctuary movement for illegal aliens. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities are not above the law. This court ruling exposes the lie behind the argument that state and local law enforcement cannot help enforce immigration laws," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

The feds have no problems with states enacting state drug laws! Using the same logic being applied in Arizona, one could argue that such efforts “actively interfere with federal drug law!"

How come this corrupt administration has not chosen to make that argument? The reason is because it's a ridiculous argument that would not withstand judicial analysis in any court of law.

But when you include the race card as this administration has done regarding illegal invaders, the argument is given consideration as if there were some legal merit to this asinine position!! This argument doesn’t even withstand common sense, much less legal scrutiny!

OBAMA WILL NOT DO ANYTHING. WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL NOVEMBER AND UNTIL 2012. WE HAVE TO ELECT OTHER INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION WILL NOT ACT.