Appeals Court Rules AGAINST SF Sanctuary City!!!

Court Rules AGAINST SF Sanctuary Law


Judicial Watch Announces California Appeals Court Rules Against San Francisco Sanctuary Policy
City Must Follow State Law Requiring Police Officers to Report Suspected Aliens Arrested on Drug Charges to Feds


Last update: 4:16 p.m. EDT Oct. 23, 2008
WASHINGTON, DC, Oct 23, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- 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.
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 its taxpayer client, 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.
To read the court ruling and to find out more about Judicial Watch's nationwide campaign against illegal alien sanctuary policies, visit www.judicialwatch.org.
Contact:
Jill Farrell


Market Watch


MOD EDIT url at top moved to bottom as needed in news and shortened to stop page scrolling. If you would like to learn methods to stop urls from making pages scroll on forums, please see Frequently Asked Questions Sticky in General Discussion

I think I found another sane person in Mexifornia. Halijualla

Whoo Hoo


http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i1...e/HandClap.gif

So in other words they won't report illegals and when one gets on the news for killing someone the city and federal can just keep playing the blame game right?

A Victory for us in any account though

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...radulation.gif

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...S/dance-12.gif

Please tell me Judicial Watch is coming after Chicago next!!??

Wow

Appeals Court Strikes Down San Francisco´s Sanctuary Policy For Illegal Immigrants

by Dave Gibson
October 24, 2008

On October 22, 2008, the First District Court of Appeal for the State of California ruled that the San Francisco Police must follow state law which requires police officers to contact federal authorities when they arrest anyone for a narcotics violation, when they suspect the person to be either a legal or illegal alien.

The appellate court ruling has reversed a lower court decision which claimed that San Francisco police officers were not required to comply with California state law, when arresting someone they suspected to be a foreign national.

The group Judicial watch filed the lawsuit against San Francisco Police Chief Heather Fong, on behalf of San Francisco resident Charles Fonseca.

Shortly after the ruling, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said: "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."

The particular law in question, which provided the basis for the lawsuit follows:

Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code (Section 11369) states: "When 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."

This ruling will now force San Francisco´s police chief to become compliant with state law and direct her officers to report all suspects whose immigration status is in question, when that suspect is arrested for drug violations. Given the fact that 90 percent of the illegal drugs sold in this country are brought in from Mexico, this ruling promises to be very effective in dealing with Latin American drug gangs, now responsible for a great deal of violence in California and beyond..

In San Francisco, on June 22, 2008, three members of the Bologna family were gunned down by Salvadoran national and gang member Edwin Ramos. Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16 were shot to death by Ramos as they sat in their car on a crowded street, in the city´s Excelsior District.

Ramos who is a member of the notoriously violent drug gang known as MS-13, shot the Bologna family to death because Tony Bologna had temporarily blocked the car in which Ramos was traveling, as the two cars made their way through an intersection. The Bologna men were returning home from a family barbecue.

As a juvenile, Ramos had committed felony attempted robbery and assault.

Shortly after the shooting, the San Francisco Chronicle reported, Juvenile Probation Department officials, did not report Ramos to federal immigration authorities for possible deportation because of San Francisco´s stated sanctuary policy.

The devastated wife and mother Danielle Bologna is now suing the city of San Francisco over the sanctuary policy , which contributed to the death of her family.

This ruling comes too late to have saved the lives of the Bologna family, as well as thousands of other Americans who have lost their lives at the hands of illegal aliens. However, it is a positive step in forcing those sworn to "protect and serve" to actually do that for American citizens, and stop protecting those who enter this country only to victimize our citizens.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/78844

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...radulation.gif

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w...S/dance-12.gif

---

What SOSAD said. :D

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-3667--0-0.html

Get ready It will now go to the 9th District Circus.

Posted by CCUSA updated article



Judicial Watch Victory - California Appeals Court Rules Against San Francisco Sanctuary Policy


By Tom Fitton
October 28, 2008

Judicial Watch's nationwide campaign to abolish illegal alien sanctuary policies got a huge boost last week thanks to a landmark decision by a California appellate court.

On October 22, the First District Court of Appeal for the State of California ruled in our 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]. (web site)

With its ruling, the appellate court shot down a lower court ruling that the law in question, Section 11369 of the California health and Safety Code, was an impermissible invasion of the federal government's "absolute authority" to regulate immigration. Rejecting this argument, the appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court to make sure the SFPD's policies comply with Section 11369.

Here's an excerpt from the ruling, which can be read in full by clicking here: (web site)


"...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."


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."

Seems clear enough. However, as Judicial Watch argued in its complaint on behalf of its taxpayer client, Charles Fonseca, the SFPD had implemented policies, procedures and practices that 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.

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.

Illegal alien advocates such as the ACLU are dead wrong when they claim local law enforcement agencies cannot help enforce immigration laws. This ruling puts the lie to their bogus argument. Let's hope this decision sends shock waves through every community in America where public officials have implemented unlawful sanctuary policies for illegal aliens.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3


Page 2 of 3

This is a very significant victory for Judicial Watch. Congratulations go to Judicial Watch attorney Jim Peterson who argued the case on our behalf at the appellate court.

By the way, if you haven't already, be sure to check out Judicial Watch's new Internet site, www.sanctuarybusters.org, to find out how you can help Judicial Watch abolish sanctuary policies in every corner of the country.

Voters Speak Out on the Hot-button Issues of Corruption and Immigration -- Judicial Watch Releases Results of New Zogby Poll

This week, Judicial Watch released the results of a nationwide poll conducted by Zogby International concerning the American people's attitudes regarding two hot-button campaign issues -- political corruption and illegal immigration. The poll, conducted October 16-19, 2008, considered the opinions of 1,211 likely voters and had a margin of error of +/- 2.9%.

Let's take a look at the results, starting with the issue of corruption. According to the Judicial Watch -- Zogby poll:


• 62.6% said they "strongly agree" with the statement, "...political corruption played a major role in our nation's recent financial crisis." An additional 19.1% said they "somewhat agree" with that statement.

• 46.9% said they trust Barack Obama more than John McCain to combat government corruption in Washington, while 43.2% preferred Senator McCain over Senator Obama. Sen. Biden (46.8%) also had a slight lead on this question over Gov. Palin (44.7%)

• 30.5% said Congress has become "more corrupt" since Democrats took control of Congress away from Republicans. Another 8.5% said Congress had become "less corrupt," while 55.9% said corruption had "remained about the same" since Democrats took control.


• 44% said they trust Democrats more than Republicans to combat corruption in Washington, while 37.4% preferred Republicans to combat corruption.

• 69.2% said they "strongly agree" with the statement that corruption is a "significant problem in Washington, DC," while an additional 22.7% said they "somewhat agree" with that statement.

• 47.5% of respondents said they "strongly agree" with the statement that "bigger government leads to more corruption," while an additional 25.4% said they "somewhat agree" with that statement.


We're still reviewing all of the demographic breakdowns, but here's my quick analysis of the results: Clearly, the public is still extremely concerned with the issue of government corruption. There is widespread belief that the political corruption is responsible for the financial crisis. And voters obviously think the Democrats in Congress have failed to keep their promise to clean up corruption on Capitol Hill.

As far as the presidential race is concerned, these results suggest the presidential candidate who is best seen as able to combat Washington corruption will go on to win the Oval Office. In other words, both Obama and McCain would do well to pay serious attention to the political corruption issue and better address it in the coming two weeks.

Now onto the issue of illegal immigration (which has been largely ignored in this presidential campaign):


• 71.5% said they agree local law enforcement officers should enforce federal immigration laws, including 51.5% of Hispanics and 56.2% of self-described "liberals."


• 71.5% said they disagree public officials should use taxpayer funds to operate day laborer sites that help illegal immigrants, including 56.2% of Hispanics and 53.2% of self described "liberals."

• 57.1% said more law enforcement is needed to address the issue of illegal immigration while only 7.1% said they believe less law enforcement should be used. 34.7% of Hispanics support more law enforcement while 15.5% said less. Of self-described "liberals," 39% said they support more law enforcement, while 13.2 percent said less.

• 54.8% said they oppose "sanctuary policies" that help illegal aliens (39.3% "strongly" oppose) while 34.9% said they support such policies. 36.2% of Hispanics oppose "sanctuary policies."


The most important message here is that no matter their politics or ethnicity, the American people want public officials to enforce federal immigration laws. It is difficult to find any political issue that inspires such unanimity.


Click here (web site) for all of the details on the Judicial Watch -- Zogby immigration survey, including all of the demographic information.

Judicial Watch Sues Department of Homeland Security for Documents Related to Border Fence

So, whatever happened to that border fence in Texas that was supposed to help keep illegals from flooding into the United States? So far, not enough, according to the

Houston Chronicle: (web site)
The federal government has completed just a half-mile section of the 110 miles of pedestrian border fence promised along the Texas-Mexico border.

Texas' incomplete portion, about 109.5 miles, accounts for about a third of the 316 miles of pedestrian and vehicle barriers that remains to be built along the border that officials had hoped to complete by the end of President Bush's term in January.

The delays in completing the politically charged project, designed to stem illegal immigration, have been blamed on politicians' resistance, landowners' unwillingness to sell, shortages of materials, soaring costs and unforeseen construction problems.


Judicial Watch has been tracking this situation closely. In fact, in July, we filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to obtain documents so we could get to the truth about the delays. You can probably guess what happened next. DHS stonewalled, forcing Judicial Watch to file a lawsuit last week. (web site)

Our questions are rather basic. Here are a couple of them. First, what properties will be used for the fence and how are they selected? And, second, do the politicians who are leading the charge against the border fence own land that has been selected for use? Obviously, if this is the case, their opposition to the border fence might be based on their personal interest, and not the interests of the public.

So far answers are in short supply. That is why we file these open records requests, to provide the American people with as much information as possible so they can make their own informed opinions. You can be sure I'll have much more on this issue in future installments of the update. ---

Tom Fitton is President of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation that fights government corruption. Visit www.judicialwatch.org for more information on Judicial Watch's legal campaigns and programs.

--------------------




http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/ ... 0281.shtml