Law California Is Now Officially A Sanctuary State For All Illegal Immigrants

Westminster joins Orange County cities in taking a stand against California sanctuary law
By Susan Christian Goulding | Orange County Register | April 12, 2018

0412_nws_ocr-l-westminster-011.jpg

The Westminster City Council listens to public speakers during a council meeting to discuss SB 54 the California Values Act, otherwise known as the California sanctuary state law, in Westminster on Wednesday, April 11, 2018.​

After a long and acrimonious meeting, the Westminster City Council decided on Wednesday, April 11, to join a growing number of Orange County cities – and the county – in making a statement against California’s sanctuary law.

Mayor Tri Ta and council members Tyler Diep and Margie Rice voted to support another city’s lawsuit against the state. Councilman Sergio Contreras was opposed and Councilwoman Kimberly Ho was absent.

When council members began discussing their course of action, confusion arose about what exactly they would be voting on.

“I don’t care what we do, as long as we don’t spend any money,” said Rice, who with Diep put the item on the agenda.

Council members contemplated simply writing a letter to voice their disapproval of the California Values Act. Ultimately, they settled on supporting another city’s lawsuit – presumably the one Huntington Beach recently approved.

Several cities previously decided to attach “friend of the court” briefs to the lawsuit filed last month against California by the U.S. Department of Justice, but the deadline was April 6.

Elected officials in Orange and Newport Beach voted this week on resolutions opposing the new California law, which limits cooperation between federal immigration agents and local law enforcement and provides protection to unauthorized immigrants in public schools, libraries and medical centers.

Other Orange County cities that have made moves opposing the sanctuary law include Los Alamitos, Mission Viejo, Yorba Linda, Aliso Viejo, Fountain Valley and San Juan Capistrano. The county of Orange has, as well.

0412_nws_ocr-l-westminster-031.jpg

SB-54 author Sen. Kevin de Leon, who is running for the U.S. Senate, made an appearance at the Westminster meeting to promote his bill – adding to the night’s contentious atmosphere.

In addition to the packed Westminster Council Chamber, an overflow of about 75 people stood or sat in chairs outside – frequently quarreling with one another. Many were familiar faces who have been coming from around the state to attend almost all the Orange County council meetings pushing cities to challenge California’s sanctuary law.

Such sparring seemed to set the tone for deliberations among council members.

When Contreras questioned the need to rush a vote, Rice said, “You are elected to represent the city, and if you can’t do that, get off the council.”

And while Contreras was speaking against the proposed resolution, calling it a “drain on resources already stretched thin,” Rice repeatedly interrupted him.

“Really?” Contreras said to her. “Thirty-plus years in office and you still have no decorum?”

More than 80 public speakers argued their respective views.

Many of those in favor of the sanctuary law were young adults who grew up in the Vietnamese-American community of Westminster.

“I am disappointed in the young people here,” Rice said, adding that those who “don’t respect” federal laws “should go somewhere else.”

In his closing remarks, Diep acknowledged that whatever rationale he could offer, “I am not changing any hearts and minds.”

The sanctuary law is protecting criminals, Diep said, “not just nannies and those who work on farms – jobs most Americans don’t want to work in.”
Click to expand...

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/...r-o-c-cities-in-taking-a-stand-against-sb-54/
 
Last edited:
Quick, what does the "A" in "ACLU" stands for these days?

 
Santa Clarita Could Become First City in L.A. County to Formally Oppose State’s ‘Sanctuary’ Laws
May 8, 2018

ypykd5vy2vhvzirxai4uvwv5yq-2.jpg

State Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) is the co-author of SB 54, also called a “sanctuary” law protecting undocumented immigrants in California. Here, he speaks at a news conference in Highland Park after the bill was passed in October 2017. ​

The Santa Clarita City Council is expected to take up a resolution Tuesday to oppose California’s “sanctuary” law and to file a brief in support of the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state.

If the resolution passes, Santa Clarita will become what is believed to be the first city in Los Angeles County to officially oppose Senate Bill 54, which limits cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration authorities.

The city would join a handful of municipalities elsewhere in Southern California that have challenged the law since Gov. Jerry Brown signed it last October.

In March, Los Alamitos approved an ordinance claiming exemption from SB 54. That same month Orange County signed on to the federal lawsuit against California over SB 54 and other laws protecting illegal immigrants. Huntington Beach has also sued California in state court.

http://ktla.com/2018/05/08/santa-cl...to-formally-oppose-states-sanctuary-laws/amp/
 
Madmick said:
I'd been waiting for this. This is one liberal city that will push back: the one where every single house within ~10 miles of the border has bars on the windows.

Every...single...house.
Click to expand...

San Diego isn't really a liberal city. It was historically red before Obama.
 
*Z* said:
San Diego isn't really a liberal city. It was historically red before Obama.
Click to expand...

When it comes to making a stance against the batshit-crazy policies coming out of San Francisco, such as Illegal Sanctuary or the decriminalization of intentional HIV infection on unsuspecting victims, it shouldn't matter if you're a Liberal or Conservative, but whether you're sane or not.
 
Santa Clarita Unanimously Votes Against Sanctuary State
By Becky Loggia | May 12, 2018​

In the wake of the Justice Department’s lawsuit over California’s interference with federal immigration policies, some cities are now weighing in on the issue.

As reported by NPR, nearly a dozen local California governments have voted against the state’s “sanctuary law,” which protects those crossing into the U.S. illegally.

Senate Bill 54, which was passed last year, aims to limit cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration officials.

California itself is presumed to be home to the largest population of illegal immigrants in the country, and state lawmakers have been outspoken about their distaste for the Trump administration’s policies regarding immigration.

However, not everyone in the state agrees on this issue, as recent polls have shown just how disfavored sanctuary laws are in some parts of the state — including Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County.

On Wednesday morning, the Santa Clarita City Council voted 5-0 to formally oppose the sanctuary bill. Santa Clarita is believed to be the first city in Los Angeles County to do so, the Los Angeles Times reported.

“I don’t understand. When these people have committed a crime … why can’t one agency be able to call another agency?” said Annette Burns, one of many people who packed the council chamber Tuesday night prior to the vote.

“California has overreached,” said Susan Agnes, a local resident who has two children.

The city of Santa Clarita is not alone, as numerous other municipalities, such as Los Alamitos of Orange County, are also unhappy with the state’s sanctuary policy.

Last month, Los Alamitos’ city council passed a measure allowing it to “opt out” of the sanctuary law, according to NPR, with many citizens and officials alike expressing concern over the state’s immigration policies.

“I don’t like the direction California is (going),” said Warren Kusumoto, mayor pro tem of the city.

Kusumoto helped draft the initiative to fight against the sanctuary law, claiming that Los Alamitos has been caught in the middle of what NPR called a “national political fight” over immigration policy.

Los Alamitos is also closely tied to the federal government, as the city of roughly 11,000 people is home to a U.S. military base, as well as several companies with big federal contracts.
Click to expand...

https://www.westernjournal.com/california-city-unanimously-votes-against-sanctuary-state/
 
Activists rally in Fresno after sheriff tells Trump sanctuary state laws are a 'disgrace'
By Lewis Griswold | May 21, 2018

JRW%20MIMSREAX%206.JPG

Illegal Immigration activists held a rally Monday in downtown Fresno to protest Sheriff Margaret Mims telling President Donald Trump at a roundtable meeting that California's sanctuary state laws are a "disgrace.'

The law limits how much information about criminal suspects can be shared with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

Brisa Cruz, an organizer with the California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance, told about 50 fellow protesters that Mims has long held "an anti-immigrant agenda."

In the past three years, 500 people have been turned over to ICE or have been deported under a program in which ICE agents had access to jail inmates, and Mims still allows agents in the jail, she said.

"That's not OK," Cruz said. "Time after time, people like Sheriff Mims, holding positions of power, get away with so many injustices."

Before the rally started, Mims' office issue a statement defending her position on the sanctuary state issue.

"California’s sanctuary laws protect those who have committed crimes, get arrested, then booked into our local jails," Mims said. "Many of those crimes are committed against those in our immigrant community. The law protects these criminals at the expense of the safety and well-being of those who are hard-working, law abiding community members and limits communications with federal law enforcement partners.”

Willie Lopez, representing El Concilio de Fresno, a non-profit group that advocates for Latinos and others, said the protest was a peaceful one held in the tradition of Cesar Chavez, the labor rights leader, and Mahatma Gandhi, who opposed British rule in India.

"We need to work together, we need to articulate our concerns," Lopez said.

Alyssa Bonner, vice president of the local Service Employee International Union, faulted Mims for being "silent" when President Trump at their meeting described some undocumented immigrants as "animals."

"She didn't stand up for her community, which is filled with diverse people that come here and work here, that are among us," she said.

Michael Evans, chairman of the Fresno County Democratic Party, said America is a nation of immigrants.

"Whether you come today or come tomorrow, your immigrant experience is no less significant than that of my ancestors who came here a couple of centuries ago," Evans said. "Fresno County democrats stand with our immigrant brothers and sisters and we support California's sanctuary state."

Leticia Lopez, a fellow at the American Friends Service Committee in Tulare County, said her mother came from Mexico to pursue opportunity. Her mom now lives in Mexico and has been barred entry into the United States for at least 10 years as she seeks citizenship, so Lopez must go there to see her.

""We need to end the separation," she said. "We need to end the deportations."

The rally drew two counter-protesters.

"I support legal immigration," said Ben Bergquam , who recorded the event on his video camera. "I'm here supporting the rule of law. I support our sheriff."

Bill Lerch of Fresno said his mother became a citizen after coming the United States from the Philippines.

"I'm for legal immigration," he said. "I'm for the right way."
Click to expand...

http://www.fresnobee.com/latest-news/article211591749.html
 
panamaican said:
You're in CA, do you know the general rules about government access to employee records?

My understanding is that government access requires some kid of court order and the employer has a duty to the employee to protect those records from unauthorized searches.
Click to expand...

iu



?
 
Unlike Oakland, criminals aren't getting tipped off by the local politicians here:


162 arrested after ICE’s 3-day immigration operation throughout Southern California
By MEGAN BARNES | June 14, 2018​



A three-day federal immigration operation targeting convicted criminals resulted in the arrests of 162 people across Southern California this week, federal authorities said on Thursday.

Almost 90 percent of those arrested by U.S. agents in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties had criminal convictions, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

They included a Mexican national convicted of rape and a previously deported El Salvadorian convicted of voluntary manslaughter, ICE said in a press release. Other past convictions were for weapons violations, domestic violence, drug charges, sex crimes against children, assault against peace officers, and grand theft.

The raids took place from Sunday through Tuesday and targeted criminals, gang members, immigration fugitives and those who re-entered the country illegally after being deported, ICE said.

About half of the arrests took place in Los Angeles County.

Of the 157 men and five women taken into custody, 129 were from Mexico, 10 each were from El Salvador and Guatemala, and the rest were from Colombia, Honduras, Iran, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, Romania, the United Kingdom and Venezuela.

David Marin, director of Enforcement and Removal Operations for ICE in Los Angeles, said such arrests are “the most dangerous types of enforcement actions ICE officers are engaged in (on a) daily basis.”

“Thanks to their remarkable efforts, there are 143 fewer criminals on the streets,” he said in a statement. “We will continue to dedicate more resources to conduct at-large arrests to ensure the safety of the law-abiding citizens of our Southland communities.”

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/06/...ice-operation-throughout-southern-california/
 
Last edited:
First link is to the Judges order. It looks like this lawsuit is going to have go up to the Ninth for relief. Ill edit this thread when I have read the order

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4576203/7-5-18-US-v-California-Opinion-PI.pdf

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/39...ministrations-request-to-block-sanctuary-laws
A federal judge on Thursday rejected the Trump administration's request to block California's sanctuary law, delivering a blow to the Justice Department's efforts to crack down on so-call "sanctuary states."

But the judge issued a warning that courts were “no place for politics” stating this opinion would "neither define nor solve” immigration in the U.S.

In a court order, U.S. District Judge John Mendez denied the administration's request for a preliminary injunction on three state laws passed by California legislators last year.

In a rebuke to California, however, Mendez granted the Justice Department's request to block California officials from enforcing a law that sought to limit private employers' cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.



The judge warned that the rulings would not serve as a definitive fix to the country's debate over immigration, and urged lawmakers to work in a bipartisan fashion to address the issues.

"There is no place for politics in our judicial system and this one opinion will neither define nor solve the complicated immigration issues currently facing our Nation," Mendez wrote.

California's sanctuary law imposes limits on cooperation between state and local law enforcement officials and federal immigration enforcement. The Trump administration argued that the laws effectively hindered federal efforts to enforce immigration policies.

Mendez ultimately rejected that argument.

"The laws make enforcement more burdensome than it would be if state and local law enforcement provided immigration officers with their assistance," he wrote. "But refusing to help is not the same as impeding."

The Trump administration also sought to block Assembly Bill 103, which allows the California attorney general to review and report on immigrant detention facilities. Mendez denied that request, as well.

The laws were passed last year in response to the Trump administration's much-touted crackdown on illegal immigration. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced during a trip to California in March that the administration would sue the state over its immigration laws.
Click to expand...
 
@alanb From what I'm reading here, it sounds like the Courts decided to rule in favor of States' Rights in the context of "you don't have to help, but you can't obstruct" rather than an outright decision on the specific policy. Am I reading that correctly?
 
sub_thug said:
@alanb From what I'm reading here, it sounds like the Courts decided to rule in favor of States' Rights in the context of "you don't have to help, but you can't obstruct" rather than an outright decision on the specific policy. Am I reading that correctly?
Click to expand...

I have not had a chance to read the whole opinion but this is the conclusion of the opinion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES IN PART AND GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to enjoin California Government Code Sections 12532, 7284.6(a)(1)(C) & (D), and 7284.6(a)(4), and California Labor Code Section 90.2. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and preliminarily enjoins the State of California, Governor Brown, and Attorney General Becerra from enforcing California Government Code Sections 7285.1 and 7285.2 and California Labor Code Section 1019.2(a)&(b) as applied to private employers.

So the judge enjoined some of the laws on the basis that the state laws interferes with complying with federal law. The rest he said did not interfere with complying with federal law and as you said the State does not have to help the feds but they can't pass laws that interfere with them
 
sub_thug said:
@alanb From what I'm reading here, it sounds like the Courts decided to rule in favor of States' Rights in the context of "you don't have to help, but you can't obstruct" rather than an outright decision on the specific policy. Am I reading that correctly?
Click to expand...
The district court did make decisions on specific policies (4-7 of them), but you're right on how they drew the line.
 
It's all good. One by one counties are opting out of Moonbeams bullshit sanctuary state policy. The people have had enough.
 
This is a thread that'll be interesting to watch and read posts from people who understand these things. Thanks in advance for the knowledge bombs
 
Great! I’m sure the 9th Circus will utilize rational discretion :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,716
Messages
55,436,636
Members
174,775
Latest member
Ruckus245

Share this page

Back
Top