Posted tagged ‘Sanctuary cities’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries

A Familiar Judge Wastes More Of Our Time Over Sanctuary City Orders

November 21, 2017

A Familiar Judge Wastes More Of Our Time Over Sanctuary City Orders, Hot Air, Jazz Shaw, November 21, 2017

Judge William Orrick III is certainly making a name for himself and becoming a hero of the #RESIST movement, but if he continues to have his findings overruled upon review it may not do much for his career. It’s also worth noting that prior to taking the bench, Orrick had a long history as a generous political donor while he was working as an attorney in the private sector. A quick look at Open Secrets shows the lengthy list of politicians who have benefitted from his generosity.

Wouldn’t it be shocking to find out that they were all conservatives and Republicans? Naw… just kidding. He gave to Hillary Clinton (2006), Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic Party of Iowa, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Clinton (multiple times), Barack Obama in 2004… shall I go on? I think you get the idea.

******************************

Here we go again.

A judge in northern California has stepped in to “permanently” block one of President Trump’s orders regarding Justice Department grant money for sanctuary cities which refuse to uphold the law. This action will obviously be appealed, as several other such rulings have been, but for the time being, District Court Judge William Orrick III scores himself another turn in the headlines. (Associated Press)

A federal judge on Monday permanently blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick rejected the administration’s argument that the executive order applies only to a relatively small pot of money and said Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.

The judge had previously made the same arguments in a ruling that put a temporary hold on the executive order targeting so-called sanctuary cities. The Trump administration has appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

It’s a stretch of the imagination to declare it a coincidence that this is the same judge they found to block a different sanctuary city order back in April. And given the location where the case was heard, the first round of appeals will go to the 9th Circuit, which means the ruling will probably go to the Supreme Court eventually. Much like the travel ban, it’s clear that you can eventually find a judge to rule however you like, providing you’re willing to shop around.

The decision itself remains just as dubious as the previous ruling. Orrick is claiming that the President doesn’t have the authority to repurpose funds which Congress has already authorized. That’s vague at best and seems to ignore the fact that we’re talking about money given to the Executive Branch for the purpose of issuing grants. That means there’s an application process (which we’ve covered here before) and not everyone who applies for one will receive the funding. Further, it’s the Justice Department who determines the criteria for receiving such grants. Congress simply made the funding available to set up and maintain the program.

Judge William Orrick III is certainly making a name for himself and becoming a hero of the #RESIST movement, but if he continues to have his findings overruled upon review it may not do much for his career. It’s also worth noting that prior to taking the bench, Orrick had a long history as a generous political donor while he was working as an attorney in the private sector. A quick look at Open Secrets shows the lengthy list of politicians who have benefitted from his generosity.

Wouldn’t it be shocking to find out that they were all conservatives and Republicans? Naw… just kidding. He gave to Hillary Clinton (2006), Rahm Emanuel, the Democratic Party of Iowa, John Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, Bill Clinton (multiple times), Barack Obama in 2004… shall I go on? I think you get the idea.

So we’ll apparently put the brakes on any progress in enforcing immigration law for the time being. And the to-do list for the Supreme Court grows even longer.

Categories: Sanctuary cities, Sanctuary states, Trump and sanctuary cities, Trump and U.S. courts, U.S. courts
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Time’s up! Trump’s Justice Dept. issues final warning to ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions

October 12, 2017

Time’s up! Trump’s Justice Dept. issues final warning to ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions, Washington Times, Andrea Noble, October 12, 2017

FILE – In this April 14, 2017, file photo, protesters hold up signs outside a courthouse where a federal judge will hear arguments in the first lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order to withhold funding from communities that limit …

The Justice Department has issued a final warning to five of the 10 jurisdictions it accused of having “sanctuary” policies that defy federal immigration laws, saying they have until Oct. 27 to submit additional evidence proving compliance or risk losing grant money.

Letters conveying the Justice Department’s preliminary assessment of the jurisdictions’ local laws and policies were sent Wednesday. Cook County, Illinois; Chicago; New Orleans; New York City; and Philadelphia were all warned that the Justice Department believes they cities have laws or policies that run afoul of federal immigration law.

At stake is millions of dollars in federal grant money that is supposed to go only to jurisdictions that comply with section 1373 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code. That law prohibits policies that restrict communications with federal immigration authorities “regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

The letters sent to each city highlighted specific laws that the Justice Department has identified as being in violation of 1373.

In the case of Philadelphia, officials said an executive order that prevents local officials from providing immigration authorities with any notice of a person’s release from custody unless the person has been convicted of certain felony offenses is a violation. A police policy that prevents the transmission of the immigration status of any immigrant who is a victim of a crime was also highlighted as a violation.

Two other jurisdictions — Milwaukee County, Wisconsin and the state of Connecticut — were told Wednesday that a preliminary assessment found no evidence that their laws violated 1373.

“I commend the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office and the State of Connecticut on their commitment to complying with Section 1373, and I urge all jurisdictions found to be out of compliance in this preliminary review to reconsider their policies that undermine the safety of their residents,” said Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “We urge jurisdictions to not only comply with Section 1373 but to establish sensible and effective partnerships to properly process criminal aliens.”

The Justice Department had earlier cleared Clark County, Nevada and Miami-Dade County of any violations of federal law.

Officials had also put the California Board of State and Community Corrections on notice, but the state was not included in the Justice Department’s follow up warning issued Wednesday. It was not immediately clear why it was not included.

The Obama administration first raised the issue of potential violations in 10 jurisdictions last year, and the Trump administration followed up by sending letters demanding proof of compliance.

“Jurisdictions that adopt so-called ‘sanctuary policies’ also adopt the view that the protection of criminal aliens is more important than the protection of law-abiding citizens and of the rule of law,” Mr. Sessions said.

The jurisdictions accused of violating federal immigration statutes had previously defended their local policies, saying they were compliant and should not lose grant funding.

Philadelphia officials struck a defiant note, writing in a letter to the Justice Department that a local policy banning city officials from inquiring about residents’ immigration status does not violate federal law because if the city doesn’t have the information, its officials can’t be required to share it.

“The federal statute does not require cities to inquire about or collect immigration status information, but only prohibits cities from restricting the sharing of that information if they have it,” wrote City Solicitor Sozi Pedro Tulante.

In the DOJ assessment, officials wrote that an executive order may be in violation of federal immigration law and city officials would have to certify that the policy does not ban local police from sharing information with federal immigration authorities with federal immigration officers.

“The Department has determined that Philadelphia would need to certify that it interprets and applies this Executive Order to not restrict Philadelphia officers from sharing information regarding immigration status,” DOJ officials wrote.

Categories: Department of Justice, Illegal aliens, Law enforcement, Sanctuary cities
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Phoenix Becomes Illegal Alien Sanctuary after Leftist Group Orders it in Private Meeting with Police Chief

August 23, 2017

Phoenix Becomes Illegal Alien Sanctuary after Leftist Group Orders it in Private Meeting with Police Chief, Judicial Watch, August 22, 2017

Arizona’s largest city recently became a sanctuary for illegal aliens after its police chief held a private meeting with a leftist group that demanded a change in immigration enforcement policies, records obtained by Judicial Watch show. The closed-door session between Phoenix Police Chief Jeri Williams and Will Goana, policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona, occurred just weeks before the Phoenix Police Department quietly implemented a new policy banning officers from contacting the feds after arresting an illegal alien and forbidding them from asking about suspects’ immigration status. The new order violates key provisions of a state law upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and leaves the city vulnerable to costly lawsuits.

Judicial Watch exposed the abrupt policy revision last month after obtaining a copy of the Phoenix Police Department’s new sanctuary Immigration Procedures and filed a public records request to uncover the steps that led to the change. Law enforcement sources told Judicial Watch in July that the revisions were crafted by a Hispanic advisory committee that promotes open borders with the backing of the influential ACLU. It appears to be part of a broader scheme to dodge federal immigration laws in Arizona’s most populous county. Earlier this year Judicial Watch reported that the newly elected sheriff in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, was releasing hundreds of criminal illegal immigrants—including violent offenders—from county jail facilities to protect them from deportation.

The new records obtained by Judicial Watch show that an ACLU offshoot known as People Power attempted to meet with Williams, who became chief on October 28, 2016, on April 19, 2017 to order the policy change. It’s not clear if that meeting took place, but it appears that it did not and People Power called in the big guns at the ACLU. That’s when Goana, who also lobbies the Arizona legislature on civil liberties issues, met privately with the chief, on May 9, according to the records. People Power reps followed up with a meeting request on May 16 to discuss the Phoenix Police Department’s immigration policy changes with Chief Williams, the records show. The meeting occurred on June 9, about a week after Phoenix City Manager Ed Zuercher met with People Power and gave the group a glowing review. In his assessment, the city manager describes the leftist group as “one of the most reasonable groups I’ve talked with” and says it consisted of “a former high school teacher, a magazine editor, 2 attys, a massage therapist, and two Hispanic advocates who I’ve never seen before.” On June 29, Chief Williams had a follow-up meeting with the ACLU and People Power regarding the changes to the immigration policy, the records show.

People Power was launched by the ACLU as a direct response to the “Trump administration’s attacks on civil liberties and civil rights.” It recruits local activists to pressure law enforcement and elected officials to commit to the following demands: Not ask people about immigration status; Decline to engage in the enforcement of immigration law; Refuse to detain immigrants on behalf of the federal government unless there is a warrant signed by a judge. Thanks in large part to the group’s efforts, the 3,000 officers in the Phoenix Police Department have been stripped of discretion from addressing the crime of illegal immigration or using sound judgement when it involves suspects thought to be in the U.S. illegally. No other federal crime in department policy has those restrictions. Officers continue to have the discretion to contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Secret Service, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Postal Inspectors, U.S. Marshalls and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) without fear of violating department policy.

Allowing officers to use their discretion when dealing with criminal aliens has been an effective tool in curbing crime. In 2008, former Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris revealed that a 24% decrease in homicides and a 26% decrease in auto thefts could be partly attributed to “a new immigration policy that allows our officers to use their discretion when dealing with criminal aliens” and “unprecedented cooperation between our investigative units and our state, federal, and local partners (Maricopa County Attorney’s Office).” Border patrol contacts in the Tucson Sector reported that in the same fiscal year (2008 – October to September) they saw a 41% decrease in border apprehensions. Nevertheless, on July 24 the new restrictive immigration policy went into effect at the Phoenix Police Department at the request of an open borders coalition. Now officers can’t even use the term “illegal alien,” which has been officially replaced with “unlawfully present.”

Categories: ACLU, Illegal alliens, Judicial Watch, Phoenix Arizona, Sanctuary cities
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Congressman Warns of Terrorist Attacks If Trump Signs Sanctuary City Bill

June 30, 2017

Congressman Warns of Terrorist Attacks If Trump Signs Sanctuary City Bill, PJ Media, Nicholas Ballasy, June 29, 2017

Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly speaks at House Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) weekly news conference in the Capitol on June 29, 2017. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP Images)

WASHINGTON – Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) warned that the sanctuary city bill passed in the House of Representatives could cause a terrorist attack to occur in New York City.

Espaillat joined other members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) to express opposition to the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” (H.R. 3003), which would crack down on localities that do not fully cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and “Kate’s Law” (H.R. 3004), which would penalize migrants who attempt to re-enter the U.S. illegally after being deported with up to 20 years in prison. Both bills passed the House today.

According to the White House, H.R. 3003 would “restrict” the “eligibility to receive certain Department of Justice or Department of Homeland Security grants” for cities and states “determined to be in violation of federal law.”

Espaillat predicted that H.R. 3003 would have a “chilling effect” in local communities if it became law.

“People will go into hiding. People will not come forward to report crimes, and if we begin to deny funding to cities across the United States, a city like New York, who experienced 9/11, which has been the safest biggest city in the country since 9/11 because of the federal funding that we got to combat terrorism, providing for training, equipment, overtime pay for law enforcement, we will be allowing terrorists to come in and attack us again,” Espaillat said at a press conference today on Capitol Hill.

“So this is a travesty. This is a lie. We’ve been hijacked and bamboozled by Donald Trump and we should all stand up against this,” he added.

Espaillat described sanctuary cities as places that allow families to stay together regardless of immigration status without “fear” rather than places that harbor illegal immigrants with criminal records.

“It is a safety net for people that are part of our family – they take care of our children, they wash our dishes, they take care of our elderly, they pick our crops,” he said.

Espaillat argued that both bills are an example of the GOP “misguiding” the nation.

“I’m not saying all of his followers are racist, but all of the racists in the country follow him and they have peddled this erroneous vision that immigrants are criminals,” he said. “We all oppose any violent criminals not being arrested. We want them to be arrested and do their time in jail and go back to wherever they came from.”

Rep. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) echoed Espaillat’s comments, arguing that H.R. 3003 would put Americans in danger by stripping federal funding from sanctuary cities like Los Angeles.

“You’re talking about taking away funding from cities that rely on these funds to protect our country from terrorism, and you think about incidents like 9/11,” she said.

“These big cities, like mine in Los Angeles, and New York are targets. Imagine taking away their funding because they don’t want to become immigration officers and what that does – that puts us in a lot more harm than what we are looking at,” she added.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) argued that “Kate’s Law” would have done “absolutely nothing” to prevent the death of Kate Steinle; the man accused of shooting her, who is still awaiting trial, was living illegally in San Francisco after multiple previous deportations. A few months before the shooting, the San Francisco Police Department had released her suspected killer, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, despite a request from ICE to keep him in custody for re-entering the country illegally.

Gutierrez said he opposes “Kate’s Law” because it would punish migrants who try to cross the border illegally to reunite with family members.

“Hundreds of thousands of moms and dads have been deported and separated from their American citizen children, and now when they come back to their American citizen children and come back after being deported, guess what this bill does? It says send them to jail for 20 years for trying to come back and raise their children,” he said.

Gutierrez also said he advised an 11-year-old student not to open the front door of his family’s home if an ICE officer knocks.

“Last Monday, I was at Nixon Elementary School. This little boy, a fifth-grader, 11 years old, asked, he said, ‘Congressman, if immigration knocks on my door, do I have to open the door because my Dad doesn’t have papers?’ I told him, ‘no, you don’t have to open up the door unless he has a warrant.’ And then I got into a conversation with 11-year-old fifth-graders about what constitutes a warrant – that’s where we’re at in America,” he said at the Hispanic Caucus press conference.

“And what do they want to do today? They want to make sure that my Chicago police, the L.A. police, every police and every jurisdiction that says we don’t want to be immigration agents and we don’t want to be knocking on those doors of fifth-graders across this country to take away their moms and dads and make them into enforcement agents, and it’s wrong,” he added.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (R-Texas) said both bills are “anti-immigrant” measures. He speculated that Republicans are pushing the legislation through Congress to distract from the healthcare and tax reform debates.

“They’ve failed to do healthcare. They’ve failed to do tax reform,” he said.

Categories: Kate's law, Sanctuary cities, Sanctuary cities bill, Terror alert, Trump agenda, Trump and deportation of illegal alien criminals, Trump and illegal immigration
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

House passes Kate’s Law, as part of illegal immigrant crackdown

June 29, 2017

House passes Kate’s Law, as part of illegal immigrant crackdown, Fox News, June 29, 2017

(What’s the problem in the Senate? — DM)

While gaining support in the Senate for similar legislation will be a tough road, Trump called for Congress to act quickly.

***************************

House Republicans took action Thursday to crack down on illegal immigrants and the cities that shelter them.

One bill passed by the House would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities and another, Kate’s Law, would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States.

Kate’s Law, which would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States and caught, passed with a vote of 257 to 157, with one Republican voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes.

Kate’s Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday.

“He should not have been here, and she should not have died,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday, in a final push for Kate’s Law, an earlier version of which was blocked in the Senate last year.

“Our job here is to make sure that those professionals have the tools that they need and the resources that they need to carry out their work and to protect our communities. That is what these measures are all about,” added Ryan.

The other bill, which would deny federal grants to sanctuary cities, passed with a vote of 228-195 with 3 Democrats voting yes and 7 Republicans voting no.

The brutal murder of Steinle catapulted the issue of illegal criminal aliens into the national spotlight. Alleged shooter Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions.

On Wednesday, President Trump highlighted other cases during a White House meeting with more than a dozen families of people who had been victimized by illegal immigrants, including Jamiel Shaw Sr.

Shaw’s 17-year-old son Jamiel was shot and killed by an illegal immigrant in California in March 2008..

“He was living the dream,” Shaw said during the meeting. “That was squashed out.”

The second measure, “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act,” would cut federal grants to states and “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with law enforcement carrying out immigration enforcement activities.

“The word ‘sanctuary’ calls to mind someplace safe, but too often for families and victims affected by illegal immigrant crime, sanctuary cities are anything but safe,” Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly asserted in the pre-vote press conference.

“It is beyond my comprehension why federal state and local officials … would actively discourage or outright prevent law enforcement agencies from upholding the laws of the United States,” he added.

While gaining support in the Senate for similar legislation will be a tough road, Trump called for Congress to act quickly.

Trump called on the House and the Senate to “to honor grieving American families” by approving a “package of truly key immigration enforcement bills” so that he could sign them into law.

“I promise you, it will be done quickly.  You don’t have to wait the mandatory period. It will be very quick,” promised Trump.

Earlier on Wednesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas D. Homan and U.S. Attorney for Utah John W. Huber made their case for the bills during the White House press briefing.

Huber said 40 percent of Utah’s current felony caseload involves criminal alien prosecutions and the number is increasing.

The bills, Huber asserted, would “advance the ball for law enforcement in keeping our communities safe” and “would give officers and prosecutors more tools to protect the public.

Many immigration rights groups have characterized efforts to crack down on sanctuary cities as “anti-immigrant,” but Attorney General Jeff Sessions says it is not sound policy to allow sanctuary cities to flout federal immigration laws.

According to Homan, ICE already has arrested nearly 66,000 individuals this year that were either known or suspected to be in the country illegally. Of those arrested, 48,000 were convicted criminal aliens.

“The practices of these jurisdictions are not only contrary to sound policy; they’re contrary to the law enforcement cooperation that is carried out every day in our country and is essential to public safety,” Sessions wrote in a Fox News op-ed backing the bills.

Categories: Criminal aliens, Illegal aliens, Immigration law enforcement, Kate's law, Sanctuary cities, Trump agenda, Trump and deportation of illegal alien criminals, Trump and illegal immigration, U.S. Congress, Violent crime
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

America’s Gang Crisis: Congressional Hearings Focus on MS-13

June 28, 2017

America’s Gang Crisis: Congressional Hearings Focus on MS-13, Front Page Magazine, Michael Cutler, June 28, 2017

As with international terrorists, transnational gangs exploit immigration failures.

Failures of the immigration system are, once again, behind headline-making news reports. Last week two Congressional hearings were conducted into what has become America’s most pernicious and violent transnational gang, MS-13 that now operates in some 40 states.

I am very familiar with MS-13, I began investigating them nearly 25 years ago early into my assignment at the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force following my promotion to INS Senior Special Agent.

Back then the number of the members of MS-13 in New York was small, consequently and the impact they had was also relatively small.

The immigration policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations certainly did not help law enforcement.  However, the greatest influx of MS-13 gang members is directly related to the flood of Unaccompanied Minors from Central America during the latter part of the Obama administration.

On April 28, 2017 Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke at the federal building in Central Islip where the Congressional field hearing would be held nearly two months later.  His speech, and his message, was reported by CBS news, Attorney General Sessions To Gangs: ‘We Are Targeting You.’

Yet the enforcement of our immigration laws by the Trump administration and by Attorney General Sessions has been frequently attacked by the media and by politicians, especially the “leaders” of Sanctuary Cities.

On June 20, 2017 the House Homeland Security Committee, Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence conducted a filed hearing on Long Island in Central Islip, New York, on the topic,  Combating Gang Violence On Long Island: Shutting Down The MS-13 Pipeline.

That “pipeline” crosses the U.S./Mexican border and is operated by members of drug cartels and transnational gangs.

It is important to read the prepared testimony of Subcommittee Chairman Peter King who focused on how the flood of unaccompanied minors from Central America flooded America with young and violent gang members who are now recruiting more gang members in our schools.

Here is the brief description of that hearing, and its predication, as posted on the official Congressional website:

This field hearing will examine the threat posed by transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), particularly Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13) and the extent to which this violent gang is able to circumvent border security measures to gain entry into the U.S.  Since January 2016, there have been 17 murders linked to MS-13 in Suffolk County alone. The hearing will feature testimony from the stakeholders related to the interaction and cooperation between Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to combat MS-13. Additionally, testimony will be provided by community members directly impacted by these TCOs. The two panels reflect the broad cross section of the community required to respond to the threat posed by MS-13 and other TCOs on Long Island and across the nation.

The very next day, on June 21, 2017 the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “The MS-13 Problem: Investigating Gang Membership, its Nexus to Illegal Immigration, and Federal Efforts to End the Threat.”

It is important to read the Judiciary Committee Chairman, Senator Chuck Grassley’s statement for that hearing and watch the video.

Here is an excerpt from Chairman Grassley’s statement:

This organization has been dubbed the world’s “most dangerous gang,” and some say it could be a terrorist organization. But, you wouldn’t expect anything less from a group whose motto is “kill, rape, and control.”

Unfortunately, over the past two years, this terrifying motto has become a vicious reality for many communities across our nation. So far this year, the gang has been publicly linked to dozens of high-profile killings, rapes, and assaults across the country, from the Washington D.C. metro area to Houston, Texas.

Undoubtedly, there are many more that simply haven’t been reported.

The mainstream media that reported on these hearings all but avoided mentioning that multiple failures of the immigration system have enabled these violent criminals to enter the United States and that Border Security Is National Security.

The “journalists” also blithely ignore that Sanctuary Cities: Where Hypocrisy Rules, often harbor and shield criminal aliens from detection by immigration law enforcement personnel.

In point of fact, Opponents of Border Security and Immigration Law Enforcement Aid Human Traffickers.  The most effective way to attack the human smugglers, who facilitate the entry of transnational gang members such as MS-13 is to have ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents work closely with local police and other law enforcement agencies to gain access to smuggled aliens who could then provide actionable intelligence to enable ICE and the Border Patrol to identify, locate and ultimately arrest human traffickers and dismantle their operations.

Shielding illegal aliens from detection by ICE also shields gang members and smugglers.  It is nearly impossible to identify human traffickers without interviewing the aliens whom they smuggled into the United States.

Illegal aliens who cooperate with law enforcement authorities can be granted visas that enable them to remain in the United States and legally work- to encourage such individuals to come forward without fear.

As an INS special agent my law enforcement colleagues, on the local, state of federal level, often told me that the granting of such visas to illegal aliens provided far more important intelligence that could any other incentive.

If mayors of Sanctuary Cities were truly concerned about doing what is compassionate, they should issue public service announcements, urging illegal aliens to come forward if they have significant information that could aid ICE agents in identifying and ultimately arresting criminals including human traffickers living in their communities to safeguard those who live in those ethnic immigrant communities, where these transnational criminals live and ply their “trades.”

This would simply be an extension of “If you see something, say something.”  (If you know something say something!)

Those mayors should require their respective police departments to work closely with ICE agents rather than prevent them from working with those agents.

Yet this fact is utterly ignored by the media and by many politicians.  In fact the media often portray mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” as heroes who shield illegal aliens from immigration agents who, according to the narrative, are the “bad guys.”

There is an additional price to be paid for this false and dangerous narrative, as reported on June 19, 2017, Citing Uptick in Attacks, Senators Request Better Protection for ICE Officers.

Here is an excerpt from that report that appeared in Government Executive:

According to ICE, there have been 19 recorded assaults on ICE personnel in 2017 through May 22, compared to 24 incidents in all of 2016. (Senators) Johnson and McCaskill also requested data since 2010, what DHS and ICE have done already to protect employees, and whether assailants have been prosecuted.

Thomas Homan, ICE’s acting director, at a congressional hearing last week blamed the media and immigrant groups for putting officers at risk by promoting false or misleading reports about the nature of their jobs. His employees, Homan said, have been “unfairly vilified for simply trying to do their jobs.”

“People have the right to protest, but ICE officers also have rights,” Homan told a House Appropriations Committee panel. “They have a right to enforce the law safely and return to their families at the end of the day.”

Homan promoted the controversial practice of making immigration arrests at courthouses, noting it helped with safety for his officers because they could be certain the detainees did not have any weapons on them. He decried as untrue any reports that ICE employees were making arrests at schools or hospitals. ICE officers, he said, should be celebrated for keeping communities safe rather than depicted as inhumane or callous.

As to the supposedly “controversial practice of making immigration arrests in courthouses,” arrest operations are inherently dangerous.  Individuals, especially those who face severe consequences for their crimes, can become extremely violent in an effort to evade law enforcement.  Sociopathic criminals including those who are addicted to narcotics, may react irrationally when confronted by law enforcement.

Generally everyone entering a courthouse is carefully screened for weapons.

A courthouse is often the best place to take a defendant into custody.  I speak from many years of experience.

It is particularly ironic and, indeed, vexing that there are judges and lawyers (who are “officers of the court”) who oppose federal law enforcement officers executing lawfully issued warrants in a building dedicated to the Constitution and to the principles of the rule of law and justice.

Furthermore, when an arrest goes badly on the street or a building, and a gunfight ensues, innocent civilians as well as agents and the defendant, are placed in extreme mortal danger.

No rational, reasonable or compassionate person would rather risk innocent lives rather than facilitate the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws that have absolutely nothing to do with race, religion, ethnicity, but have everything to do with public safety, national security and the well being of America and Americans.

Considering the foregoing, I am compelled to remind you that the ENLIST Act (H.R. 60) would undermine national security and public safety, providing gang members with access to military training and military bases.  When “Compassion” Endangers National Security: The landmines of illegal aliens entering military service.

Categories: Criminal aliens, Criminal gang, Illegal aliens, MS-13, Sanctuary cities, Sancturary courts
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Nearly 30% of illegal immigrant children at border have ties to MS-13 or other gangs

June 22, 2017

Nearly 30% of illegal immigrant children at border have ties to MS-13 or other gangs, Washington Times, Stephen Dinan, June 21, 2017

(Please see also, FBI: MS-13 Is Most Violent, Organized Gang in America.– DM)

The Health and Human Services department detains unaccompanied children caught crossing the border illegally and tries to place them with sponsors, but youths often end up with gangs. (Associated Press/File)

[T]he population of children has dropped dramatically under the Trump administration, as stiffer interior enforcement and tough talk from the president have discouraged children — and indeed all migrants — from attempting to cross the border.

That still leaves a large presence in the U.S., and MS-13 — with roots in El Salvador — is a growing threat. . . .

“We know who they are, we know they’re gang members, we know they’re criminals. But if the city, the county, doesn’t allow us to get into that jail then they’re released back into the community,” he said.

**************************

Nearly 30 percent of the illegal immigrant children the U.S. is holding in its dormitories have ties to criminal gangs, the government revealed Wednesday, suggesting that the Obama-era surge of Central Americans has fed the country’s growing problem with MS-13 and other gangs.

Federal officials refused even to guess at the true scope of the problem, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee that they can give only small snapshots of what they see. But they said the devastation on communities across the country is clear: killings and chaos, particularly among other immigrants — both legal and illegal.

The Border Patrol identified 160 teens who were known or suspected gang members when they first showed up at the border, but whom the Obama administration said it had to admit under U.S. law.

Meanwhile, a spot check this month of 138 teens being held by the federal Health and Human Services Department identified 39 with gang ties. Four of them were forced into cooperating with the gangs and 35 joined voluntarily, according to the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

“It is well-known that MS-13 actively targets and recruits children as young as 8 years old,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican and chairman of the Judiciary Committee who called Wednesday’s hearing.

“While their illegal status and Central American heritage are a key factor in MS-13’s targeting, without a doubt the failures of the current system for handling these children is also to blame,” he said. “The current system is fraught with abuse, systematic errors and a lack of effective cooperation.”

He was stunned that no agency could say how many “UAC,” as the government dubs unaccompanied alien children, have been recruited.

The agencies point to one another and to federal laws, saying their hands are tied.

UACs are usually arrested by the Border Patrol, which is required to turn them over to the social workers at HHS within 72 hours, ending the Border Patrol’s involvement. HHS says that under the law it must try to place the children with sponsors. Other than limited circumstances, the department says, its involvement ends soon after it sends the children off.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement doesn’t get involved until a UAC is ordered deported.

That usually leaves the children with no federal supervisions once they are released to sponsors — where they are often prime recruiting targets.

Scott Lloyd, director of the HHS office that handles UAC, said his team is looking to increase monitoring of the minors and is reviewing Obama administration interpretations of policy.

He also said the population of children has dropped dramatically under the Trump administration, as stiffer interior enforcement and tough talk from the president have discouraged children — and indeed all migrants — from attempting to cross the border.

That still leaves a large presence in the U.S., and MS-13 — with roots in El Salvador — is a growing threat, authorities said.

Officials said MS-13 is involved in some drug dealing and does engage in human trafficking, but its real money-making operation is extortion. The gang threatens families — including American citizens — with violence against relatives back in Central America unless those in the U.S. pay them off.

Gang members in the U.S. take directions directly from gang commanders in El Salvador, authorities say.

Kenneth A. Blanco, acting assistant attorney general in the criminal division at the Justice Department, also said immigrants who fail to report crimes to local police are often not afraid of being deported by federal authorities, but rather fear retaliation from the gang members and other criminals who live in their neighborhoods.

He said witnesses’ names become public, making them targets for retribution.

“That really, in my 28 years, has been the fear they have of calling the police. Not so much the other way around,” he said. “They’re really scared of these people.”

That runs counter to the argument made by Democrats and some local police chiefs that illegal immigrants refuse to report crimes because they fear entanglement with federal deportation agents.

Democrats pointed to calculations by some police agencies that crime reporting among Hispanics has dropped dramatically in the months since President Trump took office.

The Democrats say that is one justification for sanctuary city policies — though Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, offered another one Wednesday. He said Chicago, which in 2011 pioneered blanket sanctuary policies, doesn’t want to protect illegal immigrants but is too poor to assist federal agents.

“Come on, Uncle Sam, where’s the money?” Mr. Durbin said.

He said Chicago and Cook County are eager to keep serious criminals and other gang members out of their communities but added that it’s up to the federal government to fund the training he said local authorities need.

“Please help us. Send us some resources,” he said.

Federal officials, though, said they are not looking for locals to do the job, but rather to allow federal officers into their facilities and to share information about releases.

“We’re asking for their cooperation,” said Matthew Albence, executive associate director of enforcement and removal operations at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Mr. Albence singled out the Chicago area as one of the most prominent sanctuaries. “Chicago is a large one. We haven’t been able to get into the Cook County Jail for a long time,” he said.

He also named New York City and San Francisco as top sanctuary cities.

The conversation sprang from questioning by Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, who asked about MS-13 and other gang members who are nabbed by local authorities in sanctuary cities.

“These are evil people. It’s pretty hard to miss them. There are tattoos all over their body,” Mr. Kennedy said. “If they’re arrested and they’re in a local jail, there are some cities in the United States that would prevent you from coming in and talking to them?”

“Correct,” Mr. Albence replied.

“We know who they are, we know they’re gang members, we know they’re criminals. But if the city, the county, doesn’t allow us to get into that jail then they’re released back into the community,” he said.

Categories: Border controls, Law enforcement, MS-13 in America, Sanctuary cities, Trump agenda, US Southern border
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Tom Fitton discussing Comey Lawlessness, Smoking Gun Clinton Email, & New JW Lawsuits

June 9, 2017

Tom Fitton discussing Comey Lawlessness, Smoking Gun Clinton Email, & New JW Lawsuits, Judicial Watch via YouTube, June 9, 2017

 

Categories: Clinton e-mails, Comey leaks, Comey testifies, Deep state, Freedom of Information Act, Iran - ransom payments, Judicial Watch, Law enforcement, Lawlessness, Sanctuary cities, Schools, Trump administration, Veterans Administration
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Does Judge Orrick Think President Obama ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ Executive Orders?

April 28, 2017

Does Judge Orrick Think President Obama ‘Fundamentally Transformed’ Executive Orders? PJ Media, Andrew C. McCarthy, April 28, 2017

Protesters hold up signs outside a courthouse where a federal judge will hear arguments in the first lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order to withhold funding from communities that limit cooperation with immigration authorities Friday, April 14, 2017, in San Francisco. U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick has scheduled a hearing on Friday on San Francisco’s request for a court order blocking the Trump administration from cutting off funds to any of the nation’s so-called sanctuary cities. (AP Photo/Haven Daley)

William H. Orrick III is a Democrat campaign bundler and left-wing political activist. He has been known as “Judge Orrick” since 2013, when President Obama managed to get him on the federal bench — with the assistance of Republicans Senators Jeff Flake (Arizona), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), and Susan Collins (Maine). All other Republicans opposed Orrick’s nomination, except Bob Corker (Tennessee) who failed to vote.

It was as Judge Orrick that the San Francisco-based social justice warrior issued a 49-page decision this week. His decision purported to invalidate President Trump’s executive order (EO) on federal funding for “sanctuary” jurisdictions — cities, counties and other municipal subdivisions that refuse to cooperate in federal immigration-law enforcement.

I say “purported” because Orrick’s screed is a ruling about nothing. The Trump Justice Department had argued that the EO did nothing to alter pre-existing law. Though Orrick tendentiously disputed this construction of the EO, he admitted that his opinion “does nothing more than implement” the Justice Department’s view. He further conceded that his ruling had no effect on the administration’s power to enforce conditions Congress has placed on federal funding (i.e., the very conditions Trump incorporated in the EO by telling his subordinates they could only act “to the extent consistent with law”). Meanwhile, the administration has not endeavored to strip any federal funding from any sanctuary jurisdictions.

So, in effect (or should we say, non-effect?), nothing has happened and nothing has changed. The ruling’s sole achievement is a fleeting star turn for its author. Actually, make that another star turn: In 2015, Judge Orrick thrilled the Democrat-media complex by carrying water for the National Abortion Federation, which wanted an injunction against a whistleblower’s release of videos showing Planned Parenthood officials selling baby parts — oh, sorry, I mean “fetal tissue.”

The ruling is instructive, though, as a measure of how politicized the judiciary has become. Consider the matter of executive orders.

Orrick’s opinion includes the following remarkable passage (at p. 16):

Government counsel explained that the [Executive] Order is an example of the President’s use of the bully pulpit and, even if read narrowly to have no legal effect, serves the purpose of highlighting the President’s focus on immigration enforcement. While the President is entitled to highlight his policy priorities, an Executive Order carries the force of law. Adopting the Government’s proposed reading would transform an Order that purports to create real legal obligations into a mere policy statement[.] [Emphasis added.]

Can it be that, after eight years of Obama’s usurpation of legislative power, judges have forgotten what proper executive orders are?

Contrary to Obama’s practice and Orrick’s apparent belief, executive orders do not carry the force of law — at least not presumptively. They are supposed to be policy statements that give presidential guidance to subordinate executive officials. That is because the president has no unilateral authority to decree law — it is for Congress to write the laws; the executive branch just enforces them.

Now, we have to qualify these principles with caveats like “presumptively” and “unilateral” because there are special situations in which executive orders may have the force of law. These occur when Congress delegates legislative authority to the president — a dubious practice but, alas, a familiar one.

Take, for example, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Under the IEEPA (which is codified in sections 1701 et seq. of Title 50, U.S. Code), the president is empowered to declare a national emergency due to a foreign threat to the United States, and to decree regulations and prohibitions on financial transactions pertinent to the threat, particularly transactions between Americans and hostile foreign powers.

But absent congressional authorization, presidents may not make pronouncements that have the force of law. In general, executive orders do not “create real legal obligations.” They can be said to create duties only in the sense that subordinate officials are supposed to obey directives from a superior. But that is a chain-of-command obligation, not a legal duty. Cabinet secretaries get fired if they defy presidential orders; they do not get prosecuted or sued. Legally, such defiance does not trigger a presidential obligation to terminate a subordinate – the president may fire executive branch officials for any reason, or no reason, for they serve at the president’s pleasure. Consequently, the president’s executive orders do not have the “force of law” even with respect to the subordinate government officials the president is legally authorized to direct. As for the rest of us, the president has no authority to impose legal obligations on us; only Congress may do that.

Judge Orrick seemed mystified by the notion that an executive order could be “a mere policy statement,” or a hortatory rendering of a president’s “policy priorities.” When the Justice Department’s lawyers explained — as if explanation were needed — that these were, in fact, the purposes of the EO, Orrick strangely claimed that Justice was reading the EO “narrowly.” (Apparently, “narrowly” is Ninth Circuit-speak for “accurately.”) Orrick then suggested that this “narrow” reading couldn’t possibly be what was intended by the president — i.e., that there was no way the EO could possibly mean what it says. Why? Because if it was just about announcing policy, the judge theorized, there would be no reason to issue an EO. From this asinine premise, Orrick leapt to the conclusion that Trump must instead be up to something sinister: a sweeping withdrawal of federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, heedless of any conditions Congress has attached to funding programs.

To the contrary, stating policy preferences and priorities is one of the basic and desirable reasons for issuing executive orders. It is an effective, transparent manner of communicating administration objectives to the executive branch and the public. It is not enough to say that Donald Trump is not the first president to use EOs this way. This is what EOs are for.

How have we gotten to the point where courts presume bad faith from the proper use of executive orders, and simultaneously imply that a normal executive order would have the force of law?

Of course, we are dealing with a “progressive” partisan here, so throw logic out the window. Can there be any doubt that, if Donald Trump were to issue an executive order that actually purported to create legal benefits and duties (like Obama administration directives on immigration did), Judge Orrick would write an equally indignant opinion about how executive orders must not have the force of law?

The irony is that Judge Orrick essentially did what he falsely accused President Trump of doing. Trump did not use his constitutional authority to issue executive orders as a pretext for usurping congressional power; but Orrick did use his constitutional authority to issue judicial opinions as a pretext for usurping executive power.

Categories: Executive order, Judge Orrick, Judicial abuse of power, Sanctuary cities, U.S. Congress, U.S. courts, U.S. law
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

New Sheriff in Town: The First 100 Days at the Sessions DOJ

April 27, 2017

New Sheriff in Town: The First 100 Days at the Sessions DOJ, Breitbart, Ian Mason, April 27, 2017

(It’s still a work in progress.  He — like President Trump — can’t do everything first, particularly with the “deep state” swamp still in need of drastic draining. — DM)

Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images

Wednesday saw the first of Attorney General Sessions’ Senate-confirmed subordinates take office: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Over the coming weeks, it is expected that serious progress will be made on nominating and confirming permanent occupants for the dozens of political positions at the Department of Justice, including the over 90 U.S. Attorneys who lead federal criminal prosecutions. The key victories of the first 100 days were accomplished by the Attorney General without any of them in place. As his team assembles around him, Attorney General Sessions looks to be better able to direct the legal policy of the United States government to restore his vision of law and order.

**********************

Under the leadership of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the first 100 days at the Department of Justice have seen perhaps the most straightforward and earnest efforts to bring the promises of the Trump movement to fruition.

Stepping into leadership at a DOJ managed for eight years by Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, Sessions has had an uphill battle to implement the key tenets of law and order that so many Americans have long craved and which President Donald Trump promised as a candidate: an end of the lawless hypocrisy on the southern border and in the internal enforcement of our immigration laws, especially in state a jurisdictions that openly flaunt federal law and proclaim themselves “sanctuaries;” a firm commitment to get a handle on rising violent crime, especially in our most dangerous inner cities; and steadfast support of our law enforcement officers at a time when they face danger and disparagement from inside the government and without.

Hitting the Ground Running:

Attorney General Sessions was confirmed by the Senate on February 9, 2017, three weeks into the new administration. One of the very first national politicians to endorse candidate Trump, he was the fifth cabinet member to take his seat, but not before a smooth yet contentious confirmation process yielded one of the most awkwardly worded and forced political slogans of recent memory.

“Nevertheless, she persisted,” the much-touted line goes, a reference to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) explanation of his use of Senate rules to prevent Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) reading a 30-year old letter from Coretta Scott King to imply racist motives to then Senator Sessions. The use was later criticized by Ms. King’s niece.

The fireworks on the Senate floor were quickly followed up in the White House. On his first day as Attorney General, Sessions stood by President Trump’s side as he signed no fewer than four executive orders pertaining to the Justice Department.

A “New Era” on the Border

Without doubt, cracking down on illegal aliens and the resultant lawlessness on the border and in our immigration system has been the greatest focus of Sessions’ attentions in his tenure at DOJ. Merely the signal of will from the new administration has already brought extraordinary results. March of 2017 saw the lowest number of illegals caught on the border in 17 years, a 72 percent reduction in apprehensions from the last month of the Obama administration.

Rhetoric was repeatedly backed up with action on the Attorney General’s part. In early March, the DOJ shifted 50 immigration judges to detention center along the border and in illegal alien heavy cities. The were set to work in twelve-hour shifts to help clear the massive backlog of deportation cases. This proved to be merely a prelude to much more substantial reform.

On the morning of April 11, 2017, the Attorney General toured the southern border with officers of U.S Customs and Border Protection. Addressing them and the nation, he proclaimed, “For those that continue to seek improper and illegal entry into this country, be forewarned: This is a new era. This is the Trump era.”

“The catch and release practices of old are over,” Sessions continued, announced that 125 additional immigration judges would be hired on expedited basis. They would be needed because from this point on all adults apprehended at the border were to be detained by federal authorities.

A new set of guidelines was sent to every federal prosecutor in the country. Those who illegally enter the United States a second time will now face felony prosecution as a matter of course, as well those who illegal enter after having been deported, and transporting or harboring three or more illegal aliens. Charges of aggravated identity theft are to be levied on those caught with fraudulent documentation.

These measures are designed to work in tandem with a similar ramping up at the Department of Homeland Security, where 10,000 additional ICE officers have been authorized and are in the process of being hired. Attorney General Sessions made a point of making joint appearances with DHS Secretary John Kelley, presenting a united front to bring order to the border. The two cabinet officials noted increased arrests, more deportations of criminals, and other operations contributing to the apparent decrease in illegal border crossings.

While President Trump has, so far, not seen it fit to reverse Obama’s Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals executive order, granting amnesty to those who came illegal as children and register with the federal government, the Attorney General has made it clear that the law remains the law. Asked by Fox News in April about the deportation of certain so-called DREAMer (after the never enacted DREAM act), Sessions was unequivocal, “The policy is that if people are here unlawfully, they’re subject to being deported. Our priority is clear. Our priority is to end the lawlessness at the border.”

No Sanction for “Sanctuaries”

From the very beginning of his tenure, Attorney General Sessions has tried to bring jurisdictions who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement back to legal normality, even if it means cutting their federal funds to convince them to do so. Sessions has done this in the face of steadfast refusal to cooperate by some of nation’s most powerful local leaders. For example, Chicago, under the leadership of Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, went so far as to issue a new type of identification available to illegal alien without the city keeping records in response to fears the administration might be able to force the “sanctuary” to give up information on immigration status. Sessions made a point of calling out a California prosecutor who appears to, as a matter of policy, be reducing charges to avoid triggering “violent felon” deportation requirements.

The most troubling resistance, however, came this final week of the first 100 days, as a federal court in San Francisco blocked enforcement of President Trump’s executive order commanding Sessions to cut off federal funds from recalcitrant jurisdictions. At the moment, as the administration has released no comprehensive plan as to what funds are subject to suspension, it is unclear what effect this temporary order will have. It will, however, prevent the use of that executive order’s authority while a lawsuit from a number of California sanctuary jurisdictions makes its way through the courts.

Sessions has not taken this tactic to continue flaunting federal immigration law lightly. In a statement Wednesday, the Attorney General was very clear as to how he saw the lawsuit:

At the heart of this immigration debate is disagreement over whether illegally entering this country is a crime.  Our duly enacted laws answer that question.

Nevertheless, actions that have always been understood to be squarely within the powers of the President, regardless of the Administration, have now been enjoined.  The Department of Justice cannot accept such a result, and as the President has made clear, we will continue to litigate this case to vindicate the rule of law.

Separate from the wider pledge to cut the flow of federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, Sessions has used his independent authority to bring pressure to bear. After weeks of threatening action, the Department of Justice sent letters to nine of the states and cities who most vigorously stifle immigration enforcement, demanding they show compliance by June 30 or forfeit their DOJ Bryne Grants for law enforcement. As these grants already have requirements to follow federal law attached to them, these letters may be unaffected by the ongoing court fracas over President Trump’s executive order.

Zero Tolerance:

The mayhem of our inner cities in the waning years of the Obama administration was no less troubling than the chaos on the border. On the day Sessions took office, an executive order established a task force for tackling the violent crime increase seen in certain cities. Sessions has spoken on numerous occasions on his support for a return to “broken windows” policing and taking local law enforcement’s side in their effort to wrestle their crime rates back down to the historic lows seen only a few years ago.

Some of the violence is fueled by what the justice department calls “transnational criminal organizations,” brutal gangs like MS-13 and wide-reaching networks like the Mexican drug cartels. At a meeting of the Attorney General’s Organized Crime Council, Sessions made clear his department would have “zero tolerence” for gang violence as it brings an executive order targeting these organizations for deportation and dismantling into reality.

On several occasions, Sessions has highlighted his continued support for the type of rigorous policing that came under intense fire in the last administration.

Supporting Law Enforcement:

To many Americans, the Holder-Lynch DOJ’s failure to keep crime in check and the border under control was compounded by the perceived failure to adequately support law enforcement officers and their in this trying time. Black Lives Matter and other left-wing groups brought anti-police rhetoric to the forefront of the public discourse and politicized violence against the police made headlines throughout 2014, 2015 and 2016. The Justice Department responded by launching investigations into police brutality, bias, and misconduct, making it anything but clear that American law enforcement had their unequivocal support.

Spearheaded by Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta’s Civil Rights Division, the Obama administration responded to riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland by launching federal investigations into those cities’, and others like murder-capital Chicago’s, police departments. The results were predictable. A “Ferguson Effect,” where officers were reluctant to make the routine stops necessary to keep crime under control for fear of being sanctioned for misconduct contributed to a shocking rise in violent crime in the very communities supposedly protected by federal oversight of police. Initially dismissed as a right-wing conspiracy theory, the Ferguson Effect has since been supported by a survey of police officers and by a National Institute of Justice study funded by the Obama DOJ.

When Attorney General Sessions took the reigns at DOJ, there was an immediate shift in tone. “Please know that you have the full support of our Department,” Sessisons told a meeting of police chiefs in April. He went on to call out the former administration’s treatment of police:

In recent years, as you know, law enforcement as a whole has been unfairly maligned and blamed for the crimes and unacceptable deeds of a few bad actors. Amid this intense criticism, morale has gone down, while the number of officers killed in the line of duty has gone up.

Attorney General Sessions has done what is in his power to try and reverse the damage done to Law Enforcement relations. He ordered a complete review of all Obama-era investigations into local law enforcement. He has even sought to scale back the consent decree reached to install federal monitoring of Baltimore’s Police Department in the waning days of the Obama administration. When the federal judge in the case refused to reopen the issue, Sessions issued a public statement criticizing the whole endeavor, saying, “There are clear departures from many proven principles of good policing that we fear will result in more crime.”

Looking Forward:

Wednesday saw the first of Attorney General Sessions’ Senate-confirmed subordinates take office: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Over the coming weeks, it is expected that serious progress will be made on nominating and confirming permanent occupants for the dozens of political positions at the Department of Justice, including the over 90 U.S. Attorneys who lead federal criminal prosecutions. The key victories of the first 100 days were accomplished by the Attorney General without any of them in place. As his team assembles around him, Attorney General Sessions looks to be better able to direct the legal policy of the United States government to restore his vision of law and order.

Categories: Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Crime, Criminal aliens, Criminal gang, Illegal immigration, Inner cities, Law enforcement, MS-13, Sanctuary cities, U.S. southern border
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 3 Comments

« Older Entries