Wednesday, May 09, 2018

S.B. 54 Sanctuary State Opt-Out Reasoning

By Douglas V. Gibbs
Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host

It is in the best interest of the United States for a variety of reasons to secure her borders, and enforce existing federal immigration laws which are on the books.  The liberal left is in open rebellion against the rule of law with their calls for amnesty, sanctuary status, and other policies designed to provide protection for the illegal alien community.  Such policies are illegal, and detrimental to the proper functioning of our society as well as compromising the ability of our law enforcement to protect and serve their communities.

California’s S.B. 54 Sanctuary State law poses as a direct threat against public safety.  The law protects criminal aliens, and better enables those who pose as a risk to our national security to enter our country without detection.  Municipal, State, and federal laws contrary to securing the border, and against immigration laws which prohibit persons from entering the country without going through a vetting process, are unconstitutional, and pose as a danger to our overall general welfare as a country

Laws which provide sanctuary for and/or harbor illegal aliens in the United States must be repealed, opted out from, or struck down for a number of reasons which include, but are not limited to:

Constitutional Reasons

• Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to make law regarding naturalization.

• Article I, Section 9 gives Congress the authority to make law prohibiting migrants from entering the country/States.

• Article IV, Section 4 tasks the federal government with protecting the States, which would include border security.

• Article II, Section 3 instructs that the President of the United States “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  Therefore, non-execution of existing immigration laws by the executive branch would be unconstitutional.

• Article VI provides that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land…Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”  In other words, if immigration is authorized as a federal authority, which it is by the above constitutional clauses, and laws have been made regarding immigration under that authority, the States cannot legally make laws contrary to those constitutionally authorized federal immigration laws.  Such laws would be contrary to constitutionally authorized federal immigration laws, and as a result would be in violation of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.  Therefore, California’s S.B. 54, Sanctuary State law, since it violates the Supremacy Clause, is an invalid law, and the federal government has the obligation to follow the proper path to render that law void.

Legal Precedent, U.S. Supreme Court

• In the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case Arizona v. United States the Obama administration argued that the immigration issue is so strongly a federal authority that the State of Arizona could not even “act” contrary to the federal government by enforcing immigration law when the federal government decided not to.  Justice Kennedy wrote, regarding federal authority over the issue, in his judicial opinion after the ruling of the case that largely supported the Obama administration’s argument, that “The Government of the Unit­ed States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immi­gration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s con­stitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations”

• There is also Supreme Court precedent supporting the Supremacy Clause as it pertains to this situation.  Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905) indicates that States may take any action (consistent with their own constitutions and laws) unless there exists a prohibition in the United States Constitution or such action has been preempted by federal law.

Other Legal Information

• U.S. Code, sections 1324 and 1325 considers it a felony to conceal, harbor, or shelter illegal aliens. Failing to report illegal aliens also violates the Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275. U.S. Code and the Immigration and Naturalization Act also considers entry into the United States without inspection to be a misdemeanor, and repeated illegal entry is a felony.

• Among the crowds of those persons who enter the United States illegally there are persons of Middle Eastern descent who wish to overthrow the U.S. Constitution and replace it with sharia law.  Also, among those who enter the United States without going through proper immigration procedures are individuals who believe that the American Southwest belongs to Mexico, and so they wish to overthrow American jurisdiction over those lands.  In both cases, these persons who have crossed into the United States illegally are advocating for the overthrow of our government, and therefore are guilty of violating U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115 › § 2385 which indicates that persons who “knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

“Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

“Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

“Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

“If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

“As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.”

Therefore, persons advocating replacing the U.S. Constitution with sharia law, or overthrowing U.S. jurisdiction over the American Southwest, are in violation of this law, and must be detained and penalized as directed by this law.

• Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution defines Treason against the United States as being “levying War against them [States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.  Persons associated with the Islamic Jihad or the Reconquista Movement (La Raza, Aztlan, etc.) have verbally and repeatedly declared war against the United States, and have established themselves as enemies of the United States.  It has been determined, partly by evidence which includes, but is not limited to, Korans along the paths taken by illegal aliens into the United States, as well as the proclamations of some persons in U.S. custody after being detained regarding criminal activity and/or entering the United States illegally, voicing their allegiance to jihad, or reconquista, that persons who are enemies of the United States and consider themselves at war against American sovereignty are among those who enter the United States without following proper immigration procedures.  S.B. 54, California’s Sanctuary State Law, seeks to protect those individuals by providing sanctuary for them, and by not allowing any law enforcement agencies in the State of California to coordinate with federal agencies so that those persons may be detained federally and properly dealt with legally.  Therefore, all persons who have supported S.B. 54, and took actions in the attempt to ensure it became law, are adhering to our enemies, and are either giving them Aid and Comfort, or are accessories to the same.  Therefore, all persons who support and have ensured the passage of S.B. 54 are guilty of treason against the United States, and appropriate legal actions must be taken.

Public Safety

• S.B. 54 interferes with communication between local law enforcement and federal law agencies.  One of the largest concerns during the 9/11 attacks was that agencies were not properly sharing information, creating a deficit in ensuring public safety.  The sharing of information between agencies, including communication between local and federal agencies, it is believed, may even have prevented the terrorists from achieving their horrific goals in the first place had the policy of sharing information been in place.  In a potentially similar way, the State of California disallowing local law enforcement from coordinating with federal agencies places the public at large at risk.

• Due to the nature of a lack of vetting of persons when it comes to illegal immigration, criminal elements tend to include themselves in the population of those who cross into the United States without following proper immigration procedures.  As a result of the inability to properly vet these persons who have entered the country illegally, the following realities exist:
• Since 2001, over 61,000 Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens.
• Of those persons in federal custody, the percentage of the foreign-born detainees who
are in the United States illegally is 94%.

• Kathryn Steinle might be alive today if she had not lived in a “sanctuary city.”  The shooter was an illegal alien with seven felony convictions who had been deported five times.  Mere weeks prior to the shooting, San Francisco had released him from custody, even though federal immigration authorities had filed a detainer requesting he be kept in custody until they could remove him for deportation proceedings.  Jose Ines Garcia Zarate admitted he came to San Francisco in part because of its sanctuary policies.

• In 2016, Nebraska-native Sarah Root was killed by a drunk driver illegally in the United States.  If federal immigration law had been followed in the first place, the illegal alien may not have been in the country, in the first place.  After the incident, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) decided not to detain the individual when they had the opportunity.  The criminal alien subsequently posted bond and disappeared. ICE acknowledged they should have detained the individual.

• From 2011 to 2016, 21% of those convicted of non-immigration crimes were non-citizens — 2.5 times their share of the population.  The U.S. Sentencing Commission shows that of those convicted of federal crimes between 2011 and 2016, 44.2%, were not U.S. citizens — 21.4 percent, if immigration crimes are excluded. In comparison, non-citizens are 8.4 percent of the adult population. Of this 8.4 percent, about 4 percent are illegal immigrants and about 4 percent are legal immigrants.

◦ Areas where non-citizens account for a much larger share of convictions than their 8.4 percent share of the adult population include:
·        42.4 percent of kidnapping convictions;
·        31.5 percent of drug convictions;
·        22.9 percent of money laundering convictions;
·        13.4 percent of administration of justice offenses (e.g. witness tampering, obstruction, and contempt);
·        17.8 percent of economic crimes (e.g. larceny, embezzlement, and fraud);
·        13 percent of other convictions (e.g. bribery, civil rights, environmental, and prison offenses); and
·        12.8 percent of auto thefts.

  Areas where non-citizens account for a share of convictions roughly equal to their share of the adult population include:
·        9.6 percent of assaults;
·        8.9 percent of homicides; and
·        7.5 percent of firearm crimes.

  Areas where non-citizens account for a share of convictions lower than their share of the adult population include:
·        4.1 percent of sex crimes;
·        3.3 percent of robberies;
·        4.5 percent of arsons; and
·        0 percent of burglaries.

• While it is argued by those who support porous borders and a suspension of immigration law that sanctuary status cities and States are beacons of humanity, the reality is that in the process such policies also shield illegal aliens who have a history of criminality, or those who repeatedly sneak back into the United States.  Due to the fact that a criminal element exists in the illegal alien community as provided above, it is in the best interest of public safety to enforce existing immigration laws, to ensure that States and cities who seek to pass laws contrary to federal immigration laws are disallowed to, that the borders are properly secured, and that to the best of our ability we properly vet and process based on current laws in place all persons who enter the United States.

Centralization of Power

• Article 4, Section 4 states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”  A republic is more than a system which includes representatives.  A Republican Form of Government is one that includes checks and balances, and provisions which protect the voice of the minority (less populated parts of the whole).  S.B. 54 denies the cities and counties the ability to coordinate with each other and the federal government regarding law enforcement if immigration becomes a factor by centralizing all authority in the State government, and denying any actions by lesser entities.

Based on the overwhelming evidence, it is necessary for the security of our country, and the States, to recognize California’s S.B. 54 Sanctuary State law as being invalid, and that it is necessary to render it null and void.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

No comments: