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must be repealed, opted out from, or struck down for a number of reasons which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:
Post a Comment