Illegal Immigrants and Sanctuary Cities and States : the Progressive "Get Out the Vote" Tactic

BREAKING NEWS -- Special counsel Robert Mueller on Friday brought charges against 13 Russian nationals and three Russian groups for interfering with the 2016 US elections, the latest development in the ongoing federal probe. The individuals are connected to an online Russian "troll farm" that attempted to influence Americans through online ads, among other actions. Deputy Attorney General announced the indictments, saying that the indictments show no allegations of willing support by Americans and that NO AMERICAN was indicted. Follow-up in Monday's blog . §§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ THE NEWS TODAY IS THAT THE DEMOCRATS REJECT DACA SOLUTIONS WHILE DEFYING FEDERAL LAWS. Here's what happened in the Senate Thursday evening. • • • SEVERAL ILMMIGRATION PLANS WERE BLOCKED. Fox News gave the rundown : "Senators on Thursday blocked all four plans dealing with immigration as President Trump torpedoed one proposal as 'a total catastrophe' and his Department of Homeland Security lambasted it as the 'end of immigration enforcement in America.' During a series of afternoon procedural votes, no immigration amendments crossed the 60 vote threshold that would have cut off debate and paved the way for final votes....Ahead of the votes, the Trump administration focused on the bipartisan agreement drawn up by a 'Gang of 22' that would grant a 10-12 year path to the young illegal immigrants or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients [Dreamers]. The amendment failed by only getting 54 votes...45 Senators voted against it." • There are 51 Republican Senators, so 9 Democrat Senators would have had to vote with the GOP majority in order to take any of the immigration bills to the Senate floor for debate and a vote. The most-often cited of the bills was the Schumer-Rounds-Collins Immigration Bill. You can read the complete bill at < https://www.collins.senate.gov/sites/default/files/Text%20of %20Immigration%20Security%20and%20Opportunity% >. The ProgDem leadership did not provide those 9 votes for the Schumer-Rounds-Collins Immigration Bill -- even though they were talking the talk about wanting to "save" the Dreamers, they refused to walk the walk by agreeing to improve border control with increased funding for the Border Patrol and building a wall on the US southern border with Mexico. Agreeing to that would have paved the way for protecting the illegal immigrants brought to the country as children, but the ProgDems said "No." The Trump administration also wants to end so-called “chain migration” -- by which immigrants can sponsor a broad number of relatives to come join them in the US. Trump has said that he wants to limit sponsorship to children and spouses and concentrate on skills-based immigration. But, the ProgDem leadership would not agree to including eliminating most "chain immigration" in the bill. The other leg of the Trump immigration proposals is ending the visa lottery system that allows 55,000 immigrants into the country each year and has been challenged with accusations of fraud and abuse -- another no-go with the ProgDems. • Despite the clear obstructionist tactics of the ProgDem Senate leadership -- AND a DHS warning that the bill would mean the “end of immigration enforcement in America” -- Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer accused Trump on the Senate floor of trying to spike the deal by not agreeing to its provisions about directing the DHS to prioritize those who are criminals, pose a terrorist threat, or arrived after June 30, 2018. As the National Review put it : "But seriously, though. June 30. The bill tells everyone in the world they have several months to rush the border and escape enforcement once they get here." You can read the entire National Review article at < Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/456464/dhs-condemns-schumer-rounds-collins-immigration-bill >. • GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, who supported the bill, said "our proposal would represent the most significant change to immigration law in the past thirty-five years." Senator Tim Kaine, the Virginia Democrat who was Hillary-s running mate, called it “the best chance to protect Dreamers against deportation from the only country they know as home." • In two tweets, Trump said the “Schumer-Rounds-Collins immigration bill would be a total catastrophe. It creates a giant amnesty (including for dangerous criminals), doesn’t build the wall, expands chain migration, keeps the visa lottery, continues deadly catch-and-release, and bars enforcement even for FUTURE illegal immigrants. Voting for this amendment would be a vote AGAINST law enforcement, and a vote FOR open borders....If Dems are actually serious about DACA, they should support the Grassley bill!" The proposal by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, was also rejected by the Senate. Senators also blocked a plan by Senators John McCain and Chris Coons that would allow DACA recipients to qualify for permanent residency while directing agencies to control the border by 2020. And another plan offered by Pennsylvania GOP Senator Pat Toomey that would block federal grants to sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with federal authorities on illegal immigration also failed to pass a test vote. • • • SO WHERE ARE WE ON IMMIGRATION AND DACA? The future of DACA is still on the table but unresolved. The ProgDems have abandoned their American citizen constituents, and have also apparentyl abandoned the Dreamers they like to tout as "positive" for America. ProgDems don't want to end chain migration, or the visa lottery, and they certainly do not want to secure the southern border. Why?? Undoubtedly becasue that would cut off their influx supply of illegal but often used voters. Agreeing to any immigration plan, not matter how reasonable, would also deprive the ProgDems of one of their key shouting points in the upcoming November congressional elections. So, why should they take the uncertainty out of the lives of the Dreamers they pretend to support when keeping them on the hook will, they hope, mean votes in November. When will the Democrat base and the Dreamer support in the Latino and Hispanic communities "get it"? • TheHill's Alexander Bolton wrote on Friday that : "Republicans are looking for a Plan B on immigration after a series of proposals were rejected Thursday in the Senate, leaving little time to act before nearly 1 million immigrants who came to the country illegally as children could face deportation. Senator John Thune (S.D.), the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, is floating a proposal to extend the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program indefinitely in exchange for $25 billion for border security. President Trump has opposed any deal that does not also include changes to two legal immigration programs, however. It is also far from clear that conservatives in the House would go along with the plan. GOP leaders in that chamber are trying to build support for a harder-line bill, though an initial version has come up short in whipping efforts. Still, GOP lawmakers are taking a close look at new ideas after legislation based on Trump’s framework for an immigration deal won just 39 votes on Thursday -- fewer than two other proposals. (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also backed the measure, but changed his vote for procedural reasons.)....GOP lawmakers acknowledge that Trump would need to endorse any fallback plan for it to have a chance of passing." Senator Lindsey Graham said the President needs to "retrench his expectations" : “The thing I like about [the Thune/Portman/Moran] proposal is it’s a two-pillar proposal." The new GOP proposal floated within hours of the failed votes is, according to TheHill, "also backed by Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.). It would subject the Obama-era program shielding about 900,000 people from deportation to two-year renewal periods, according to a GOP source familiar with the proposal. Such a bargain would extend 'permanent protection to today’s Dreamers who are facing an uncertain future and finally [take] a meaningful step toward enhancing border security,' Thune said, referring to the immigrants covered by DACA." • But, TheHill says that even if all Republicanscan agree on the Thune proposal : "Senate Democrats seem very unlikely to back a package that includes $25 billion for border security and no pathway to citizenship for Dreamers. It would represent a significant step back from a deal put together by centrist Senators from both parties this week, though that effort also failed to win a supermajority of 60 votes....Senator David Perdue (R-Ga.), who has been in the middle of immigration talks, called the Thune-Portman idea 'a fallback position,' but called for broader reform. 'Here’s the problem, it doesn’t end the cause of this and incentivizes a whole new generation of parents to bring their kids in illegally,' he said. 'That’s the part that Democrats just really don’t want to face up.' ” • President Trump gave Congress a March 5 deadline to replace DACA, but some lawmakers say they really have until June to come up with a solution because two federal judges have issued injunctions ordering the Trump administration to keep DACA in place, at least temporarily, and the Supreme Court is not likely to rule on the issue until June and could even postpone it until the fall session, setting up a ruling around the time of the midterm elections. Republican Senators told TheHill the most likely way for a fallback measure to reach Trump would be for it to be attached to an omnibus spending package Congress must pass before a March 23 deadline. Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas) told reporters that he didn't see an immigration backstop plan getting dedicated floor time. He said it might be possible to attach something to the omnibus, however. • • • CALIFORNIA IS THE POSTER CHILD FOR THE REAL DEMOCRAT POSITION ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. The Trump administration is considering criminal charges against local officials who don’t fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities, but Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti insists he’s “not scared at all,” calling the crackdown on the so-called “sanctuary city” movement “a weak and pathetic move.” Garcetti was asked by PJ Media if he was worried about the possibility of facing federal charges : “Not at all. I think it’s a political circus. I think it’s about stirring up, you know, blowing a dog whistle -- not about anything real.” Garcetti argued to WND that there are no federal statutes the Justice Department can use against his city. He acknowledged that the administration can withdraw federal funds, but he believes the city will get those funds anyway through court orders : “We coordinate and cooperate with our federal authorities. We can’t break the Constitution, though, and that’s what some of their requirements have asked us to do.” Garcetti cited federal courts that have ruled detainer orders from federal immigration authorities differ from an official warrant and are not legal justification for holding someone who has served a sentence or is no longer under arrest : “We see it as abiding by the Constitution, because there is case law that says we can’t hold people for longer than permitted. • Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, PJ Media reported, recently told a Senate committee hearing that the Justice Department was “reviewing what avenues might be available” to charge local officials who do not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. She said the aim is not only to avoid putting Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers at risk, but also to find “an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws.” • US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan has said the sanctuary city policies put his officers and local communities at more risk because they have to arrest illegal immigrants out in the community. Homan told the Washington Times last July he wanted to see local officials charged as complicit in human smuggling if they shielded illegal immigrants through sanctuary policies. • The entire state of California has a new sanctuary law, effective January 1, that severely restricts cooperation with the state or any of its localities. Garcetti says : "I think that there is a misconception. A lot of people think a sanctuary city are mayors in the country saying ‘Please come here if you are a criminal.’ And that couldn’t be further from the truth. We all want to get the bad criminals, and I’m worried that our federal policies are casting a wide net now. Not catching the bad sharks in the sea but are instead picking up a bunch of fish that are causing no harm.” • Yes, but -- California will prosecute employers that help ICE. Citing California’s new sanctuary law, state Attorney General Xavier Becerra told reporters on February 2 that his office would prosecute employers in California who cooperate with ICE in rumored upcoming immigration raids in San Francisco and other Northern California cities. The San Francisco Chronicle reported the sweep would seek to arrest more than 1,500 illegal aliens and send a message that federal immigration policy will be enforced in sanctuary cities. ICE officials have pointed out that since 2014, 10,000 criminal aliens released by sanctuary policies who subsequently committed new crimes after their release." • • • IS CALIFORNIA IN DE FACTO SECESSION? American Thinker answered 'yes' on January 24 : "The state of California has been flouting US federal laws for some time. First it legalized marijuana, a controlled substance under federal statutes. Then it tolerated, and encouraged, sanctuary cities within the state -- safe spaces against federal immigration law. As of this year, the California legislature has made the entire state a safe space for illegal immigration. Now the legislators have added a new state law creating criminal penalties for cooperating with federal immigration officials." American Thinker says it's time to point out what is obvious : "If the government in California doesn't see itself to be compelled to abide by federal law, and legislates in open contempt of the collective wishes of the other states, it is both unreasonable and unfair to continue letting its federal congressmen and Senators participate in the process of making federal laws. If the state of California wants to nullify federal laws, the other states have a moral right (if not an explicit legal one) to nullify California's federal representation....the state of California has seceded from the union. It has broken the collective agreement on which the nation itself was founded. It apparently wants to have its cake and eat it, too, however. It wants all of the benefits of being part of the union without surrendering the right to ignore our laws as it sees fit. As citizens of the United States, it is obvious that, in principle, we should not be bound by the influence of legislators from a foreign country -- which California now is in all but name." • • • AND PROGDEM CALIFORNIA IS NOT ALONE. Although a truly obvious commentary, it will not happen because secession is not a topic anyone in Washington wants to take up right now. Instead, the Department of Justice sent a letter to 23 states and cities demanding documentation that law enforcement agencies were complying with federal immigration law. The demand is the latest Trump administration attempt to force sanctuary cities to assist federal immigration officials in enforcing the law. The administration is threatening to cut funding for certain federal law enforcement programs if sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate in deportation efforts against illegal alien criminals. The DOJ letters warned that failure to turn over the documents in question could result in subpoenas being issued. • Reuters explained it in a Progressive sort of way : "The Justice Department said it was seeking records from 23 jurisdictions -- including America’s three largest cities, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, as well as three states, California, Illinois and Oregon -- and will issue subpoenas if they do not comply fully and promptly. The administration has accused sanctuary cities of violating a federal law that prohibits local governments from restricting information about the immigration status of people arrested from being shared with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. Many of the jurisdictions have said they already are in full compliance with the law. Some sued the administration after the Justice Department threatened to cut off millions of dollars in federal public safety grants. The cities have won in lower courts, but the legal fight is ongoing. The Republican President’s fight with the Democratic-governed sanctuary cities, an issue that appeals to his hard-line conservative supporters, began just days after he took office last year when he signed an executive order saying he would block certain funding to municipalities that failed to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The order has since been partially blocked by a federal court. 'Protecting criminal aliens from federal immigration authorities defies common sense and undermines the rule of law,' Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement. Democratic mayors fired back. Some including New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock and New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu protested by skipping a previously planned White House meeting on Wednesday with Trump. 'This is a destructive ploy by the Trump administration’s lawyers to politicize a routine exchange of information,' Hancock said. 'I refuse to meet with the President under these kinds of threats and fearmongering.' " • Courts have ruled that the federal government cannot deny states and cities funding if they meet all other criteria established by Congress. This complicates the Trump administration's efforts, so now the Justice Department is seeking evidence that the states and cities are deliberately refusing to obey the law -- recently, the Department of Homeland Security asked DOJ to pursue criminal charges against sanctuary states and cities who refuse to cooperate with ICE agents in rounding up criminal illegals. This frames the issue in a different light and could be the basis of a case the DOJ would take to the Supreme Court. It's hard to imagine states and cities handing over documents that will incriminate them, and that it surely the point -- refusal to comply with the DHS / DOJ request probably means that subpeonas will follow, and this would set up a classic constitutional showdown between states who are seeking to nullify federal law and the government that seeks to enforce it. • • • PROGDEM CALIFORNIA SEEKS MORE WAYS TO RENOUNCE THE CONSTITUTION. On April 1, a new law will go into effect in California that will automatically register people to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles, including aliens who are in the country illegally. In October, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 1461, the New Motor Voter Act, which automatically registers people to vote when they apply for a new driver's license or new state ID through the DMV. Because this process lacks the safeguards present in traditional voter registration procedures, it could result in illegal aliens voting." • The Washington Times noted that under the new law, all Californians would automatically be registered to vote when they obtained or renewed their driver’s licenses at the DMV, instead of being required to fill out a separate form. The Washington Times report cited anti-vote fraud groups True the Vote and the Election Integrity Project of California, which had urged Brown to veto the bill, saying it would lead to “‘state sanctioned’ voter fraud” underthe legislation that exempts from penalties ineligible voters who wind up being registered. • Shortly after Brown signed AB 1461, Breitbart also noted that the legislation was designed precisely to increase the number of potential Democrat Party voters : "Brown and the California Democrat Party know exactly what they are doing; as a Public Policy Institute survey showed, among unregistered adults, 49% lean toward the Democratic Party and 22% toward the Republican Party. Any bill permitting illegal immigrants to vote would cement the Democrat Party’s hold on California." • Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano predicted, “the state is going to provide shelter for illegals to vote.” • A January 21 report at WND observed that California has long provided driver’s licenses to all those who claimed that they were US citizens. State officials conducted no checks to verify eligibility or required documentation. • The League of Women Voters, the ACCE Institute, California Common Cause, and the National Council of La Raza sued California’s Department of Motor Vehicles and Secretary of State’s Office in May 2017, claiming the state burdens those registering to vote by making them fill out the same information on two separate forms. The lawsuit alleged that California was required to incorporate voter registration into forms the state DMV uses to issue a license or update an address. When the agency made changes to its online and paper applications in 2016, it did not include voter registration on license renewals. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that requiring potential voters to register separately from renewing their licenses violates the 1993 “Motor Voter” law passed by Congress. That law (the National Voter Registration Act of 1993) required state governments to offer voter registration opportunities to any eligible person who applies for or renews a driver’s license or applies for public assistance. The California settlement requires state officials to use a mailed license renewal form “as an application for voter registration” no later than April 30, or 29 days after the New Motor Voter Act, goes into effect. The lawsuit charged that California ranks “a dismal 46th in the nation” in its rate of registered voters. More than 5.5 million eligible voters were unregistered as of February 2017, according to state data. • A January 17 report in the Los Angeles Times noted that Californians who renew their driver's license by mail will soon be able to use that same document to become a voter, after state officials settled the above-cited federal voting rights lawsuit. • The political climate in California has changed greatly since Ronald Reagan served as the state’s governor from 1967 through 1975. An important reason for that shift toward the Democrat Party has occurred because of the large number of immigrants from south of the border who have come into the state during the past five decades. If even legal immigrants have increased the influence of the Democrat Party and its implementation of ProgDem anti-business policies in California, imagine the devastating impact of having illegal aliens added to California's voter rolls. • • • DEAR READERS, while Congress wrestles with the ProgDem refusal to save the Dreamers it alleges to care about, the ProgDem state apparatus in California and other Democrat-led states are doing their best to stuff the Republic's ballot boxes with the votes of illegal immmigrants who have no -- zero-- right to vote under the Constitution. The ProgDem ploy is so transparent that one might wonder why every news outlet in America is not condemning it. But, we know the answer to that -- it is a key program in the Progressive-Globalist war on America and constitutional rule of law. • Even the New York Times understands the numbers at stake. The NYT recently reported that there are millions of people currently waiting to come in as part of their family chain : ... "As of November 1, 2106, more than 3.9 million people were waiting in line. Since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the United States has prioritized admitting immigrants with relatives living here. According to data from the Department of Homeland Security, about 7 million out of the nearly 11 million immigrants who obtained green cards from 2007 to 2016, did so through family relations. Under current law, American green card holders can sponsor their spouses and unmarried children for permanent residence -- just like naturalized and native-born citizens. And United States citizens can also petition for residence for their parents, siblings and married adult children." • So, it cannot be a surprise that the Democrat-controlled California state legislature passed a law this year that makes their state the first in the union to declare itself a full-on “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants. Protecting aliens by preventing local law enforcement officials from cooperating with federal authorities, even when they have an illegal immigrant in custody, is good for Democrat politicians -- and it gives the illegals time to apply for a California driver's license and thereby become illegal immigrant California ProgDem voters. • The trick is so simple. BUT, it requires a federal government that is in cahoots. And, that was the case until President Trump was elected. Democrats have openly embraced California’s “Sanctuary State” status, insisting to its citizens that this policy somehow makes life safer for them. How they arrive at that conclusion is anyone’s guess. In December, TheHill wrote an article that noted the the outrageous verdict in the Kate Steinle murder case as "a slap in the face to every law-abiding American citizen. Years of California leaders harboring illegal immigrants have led to this willful and awful occurrence in San Francisco -- a killer walking free despite being in this country illegally, being deported five times, and despite being a seven-time convicted felon. San Francisco’s 'sanctuary city' policy is bringing shame upon the once-Golden State in a turn of events that President Trump called 'disgraceful.' The worst part? It could have all been avoided....Progressives in California over the last 10 years have increasingly placed the so-called 'rights' of illegal immigrants over the public safety of its residents. San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee once called illegal immigration 'part of the DNA of the city.' Even California’s Attorney General Xavier Becerra -- the man responsible for upholding the law -- is ironically for actually breaking federal immigration law. Their choices have proven to have deadly consequences....Democrats promoted sanctuary city policies and Governor Jerry Brown began his early prisoner release program of convicted felons, drug dealers and other offenders....Now in California, 13,500 inmates are released early every month due to overcrowding. That’s an increase of 34% over just the last few years, according to the Los Angeles Times. All of this comes at a time when illegal immigrant criminal activity is drowning the state’s resources. Already, approximately one-fourth of the prison inmate population are illegal immigrants being housed on the taxpayers’ dime. While liberals often suggest that the illegal immigrant population is relatively low and therefore no threat to public safety, federal crime statistics show that a heavy percentage of inmates, criminal offenders and murderers are illegal immigrants. According to an op-ed earlier this year at TheHill, 'a population of just over 3.5% residing in the US unlawfully committed 22% to 37% of all murders in the nation.'....That an entire state would allow its residents to be placed beneath the rights of illegal criminal immigrants is a travesty. The fact that liberals even suggest that those who have no legal claim to residence here even have 'rights' is a laughable premise to begin with. The sad news is that with California now becoming a 'sanctuary state,' this problem will continue to grow, and the public safety will continue to be placed at risk." • TheHill asked : "So, who will be the next Kate Steinle?" Nobody can say, but we can be sure that California is doing its best to make the Golden State a safe harbor for criminal illegals who will find other victims. • The Constitution, federal law, and the longstanding borders of the United States are all on the side of the Trump administration, so it’s hard to find any way to say that California’s position as “right.” Nevertheless, they’re digging their heels in, and now they’ve angered federal authorities. The San Francisco Chronicle reported recently : "US immigration officials have begun preparing for a major sweep in San Francisco and other Northern California cities in which federal officers would look to arrest more than 1,500 undocumented people while sending a message that immigration policy will be enforced in the sanctuary state, according to a source familiar with the operation. Officials at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, declined to comment on plans for the operation. The campaign, centered in the Bay Area, could happen within weeks, and is expected to become the biggest enforcement action of its kind under President Trump, said the source, who requested anonymity because the plans have not been made public." • What California and the rest of the hair-brained ProgDems do not understand is that the federal government doesn’t really need the assistance of local Democrats to do their job. Of course, it’s nice to have police who will honor detention requests, but it’s not necessary. ICE is fully trained, outfitted, and equipped to go into any town in America and start making arrests. And with Donald Trump in the White House, ICE has the will and the freedom to do so. • California, Illinois, Oregon, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago -- blow your "sanctuary" state and city bull horns as loud as you can. President Trump is going to prove that, as long as he’s in charge, there is no sanctuary for illegal immigrants in the United States.