Judge Orders Trump Administration To Maintain DACA

A federal judge in California ordered the Trump administration to maintain the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program late Tuesday, an Obama-era amnesty policy that extends legal status to 800,000 illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. as children.

The ruling could ensures DACA’s security as President Donald Trump attempts to reach an immigration deal with Democratic lawmakers. The program was scheduled to phase out in March.

Judge William Alsup, a Bill Clinton appointee, issued the ruling.

“Tonight’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts: DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend these benefits to this same group of illegal aliens,” said Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley. “As such, it was an unlawful circumvention of Congress, and was susceptible to the same legal challenges that effectively ended DACA.”

“The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position, and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation,” he added.

The administration justified DACA’s termination on separation of powers grounds, arguing only Congress could authorize such a program.

Alsup strongly rejected this view, pointing to a 2014 Justice Department memo purporting to show that DACA’s features are rooted in Supreme Court case law or related powers granted by Congress.

Since Alsup concluded the program’s rescission was based on a flawed legal premise, he said the action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, [and] otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Alsup further noted that Trump himself has determined DACA serves the public interest, citing two September 2017 tweets in which the president expressed support for so-called “Dreamers.”

“We seem to be in the unusual position wherein the ultimate authority over the agency, the chief executive, publicly favors the very program the agency has ended,” the judge wrote.

The order does not require the administration to process new DACA applications, and allows law enforcement to remove any DACA recipient believed to pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The Trump administration can ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review Alsup’s decision.

The Supreme Court recently lifted a sweeping discovery order Alsup issued in the DACA litigation. The judge ordered the Trump administration to release all internal documents relating to the program’s cancellation, despite the government’s insistence that many such records were privileged. The justices concluded that Alsup’s order was overly broad, and ordered him to reconsider the administration’s arguments.

The University of California system brought the suit challenging DACA’s termination. The system is led by Janet Napolitano, the former secretary of Homeland Security who presided over DACA’s original promulgation during the Obama administration.

The ruling can be viewed here.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Judge Orders Trump Administration To Maintain DACA appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Judge Orders Trump Administration To Maintain DACA

A federal judge in California ordered the Trump administration to maintain the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program late Tuesday, an Obama-era amnesty policy that extends legal status to 800,000 illegal aliens who arrived in the U.S. as children.

The ruling could ensures DACA’s security as President Donald Trump attempts to reach an immigration deal with Democratic lawmakers. The program was scheduled to phase out in March.

Judge William Alsup, a Bill Clinton appointee, issued the ruling.

“Tonight’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts: DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend these benefits to this same group of illegal aliens,” said Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley. “As such, it was an unlawful circumvention of Congress, and was susceptible to the same legal challenges that effectively ended DACA.”

“The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position, and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation,” he added.

The administration justified DACA’s termination on separation of powers grounds, arguing only Congress could authorize such a program.

Alsup strongly rejected this view, pointing to a 2014 Justice Department memo purporting to show that DACA’s features are rooted in Supreme Court case law or related powers granted by Congress.

Since Alsup concluded the program’s rescission was based on a flawed legal premise, he said the action was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, [and] otherwise not in accordance with law.”

Alsup further noted that Trump himself has determined DACA serves the public interest, citing two September 2017 tweets in which the president expressed support for so-called “Dreamers.”

“We seem to be in the unusual position wherein the ultimate authority over the agency, the chief executive, publicly favors the very program the agency has ended,” the judge wrote.

The order does not require the administration to process new DACA applications, and allows law enforcement to remove any DACA recipient believed to pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The Trump administration can ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review Alsup’s decision.

The Supreme Court recently lifted a sweeping discovery order Alsup issued in the DACA litigation. The judge ordered the Trump administration to release all internal documents relating to the program’s cancellation, despite the government’s insistence that many such records were privileged. The justices concluded that Alsup’s order was overly broad, and ordered him to reconsider the administration’s arguments.

The University of California system brought the suit challenging DACA’s termination. The system is led by Janet Napolitano, the former secretary of Homeland Security who presided over DACA’s original promulgation during the Obama administration.

The ruling can be viewed here.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Judge Orders Trump Administration To Maintain DACA appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Wall Is Not Enough. Here’s How to Solve Illegal Immigration.

President Donald Trump held talks with leaders of both political parties on Tuesday to discuss a major agenda item for this year: immigration.

This issue, specifically illegal immigration, is one that Trump has devoted great energy to since the early days of his campaign. And it’s one conservatives must make a top priority this year.

We’ve made some important strides in this area. 2017 saw border crossings fall to their lowest level since 1971, thanks to the Trump administration’s policies. But there are still hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants trying to cross into the U.S.

There are also hundreds of thousands of visitors to the U.S. who continue overstay their visas. So it’s worth considering, at the outset of 2018, how to solve this problem.

For a lot of people, border security is what first comes to mind—often embodied by Trump’s appeal for building a “wall.” This focus on border security is a valid priority.

It’s clear that the U.S. can make improvements at its borders to stop additional illegal immigration. These include adding physical barriers where they would be effective, improved technology to monitor the border, and ensuring that we have appropriately equipped border patrol agents watching our border.

This holistic approach of combining barriers, technology, and people is the cost-effective way to secure the border. Build “the wall” is not enough.

Congress and the administration could build a large wall on a mountain in the middle of a desert in New Mexico, but that would not be the best use of limited security dollars. The mountainous terrain already acts as a natural wall that prevents border crossing.

Furthermore, a wall in a remote desert would barely slow down illegal immigrants. It would only take them a few minutes to get over the wall, but after that it would take them hours to reach the nearest town or road—the proverbial speedbump in the desert.

Instead, our tax money would be better spent on technology or additional agents would could respond to and detect illegal crossings.

This is what White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielson, and many of the pro-enforcement policy community thinks is the best way to secure our border.

But let’s step back. Is better border security even the main way to stop illegal immigration?

It is certainly a piece of puzzle. The more important piece, however, is the enforcement of U.S. immigration law within the country.

Once an illegal immigrant is picked up at the border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and immigration courts must actually remove the illegal immigrant. Border security is only as good as the enforcement that backs it up.

Furthermore, border security does nothing to help stop visa overstays. Only interior enforcement can do that.

So while border security helps us catch some illegal immigrants, robust enforcement across our nation helps us catch and remove them, thus helping to deter all illegal immigration.

Already, the president and members of Congress are considering changes to our immigration policy. If they truly want to stop illegal immigration, some good places to start would be: expanding the number of ICE officers, pushing back on sanctuary cities, expediting deportations, and increasing the efficiency and number of immigration courts.

These measures, coupled with improved and cost-effective border security, would go a long way to solving our illegal immigration problem. It’s hard to imagine a better resolution for 2018.

The post The Wall Is Not Enough. Here’s How to Solve Illegal Immigration. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In DACA Talks, Trump Hints of Being Open to ‘Comprehensive’ Immigration Deal

In deciding what to do about the looming DACA deadline before March, congressional leaders and President Donald Trump agreed Tuesday to address border security, chain migration and the visa lottery program.

“Truly, it should be a bill of love. But it also has to be a bill where we’re able to secure our border,” @POTUS says.

That’s according to Republican lawmakers after the meeting with the president. However, in separate press conferences after the meeting, GOP lawmakers indicated the issues would be dealt with together, while Democrats suggested a two-phase approach, to reach a deal on comprehensive immigration reform.

Trump conferred at the White House with 16 senators and seven House members to discuss reaching a deal on salvaging the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive action that shielded an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants from deportation brought to the country as minors.

“If you want to take it that further step, I’ll take the heat,” Trump said. “You are not that far away from comprehensive immigration reform.”

Past proposals for “comprehensive” reform have included amnesty, or what advocates call a “pathway to citizenship” for the at least 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

In a rare and transparent glimpse of negotiations usually conducted behind the scenes, almost an hour of the 90 minute meeting was televised after being opened to the the White House press pool.

Last fall, the Justice Department announced it was reversing DACA, under threat of a lawsuit from 10 state attorneys general, giving Congress a deadline of March for legislating a replacement.

Trump also said, “I’d love not to build the wall, but you need the wall. … If you don’t have the wall, you can’t have security.”  He said the wall doesn’t have to extend across 2,000 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border.

However, House whips from each side cast doubt on what the “wall” means.

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said, “the wall is part of border security.”

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said, “I think the president believes the wall and border security are interchangeable.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders also told reporters that the wall is part of border security. Saying she didn’t want to negotiate from the podium, she didn’t specify if the four goals would be dealt with in one or two phases, or what Trump meant by “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Asked if granting legal status under DACA would constitute “amnesty,” Sanders said, “No, we believe it is an important part of the process and one we are committed to finding an answer to.”

However, the president should move with caution, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“Any kind of deal that provides amnesty is a bad idea, because there is no guarantee Congress will keep its promise to end chain migration in the future. The only thing an amnesty will do is attract more illegal immigrants.”

On the possibility of a “comprehensive” deal later, von Spakovsky said, “There’s no way to know what ‘comprehensive’ means until you see the details.”

Chain migration is the existing system that focuses on family reunification, which provides preference for legal entry to relatives, often distant relatives, of people already in the country legally. The diversity visa lottery is a form of legal immigration in which visas are awarded to lottery winners from countries that have low immigration levels to the United States.

Many Republicans favor replacing those with a merit-based immigration system, focusing on filling jobs going begging.

The Daily Signal asked if there was any common ground between the two sides on chain migration. Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Michelle Lujan Grisham, D-New Mexico, responded:

We can deal with potential ‘poison pills’ and other issues and leave comprehensive immigration reform for another day. The Democrats and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus have been negotiating on significant border-security measures and smart technology.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said he’s convinced that the president wants to reach a deal.

“Definitions are important. So, when you talk about chain migration, which to me is family reunification, the question is … ‘What limits are you talking about?’” Menendez told reporters. “When you are talking about border security, physical or otherwise, the question is, ‘What exactly are we talking about?’”

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., insisted to reporters after the meeting:

“It’s an opportunity to address that challenge, in part because we would be giving legal status in DACA,” said Cotton, who has co-sponsored legislation to replace the existing chain-migration system with a merit-based system geared toward filling vacant jobs.

During the meeting, Trump said:

Chain migration is bringing in many, many people with one [new immigrant], and often it doesn’t work out very well. Those many people are not doing us right, and I think a lot of people in the room–and I’m not sure I can speak for everybody–but a lot of people in this room want to see chain migration ended.

Still, during the meeting, Trump heralded the bipartisan cooperation.

“I feel having the Democrats in with us is absolutely vital, because it should be a bipartisan bill,” the president said. “It should be a bill of love. Truly, it should be a bill of love. But it also has to be a bill where we’re able to secure our border. Drugs are pouring into our country at a record pace. A lot of people coming in that we can’t have.”

During the meeting, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. asked about a “clean” DACA bill, meaning legislation with no other immigration-related provisions.
Trump replied:

To me, a ‘clean’ bill is a bill of DACA. We take care of them, and we also take care of security. And the Democrats want border security, too. We started off with Steny [Hoyer] saying, we want security. Everyone wants security. Then we go to comprehensive later on. And maybe that is a longer subject and a bigger subject, and I think we can get that done, too.

The post In DACA Talks, Trump Hints of Being Open to ‘Comprehensive’ Immigration Deal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Podcast: New Fight Brewing Over DACA and Border Security, and Oprah 2020?

With government spending soon to run out, some lawmakers want to attach a Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals “fix” to must-pass legislation. Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky discusses why such a move would ignore the lessons of history. We also hear from Hans about why a promising voter fraud commission was suddenly shut down by the president. Plus: The black unemployment rate hits a new low, a top Trump adviser makes an unwelcome splash at CNN, and speculation abounds over whether Oprah Winfrey will run against Trump in 2020.

The post Podcast: New Fight Brewing Over DACA and Border Security, and Oprah 2020? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Acting ICE Director: Let’s Charge Sanctuary Cities for Violating Federal Law

Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas Homan spoke to Fox News host Neil Cavuto Tuesday about California’s decision to become a “sanctuary state.” Watch above, or read the transcript below.

Neil Cavuto:  There are sanctuary cities and towns, but a sanctuary state? Well, California officially becoming the first such state in the country. Gov. Jerry Brown says it is, well, meant to really protect illegal immigrants living in the shadows of society and making sure authorities don’t try to yank them out of there. But acting ICE Director Thomas Homan says it is putting politics above public safety. He joins us now with his first interview since the Golden State became the sanctuary state. Very good to have you, Acting Director. I mean, I couldn’t believe this when I first heard it because it’s one thing when a city or community kind of unofficially espouse these views, quite another for a governor to put his stamp and his blessing behind it on a statewide level. What do you make of it?

Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas Homan: I think it’s terrible. I mean, you have a state …  that wants to put politics ahead of public safety, ahead of officer safety. What they’ve done is force my officers to arrest dangerous criminals on their turf, in their homes, and places of business rather than arresting them in the safety of security of the county jail. It’s ridiculous to knowingly and intentionally put law enforcement at risk and the American communities themselves put at risk. When you release a public safety threat back into the public, it’s just a foolish decision they made.

Cavuto: What can you do if you’re not going to get local help in trying to track down folks you say not only shouldn’t be here, but they’re a threat to people here?

Homan: Well look, if he thinks he’s protecting immigrant community, he’s doing quite the opposite because if you think ICE is going away, we’re not. There’s no sanctuary from federal law enforcement. As a matter of fact, we’re in the process now—I’m going to significantly increase our enforcement presence in California. We’re already doing it. We’re going to detail additional enforcement assets to California. California better hold on tight. They’re about to see a lot more special agents, a lot more deportation officers in the state of California. If the politicians in California don’t want to protect their communities, then ICE will.

Cavuto: So Director, what do you do if local police turn the other way and say our loyalty is to the governor?

Homan: Well, first of all, the street cops, they do not like this legislation. They’re totally against it. The street cops understand what we’re trying to do. We want to take public safety threats out of the communities. And so this comes to—this is a political decision. This isn’t a law enforcement decision. No one thought about the safety of law enforcement when this decision was made. No one thought about cases like Kate Steinle. You know, I can give example after example.

In Sonoma County a few weeks ago, an illegal alien was arrested. We put a detainer on him. He was arrested for domestic violence. Sonoma County didn’t honor the detainer. What happened? Two weeks later, he killed that girl. Now she has two young daughters without a mother. So I can give example after example of the effect this law is going to have on community safety in the state of California. The state of California better hang on tight because the smuggling organizations are using the sanctuary cities law, the sanctuary state law as a selling ploy. More illegal aliens will be coming to California. More criminal aliens will be coming to California. So Californians just bit off a lot more than they can chew.

Cavuto: How do you follow up on that, though? How do you search these individuals out without looking, as I think the governor was intimating, like the Gestapo?

Homan: I’ve got 20,000 American patriots that work for ICE. They strap a gun to their hip every day and leave the safety and security of their homes to protect these communities and to protect the homeland. So shame on Governor Brown for that opinion. What I can tell you is that we’re going to do responses. As I said, we’re going to vastly increase our enforcement footprint in the state of California. We’re going to be all over the place and we’re going to enforce law without apology.

What I’m also doing is working with the Department of Justice. For these sanctuary cities that knowingly shield and harbor an illegal alien in their jail and don’t allow us access, that is in my opinion a violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324, that’s an alien smuggling statute. I’ve asked the Department of Justice to look at this. Are these sanctuary cities—can we hold them accountable? Are they violating federal law? So there’s more to come on that. There’s certainly an angle we’re looking at.

Cavuto: What if they do just that? What do you do?

Homan: Pardon me?

Cavuto: What if they do just that? What do you do?

Homan: I think we charge some of these sanctuary cities with violating federal law. I think if they are knowingly harboring and shield a known illegal alien, a public safety threat in the jail, and won’t give us access to that alien …

Cavuto: But they are, Director, right? In a lot of cases they’re doing just that. Then what do you do if they’re protecting or if there’s a shield, a protection around such individuals, how do you force the point?

Homan: We got to work with the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice needs to do a couple things. N0. 1, they need to file charges against the sanctuary cities. No. 2, they need to hold back their funding. Another thing they need to do, they need to hold these politicians personally accountable. I mean, more citizens are going to die because of these policies and these politicians can’t make these decisions and be held unaccountable for people dying. I mean, we need to hold these politicians accountable for their actions.

Cavuto: Does the president share your views, sir?

Homan: Absolutely he does.

Cavuto: He’s told you that?

Homan: The president is totally against sanctuary cities. He knows, as well as I do, that people are dying, people are being victimized by illegal aliens in this country and there are certain sanctuary cities that don’t want to cooperate with us.

Look, this is about the American public. This is about the U.S. citizens being victimized by some of these criminal illegal aliens. We’ve got to hold sanctuary cities accountable. This is going to continue. The crime rate in California is going to increase … At least 50 percent of these criminal aliens being released back into the public re-offend the first year. Seventy-five percent will re-offend in five years. This is a victimization of the American community. This isn’t the America I grew up in. We’ve got to take these sanctuary cities on. We’ve got to take them to court and start charging some of these politicians with crimes.

 

The post Acting ICE Director: Let’s Charge Sanctuary Cities for Violating Federal Law appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The ‘Dreamers’ Have No Right to Demand Anything

Nearly 200 protesters were arrested on the steps of the Capitol earlier this month.

The occasion? Thousands had gathered there to demand that Congress pass “Dream Act” legislation to protect from deportation young “undocumented” immigrants brought to this country by their illegal-alien parents.

Many of those who took part in that demonstration—as well as in an encampment on the National Mall and in a series of sit-ins in congressional offices—are themselves these so-called “Dreamers,” who would be the beneficiaries of the legislation they’re demanding Congress enact.

Far from being in “the shadows,” as we are constantly told, these illegal immigrants are unabashedly out in the open at these demonstrations.

“I am somebody! And I demand full equality!” about a dozen of them bellowed last week in the corridors of the Russell Senate Office Building, according to a report in The Washington Post. “Right here. Right now.”

Can we just say it? There’s something unseemly—and unsavory—about anyone who is in the country illegally “demanding” anything.

Emboldened by eight years of President Barack Obama’s de minimis efforts to stem the tide of illegal immigrants flooding into the country, the estimated 700,000 “Dreamers” in effect are saying, “We have a right to stay.”

No, they don’t.

Is this any different than shoplifters demanding that they be allowed to keep what they—or, in this case, their illegal-immigrant parents—have stolen?

No, it isn’t.

There are laws on the books against being in possession of stolen property, even if you weren’t the one who stole that property.

The heartstring-tugging “they were brought here through no fault of their own as kids” PR campaign by the “Dreamers” and their megaphones in the liberal media doesn’t change that fact.

Orchestrated by countless immigrant rights groups, the demonstrators have denounced President Donald Trump’s tough immigration policies, which have reduced illegal border crossings to a 45-year low, according to a Dec. 5 report by the Department of Homeland Security.

But the protests are now primarily intended to bring pressure to bear on Democrats in Congress to find a way to replace Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive order, an unconstitutional action that shielded the “Dreamers” from deportation and enabled them to receive renewable two-year work permits, seemingly in perpetuity.

Obama promulgated DACA in June 2012 after repeatedly acknowledging he had no legal—much less, constitutional—authority to do so.

As such, Trump had little choice but to rescind it, although he did give Congress until March 5 (when the work permits begin expiring) to enact DACA, or something like it, into law in proper, legal fashion.

A number of bills before Congress would do just that, allowing the young illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally (and presumably permanently), cleaning up the mess Obama created.

In a galling show of ingratitude, however, those same “Dreamers”—the would-be recipients of our solicitude, which we’re under no obligation to provide—are demanding that any Dream Act legislation be a “clean” bill.

By “clean,” they mean that the legislation should not accede to Trump’s insistence that DACA be coupled with other provisions to strengthen border security and to reform our immigration laws.

The “Dreamers” were furious at Senate Democrats last week for their unwillingness to try to hold hostage a stopgap government funding bill to get DACA passed.

There was delicious irony in Democrats being hoisted on their own petard over not wanting to be seen as responsible for shutting down the government in the process.

This was an uncharacteristic instance where, when the open-borders lobby yelled “Jump!” Democrats didn’t whimper, “How high?”

It’s not bad enough that the “Dreamers” are making demands that they have no right to make in the first place. They also want those demands fulfilled on their own terms.

That should be a nonstarter, because Trump and the GOP border hawks hold all the cards in this debate.

Republicans should not blithely deal those cards away, despite the 35 centrist and liberal House Republicans providing them cover in calling for the “Dreamers” not only to be legalized, but also to be given a 10-year path to citizenship.

It’s not clear whether these three dozen Republican lawmakers are suicidal or merely self-delusional in thinking they or their party would get any credit, much less votes, from the illegal immigrants—who comic Jay Leno once half-jokingly called “undocumented Democrats”—if they were granted citizenship, and with it the right to vote.

The Republican leadership on the Hill has indicated that floor time will be set aside for debating Dream Act-style legislation in January, but if that was a signal that they might be going wobbly, Trump made it clear Dec. 29 that he is not.

“The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no DACA without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration, etc.,” the president tweeted Friday morning. “We must protect our Country at all cost.”

The “Dreamers”—who, remember, have no right to be here in the first place—should have no say, much less a veto, over the terms under which we grant them what they “demand,” if we choose to do so at all.

The post The ‘Dreamers’ Have No Right to Demand Anything appeared first on The Daily Signal.

California Is Officially a Sanctuary State

A sweeping immigration law took effect Monday in California, officially making it the country’s largest sanctuary state.

The controversial law, SB 54, passed the state Legislature in September and was signed into law by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown the following month. It prevents police in California, which has by far the nation’s largest illegal immigrant population, from asking people about their immigration status or participating in most federal immigration enforcement actions.

dcnf-logo

A response to the Trump administration’s criticism of sanctuary jurisdictions, the law sharply limits state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevents jails from holding criminal aliens on immigration detention requests, unless the person has been convicted of certain crimes.

Under Brown’s leadership, California has become the leading opponent of President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda over the past year. In addition to SB 54, the state has enacted a slate of laws aimed at protecting illegal immigrants and their children from the administration’s tougher enforcement of immigration laws.

Other immigration bills passed in 2017 include a measure that prohibits landlords from reporting their illegal immigrant renters and another that prevents employers from allowing immigration raids at their work sites without a court order.

SB 54 was the most contentious of the California initiatives, drawing condemnation from federal immigration authorities and many county sheriffs throughout the state. Acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Thomas Homan blasted California lawmakers, accusing them of putting “politics over public safety.”

“Disturbingly, the legislation serves to codify a dangerous policy that deliberately obstructs our country’s immigration laws and shelters serious criminal alien offenders,” he said in a statement following the passage of SB 54.

Despite threats by the administration to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions, Brown has not shied away from using his authority as governor to thwart certain immigration enforcement. He pardoned two illegal immigrants of state felony convictions last month, a move that could allow the men, who were set to be deported, to appeal their cases in immigration court.

Brown, who granted the pardons just before Christmas, characterized them as acts of mercy, reports The Sacramento Bee.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post California Is Officially a Sanctuary State appeared first on The Daily Signal.

New York Democrat Governor Pardons 18 Illegal Immigrants

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo mimicked California Gov. Jerry Brown’s approach to immigration Thursday, pardoning 18 convicted illegal immigrants who were facing deportation.

Cuomo, a Democrat, praised himself on Twitter for his compassion, before linking to a New York Times article supporting the move. Cuomo claimed the federal government is “tear[ing] families apart” with the current immigration policy and felt he was taking the “critical step” to defend those who were unfairly targeted.

dcnf-logo

Brown, a Democrat, has also taken up the cause of defying federal immigration law in California by pardoning two men from Cambodia who were about to be deported. One of the men was convicted of felony joyriding in 2003 and sentenced to a year in prison, while the other was convicted of a felony weapons charge in 1995, Fox News reports.

Brown faced backlash in the media Wednesday for his sanctuary state policy from a man whose son was killed by an illegal immigrant in 2010. Don Rosenberg lost his son Drew Rosenberg when Roberto Galo from Honduras slammed into him with his car and continuously ran him over in an attempt to escape.

Galo had been stopped by the San Francisco police months earlier for driving in the wrong direction down a one-way street without a license. He was not arrested, and instead police cited and released him.

San Francisco was recently the center of a national debate on immigration, after a jury found Jose Ines Garcia Zarate not guilty of the murder of Kate Steinle. Zarate was in the country illegally and admitted to shooting Steinle but claimed it was an accident. He was only found guilty of felony possession of a weapon.

Brown signed a sanctuary state law in October, limiting the ability of local law enforcement to coordinate immigration efforts with the federal government. The law also prevents police officers from questioning or detaining people based on civil immigration violations.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post New York Democrat Governor Pardons 18 Illegal Immigrants appeared first on The Daily Signal.

‘First Stop to Hell’: Father of Son Killed by Illegal Immigrant Slams Sanctuary States

The father of a young man killed by an illegal immigrant slammed California’s sanctuary state law on “Fox & Friends” Wednesday, and said Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown should go straight “to hell.”

“I wish he would get on the bullet train, first stop to hell, and he should get off and stay there,” Don Rosenberg said. “His concern for criminals, be they legal or not, is outrageous and has cost the live of many Californians.”

dcnf-logo

Rosenberg’s son, Drew Rosenberg, was killed by Roberto Galo, an illegal immigrant from Honduras, in 2010. Drew Rosenberg was on his motorcycle in San Francisco, when Galo made a last-second turn and collided with him. Galo continuously ran over Rosenberg’s body in an attempt to flee, before finally jumping out of his car and running away.

Galo was stopped by the San Francisco police months earlier for driving without a license and going the wrong way down a one-way street. Instead of being arrested, Galo was cited and released, according to CBS News.

Don Rosenberg said the charge against Galo was originally vehicular homicide, but was then reduced to misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter. Galo only spent 43 days in jail for killing Drew Rosenberg, and was allowed to continue living in the United States for two more years until he was deported.

“When [Barack] Obama was president we couldn’t even talk to anybody,” Don Rosenberg said. “There was no response whatsoever.”

He also expressed concern over a potential deal on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and said the government should fix the rest of the immigration system before addressing the issue.

“Our position is you don’t do anything about DACA until you take care of everything else with illegal immigration and I’m very nervous about that one,” Rosenberg said.

San Francisco is a sanctuary city, and recently came under fire for finding Jose Ines Garcia Zarate not guilty for the murder of Kate Steinle. A jury found the illegal immigrant not guilty on all counts, except for felony possession of a weapon. Steinle’s murder sparked a national debate about the legality of sanctuary cities and the politicization of immigration.

Rosenberg appeared in a television ad in May where he referenced Steinle and his son, saying, “California should be a sanctuary, for Californians.” He appealed to Brown not to sign the bill making California a full sanctuary state, but Senate Democrats passed the bill on a party-line vote and Brown signed the bill into law in October.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post ‘First Stop to Hell’: Father of Son Killed by Illegal Immigrant Slams Sanctuary States appeared first on The Daily Signal.