California Moves To Become Sanctuary State In Defiance Of The Trump Administration

California flagWith Congress  moving to give the Trump Administration authority to withhold grants from sanctuary cities, California is moving to become a sanctuary state.  Under Senate Bill 54, the “California Values Act,” state and local law enforcement would be prevented from cooperating with the federal government in the deportation of illegal immigrants.  The bill would bar such actions even for undocumented immigrants who have committed serious crime (given a narrow definition of “serious felonies”).

State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon, D-Los Angeles, has rallied support around the bill as an anti-Trump measure.  He insists that:

“Under constitutional threats from the reckless Trump administration, SB 54 protects state and local law enforcement and resources necessary to keep our communities safe. . .  ICE is out to arrest and deport honest, hard-working parents who obey the laws and pay their taxes and owe allegiance to the red, white and blue. Arrests of undocumented immigrants with no previous criminal record are up 150 percent since Trump became president.”

However, it is hard to accept the safety premise given the definition of those with “serious felonies” under the Act.  It was only after objections from police that the sponsors moves an amendment  ordering the Board of Parole Hearings or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to notify the federal government up to 60 days before the release of an undocumented immigrant with a violent felony conviction.  The Act defines serious felonies by reference to Section 1192.7 of the Penal Code, which offers the following crimes:

(c) As used in this section, “serious felony” means any of the following:

(1) Murder or voluntary manslaughter; (2) mayhem; (3) rape; (4) sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (5) oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, threat of great bodily injury, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (6) lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 years of age; (7) any felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (8) any felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person, other than an accomplice, or any felony in which the defendant personally uses a firearm; (9) attempted murder; (10) assault with intent to commit rape or robbery; (11) assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer; (12) assault by a life prisoner on a noninmate; (13) assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate; (14) arson; (15) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure; (16) exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing bodily injury, great bodily injury, or mayhem; (17) exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder; (18) any burglary of the first degree; (19) robbery or bank robbery; (20) kidnapping; (21) holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison; (22) attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison for life; (23) any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon; (24) selling, furnishing, administering, giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), or any methamphetamine-related drug, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 11055 of the Health and Safety Code, or any of the precursors of methamphetamines, as described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 11055 or subdivision (a) of Section 11100 of the Health and Safety Code; (25) any violation of subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act is accomplished against the victim’s will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person; (26) grand theft involving a firearm; (27) carjacking; (28) any felony offense, which would also constitute a felony violation of Section 186.22; (29) assault with the intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral copulation, in violation of Section 220; (30) throwing acid or flammable substances, in violation of Section 244; (31) assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, machinegun, assault weapon, or semiautomatic firearm or assault on a peace officer or firefighter, in violation of Section 245; (32) assault with a deadly weapon against a public transit employee, custodial officer, or school employee, in violation of Sections 245.2, 245.3, or 245.5; (33) discharge of a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft, in violation of Section 246; (34) commission of rape or sexual penetration in concert with another person, in violation of Section 264.1; (35) continuous sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Section 288.5; (36) shooting from a vehicle, in violation of subdivision (c) or (d) of Section 12034; (37) intimidation of victims or witnesses, in violation of Section 136.1; (38) criminal threats, in violation of Section 422; (39) any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault; (40) any violation of Section 12022.53; (41) a violation of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 11418; and (42) any conspiracy to commit an offense described in this subdivision.

Roughly 90 percent of undocumented arrestees have previous criminal records for crimes like drug offenses, domestic violence, DUI, sex crimes, battery, weapons violations, assault, burglary, fraud, vehicle theft, arson, cruelty to a child, robbery, obstructing justice, property damage, larceny, escape, manslaughter, prostitution, trespassing, incest, and receipt of stolen property.  Some felons convicted of these crimes would be protected under the law despite crimes involving weapons or some sex offenses or battery or burglary.  I can see the policy argument on both sides of this issue, but I have a hard time with the idea of letting an undocumented person to return to society after committing some of the uncovered crimes, including human trafficking or some forms of assault with a deadly weapon.


Former Attorney General Eric Holder has endorsed the bill. Holder was hired by the legislature.

Notably, Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill in 2012 for failing to include many of the crimes which are still absent in this bill.

70 thoughts on “California Moves To Become Sanctuary State In Defiance Of The Trump Administration”

    1. These as a useful words indicates right here right now …but you mentioned none of them so the statement is rather like those using the mythicsl ‘some.’ It is however offensive to me and now you can replace some with the name of a real indivdidual citizen.

  1. Liberals accused President Trump of election fraud and manipulation while “elected” officials in California

    and elsewhere have facilitated election fraud and manipulation by falsely importing voters.

    Obama used this faux immigration as election fraud and interference to “fundamentally transform”


    Obama and California’s “elected” officials are engaged in subversion.

    Pernicious invasion-by-immigration – Immigration of incongruous and parasitic dependents who will never

    assimilate is deleterious and was roundly rejected by the American Founders.

    Thomas Jefferson –

    “Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?”

    “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

    Alexander Hamilton –

    “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    These issues of detrimental, false immigration, election fraud and subversion must be addressed by

    Congress and the judicial branch.

  2. Article 1, Section 8 provides authority on immigration to Congress.

    California has been invaded through deleterious and false “immigration” adverse to America.

    These acts by “elected” officials in California finally prove their treason.

    These acts by “elected” officials in California constitute insurrection and the conduct of a coup d’etat.

    These “elected” officials in California must be arrested for and convicted of treason.

    1. Thank you. Another part of the Constitution gives law enforcement a choice of arresting Linda whats her name for treason under the regular rules….or they could just hang her for violation of the Patriot Act on suspicion of supportiing terrorism which has no civil rights provisions.

      Looks like a race between home grown ‘activists’ to see who draws the short straw.

  3. California clearly does not care about the safety of its citizens, legal residents, and visa holders. Heck, it doesn’t even care about the safety of the other illegal aliens if it prevents ICE from deporting violent felons.

    We have an extreme amount of crime disproportionately committed by illegal aliens.

    One of the bare minimum requirements for who we invite over to stay is that they are not criminals. That’s just being responsible for those our politicians are elected and paid to look out for. They were not elected to protect citizens of other countries who come here and commit crimes.

    The politicians who support this are directly exposing us to crime, and they are wasting our money with the damage and incarceration costs of felons who are not supposed to be here.

    Every person that an illegal alien rapes, murders, hurts, robs, cheats, or otherwise harms has the added grief piled on his or her family’s shoulders that the perpetrator was never supposed to be here, and would not be here but for the elected politicians of CA.

    Vote appropriately.

    1. Do you have any, any at all, citations to support your “extreme and disproportionately” claim? In your search for some support, you may even learn something…

      1. Observing California for five decades as a legal adult convinces me it only cares about itself and is willing to Californicate the world to keep water in it’s southern desert area swimming pools and golf courses.

  4. The California left has rediscovered federalism. I favor very liberalized immigration rules, but how is society to function in this lawless environment. The Supreme Court ruled that Arizona’s efforts to ENFORCE federal immigration were preempted by federal law (I still find this confusing) so it’s difficult to see how California’s legislation to ignore federal law could survive a court test.

    1. I favor very liberalized immigration rules,

      What does that even mean? Does that mean you favor rules that permit people to violate the law? Do you believe federalism is intended to allow the respective states to subvert federal law and specifically immigration laws? If so, do you not realize the ramifications of such a belief? This means you do not have any rational argument against a government that abuses the rule of law.

      1. I think I was pretty clear that I consider lawlessness by state and local officials to be a serious problem. I should also add federal officials.

        What I mean by liberalized immigration rules is that I prefer more LEGAL immigration along the lines of the laws in force when my grandfather immigrated to the US in 1919. He had to have some money (I think he said something like $25) and be examined for communicable diseases and the like. But we basically allowed anyone who would come to work or start a business in, and it was tens of millions during that era. We should enforce our laws, including immigration laws. We should also make them more reasonable.

        In a free society, with little regulation and no welfare state, immigration was overwhelmingly good for the nation – a high ratio of benefits to costs. I will concede that in our highly regulated society with an extensive system of entitlements the cost/benefit tradeoff becomes more complicated. On balance, admitting people with no public health or safety issues will be a net plus.

        1. In a free society, with little regulation and no welfare state, immigration was overwhelmingly good for the nation – a high ratio of benefits to costs.

          You cannot justify that statement with an econometric study.

          Immigration is not necessary to robust development. Japan grew rapidly with very little of it. The United States between 1924 and 1965 had satisfactory net performance with immigration streams 1/3 the relative dimension of today’s (and biased toward the country’s foundational nationalities). The most salient effect of large immigration streams is to alter the trajectory of population growth and to change the distribution of sources of that growth (less natural increase, more mechanical increase).

          1. Ah yes; “(and biased toward the country’s foundational nationalities)” is at least owning up to it. There’s a white sheet sale at Macy’s I hear. Having to cut those little holes in the pillowcases plays havoc on laundry day.

    2. If you look at it differently it has nothing to do with sancturary this and that and is just there way of backing up DNC ‘resistance’ movement and causing delays to the work that needs doing. But the way to stop it is cut federal funding – set the funding aside – and let them deal with the long long long court cases to get payment required. One Judge makes that ruling appeal and get a stay etc. They should get their money in two or seven years and we’ll call it the Playing Stuipd In Rush Hour Traffic Bill.

      Only road block I see is the congressional leadership and that’s a function for the mid term voters and if needed the veto pen. Especially SCOTUs refusals. That one is easy. Let’ s Mr. X is nominated. Leadership refuses to nuke or does and does not get 50. Renominate the same individual as a way of making them do the same job over again. There is nothing to stop nomininating the same candidate indefinitely but the hot foot is on those who are now on the receiving end. With a little refinement public will be demanding recall of congressionals and filing all sorts of iniatives to damage the other sides coffers and supporters etc.

      In the meantime start weeding out the Fourth Branch And Deep Staters. Lifting security clearance and thier job by starting a …pending … investigation for untrustworthyness. That’s a subjective call but that is allowed. Just don’t ask permission especially when the one asking is the one in charge.

      Come next year and there’s no pork flowing to certain districts and states…sorry that’s in litigation so it’s held up….or …sorry the other state has worse infrastructure problems and a higher priority.

      Elections have consequences. NY,California and Illinois need to learn that.

      1. Outstanding! More “Deep State” tomfoolery. Please post more such material.

    1. Holder thinks he will get sancturary for gun running. Mexican Government looking for him too!

Comments are closed.