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. Sadly there are many California residents who do not agree with what’s going on in their state. Once again the Democrats continue thier hard left direction and wish to create problems for the rest of the nation. As they continue their assault on our values, laws and turn from middle America their numbers will diminish as law makers each election.

  2. I say make them all instant citizens and then hit them with any owed federal taxes and penalties plus interest.
    If they can’t show previous tax returns to prove their compliance then make it retroactive for 10 years based on aminimum income amount.
    Bombard them with time sensitive paperwork to prove their income and their time in the state as illegal immigrants.
    Make their lives comparably miserable with our own citizenry and get them to know the wonderful lifetime relationship we all have with the IRS.
    Another remedy would be to tax all money transfers to foreign countries 12-15%.

  3. Let’s build the Wall along the borders of California and kick ’em out.

  4. It never rains in California..
    but girl let me warn ya…
    When it pours.. then it pours!

    Build up a Wall around the California borders with its adjoining states. Send the Navy to the entire coast and stop all boats from landing and inspect the inmates aboard. Rebuild the concentration camps built for the Japs in CA back in WWII.

  5. First of all, ICE is rounding up many undocumented immigrants who have not been convicted of a crime or they have been convicted of a minor crime years ago. Secondly, when local law enforcement is required to provide assistance to ICE, everyone is less safe. All immigrants, including those who are documented, tend to not report crimes fearing that ICE will come knocking or will just pick people up outside the courthouse or the school or the church. When crimes aren’t reported due to fear of the government, everyone is less safe because no one is looking for the criminals. Not all the criminals are immigrants. Criminal behavior seems to be an equal opportunity enterprise.

    1. bettykath, These are not “undocumented” aliens. They have FAKE documents and are ILLEGALLY here. Fixed it for you!

      1. Oh, worse than that. They are now given driver’s licenses and thanks to the Motor Voter Law, are able to register AND vote.

    2. First of all, ICE is rounding up many undocumented immigrants who have not been convicted of a crime or they have been convicted of a minor crime years ago.

      They’re here illegally betty. This isn’t that difficult.

      If ICE wants to do some freebooting, they should arrest bettykath, and transport her to a point off the coast of Tijauana and tell her to row to shore.

  6. 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.

    Am I reading this correctly? De Leon acknowledges that the Trump administration is threatening to follow the immigration law and using legitimate federal power, so to counter that, SB 54 is to protect resources in order to keep the communities safe by releasing known criminals back into the communities away from ICE?

    WTF!? honest, hard-working parents who obey the laws…

    THEY ARE IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY! How in the world would any rational person even write such a statement?

    I live here in San Diego county and we have a “long train of abuses” piling up against this state.

  7. I am all for cutting all federal funding to CA than city by city. It is easier to cut off the state.

    1. Paul, Absolutely. Cut them off, then they’ll huff and secede. Problem solved.

    2. If California tech companies moved their jobs out of Texas and Arizona, their economies would shrivel.

  8. This also dovetails with singlepayer healthcare. Talk a out la la land.

    1. Independent Bob,..
      The CA. senate passed the universal healthcare bill, but I think the CA. Assembly shelved it late last month.
      The $400 Billion annual pricetag was the biggest problem.
      Especially since the entire annual budget for California is only $200 Billion.
      Bernie is said to be pissed that they backed off on the healthcare bill over a little detail like cost.
      A universal healthcare proposal on Vermont ( Green Mountain Care) blew up for the same reason.
      But Bernie could make it work nationally😏, since it’s easier to blow a massive hole in the federal budget than at the state level.

    1. U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 10

      No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

      http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/70/state-coinage

      1. So, it looks like they could legally mint their own gold and silver currency.

    2. No without committing a major felony. It’s specifically banned in the Constitution. Like it or not their major indebtedness and lack of water and a huge chunk of that state belonging to the Federal Government makes the whole issue a political charade.

      What you have is a bunch of malcontents still whining because they didn’t get their way.

      However I floated the idea when down in Mexico of selling the South West portion roughly LA To San Diego and two answers were returned. San Dieog are voted to become part of Arizona and and Mexico refused the LA area citing as their reason, “We could not afford the water bill and we prefer a large ‘willing to work’ population.

      The revival of the State of Jefferson plan is possible. leaving coastal Middle California (SF Area) to the souhern but sttill coastal end as California and both Arizona and Nevada gaining along with the Southern part of Oregon and the north end becoming Jefferson. That would leave Pelican Bay empty and rentable to the Federal Government as the new Guantanamo.

      The only part east of the CoastalRange would be a gerrymadered section from SF to and including Sacramento.

      Always a way…..but then would New California become CabezadeAire?

  9. 1) Immigration and naturalization is not an authority of the states, it is that of the federal government. The states do not have the constitutional authority to subvert federal law. This is not a difficult issue.

    2) Illegal aliens are in a continual state of violating federal law by their mere presence in the United States.

    3) Sheltering illegal aliens and giving them refuge from federal law enforcement but handing citizens over to federal law enforcement officers whenever requested is an unequal enforcement of the law and is not constitutional. Here, Illegal aliens are given sanctuary where citizens who commit violations of law are not. So what kind of government is California? It values citizens less than foreign criminals. Who’s side are they on?

    1. Governor Brown has not signed the legislation. He didn’t the last time this arose.

  10. El Lay and San Francisco already are. If only The Big One would come along and strike-slip them into the Pacific, the problem would be solved.

  11. Good a place as any to clean up the definitions from fictionary to dictionary. See if you can recognize the source of the the first two lines.

    “You always down on liberals?”

    “Hell no only those that suck eggs. Do you know the difference.”

    “Liberals left conservatives right?”

    “Wrong. Liberals are those that seek change rapidly by whatever means necessary. For example ignoring the law to change the law.” Conservatives favor seeking change slowly. Depends on who or whom is in power. Usually. It’s difficult to understand definitions when they are intermingled and redefined so much. A Centrist or a Libertarian can be liberal or conservative. They cannot be fascist only a leftist can be fascist for the first two will not move to control citizens by any means possible. For the political left it’s part and parcel and their only way.

    Capitalism is economics. Socialism is politics.

    Fascism is forcing all people to band together thinking and acting alike to a common goal.

    Liberal and Conservative is methodology

    Communism and Naziism are the extreme forms of Fascist socialism but is not necessarily liberalism. Once in power they become ultra conservative in their efforts to stay in ipower.

    Fascism is the antithesis of the beliefs of the right wing as is any form of government whose proponents believe in government control of the population. Communism or International Socialism can be fascist as can national socialism or Naziism as can any religion or any organization even businesses and most are to some extent. General Motors for example or some of the unions for sure. Any and all means to stay in power. That’s fascism.

    However a right wing group of citizens can believe in working together harmoniously to an end goal without being socialist, fascist, or communist and still uphold the ideal of citizens controlling government. Often has to do with the amount of power in the hands of the government and how that control is used to change meanings and definitions.

    But mostly that’s done by self governing centrists.

    As for the ‘left’ overs don’t other it changes every day.

    1. Baha Norte will have to build a wall for protection and Arizona and the other states will cut off the water supply. North and Eastern California will be come the State of Jefferson and the rest will parch to death and still a huge percentage will belong to the federal government of the USA. San Diego wiil joing Baja Norte or Arizona. LA and SF will be denied travel privileges unless passing rigorous vetting.

  12. There are 58 counties in CA, and they should be able to individually decide if they want to lose federal funds. The state legislature is dominated by the large, liberal cities, such as San Fran and Los Angeles. But the more conservative, rural counties, should not punished unless their representatives also vote for this legislation.

    1. Ever here of the State of Jefferson? Caifornia going to be shrinkiiiiinnnnnggggg..

    2. I think we need to make the entire state realize that it can no longer support the liberal idiots in LA and SF!

      1. The job creators.in Silicon Valley are probably way too liberal for you.

  13. I have often heard California’s boast of being the 6th largest economy in the world. I support the feds move to punish sanctuary cities. The proposed law is too weak. It should all so shut all ” non essential Federally regulated services”. Airports and seaports are a good example. Then we could move to shut off the water to California from the Hoover dam. Suspend all federal Tv and radio broadcast licences. Lets see that economy Without this federal support.

    1. Now you’re talking! Agreed! California is nothing but Mexico without federal infrastructure and protection! We need to make clear to those living in the state that they can no longer sit back and chuckle at the antics of the idiots they continue to elect!

  14. GOV. Moonbeam, is Senile….does he actually think that we homeowners are going to put up with his Nonsense, with the Illegal Alien/Refugees, and continue to PAY TAXES, so he can spend on them? Pluck you Gov. we will sell and move OUT of this Once Beautiful State, and you will ONLY Have Non-paying Illegals. Democrats are so stupid, with their ‘giveaways’ and yet, they KEEP their Ill-gotten gains offshore.’

    1. Yes. The gov was Elected. Those who voted for him knew what they were getting. Everything you complain and write about is already in place and a part of California. Recall is your only hope

    1. It would be more help if Texas and the rest of the CSA would secede (again).

      1. Heck, I would be all in favor of a divorce, but we got all these kids, I mean dependents. If we could get you Yankee guys to take all our blacks off our hands, then we could afford to go. But if we have to keep them, then we would have to have some form of child support. At least with us being in the Union, we get Federal money from New York, and Massachusetts and Illinois to help pay for them!

        Go here to see our problem:

        http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

            1. Yep, Eielson AFB and Fairbanks. The other blip is Anchorage.

              1. Alaska Air Force Bases (3)

                Clear Air Force Base N/A
                Eielson AFB North Pole
                Elmendorf AFB Anchorage
                Elmendorf AFB

                Alaska Army Bases (3)

                Fort Greely South of Fairbanks
                Fort Richardson Anchorage
                Fort Richardson
                Fort Wainwright Fairbanks

                Alaska Coast Guard Bases (3)

                ISC Kodiak Kodiak Island
                Marine Safety Unit Valdez Valdez
                USCG Juneau Juneau

      2. If that happened I think the rest of the “fly-over nation” would go with them. Then the USA would be upper East coast, West coast, and Illinois. Interesting thought.

        1. If states with democratic governors get to leave, then you could add Virginia and Pennsylvania.

          1. He doesn’t have that much of an edge. but Maryland for sure.

            Question is how do you divide up the population? California is easy They have already segregated themselves into USA and not USA. But that brings us to the question of land?

            30% or so is federal already and the rest is collateral for unpaid debts. unless those owed the money are also leaving

            Water is another non-problem. They don’t get any and most of it would be in Jefferson and the parts that joined Nevada and Arizona.

        2. The last three probably along with Oregon and Washington but the majority of the midwest, all the south and others forget about it. They would donate Washinton DC. But who would take it? In the NE NY, Connecticut and Taxachusetts. No great loss.

  15. Well, write to Governor Brown! After conviction of a serious crime, then what? Serve time plus subsequent deportation?

Comments are closed.