Jim Terry
How far?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Jim Terry
September 22, 2018

According to the center for Immigration Studies, as of May 30, 2018, seven states, and 167 cities and counties have declared themselves sanctuaries for purposes of defying the federal government in its role to regulate immigration. A state of anarchy exists.

Sanctuary states, cities and counties self-identify through decisions of the local police department, sheriff or governing body to not honor Immigration Control and Enforcement (ICE) detainers unless some special requirement has been met, such as a judicial court order. And most of these actions were implemented in or about 2014.

The Center for Immigration Studies gives this following summary of the immigration and sanctuary cities issue on its website:
    The sanctuary jurisdictions are listed below. These cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE – either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.

    A detainer is the primary tool used by ICE to gain custody of criminal aliens for deportation. It is a notice to another law enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an alien and includes information on the alien's previous criminal history, immigration violations, and potential threat to public safety or security.
The majority of the states, cities and counties which have decided to thwart the law are run by Democrats. An example is Erie County, Pennsylvania. The governance of Erie County is in the hands of Democrats and has been for many years. The sheriff is a Democrat. An ICE document titled Enforcement and Removal Operations, Weekly Declined Detainer Outcome Report For Recorded Declined Detainers Jan. 28-Feb. 3, 2017 cites the restrictions Erie County has placed on ICE detainers:
    Will not hold individuals based on the standard I-247 ICE detainer form.

    Will hold individuals if an I-230 Order to Detain and an I-200 Warrant of Arrest form is submitted. Will send list of currently held individuals upon request.

    Will allow ICE to inspect jail at any time and to ride-along with local law enforcement.
The ICE report lists other jurisdictions and their restrictions, including some, New Mexico for example, where, beginning in October 2014, "All county jails in New Mexico will not honor ICE detainer."

From January 28 to February 3, 2017, ICE issued 3,083 detainers to jurisdictions across the country. Section II of the report contains a list of 206 declined ICE detainers by jurisdiction for that period, including the citizenship of the offender and the alleged criminal activity. The report cautions, "It should be noted that law enforcement agencies (LEA) do not generally advise ICE of when a detainer is not honored, and therefore, this report represents declined detainers that ICE personnel have become aware of during their enforcement activities." In other words, the total number of criminals released by these jurisdictions during this period was unknown at the time of the report.

Examples of declined detainers, by jurisdiction, nationality of subject and criminal activity:
    Santa Rita Jail, Alameda County, California- Cambodia- Domestic violence (conviction)

    Valley Jail (Van Nuys) Los Angeles, California- Mexico-Arson-Residence-Endangered life (conviction)

    LA County Jail-Los Angeles, California-El Salvador- Domestic Violence (conviction)

    Baltimore County Detention Center-Baltimore, Maryland-Mexico-Drug Trafficking (conviction)

    Multnomah County Jail- Multnomah, Oregon-Mexico-Assault(conviction)

    Philadelphia 9th Police District- Philadelphia, Pennsylvania- Mexico- Homicide (charge)
Of the 206 declined detainers listed in the federal report, 142, were from Travis County, Texaseither the county jail or the city jail in Austin. Below are some examples of criminals, by nationality, released on the streets of Austin by the far left governance of that county:
    Mexico-Assault (conviction)

    Mexico- carrying prohibited weapon (conviction)

    Mexico-Aggravated assault-family-strongarm (conviction)

    Mexico-Aggravated assault-weapon (conviction)

    Honduras- Robbery (conviction)

    Mexico- Burglary- Forced entry- Residence (conviction)

    Mexico-Resisting officer (conviction)
The continued thwarting of federal law by local officials means more criminals on the streets. The Fiscal Year 2017 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report states, "While some jurisdictions do not cooperate with ICE as a matter of policy, others agree that increasing cooperation is beneficial, but decline to do so based upon litigation concerns."

Such is the case of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department which, in July 2014, put out a press release addressing ICE detainers: "Recent court decisions have raised Constitutional concerns regarding detention by local law enforcement agencies based solely on an immigration detainer request from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)." The release went on to say, " ...effective immediately the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department will no longer honor immigration detainer requests unless one of the following conditions are met: 1. Judicial determination of Probable Cause for that detainer; or 2. Warrant from a judicial officer."

The sheriff at the time, a Republican, added a personal statement to the release, "This change has nothing to do with me taking a stand on the immigration issue. It has more to do with a situation we've found ourselves in and this is the best thing to do until the feds figure it out." When the Republican sheriff said, "...until the feds figure it out," he was referring to the confusion the Obama administration was causing in the matter of illegal aliens.

Obama's Department of Justice sued Arizona in 2010 over the immigration issue. A New York Times piece by Julia Preston, dated November 11, 2011 stated, "A new Obama administration policy to avoid deportations of illegal immigrants who are not criminals has been applied very unevenly across the country and has led to vast confusion both in immigrant communities and among agents charged with carrying it out."

With a veto threat by Obama in 2015, Democrats filibustered a Republican bill which would strip sanctuary cities and counties of federal law enforcement grants, authorize local agencies to assist ICE in holding illegal aliens, and impose a minimum five year sentence in prison for illegal aliens who have been deported and sneak back into the country and commit serious crimes, or who continually sneak back in. This was a signal by Democrats of their support for the sanctuary movement, or anarchy.

After President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) on January 25, 2017 to cut off federal funds to sanctuary cities, a report by Tyler Durden on the website Zero Hedge, dated February 2, 2017, cited the following statistic, "We found nearly $27 billion ($26.74 billion to be exact) in federal funding (FY2016) for America's 106 Sanctuary Cities."

Democrats railed when President Trump signed the EO. However, as Paul Bedard wrote in an appropriately titled piece, 'Flashback: Dems said nothing when Obama punished sanctuary cities,' in the Washington Examiner, they conveniently forgot that their own bastion of left wing progressivism, "...President Obama instituted similar policies almost a year ago when he bowed to House GOP pressure and had his Justice Department announce that some federal funding to the sanctuaries would be cut off if those jurisdictions didn't help Immigration and Customs Enforcement's enforcement and removal agents." This hypocrisy of the left, which its adherents overlook, is one of the reasons conservatives find it difficult to take liberals seriously.

Through the history of America, the party of Democrats has marched hand-in-hand with anarchy. Since the 2016 presidential election, Democrats have been in a state of anarchy because they will not accept the results of the election. In 1861, they would not accept the results of the 1860 presidential election. That hissy fit by Democrats cost this country 620,000 lives.

In 1861, Democrats went to war with the United States of America to protect the institution of Negro slavery. Now, Democrats are at war with the United States to protect millions of foreign criminals who have violated this country's laws and who they see as future Democrat voters. Within hours of polls closing in the 2016 presidential election, and numbers which showed Trump winning, Democrats began protests across America, some violent, most shutting down cities or highways. A number of Democrat elected officials and supporters have called for President Trump's assassination, and Democrats' modern version of the KKK, Antifa, has engaged in violence against people and property in several cities.

When you consider a fundamental principle of the left- Democrats, progressives, socialists, and communists- that the end justifies the means, the question must be asked: How far will Democrats go 150 years after their last big uprising?

© Jim Terry

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Jim Terry

Jim Terry has worked in Republican grassroots politics for 40 years. Terry was an administrative assistant to a Republican elected official in Dallas for twenty years. In 1996, he ran for and was elected to Justice Court 2 in Dallas County where he served eight years. Contact Jim at tr4guy62@yahoo.com

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Jim Terry: Click here

More by this author