Acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Tom Homan, said “it is time to start charging officials in sanctuary cities with a crime.”
Homan is referring to the full range of illegal immigrants, and it is about time someone suggested holding politicians responsible when they are sacrificing homeland security, the safety of citizens, and the economy in the name of tolerance and diversity.
Last year, Syrian-born Mayor Mohamed T Khairullah declared a sanctuary city in New Jersey.
Mayor Martin J. Walsh also “reaffirmed Boston’s role” as a sanctuary city at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center.
Many such politicians wrongly accuse those who support sensible immigration of being “racist” and/or “Islamophobic” with absolutely no regard for victims of crime, jihad terror and barbaric cultural practices.
More citizens are going to die because of these (sanctuary) policies. These politicians can’t make these decisions and be held unaccountable for people dying.
Once upon a time, respectable politicians regarded homeland security and the economy as priorities.
“Charge Sanctuary City Politicians With a Crime, Says Acting ICE Director”, by Bob Price, Breitbart, January 2, 2017:
The acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said it is time to start charging officials in sanctuary cities with a crime. The director also threatened a massive enforcement action in the sanctuary state of California.
“I think we charge some of these sanctuary cities with violating federal law,” acting ICE Director Tom Homan said during an interview with Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto on Tuesday. “This isn’t the America I grew up in. We gotta take these sanctuary cities on, we gotta take them to court and we gotta start charging some of these politicians with crimes.”
Homan’s comment came one day after the State of California officially became a sanctuary state. “California better hold on tight,” Homan stated. “They’re about to see a lot more special agents — a lot more deportation officers.”
“The State of California wants to put politics ahead of public safety,” Homan stated. “What they’ve done is force my officers to arrest dangerous criminals on their turf — in their homes and their place of business — rather than arresting them in the safety and security of a county jail.”
The director said the sanctuary policies of California and other jurisdictions puts officers and the public at risk. “When you release a public safety threat back into the public, it’s just a foolish decision.”
Addressing California Governor Jerry Brown, “If he thinks he’s protecting the immigrant community, he’s doing quite the opposite,” Homan stated. “If he thinks ICE is going away — we’re not.”
“There’s no sanctuary from federal law enforcement,” Director Homan told Cavuto. “I am going to significantly increase our enforcement presence in California. We’re already doing it. We are going to detail additional enforcement assets to California.”
If the politicians in California don’t want to protect their citizens, then ICE will,” he expressed.
“California just bit off a lot more than they can chew,” Homan explained. He said that more illegal aliens and more criminal aliens will be moving to California after the State’s new sanctuary law went into effect on January 1.
Homan said he is also working with the Department of Justice to possibly charge sanctuary officials with a crime for harboring illegal aliens.
“When these sanctuary cities that knowingly shield and harbor an illegal alien in their jail and don’t allow us access — that, in my opinion, is a violation of 8 USC 1324, an alien smuggling statue.” the ICE director explained. “I have asked the Department of Justice to look at this.”
“What do you do if they do just that?” Cavuto asked regarding the sanctuary jails.
“I think we charge some of these sanctuary cities with violating federal law.” Homan responded. He continued, saying the DOJ needs to “hold these politicians personally accountable. More citizens are going to die because of these (sanctuary) policies. These politicians can’t make these decisions and be held unaccountable for people dying.”…
StellaSaidSo says
The politicians and their supporters who defend ‘sanctuary’ for illegals are not interested in anyone’s safety. They’re interested in votes. If it weren’t for the illegals – and the legions of the deceased who somehow manage to emerge from their slumbers on election day – the Demoncrats would have to rely entirely on rigging the machines.
Johnny Cuyana says
SSS., exactly correct. Now that we agree on that, the BIG question remains: why do We The People, supposedly freeborn legal citizens, continue collectively to vote into office such blatantly self-serving politicians? At this moment, my question is rhetorical, and, like myself, I suspect that you have some good opinions … but such is for another day.
In the meantime, regarding the subject article, I wish that the author would have brought up the solemn OATH of OFFICE, which, in our Constitutional Republic, is given voluntarily, at the local, state and federal levels, by each and every elected officeholder. Certainly, regarding the precise wording, there are variances; however, all which I have seen, contain something explicitly regarding the officeholder’s sworn oath “to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution”.
So, when such officeholders violate their solemn oath of office — e.g., in promoting, within their respective jurisdictions, the BREAKING of the LAW OF THE PEOPLE, by instituting such sanctuary subcultures — such officeholders should be impeached based on their breach of this oath.
Unfortunately, impeachment is as much a political process as it is a legal one; and, way too many legal American citizens, in such areas which become “sanctuary”, have been dumbed down, by these same bodies of politicians, to where these citizens are now more easily duped into surrendering their legal inalienable rights … in exchange for permitting these immoral and corrupt officials to enjoy relatively permanent positions of immense govt authority.
Such, in our Constitutional Republic, has become a vicious downward leaning cycle … to where, IMO, our PRIMARY real challenge is how to break — that is, to correct back to what was designed by our Founders — this vicious anti-humanity cycle.
Frank Anderson says
Johnny C, impeachment is the political alternative to criminal prosecution for corruption in office and obstruction of justice. Look around at the governors (examples, Blagovich of Illinois and Bentley of Alabama, Spitzer of New York. . . ) who have been removed from office for corruption, and then start down to others including senators and representatives. It’s mainly a matter of finding non-corrupt investigators and prosecutors, who are rare treasures deserving great honor. Sanctuary cities and states violate federal law, the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby; any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Article 6 Clause 2 United States Constitution. Jail, fines, forfeitures, restitution and felony convictions with attendant consequences are far better than mere removal from office just to run again.
Johnny Cuyana says
Frank A., thank you for reading and responding. The issue which you raise — impeachment or, alternately, prosecution — is one which certainly is a real-life question; where, I would assume, ultimately, both are considered in the total political calculation. Aside from my original comment, I can provide no more meaningful insight. [Question: does the application of impeachment preclude prosecution?]
Your sentence, “It’s mainly a matter of finding non-corrupt investigators and prosecutors, who are rare treasures deserving great honor.”, in such situations, really puts a point on it with me: especially in view of your examples of prosecuted govs, who, are [were] by definition VERY powerful people, and who control most of the state investigators and prosecutors; where, as you point out, the successful prosecution of these law-breakers in view of this power is, indeed, deserving of accolades. [Here, I will not say anything about those who might, alternately, initiate impeachment proceedings, the State Assembly, as that is a whole different political can of worms.]
In reflection, your good comments notwithstanding, my original comment, in view of this OBVIOUS sanctuary city/state law-breaking, was prompted by my general impression that so few of us — whether private citizens, public media or even elected officials — rarely, if ever, cry out loud about these OBVIOUS violations of the solemn oath of elected office-holders.
Question: how could this egregious providing of great material favor to ILLEGAL INVADERS, while denying same to the very LEGAL citizens — whom the elected representative swore an oath to PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND — not be identified publicly, loudly and continually as gross violations of that oath?
Elected govt officials, by us citizens, are given SO MUCH GOVT power; where, sadly, IMO, many of us do not understand that there are way too many such officials who “exist” for the self-serving purpose acquiring such powers; and, not for doing the work of the people.
Assuming that we want to remain freeborn citizens — not subjects to some centralized command and control power — how can we continue to ignore this blatant disregard — a slap in our collective faces — of such sworn oaths? Regularly, I ask myself — and sometimes my family members — what we want to do about this; and, more so, what actually we ARE doing about this.
PS: Further, I am even more frustrated by so many govt bureaucrats, who were NOT elected, many of whom did NOT give a solemn oath, but, yet, de facto, have so much govt power. Because of this “wrong”, very much I like POTUS Trumps general efforts to drain the swamp of these self-serving cretins. IMO, the big question is: to what degree will such efforts, by this champion of the people, be able to realize lasting success?
Frank Anderson says
J.C., I think your doubt and frustration are completely justified. Corruption in office, whether it is in a corporate office or a governmental office, is an outrage. Corrupt people rise to the top because they do away with people who are not corrupt in favor of those who are. Only when people get utterly sick of corruption will they get off their laziness and frightened body parts and force action.
D Austin says
Flying in lots of Muslims to replace that lost cheap labor…
Thomas Kimball says
Democrats are the true equal opportunity party”even the dead can vote”! I wonder how many times Clark Gable has voted since his death?
Bodega says
I am more than pleased to read this. Homan is correct. Perhaps Soros bought California. and Brown is Soros’ ‘go boy’?
D Austin says
There have been claims that China is buying up farm land in California at drought depressed prices.
Guy Forester says
Many homes have been bought up by Chinese. It has been well known that many of the homes that went on to the foreclosure market were bought with cash from china. It is not surprising that farm land is bought up as well.
What is being done in California, including Calexit, is nothing less than sedition at best, but closer to rebellion and treason.
I have reason to believe that when a real hot war breaks out involving the US, look for Brown and his associates to declare CA an independent nation. We already have the Mexican military on our borders and China running our former naval base in Long Beach. It will not be pretty.
p bay says
Brown is soro’s blow boy.
WPM says
Voter register has just change in New York City you can register to vote on line without showing up or showing any paperwork in any face to face meeting with officials. The good old progressive way for early voting and voting often. I wonder how many Mohammeds can register to vote in New York City without even being in this country? They could have their computer generated print outs voter registration cards snail mailed to friends and relatives in the city. I guess Islam is right when it comes to voting one Moslem person might be worth 6 or 7 votes in an election compared to Kafir,s one person one vote? Of course their is no fraud on the internet I just sent a money order to a gentleman in Africa to help him get his lotto winnings he promised me a return of 10,000 on my 200 dollar money order.
WPM says
Of course they are the best of people they should get the right to cast more then one vote per person what better way to keep pandering Islamic ass kissing leaders in charge of Libtard cities like NYC.
Troybeam says
Start with the politicians after all they started the law, go after all supporters who pushed for this bill then go after each illegal. Go after law enforcement that will not enforce the Constitution and whats most important never ever put a Muslim in an American elected positions especially those that are not actual citizens if that be the case, Remember people a Muslims duty is to Islam alone, first and last on the agenda.
DK Nolte says
It is a horrible thing to happen, but if the survivors of those killed or maimed by someone who was harbored by California, should start filing multi-million dollar lawsuits against the State, it would at least let its citizens understand the failure of the law.
Guy Forester says
That has been tried with the Bologna family and others. The courts always dismiss the lawsuits. Gee, I am surprised.
DJT needs to fill as many federal judgeships with real constitutionalists ASAP.
Jacqueline Robnett says
I agree. It’s especially important to replace the entrenched judges in the Federal Courts of Appeal – particularly the 9th Circuit, as well as the Supreme Court. It seems to me that these guys hang on until they are at death’s door.
Eric jones says
Tom Homan is right. Charge public officials that implement sanctuary policies with crimes violating our national security.
Eric
LeftisruiningCanada says
You saw these signs right?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=california+felons+illegals+ms13&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2lpnOsLzYAhVK_mMKHQEYCq4Q_AUICygC&biw=1366&bih=639
Isn’t it a federal thing to decide immigration policy? Might be good is these ‘open border’ state guys were prosecuted and jailed.
Donovan Nuera says
A majority never wanted California to be a “Sanctuary” state…68% are against it. For a failed seminary student, Royal Gov. Moonbeam sure is sanctimonious…..too bad he doesn’t live next door to Mexican Mafia gangbangers…
Peggy says
He might soon enough.
Peggy says
This is music to my ears. There is hope.
If the US becomes again what it is supposed to be (love for freedom and democracy) the rest of so called democratic nations now just might change too.
Dictators finally jailed and people having power back in their hands.
Frank Anderson says
This is the short version to show how the director is correct:
1. Article 6 Clause 2, The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (look it up!) says that Federal law shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby; anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
2. Starting with 18 United States Code Section 1512, it is a Federal crime to harass, oppress or intimidate a federal victim, witness or party in any administrative, congressional or judicial proceeding. Directing state officers (who are witnesses to multiple crimes when following or resisting illegal superior orders) to refrain from lawfully required cooperation with federal authorities is a crime and has been for multiple decades, far before the Victims and Witnesses Protection Act of 1982.
3. The claim of “I was acting under superior orders” was eliminated in all United States courts by ratification of the Treaty of London (1945) which established the United Nations and the War Crimes law and courts.
4. Obstruction of justice is a Federal Crime. See, e.g. 18 United States Code Section 1510.
5. Use of state office to obstruct Federal law (thereby hindering interstate commerce) is a crime. See, e.g. The Hobbs Act, 18 United States Code Section 1951.
6. There is no “new” law needed; only prosecutors and judges who will enforce existing law.
7. Forget about lawsuits, these people need to be criminally prosecuted and sent to jail, by the busload. They need to suffer forfeiture of assets for all they collected while in office violating federal law, and be basically reduced to poverty for the rest of their lives for their treason.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Thanks for that.
I’d come to the conclusion you have in clause 7, but didn’t have the workings to show for it.
🙂
Frank Anderson says
Many people do not have the time or attention span to duplicate the research that took me close to a year to assemble. In addition, I have tested my research in courtrooms for well over a decade with a substantial measure of success. I understand that. That is why I am willing to share it whenever the information can help. You and I agree on far more than we disagree. Peace be with you. Unfortunately none of this applies in Canada. Their “constitutional rights” are whatever parliament says they are today.
LeftisruiningCanada says
Yes, nothing is even as close to being stone-set here, as your constitution is there.
And Peace be with you too Frank. Sounds like you could use it.
Frank Anderson says
Left. . ., I am always generous when sharing the hope of peace. I don’t know if I originated the thought or borrowed it; but “nobody appreciates peace like the people who have had to fight for it.” My experience is that obtaining peace often requires war. The weapons may vary from case to case, situation to situation, enemy to enemy; but the goal of complete victory should never get lost in urges of sweetness.
Wellington says
Seconded, Frank Anderson, as the American lawyer that I am. Generally, I am not in favor of the extension of federal rights since they are already extensive enough and because, as Ronald Reagan said, the states created the federal government and not the other way around, but I will make an exception to this rule where the sanctuary nonsense is concerned.
Thus, like you, I say prosecute the bastards. And thanks for the research you have done on this since the law has become so arcane and byzantine often times it even confuses lawyers let alone the general public.
Frank Anderson says
I was listed in sworn statements 3 times as a “person who will necessarily testify in any hearing of this matter” before 2 Federal District courts, while at the same time the person signing the Federal affidavits obtained an order from a state court specifically prohibiting me from speaking to any Federal court or party, or the bar of the state involved. Guess what immediately followed the “gag” order? A bar complaint. I WON. Then I exposed the state supreme court and bar before the US Supreme Court for corruption.
What happened? I lost everything and was reduced to literally digging ditches. Then I went back to college for a third time to regroup, in the process doing the research to do what needed to be done. The Special Agent in Charge, speaking for the US Attorney said, “Mr. Anderson, we do not care how many federal agents you assisted. We do not care what information you gave them [concerning the theft of $200 million in present value from a federally financed and mortgaged entity]. We do not care that you have been listed 3 times a witness in a Federal court proceeding. We do not care that your life has been threatened, that your wife’s life has been threatened, that you have been fired from your job and professionally destroyed. We did not select you as a Federal Witness. We did not call you as a Federal Witness. We have no duty to protect you and will do nothing for that purpose. Have a nice day.” “Freedom is not free.” Reagan’s non-lawyer upside down view of the reason for the Constitution replacing the Articles of Confederation serves us ill. Unless ALL levels of government SHARE and PERFORM the duty to protect basic rights, those rights mean little or nothing at all.
The RIGHT and DUTY to assist Federal officers in the performance of their duties was first written in the case of In re Quarles, 158 U.S. 532 (1895). In U.S. v New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159 (1975) the duty to assist law enforcement is traced back to the Magna Carta and before. If I had obeyed “superior orders” to conceal gross mismanagement and breach of fiduciary duty, I would be quite rich by now and have a yard full of grandchildren instead of being a total outcast from my birth, adoptive and marital families. I’d rather be where I am. There should be a better way.
Frank Anderson says
Wellington-Additional Supreme Court authority: A state court cannot enforce any rule of law, regardless of its [the rule’s] origin. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (Ala. 1964). Reiterated in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, 458 U.S. 886 (Miss. 1983). I do not think this would be different in California. Any judge that attempts to enforce sanctuary city, county, campus or state law in violation of Federal law should be removed from the bench and jailed for conspiracy to commit corruption in office.
“It is well established that
[t]]he elements of a conspiracy . . . are: (1) an agreement between two or more persons, (2) an unlawful purpose, and (3) an overt act committed by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy . . . . The existence of the conspiracy can be proved by inference evidence . . . . Direct evidence of an agreement to join a criminal conspiracy is rare, so a defendant’s assent can be inferred from acts furthering the conspiracy’s purpose. The government is not required to prove that each alleged conspirator knew all the details of the conspiracy; it is enough to establish that a defendant knew the essentials of the conspiracy . . . that the defendant intended to join or associate himself with the objective of the conspiracy . . . even if he did not join it until after its inception, and even if he played only a minor role in the total scheme ” United States v. Gary Greenough, 609 F. Supp 1090, 1093-94 (S.D. Ala. 1985).
Jacqueline Robnett says
Great! Can you send this directly to Director Homan?
Frank Anderson says
Ms. Robnett, I think anyone should be able to send it. Or even to send it through your Senator or Representative. Considering that these are some of the most important cases that are routinely taught in first-year Constitutional Law courses, except those taught by BHO, any lawyer should be aware of them.
Vann Boseman says
Emotionally, I empathize with the director. But the states and cities have the right to be stupid. This is a Constitutional issue. Also, a Constitutional issue is whether or not they get federal matching funds to education, transportation, …
Horseman says
Yes charge them starting with “Moonbeam” Brown in California.
Andy says
AMEN
Z says
This is America. No one is above the law
Frank Anderson says
Z, YES there are people above the law! The Clintons, sanctuary cities and states, “legalized” drugs, voter fraud, welfare fraud, illegal aliens. . . The law means nothing if it is not enforced. On the contrary, by not enforcing law people are taught that all other laws can be ignored. When is the last time someone kept the proper distance from your car when you were driving? (20 feet for every 10 MPH) That distance is to allow the driver behind to have time to apply his brakes before he hits you and breaks your neck.