POLL: MAJORITY OF VOTERS WANT DOJ ACTION AGAINST SANCTUARY CITIES

A majority of likely voters say action should be taken against jurisdictions with sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants, according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey.

The poll found that 62 percent of likely voters think the Justice Department “should take legal action against cities that provide sanctuary for illegal immigrants.” Just 26 percent opposed the idea, and 12 percent were undecided.

On the separate question of whether the federal government should cut off funds to sanctuary cities, 58 percent of likely voters agreed, 32 percent disagreed, and 10 percent were undecided. Rasmussen notes that the results for this question have seen little movement since 2011.

The results come on the heels of the murder of Kathryn Steinle by a multiple-deportee, multiple-felon in San Francisco, a sanctuary city. Since her murder, law makers have introduced legislation to halt certain funding for such jurisdictions and requested the Justice Department take action to discourage such policies.

Rasmussen notes that Republicans and unaffiliated respondents were more likely to support actions against sanctuary cities than Democrats.

In 2013, when Judicial Watch and Breitbart News surveyed support for sanctuary cities, 51 percent of Americans either “strongly oppose[d]” (31 percent) or “somewhat oppose[d]” (20 percent) such policies.

The poll of 1,000 likely U.S. voters was conducted from July 8-9 and has a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

REPORT: 8,145 CRIMINAL IMMIGRANTS RELEASED DUE TO ‘SANCTUARY CITY’ POLICIES IN 8 MONTH PERIOD

Sanctuary policies in jurisdictions across the country have resulted in the release of more than 8,000 criminals Immigration and Customs Enforcement sought to deport in an eight-month period in 2014, according to a newly released Center for Immigration Studies report.

The detainer data, obtained by CIS via FIOA request, comes in the wake of the murder of Kathryn Steinle in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, allegedly by a multiple-deportee, multiple-felon illegal immigrant.

CIS’ report, authored by Jessica Vaughan, reveals that 63 percent of the 8,145 released criminal immigrants — in 276 jurisdictions from January 1, 2014, to August 31, 2014 — had “serious prior criminal records” and a fourth had a prior felony charge or conviction.

-5,132 were previously convicted or charged with a crime or were labeled a public safety concern. Of these,

-2,984 had a prior felony conviction or charge;

-1,909 had a prior misdemeanor conviction or charge related to violence, assault, sexual abuse, DUI, weapons, or drug distribution or trafficking;and

-239 had three or more other misdemeanor convictions.

According to the report, 1,867 of those release were arrested 4,300 times again— on some 7,491 charges — within that eight-month timeframe. The report notes ICE took custody of 40 percent of the recidivists but as of the time of the report, 60 percent remained at large.

“ICE’s analysis shines a light on the public safety problems created when local sanctuary policies cause the release of criminal aliens that ICE is seeking for deportation,” Vaughan said. “San Francisco’s sanctuary policies do not represent mainstream law-enforcement practice in America, but they are more widespread than is commonly realized.”

Indeed, as of last month the total number of detainers sanctuary jurisdictions did not honor grew to more than 17,000.

In her report Vaughan further highlighted six instance of serious crimes committed by criminal immigrants ICE sought to apprehend via a detainer but who were released by sanctuary jurisdictions.

-Santa Clara County, Calif.: On April 14, 2014, an individual with nine previous convictions (including seven felonies) and a prior removal was arrested for “first degree burglary” and “felony resisting an officer causing death or significant bodily injury”. Following release, the individual was arrested for a controlled substance crime.

-Los Angeles, Calif.: On April 6, 2014, an alien was arrested for “felony continuous sexual abuse of a child”. After release, the alien was arrested for “felony sodomy of a victim under 10 years old”.

-San Francisco, Calif.: On March 19, 2014, an illegal alien with two prior deportations was arrested for “felony second degree robbery, felony conspiracy to commit a crime, and felony possession of a narcotic controlled substance”, After release, the alien was again arrested for “felony rape with force or fear”, “felony sexual penetration with force”, “felony false imprisonment”, witness intimidation, and other charges.

-San Mateo County, Calif.: On February 16, 2014, an individual was arrested for “felony lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14″. In addition, the alien had a prior DUI conviction. Following release by the local agency, the individual was arrested for three counts of “felony oral copulation with a victim under 10″ and two counts of “felony lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14”.

-Miami Beach, Fla.: On December 19, 2013, the police department arrested an alien for felony grand theft. This alien had been ordered removed (and presumably absconded) in 2009. The alien also had prior convictions for strong-arm robbery, cocaine possession, larceny, trespassing, theft, marijuana possession, and resisting an officer. After release by the local agency, the alien was arrested on two separate occasions; once for “aggravated assault with a weapon and larceny” and once for “under the influence of a controlled substance”.

-Santa Clara County, Calif.: On November 7, 2013, an alien was arrested (and later convicted) for “felony grand theft and felony dealing with stolen property”. This alien had been ordered removed in 2010 (again, a likely absconder). The alien also had prior felony and misdemeanor convictions for narcotic possession, theft, receiving stolen property, illegal entry, and other crimes. After release by local authorities, the alien was arrested for “felony resisting an officer causing death or severe bodily injury” and “felony first degree burglary”.

According to Vaughan, lawmakers should ensure that complying with federal immigration law is not optional.

“Further, those jurisdictions that do not comply with all detainers should face sanctions and be debarred from certain kinds of federal funding,” she said. “The Davis-Oliver Act, which is not pending in Congress, has provisions to address this problem directly.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

Democrats Scurry From Sanctuary Ship Hillary and the sanctuary sisters of San Francisco.

Democrats now will say anything to distance themselves from sanctuary city policies, even though they have supported these policies for years. In an exclusive CNN interview Tuesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked about San Francisco’s refusal to hand over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement seven-time convicted felon and five-time deportee Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. He stands accused in the fatal shooting of Kathryn Steinle as she took an evening stroll on Pier 14 last week. (After telling a local TV station he shot Steinle by accident, Lopez-Sanchez has pleaded not guilty to murder.) Clinton answered, “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”

In a 2007 Democratic presidential debate, the late Tim Russert asked Clinton if she would allow sanctuary cities to disobey federal law. “Well, I don’t think there is any choice,” she answered. Immigrants may not talk to police if “they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.” She did not add a caveat that she wanted local law enforcement to work with immigration officials if the federal government had strong feelings that an individual should be deported.

In 2008, Clinton voted against an amendment to yank some federal funds from sanctuary cities. California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer voted likewise — but it didn’t stop them from criticizing San Francisco for releasing a repeat offender.

“The 2008 budget amendment was a choice between sending a political message or funding California law enforcement, and I chose to fund the police,” Feinstein explained in an email. “I continue to believe we can deport criminals who are undocumented and still support law enforcement.”

Perhaps Feinstein and Clinton are living back in 1985, when Feinstein was mayor and signed San Francisco’s sanctuary city law. It was supposed to help immigrants seeking asylum from war-torn El Salvador and Guatemala. Four years later, the law was expanded to cover all immigrants. Then, in 2013, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance, signed by Mayor Ed Lee, that prohibits city law enforcement from releasing undocumented immigrants to ICE based on a detainer request alone. (There’s an exception for recent violent felons, but Lopez-Sanchez did not qualify.)

Sanctuary City supporters cannot say they were not warned. Recently, ICE Director Sarah Saldana told a House committee that reduced cooperation from state and local governments “may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk.”

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., asked Saldana if it would help if Congress made it mandatory for local governments to cooperate with ICE — the sort of bill already rejected by Clinton, Feinstein, and Boxer. “Thank you. Amen. Yes,” Saldana answered.

Then came blowback from the anti-enforcement community. Saldana released a statement that said such a law would be counterproductive and “lead to more resistance.” You have to figure her reversal was on orders from the White House. Asked about Steinle’s killing at a press conference this week, White House spokesman Josh Earnest blamed Republicans in Congress for blocking “common-sense immigration reform.”

Where is the common sense in shielding repeat felons and border jumpers from the consequences of their crimes? There is no need to look outside the city: San Francisco screwed up. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the Board of Supervisors, and the mayor were so busy crowing about their pro-immigrant credentials, and refusing to differentiate between legal and undocumented, that they forgot voters elect them to keep their city safe.

Via: American Spectator

Continue Reading....

Democrats Scurry From Sanctuary Ship

Democrats now will say anything to distance themselves from sanctuary city policies, even though they have supported these policies for years. In an exclusive CNN interview Tuesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked about San Francisco's refusal to hand over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement seven-time convicted felon and five-time deportee Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. He stands accused in the fatal shooting of Kathryn Steinle as she took an evening stroll on Pier 14 last week. (After telling a local TV station he shot Steinle by accident, Lopez-Sanchez has pleaded not guilty to murder.) Clinton answered, "The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on."

In a 2007 Democratic presidential debate, the late Tim Russert asked Clinton if she would allow sanctuary cities to disobey federal law. "Well, I don't think there is any choice," she answered. Immigrants may not talk to police if "they think you're also going to be enforcing the immigration laws." She did not add a caveat that she wanted local law enforcement to work with immigration officials if the federal government had strong feelings that an individual should be deported.

In 2008, Clinton voted against an amendment to yank some federal funds from sanctuary cities. California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer voted likewise -- but it didn't stop them from criticizing San Francisco for releasing a repeat offender.

"The 2008 budget amendment was a choice between sending a political message or funding California law enforcement, and I chose to fund the police," Feinstein explained in an email. "I continue to believe we can deport criminals who are undocumented and still support law enforcement."

Perhaps Feinstein and Clinton are living back in 1985, when Feinstein was mayor and signed San Francisco's sanctuary city law. It was supposed to help immigrants seeking asylum from war-torn El Salvador and Guatemala. Four years later, the law was expanded to cover all immigrants. Then, in 2013, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance, signed by Mayor Ed Lee, that prohibits city law enforcement from releasing undocumented immigrants to ICE based on a detainer request alone. (There's an exception for recent violent felons, but Lopez-Sanchez did not qualify.)

Sanctuary City supporters cannot say they were not warned. Recently, ICE Director Sarah Saldana told a House committee that reduced cooperation from state and local governments "may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk."

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., asked Saldana if it would help if Congress made it mandatory for local governments to cooperate with ICE -- the sort of bill already rejected by Clinton, Feinstein and Boxer. "Thank you. Amen. Yes," Saldana answered.

Via: Real Clear Politics

Continue Reading....

Murdered by the Left: Time for a campaign against “sanctuary” cities

On Monday, illegal alien Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a 45-year-old repeat drug offender who had been deported five times, was charged with killing Kathryn Steinle, 32, at Pier 14 in the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco. The details surrounding this case are a testament to the multi-layered bankruptcy of progressive ideology.

We begin with the contemptible notion of a sanctuary city itself. Despite the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 requiring cities to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), there are literally hundreds of cities in the nation that provide safe haven for illegal aliens in open defiance of federal law. Yet, because that law conflicts with progressive sensibilities, not a single lawsuit has ever been filed by the federal government against a sanctuary city for violating it. In a revealing contrast, the Obama administration has filed suit against states such as Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina that were attempting to enforce federal immigration law. The administration claimed the states had no right to do so—despite the reality the administration itself refuses to do so.

The case of Lopez-Sanchez itself is equally illuminating. Despite his presence in America following five deportations to his native country of Mexico, ICE turned Lopez-Sanchez over to San Francisco police on March 26 because he had an outstanding drug warrant. And despite the reality he had a record of seven felony convictions, San Francisco released Lopez-Sanchez to the streets on April 15, after the district attorney declined to prosecute him for a 20-year-old marijuana possession charge. In short, the feds aided and abetted the release of a serial border-buster to a sanctuary city manifestly unwilling to jail a career criminal.

No one made that reality clearer than San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. Mirkarimi first blamed ICE for Sanchez-Lopez’s release, insisting the agency didn’t file a formal court application to detain him. But in a later interview with CNN, his progressive instincts were revealed. The sheriff defended San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy, insisting it “makes us safer.” “We’re a world-renowned city with a large immigrant population,” Mirkarimi declared. “And of that population is a population that is also here undocumented. From a law enforcement perspective, we want to build trust with that population. And our sanctuary city and other attendant laws have allowed us to do that.”

Mirkarimi’s arrogant defiance of federal law is nothing new. In a press release sent out last year, he boasted about a revision made to his department’s policy of retainment that “reduced the number of individuals released to ICE authorities by 62 percent. Only one other county in California had a policy of similar strength,” it stated.

San Francisco’s equally contemptible Mayor, Ed Lee, added ideologically inspired insult to injury. Despite issuing a press release saying he was “deeply saddened” by the “tragic and senseless death,” of Steinle and that his “thoughts and prayers” were with her family, he also endorsed his city’s sanctuary policy. “Let me be clear: [the policy] protects residents regardless of immigration status and is not intended to protect repeat, serious and violent felons,” he said. Lee further emphasized his commitment to “civil liberties” and “public safety” to explain his 2013 decision to “veto any legislation” undermining the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department’s ability to determined whether or not to honor ICE-issued “detainers” on a case-by-case basis.

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Map: Over 200 'sanctuary cities' in 32 states and D.C.

There are over 200 "sanctuary cities" in 32 states that give safe harbor to illegal immigrants, even violent ones with felony records like the man accused of killing a San Francisco mother last week, according to a new analysis.

The Center for Immigration Studies on Wednesday posted a map of the cities. On their website, they reported:

"More than 200 cities, counties and states across the United States are considered sanctuary cities. These state and local jurisdictions have policies, laws, executive orders, or regulations allowing them to avoid cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement authorities. These 'cities' ignore federal law authorizing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to administratively deport illegal aliens without seeking criminal warrants or convictions from federal, state, or local courts."

According to CIS and another website, Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC, Washington, D.C., and multiple cities around the nation's capital are included where local police forces are told to not cooperate with federal authorities.

Which cities fit the definition can be open to debate. Jessica Vaughan, CIS director of policy studies, who helped pull the map together, said the number could go over 300.

"One could also argue that any jurisdiction that provides drivers licenses, or welfare benefits, or public housing, or municipal ID cards is a sanctuary," she explained.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] Shooting renews scrutiny on 'sanctuary'-backing San Francisco sheriff

The murder of a young woman in San Francisco allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant has brought renewed scrutiny on the sheriff who released the defendant before the attack and has ardently backed policies making the city a “sanctuary” for undocumented immigrants. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in March handed over defendant Francisco Sanchez on a drug-related warrant to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department.

However, the department released him several weeks later, after the charges were dropped, following a policy of not complying with federal requests to detain illegal immigrants for deportation.

"My long-held belief is that local law enforcement should not be in the civil immigration detainer business," San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said last year, after the policy was adopted.

Mirkarimi, a Democrat and former Green Party member, has argued since Sanchez allegedly shot to death 32-year-old Kate Steinle on July 1 that federal authorities should have issued a warrant or court order to hold Sanchez, who has seven prior convictions and has already been deported five times. 

But this claim has been met with skepticism, given the circumstances. “He should have honored the immigration hold,” immigration lawyer Francisco Hernandez told Fox News on Tuesday. 

Mirkarimi, elected in 2011, is up for re-election in November. Now, Steinle’s death, coupled with personal and departmental missteps, pose potential problems. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Why aren't Democrats asked if they agree with sanctuary cities who refuse to enforce immigration laws?

Why does the administration sue states like Arizona who want to enforce federal immigration laws and essentially reward sanctuary cities like San Francisco who refuse to enforce the laws of the land?

Since sanctuary cities are acceptable to the administration, I believe the concept of sanctuary businesses should be set up nationwide. These businesses could choose to not comply with Federal immigration laws. They would get the double benefit of not having to cover illegal immigrants for Obama Care since that is not required. I am sure the Justice Department, the Obama Administrations, all Democrats, the compliant media, the ACLU and others would be major supporters of these sanctuary businesses since they are just trying to help out their fellow man and we all know that the U.S became the greatest economic power in the World because of illegal immigration.

Anyone who opposes these common sense sanctuary businesses should be called hostile to all immigrants.

I actually think the concept of sanctuary cities and businesses should be expanded so they can pick and choose the  federal laws they want to comply with. After all, some laws just aren’t working and the legislative process is just too cumbersome. What could go wrong?

Most of the media essentially portrays Republicans who want to enforce existing immigration laws as far right extremists and portrays Democrats who willingly ignore existing laws as common sense politicians.

I guess laws of the land only have to be obeyed if Democrats and the media agrees with those laws. Ignoring the oath of office and the Constitution is obviously fine when the media agrees.

Most of the media essentially portrays Republicans who want to enforce existing immigration laws as far right extremists and portrays Democrats who willingly ignore existing laws as common sense politicians.

I guess laws of the land only have to be obeyed if Democrats and the media agrees with those laws. Ignoring the oath of office and the Constitution is obviously fine when the media agrees.

Where are the protests and where is the outrage by the media that San Francisco politicians and the Obama Administration willingly look the other way as they let  a criminal illegal alien who had already been deported five times out on the street to kill an innocent woman. .We have been told that the borders are more secure than ever and that is obviously true because the murderer has only been deported five times. Now we learn that he killed the woman with a gun stolen from a federal agent. That shows that we have to get all guns out of the hands of federal agents because one death like this is one too many.

I am also shocked that President Obama is not giving the eulogy on the murdered woman and that there is not continuous coverage of her funeral.

And we all must remember, that, according to Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, that even though this murder occurred in The Democrat sanctuary city of San Francisco who released this known criminal, that it is the Republicans’ fault because they didn’t pass the immigration bill.

The bias in the media is truly hard to spot.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] GOP REP. SLATED TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TARGETING SANCTUARY CITIES

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)

67%

 will again introduce legislation targeting sanctuary cities, Breitbart News has learned.

Hunter’s bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict funding to any state or locality that has in place a law, policy or procedure in contravention of federal immigration law, preventing “state or local law enforcement officials from gathering information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

The legislation would make those cities with sanctuary policies or laws in place ineligible for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) funding. SCAAP reimburses states and localities for the cost of holding illegal immigrants convicted of crimes.

“States and cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws directly undermine enforcement efforts and — as recent events have shown — present a real danger to citizens,” Hunter said in a statement to Breitbart News.

“If a state or one of its cities wants to call itself a sanctuary and deliberately ignore the law, then Congress shouldn’t hesitate to withhold federal funding until there’s compliance,” he continued. “One program that most certainly should cease reimbursement is SCAAP, which is intended to mitigate the costs of incarceration, and extend to salaries and overtime.  And we should look to other programs too, but there should be wide support for a response, such as this proposal, that exercises a constitutional prerogative of Congress in order to uphold the law.

The bill is still being drafted and could target additional funding once finalized. Hunter expected to officially introduce it Tuesday or Wednesday.

Hunter’s legislation comes on the heels of the shooting death of Kathryn Steinle by a five-time deported, seven-time convicted felon at a San Francisco pier.

The alleged shooter, Francisco Sanchez, has admitted to shooting the young woman and revealed that he chose the Golden Gate City because of its sanctuary city policies.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has pointed out that although the agency had a detainer on Sanchez from a March arrest, the San Francisco Police Department did not honor it and Sanchez was released.

“ICE places detainers on aliens arrested on criminal charges to ensure dangerous criminals are not released from prisons or jails into our communities,” ICE explained in a statement.

According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, in Fiscal Year 2014 the state of California received $41.6 million in SCAAP funding.

The California Republican has introduced other iterations of the bill in past Congresses.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

Hillary Flashback: Sanctuary Cities Keep Everyone Safe

Hillary: the government was failing when they enforced the law, and kept future illegal alien voters for me out of the country…

San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy is receiving harsh criticism after Wednesday’s murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle by Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a illegal immigrant who has been deported five times and has been convicted of seven felonies.

On Sept. 6, 2007 at Dartmouth College while debating during her last attempt to become president, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton supported sanctuary cities saying they help ensure the “personal safety and security of all the citizens.”

Clinton said, “If local law enforcement begins to act like immigration officers what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes. You will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government and that’s where it needs to be fixed.”

When pressed if that means she supports the sanctuary cities policy Clinton replied, “Well, I don’t think there is any choice.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....