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.
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist who supported President Barack Obama has said that he does not believe global warming is a problem, and has openly criticized the president for his position on the issue.
"I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem," Dr. Ivar Giaever announced during a speech at the 65th Nobel Laureate Conference in Lindau, Germany, last week, according to Climate Depot.
Quoting Obama's warning that "no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change," Giaever said it was a "ridiculous statement."
"I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you're wrong. Dead wrong," he said, according to Climate Depot.
"Obama said last year that 2014 is [the] hottest year ever. But it's not true. It's not the hottest."
Giaever, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973, questioned the theory behind fears about rising carbon dioxide levels and said that the theory is not backed by evidence.
"Global warming really has become a new religion. Because you cannot discuss it. It's not proper. It is like the Catholic Church."
Giaever was one of more than 100 co-signers in a letter to the president in March 2009 that was critical of his stance on global warming, saying, "We the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
One in five Americans participates in government assistance programs each month, according to the most recent data released by the U.S. Census Bureau.
“Approximately 52.2 million (or 21.3 percent) people in the U.S. participated in major means-tested government assistance programs each month in 2012,” according to the Census Bureau’s report.
Means-tested programs include Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and General Assistance (GA).
The number of beneficiaries of these means-tested programs has increased significantly over the last decade. According to the Census, in 2004 there were nearly 42 million monthly recipients of these programs. Between that year and 2012, monthly participation increased by 24.9 percent.
In order to qualify for benefits from a means-tested program, an individual or family’s income must fall below a specified threshold.
“Participation rates were highest for Medicaid (15.3 percent) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as the food stamp program (13.4 percent),” the report said. Participation rates were lowest for housing assistance (4.2 percent), Supplemental Security Income (3.0 percent) and TANF, which includes general assistance (1.0 percent).
The Census collects this data by observing the number of months when individuals received benefits from one or more programs and measuring their entry and exit activity.
“Participation in government programs is dynamic,” said Shelley Irving, an analyst with the Census Bureau’s Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division. “The Survey of Income and Program Participation shows how individuals move in and out of government programs and how long they participate in them.”
Most beneficiaries of these programs are dependent on them for up to four years. “The largest share of participants (43.0 percent) in any of the public assistance programs stayed in the programs between 37 and 48 months,” according to the Census. “Additionally 31.2 percent of people participated between one and 12 months between January 2009 and December 2012.”
A bill that would create a uniform identification card for U.S. military veterans is in the final stages of its journey from idea to law, and is being seen both as a nice benefit for America’s fighting men and woman and an illustration of just how hard it can be to get anything through Congress.
Sponsored by U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, a Florida Republican who represents the Bradenton and Sarasota areas, the bill directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to issue a veteran’s identification card. Such a card would allow veterans to prove their status without having to carry around military service records, such as the common form known as a “DD-214.”
Those forms, Buchanan said, contain sensitive personal information such as veterans’ Social Security numbers, leaving them at a higher risk for identify theft. The VA does offer some veterans – those in the VA health system, for example – ID cards. But there is a large population of veterans who served honorably yet have no easy way to prove their military service.
“On the surface it doesn’t sound like a gigantic thing,” said Buchanan. “But at the end of the day it’s a very big thing for veterans. ... We’re very excited about it.”
The “Veterans Identification Card Act of 2015” was introduced on the first day of the current session of Congress and eventually picked up 82 co-sponsors, roughly divided between the two parties.
It passed the U.S. House in May by a vote of 402-0 and the Senate last month by unanimous consent. The bill has been endorsed by veterans’groups, while others took no position on it. The bill is expected to go for final action in the House on Tuesday, where differences between House and Senate versions are expected to be easily passed; then it will go to the president for his signature.
The Obama administration, however, isn’t so enthusiastic. In testimony before the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs last month, a top VA official, Rajiv Jain, said that veterans in most U.S. states can get veteran status noted on their drivers’ licenses and that such options “can meet the intent of the legislation without creating within VA a new program that may not be cost-efficient.”
In his prepared statement, Jain also said a new VA-issued ID card could create confusion among veterans, since other cards are specifically designed to help them get health care and other benefits. “Having several VA-issued cards creates the potential for confusion on several levels,” said Jain, an assistant deputy under secretary for health.
Diane M. Zumatto, the national legislative director for the advocacy organization AMVETS, sees the bill as a simple, cost-effective way to help veterans. As for the state options, she said those oftenaren’t enough: “The service we performed was federal, so the card should be federal,” she said.
“I just don’t see any drawback to the bill,” she said. “I understand there are many more critical things that are on the agenda for Congress. But hey, gather up these no-brainers and pass ’em.”
That’s easier said than done – even on a piece of legislation with such bipartisan, unanimous support.
Despite the simple nature of the bill and the fact that it is intended to be cost-neutral – veterans would pay a fee for their cards – it’s taken a long time to get such a bill through Congress. Similar legislation was introduced in 2011 and 2013 but went nowhere.
If President Obama had a son, he might look like Amari Brown, the little boy killed by a bullet intended for his gang-banger father on the streets of President Obama’s Chicago in yet another bloody Windy City weekend. As the Chicago Tribune reported, over the Fourth of July weekend, Amari Brown was one of the ten that were killed among 55 that were shot, none attributed to Confederate flag loyalists:
Among those killed was 7-year-old Amari Brown, shot in the chest as he watched fireworks near his father's home in Humboldt Park late Saturday night. Police say they believe the attack was aimed at the father, whom they described as a ranking gang member.
Also gunned down was 17-year-old Vonzell Banks, who was shot as he played basketball Friday at a park named for Hadiya Pendleton, a high school student fatally shot in 2013 near President Barack Obama's Chicago home.
The wounded included a 16-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl shot shortly after midnight Sunday as they walked in Old Town, and a 19-year-old man shot around 10 p.m. Saturday as two groups fought near Navy Pier after the fireworks display there.
We are told that black lives matter, but apparently only those that can be blamed on rogue white cops or the occasional loony tune inspired by admirers of the Confederate flag. Trayon Martin matters, President Obama’s first imaginary son, who turned to confront neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman instead of just continuing on home.
Michael Brown matters, the thug who committed a strong-armed robbery of a convenience store and then assaulted a police officer, trying to kill him with his own gun. The rush to judgment false narrative inspired the “hands up, don’t shoot” false mantra endlessly repeated by those determined to perpetuate black victimhood and white guilt.
Chicago Police Commissioner Gary McCarthy got it right when he observed that Amari Brown was another victim, , not of racism, but of gang violence and a revolving door justice system:
Antonio Brown, who police say is a ranking member of the Four Corner Hustlers street gang, has been arrested 45 times on charges ranging from gun possession to burglary, and is not cooperating with detectives in their investigation into the slaying of his son, Amari Brown, police said.
McCarthy said that the elder Brown's last arrest was in April for gun possession after leading police on a vehicle pursuit. Brown was later released on bail in that case, Cook County court records show.
"If Mr. Brown is in custody, his son is alive," McCarthy, flanked by several police officials and other officers, told a room full of reporters at the Harrison District police station on the West Side on Sunday afternoon. "That's not the case. Quite frankly, he shouldn't have been on the street."
From the man who brought you malaise, now an even more depressingly negative view of America . . . On today's Morning Joe, Jimmy Carter declared that America is in "inevitable decline." But no finger-pointing at President Obama, please: Carter declared that the decline is "not because of any defect or fault on the part of the President of the United States."
Cue the Cole Porter: it's just one of those things. Carter was on to promote his latest book, looking back on his 90 years of life. Carter's grim prognosis notwithstanding, decline is not inevitable. It is due to weak leaders like Carter and Obama who fail to stand up for America and defend the principles that made it great. -
WILLIE GEIST: I know this is a big question with a long answer, but, drawing on your 90 years, how is the United States doing right now? Where are we?
JIMMY CARTER: Well, we're in an inevitable relative decline in world-wide influence. Not because of any fault of ours, but it's, as I said, inevitable. I think that the combination of China and India and Brazil and South Africa and others as they increase in economic and cultural influence will replace a lot of the power and pre-eminence that the United States has enjoyed in the past. So we're having, whether we like it or not, to accommodate that necessity of realizing other people are going to be as powerful and influencing as we are in some aspects of life. Not militarily, we'll stay preeminent there for a long time. But I think economically, China will soon, you know, succeed the United States as the #1 economic power in the world. I think influence in politics is also shifting inside the United Nations and in the ability of the United States to use its influence to change situations that we don't like around the world. That's commonly what it is. It's not because of any defect or fault on the part of the President of the United States. It's just happening as an historical, evolutionary, unavoidable circumstance.
Jerry Brown, who as a candidate for governor in 2010 repeatedly pledged he wouldn’t raise taxes without a popular vote, has called for a special session of the Legislature for the purpose of raising taxes. This despite the fact that general fund revenues have outstripped estimates by almost $6 billion. So now we have the very real possibility of higher gas taxes, higher registration and vehicle license fees with proceeds promised for roads – all without a vote of the people.
That a politician would change his views on adding to the public’s tax burden is hardly a surprise. Those of a certain age will clearly remember presidential candidate George H.W. Bush proclaiming, “Read my lips, no new taxes,” before his later, as president, breaking his pledge.
In his effort to increase the tax burden on motorists, Brown is receiving support from the usual suspects including Democrats in the Legislature who have become the party of the public employee unions favoring more revenue for higher pay, and radical environmentalists for whom the price of fossil fuels can never be high enough. Even some in the business community are signaling that they, too, could support higher levies on California drivers if the result is improved roads. (By now you would think that these otherwise astute political players would realize that Faustian bargains with the tax-hikers always end badly.)
The impediment to the grand scheme of those who want ever higher taxes is, of course, Proposition 13 which requires a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature. Deprived of their super majorities in the last election cycle, Democrats would need help from Republicans. So the big question is will the Democrats be able to pick off a handful of Republican votes.
We sure hope not. Not only would this be bad policy but the California Republican Party has, in recent years, made progress in establishing a reputation as the only party to represent average working folks against multi-billion dollar tax increases. And voting for tax hikes as a Republican is a surefire way to end a political career.
Moreover, to their credit, Republicans have proposed credible transportation plans of their own to provide needed funding for road construction and maintenance, but without raising taxes.
Nonetheless, we’re hearing rumors that a couple of Republicans might acquiesce to a tax increase. They should know better as California already ranks second in the nation in gas tax rates, even without counting the hidden carbon tax. The new tax would make the state an outright number one and would add to the already highest gasoline prices.
Expect Republican legislators to be wined and dined and invited to dance by those lobbing for higher taxes. These favor seekers will be wearing their most benign looking sheep costumes but legislative Republicans should be aware that these are actually wolves who, once they have gotten the votes they want, will turn on them without provocation if it suits their interests.
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association — California’s largest grass-roots taxpayer organization dedicated to the protection of Proposition 13 and the advancement of taxpayers’ rights.
After months of refusing to answer questions, avoiding situations in which she might be questioned, and literally roping off the press, Hillary Clinton has granted an interview to a news organization. CNN's Brianna Keilar, who will do the interview, has asked for suggestions on what she might ask. Here are three questions for the former secretary of state:
1) In March, you said, 'I … provided all my emails that could possibly be work-related' to the State Department. Now, State says there are some emails you didn't turn over. Did you tell the truth in March?
2) After turning over some of your emails to the State Department, you destroyed everything: all emails, all backups. Why?
3) On Aug. 16, 2012, Ambassador Chris Stevens warned State of dangerous security problems in Benghazi, Libya, saying U.S. facilities there could not survive a 'coordinated attack.' Top administration officials Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey testified that they knew about the Stevens warning. You said you were too busy to see it. Why?
The Obama administration is issuing a slew of executive orders to boost the solar panel industry, this time by pushing for more solar panels to be used at federally subsidized housing developments.
The White House announced a goal of getting 300 megawatts installed at federally subsidized housing all while providing technical and financial assistance to subsidized housing operators looking to go green. The administration also says it’s leveraged $520 million in “independent commitments from philanthropic and impact investors, states, and cities” to boost solar energy among the low income community.
“The executive actions and private sector commitments that we are announcing today will help continue to scale up solar for all Americans, including those who are renters, lack the startup capital to invest in solar, or do not have adequate information on how to transition to solar energy,” the White House said in a statement.
The move to push solar panel on federally-subsidized housing comes less than one month after Obama unveiled “executive actions” to “make information about energy and climate programs … accessible and more understandable to the public, including to mission-driven investors.” Obama also ordered the IRS to issue guidance on how groups could invest in green energy.
Obama’s latest orders also call for the creation of a “National Community Solar Partnership” to increase solar power access to low-income families that rent their homes or apartments and may not have enough rooftop space for a solar panel array. So-called “solar gardens” are a new way to finance solar panels across the country, but one that could increase costs and bring dubious benefits.
For example, Denver recently contracted with a solar company to have 16 city-operated buildings powered by solar energy from a community solar project. City officials heralded the deal as helping green up Denver, but there’s one caveat — there’s no guarantee solar power will actually come to your home or building.
What happens is that those who buy electricity from community solar projects simply get a credit on their electric bill to show they invested in solar. Yet, no solar panels are hooked up on site, instead power is generated on a solar farm somewhere else and that power is sent onto the grid.
Those looking to invest in solar will get utility credits, but there’s no guarantee that the solar power you finance will ever be used to meet your electrical needs.
(CNSNews.com) – When he visits his father’s homeland in Africa later this month, President Obama is expected to run into vocal opposition over his administration’s high-profile promotion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) issues.
Obama’s trip to Kenya, his first as president, is scheduled to take place four weeks after the White House was bathed in rainbow colors to mark the U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring that same-sex marriage is a right.
At a small pro-family demonstration at the parliament in Nairobi Monday, organized by the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, participants called on the American president not to raise the subject during his visit.
“It is important for us as Kenyans to know that the U.S. is not God,” local media quoted evangelical Bishop Mark Kariuki as saying, adding that Obama should not use the visit to “talk about the gay issue.”
Irungu Kangata, a lawmaker in President Uhuru Kenyatta’s The National Alliance (TNA) party, was blunter: “We are telling Mr. Obama when he comes to Kenya this month and he tries to bring the abortion agenda, the gay agenda, we shall tell him to shut up and go home.”
According to The Standard of Nairobi, Kangata said Kenyans would demonstrate against Obama over the issue during his visit.
Kenya’s The Daily Nation quoted several other lawmakers’ views on the matter.
“Anybody who tries to come and preach to this country that they should allow homosexuality, I think he’s totally lost,” said TNA lawmaker Jamleck Kamau.
“And I would also like to add, our son from the U.S., Barack Obama, when he comes here, to simply avoid that topic completely,” added Kamau, “because Kenyans will not be happy with him if he comes to bring the issue of homosexuality in this country.”
Sen. Rand Paul put Hollywood in the spotlight Monday revealing a $25,000 federal grant billing taxpayers for the building of an Oscars museum.
The National Endowment for the Arts is sending the federal dollars to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science to help build what the academyclaims as the “world’s premier museum” exploring the history and future of movies.
The Kentucky Republican revealed the spending in his latest “Waste Report,” which he uses to publicly uncover “egregious” instances of excessive government spending.
“$25,000 might be small in the scope of the federal budget or in Hollywood, it is over half what the average worker makes in a year, and equals the full federal tax liability of almost four average Americans,” Paul said in the report.
He questioned why the government would send the chunk of money to the academy given the group’s “abundance of wealth.”
“In addition to scores of Hollywood brass ponying up donations to the museum, the academy is flush with cash; it makes profits of roughly $50 million on the Oscars alone,” Paul said.
The museum, set to open in 2017, will receive the grant to subsidize planning for its exhibits. Paul highlights the museum will include a space shuttle from “2001: A Space Odyssey,” which he said the academy bought for a “cool” $344,000.
“One must wonder, when cries ring out about what constitutes a fair share of taxes for someone to pay, why are any of those tax dollars going to support a museum that does not need it?” Paul said.
Newly released documents show Department of Justice officials, Internal Revenue Service and Federal Bureau of Investigation officials were discussing prosecuting nonprofit organizations for allegedly engaging in illegal political activity.
An official “DOJ Recap” document obtained by the group Judicial Watch details an Oct. 8, 2010 meeting between DOJ, IRS and FBI officials, including Lois Lerner, where the administration employees discussed “several possible theories to bring criminal charges under FEC law” against groups “posing” as tax exempt nonprofits.
“The section’s attorneys expressed concern that certain section 501(c) organizations are actually political committees ‘posing’ as if they are not subject to FEC law, and therefore may be subject to criminal liability,” reads the memo from IRS Exempt Organizations Tax Law Specialist Siri Buller to top IRS officials.
Lerner, who was forced out of the IRS in 2013 amid a scandal that the IRS was targeting conservative groups, and her top aide Judy Kindell, explained to DOJ and FBI officials that “although we do not believe that organizations which are subject to a civil audit subsequently receive any type of immunity from a criminal investigation, she will refer them to individuals from [Criminal Investigations] who can better answer that question.”
“[Lerner] explained that we are legally required to separate the civil and criminal aspects of any examination and that while we do not have EO law experts in CI, our FIU agents are experienced in coordinating with CI,” according to the memo. “The attorneys asked whether a change in the law is necessary, and whether a three-way partnership among DOJ, the FEC, and the IRS is possible to prevent prohibited activity by these organizations.”
Judicial Watch says another document shows that just prior to the October 2010 meeting the IRS began giving the FBI confidential taxpayer information on nonprofits. The document obtained by Judicial Watch says the IRS gave the FBI some 21 disks with 1.25 million pages of taxpayer records.
“These new documents show that the Obama IRS scandal is also an Obama DOJ and FBI scandal,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The FBI and Justice Department worked with Lois Lerner and the IRS to concoct some reason to put President Obama’s opponents in jail before his reelection. And this abuse resulted in the FBI’s illegally obtaining confidential taxpayer information. How can the Justice Department and FBI investigate the very scandal in which they are implicated?”
Bill O'Reilly: The vilification of Donald Trump over illegal immigration. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo".
Does the truth hurt? Or did Mr. Trump unfairly malign Mexico and millions of Mexican illegal aliens. "Talking Points" will now answer those question.
The primary mistake Donald Trump made in his campaign kickoff speech was speaking too generally about the border problem. Most Mexicans who sneak into the U.S.A., or overstay their legal visitation status do so because they are economically deprived. They are largely undereducated folks trying to feed their families. Also, the vast majority of illegal aliens do not -- do not commit crimes while on American soil, apart from their immigration offenses.
But there are very big problems stemming from Mexican illegal immigration and the stats tell the truth. As we all know, Mexico is the major supplier of illegal drugs into the U.S.A. The drug cartels down there have corrupted the police and many politicians. They are brutal thugs who commit mass murder, torture, and generally shame their nation.
ISIS has nothing on these drug cartels. They are both savage enterprises. The government of Mexico not capable of defeating the drug lords and the government down there rejects direct American intervention. U.S. drug agents, for example, are not allowed to carry firearms in Mexico, thereby putting themselves at great risk assisting Mexican authorities. For decades Mexico City has allowed organized crime to brutalize its own people and Americans as well. Some of the drug organizations have branched out now into people smuggling. Charging money to get desperate migrants across the border. In the process many, perhaps most, migrant women are sexually molested.
And that was the rape situation Donald Trump mentioned. But it's not ordinary Mexicans doing the raping, it's the gangsters. And Trump should have made that clear. The truth is there's little supervision on the Mexican side of the border. Cities like Juarez and Nuevo Laredo literally run by the drug cartels. Border security in Mexico nonexistent and has been for decades. That situation is not going to improve.
So, Trump is correct in saying that only a massive wall will stop the chaos and even then drugs and people will get through although not to the extent they do now. Washington knows all this but has turned away from securing the border ever since President Reagan promised to do that after he signed an immigration amnesty in 1986.
Mr. Reagan did not keep his promise. And every single president since has failed to secure the southern border -- every one.
Now, what about the immigrants themselves? 59 percent of Mexican residents and illegal aliens have less than a high school education. Only 4 percent have a college degree. 68 percent are poor or near poor. 57 percent receive means tested welfare of some kind paid for by the American taxpayer. 56 percent do not have health insurance, many of those receiving Obamacare subsidies.
So Trump's analysis is correct. The majority of Mexicans coming from the U.S.A. are not achievers in the economic sense. To be fair, that was the case with the Irish, Italian, and European immigration waves of the past. Hard working people coming here to try to improve themselves.
But, here is the dangerous part now. According to government statistics, 71 percent of non-American citizens in federal prisons are from Mexico, Columbian nationals second just 4 percent. Mexican criminals represent a whopping 16 percent of all convicts serving time in federal penitentiaries. That's a huge burden on the American taxpayer and a dangerous situation for we, the people.
Like 32-year-old Kate Steinle. Last Wednesday, Kate was walking with her father in San Francisco enjoying the evening when she was shot dead on the street for absolutely no reason at all. Police say 45-year-old Francisco Lopez Sanchez an illegal alien from Mexico murdered Kate. Apparently Sanchez has seven felony convictions, has been deported five times. Yet, he is still walking around the streets of San Francisco, this guy.
That's because Mayor Ed Lee and the 11 members of the San Francisco city supervisors refuse to cooperate with the federal government on criminal aliens. The feds asked the city of San Francisco to keep Sanchez in custody. The city refused. Miss Steinle paid for that irresponsible and unconstitutional decision with her life.
San Francisco is a sanctuary city and proud of it. And violent crimes committed by criminal aliens have happened there before. City authorities refuse to say how many because they know it's a huge scandal, a black mark on the history of San Francisco -- the most tolerant of cities.
The family of Kate Steinle asking for calm, not vengeance. But "Talking Points" is not as charitable.
In 1996, president bill Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act which stipulated that local and state authorities were to cooperate with the feds in apprehending illegal aliens, especially criminals.
In 2007, then Mayor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order stating that as a sanctuary city San Francisco would not, would not cooperate with federal authorities on illegal immigration matters and would protect even criminal aliens. The feds did nothing.
In 2010, the Obama administration open lid -- openly said it would not punish cities that refused to obey the 1996 immigration law.
So here's the deal. Here's the deal. The mayor and city supervisors of San Francisco are directly responsible for the murder of Kate Steinle and the Obama administration is complicit. Attorney General Loretta Lynch could order the FBI today to arrest Mayor Lee and the supervisors for violating federal law. She is within her authority to do that.
I know that's not going to happen because racial politics drives the law these days which is why Trump caught so much hell. The constitution demands that the federal government protect Americans from foreign intruders, demands it. Obviously that responsibility is not being met. And if you point that out as Trump did, you're a racist, a pinata for the open border crowd to bash.
The fact that a felon could be deported five times and still be walking around San Francisco should shame Congress, shame it. Where is a law that says if you are deported one time and come back, you serve five years in prison? Where is that law? Congress should pass it. And if President Obama doesn't sign it, everything will be on the table. It will be on him.
That legislation should be called the Kate law. Much like Jessica's law. So who will sponsor this? Who will sponsor the new law? Who will do it? Please let me know directly. We are looking for some legislators in Washington who have courage. Are you out there? Are you out there?
"Talking Points" is disgusted with the cowardice of our elected officials from the crazy left San Francisco people to the President to the Congress. Most of them are rich folks who could not care less about the violence and chaos, out-of-control criminal activity south of the border is creating in this country. If Mexico does not crack down hard on border intrusions and drug trafficking, we should punish them economically, punish them -- period.
This entire disaster has been going on for far too long. The excuse that America is at fault because we use drugs and secure our side of the border is valid. We are at fault. That does not excuse Mexico's rampant corruption and abuse of its own people. Drug and people smuggling injure millions and cost lives. It's the dirtiest of crimes.
Finally the poor people sneaking in here to paint your house are not the problem. They're not the problem. The cowardly politicians who will not uphold the law and the constitution are the problem. That's what Donald Trump should have said.
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi has defended his office's decision to release a Mexican man who was in the U.S. illegally and who is now suspected in the killing of a woman at a sightseeing pier.
Mirkarimi said that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency should earlier have issued an arrest warrant for Francisco Sanchez.
"ICE knew that he had been deported five times," Mirkarimi said. "You would have thought he met a threshold that he required a court order or a warrant. They did not do that."
Prosecutors on Monday charged Sanchez with murder in the death of Kathryn Steinle, who was shot and killed last Wednesday as she and her father took a walk on the popular Pier 14.
Steinle's killing has brought criticism down on this liberal city because Sanchez had been deported repeatedly and was out on the streets after San Francisco officials disregarded a request from immigration authorities to keep him locked up.
San Francisco is one of dozens of cities and counties across the country that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The city goes so far as to promote itself as a "sanctuary" for people in the country illegally.
In a jailhouse interview with a TV station, Sanchez, a 45-year-old repeat drug offender, appeared to confirm that he came to the city because of its status as a sanctuary.
The case has prompted a flurry of criticism from ICE officials, politicians and commenters on social media, all of whom portrayed the slaying as a preventable tragedy.
"Most of the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of the San Francisco sheriff, because his department had custody of him and made the choice to let him go without notifying ICE," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, which wants tougher immigration enforcement.
