Los Angeles has had 'sanctuary city policies' for years - what is their reason for passing a new policy?

 

Los Angeles Passes ‘Sanctuary City’ Ordinance In Wake Of Trump’s Deportation Plan 

·  Mariane Angela News Reporter November 19, 2024 dailycaller.com

The Los Angeles City Council approved an ordinance Tuesday designating the city as a “sanctuary city” following President-elect Donald Trump’s mass deportation plan.

This measure prevents the use of local resources for immigration enforcement and prohibits city agencies from sharing information about undocumented residents with federal immigration authorities, according to The Associated Press. The council voted unanimously, aligning Los Angeles with numerous cities across the U.S. that have adopted similar policies.

The ordinance will undergo a second council vote for procedural reasons as Mayor Karen Bass, who has expressed support for the initiative, holds veto power but is unlikely to use it, AP reported. Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martinez pointed out the city’s firm stance against cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“We’re going to send a very clear message that the city of Los Angeles will not cooperate with ICE in any way,” Soto-Martinez said. “We want people to feel protected and be able to have faith in their government and that women can report domestic violence crimes.” (RELATED: Mass Deportations, Cracking Down On Sanctuary Cities And More: Here’s What Trump Has In Store For Immigration)

Soto-Martinez also noted that many immigrants without legal status are integral to the community, working in roles such as housekeepers, nannies, and cooks, AP reported. While the ordinance highlights the city’s values, critics argue that Los Angeles already refrains from cooperating with federal immigration agencies, suggesting the policy may not bring significant operational changes.

Trump announced that former acting ICE Director Tom Homan will take on the role of border czar in his upcoming administration. Homan will oversee border operations, including deportations, security at land and sea entry points, and aviation safety measures.

Trump revealed Monday that he plans to declare a national emergency and deploy military resources to execute his mass deportation agenda. He confirmed reports from Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, who claimed the administration is ready to use emergency powers to address what he called the “Biden invasion.”

 

There is a new Sheriff in town; Tom Homan is a wise excellent choice.

 

Tom Homan Puts Democrats on Notice, Warns Not to 'Cross That Line' as Trump Team Plans to Deal with Border Crisis

 By Samantha Chang  November 19, 2024 www.westernjournal.com 

(Click title URL to view numerous tweets) 

Tom Homan, President-elect Donald Trump’s “border czar” nominee, threw down the gauntlet to Democrats who plan to defy Trump’s mass deportation of illegal aliens, underscoring that to do so is a federal crime.

Homan, who previously served as acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during Trump‘s first term, said left-wing mayors of “sanctuary cities” who resist deportation operations will regret it.

He issued the warning while reacting to Democratic Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, who said Sunday that her city won’t cooperate with the mass deportations even though Boston has been roiled by criminal illegal aliens wreaking havoc on the streets.

“Well, she’s not very smart, I’ll give her that. Because what I just said is that President Trump is going to prioritize public safety threats,” Homan told Newsmax on Monday.

“What mayor or governor doesn’t want public safety threats out of their communities?”

Homan pointed out that the No. 1 responsibility of mayors and governors is to protect their communities, and “that’s exactly what we’re going to do. So either [Wu] helps us or she gets the hell out of the way, because we’re going to do it.”

In blasting Wu’s harebrained promise to harbor illegal migrants, Homan noted that she’d violate federal laws that were originally passed in 1952.

Do you like Tom Homan?

Top of Form

Yes No

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge via email. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Bottom of Form

“There’s a clear line here, and they can’t cross a clear line,”the incoming border czar warned. “I would suggest she read Title 8, United States Code 1324 (iii) that says you can’t harbor or conceal an illegal alien from federal law enforcement.”

“There are certain laws in place that they can’t cross, and I hope she doesn’t cross it,” Homan reiterated.

Title 8, United States Code 1324 (iii) “makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law — conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.”

Related:

Texas Gifts Trump a Post-Election Prize That Will Kick-Start Monumental Deportation Effort

The penalty for violating Title 8, United States Code 1324 is five to 10 years in jail.

The death penalty could also be imposed if an innocent person is killed by an illegal alien who was roaming the streets because a dopey left-wing mayor or governor enabled it.

“Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years,” the statute states.

Tom Homan has made it clear that he’s serious about mass-deporting illegal migrants who are draining public resources, endangering public safety and compromising national security.

There’s going to be a new sheriff in town — and all the criminals and their enablers have been put on notice.

As the saying goes, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.”

 

An important news article to explain one of our Nation's most pressing problems.

 

Getting the States In Line on Immigration Enforcement

By John M. Grondelski www.americanthinker.com

In the wake of the Democratic wipeout November 5 and the tapping of Tom Homan as President Trump’s “border czar,” Democratic governors are busy trying to build a new “blue wall” to shield illegal aliens from promised immigration law enforcement. “Governors Safeguarding Democracy” is a new organization designed to stymie Trump initiatives in blue states. New Jersey governor Phil Murphy pledges to stand up “if there is an attack on the Garden State or any of its communities from Washington,” pledging “I will fight back with every fiber of my being.”

What does Phil Murphy envision? Donald Trump in a rowboat, flag in hand, crossing the Delaware on Christmas Night to attack Trenton? Given the outfit now holding the state capital, this New Jerseyan thinks that wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (co-founder with Colorado’s Jared Polis of “Governors Safeguarding Democracy) promises to block federal interference in the Land of Lincoln. While I have no doubt a J.B. Pritzker body block would be formidable, I think we can circumvent him.

These Democrats are channeling their inner George Wallace, promising to resist federal encroachment on their “state’s rights.” Consider the paradox: Democrats finally found the Tenth Amendment.

Except news flash to J.B., Phil, Kathy, Gavin, Gretchen, Maureen, Jared, and Ned: immigration is a federal priority.

That was your argument when Republican governors in Texas and Arizona tried to fill the vacuum caused by Obama and Biden non-enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Now that President-Elect Trump is committed to seeing the INA is “well and faithfully executed” -- as the Presidential Oath of Office requires -- just step aside.

Now, I never believed the argument that federal immigration jurisdiction preempted state cooperation with federal authorities. It only preempts, in my view, undermining federal enforcement, certainly actively but even passively.

One way “sanctuary” states and cities have refused to enforce federal immigration law has been how they handle criminals. Verifying whether people who are arrested have a right to be here should be a no-brainer. When we look at how most Blue States are governed, “no-brainer” seems about an apt description.

“Sanctuary” states do not verify immigration status and do not honor “retainers,” i.e., requests by federal law enforcement to hold someone otherwise to be released, when federal immigration is interested in them. This should stop.

Liberals used to claim the immigration system is flawed because employers do not verify employment eligibility and, therefore, Republican corporate types were as much to blame for illegal immigration as Democrats. There’s something to that argument, which simply means we should enhance the penalties for failing to verify employment eligibility status and/or hiring in violation of ineligibility. (Of course, most leftists have moved beyond “employers aren’t vetting illegals” to “no matter what, our economy will tank without them regardless of eligibility”).

That also means we need to break down some of the federal siloes that result in Social Security and other agencies not robustly interacting to track down fake users of Social Security numbers or verifying mismatched numbers and names.

All that said, however, if we expect employers to verify the right of somebody to work here, it’s legitimate to expect law enforcement – any law enforcement – to verify whether somebody in custody has a right to be here.

It is simply ludicrous to contend “it’s not my job.” If you detain a man who’s wanted in the next state for rape, you don’t say, “well, he didn’t do it in Illinois, so, good luck, be well, you might want to avoid Indiana.” If you hold a man in California, run his name, and discover he’s wanted in Arizona for “breaking and entering,” you don’t say (well, it’s California, you might): “You’re free to go, just don’t book any flights to Tucson.” If you can be extradited for breaking and entering a house, why are you immune for breaking and entering America’s house?

How to solve the “Blue Wall?” I suggest combined regulations and law changes. Require states to run immigration status, notwithstanding any state rules. Try it as a regulation: the worse that can happen is dragging through the courts.

Obviously, the best thing is to make it federal law. While at it, let’s adopt the Frank Lautenberg approach, used to strongarm recalcitrant states into increasing their drinking age. Any state that fails to enforce federal immigration law, at least with regard to detainees (and possibly if requested in conjunction with raids on illegals) should forfeit, say, 25% of federal law enforcement assistance money. Why should America’s taxpayers be paying full aid to states that don’t provide full legal enforcement aid?

“This will spike crime,” you say. Well, yes, it might. And perhaps that is the unfortunate cost of forcing otherwise myopic blue cities and states -- which are often leaders in crime statistics anyway -- to reckon with the costs of selective law enforcement. Either locals will pay more for law enforcement or they will face the consequences – and wake up to the consequences of retrograde criminal justice policies which subsidies from more responsible states are buffering.

It’s tough love… but that’s what’s needed to reverse our downward spiral and make America great again.

 

The horrific consequences of the silent invasion of illegal aliens has life changing effects.

 

Laken Riley's accused killer got a free 'humanitarian' flight to Georgia

By Monica Showalter www.americanthinker.com

The details of the trial of Georgia nursing student Laken Riley, who was murdered while on a campus jog, allegedly by an illegal alien, just keep getting worse and worse.

Officials have already disclosed that the accused, Jose Ibarra, an illegal from Venezuela, was a Tren de Aragua member, which is the same criminal crew that took over a string of apartment complexes in Colorado. His brother, who's also in the states, has already been identified as a member of the same gang.

Now we learn that Ibarra got the royal treatment as an illegal in New York -- free housing, meals, medical care, and the works, along with a free flight to his destination of choice. 

According to Shore News Network:

In September 2023, Ibarra and his roommate reportedly stayed at New York City’s Roosevelt Hotel, which had been repurposed as a humanitarian center for asylum seekers. During their stay, they requested a “humanitarian flight” to Atlanta, Georgia. Such flights are typically organized by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to assist migrants in reaching destinations where they have support networks. While these flights are often funded by NGOs, they may receive government support or coordination.

He chose Georgia, where he apparently went out to try to kill people, not just young Laken, a college nursing student, but at least one other innocent woman, too. He got he wanted in killing Laken, and the barbaric violence of her death shocked the courtroom.

His entire journey to Georgia was financed by either NGO industrial complex, which grows rich off government contracts, or else the government itself.

That puts paid to the Biden administration's claims that migrants pay for their own flights -- this one didn't. They blatantly lied.

It also draws attention to the fact that 'humanitarian' is a pretty relative term. Was it humanitarian for Laken Riley that this accused killer got a free flight to her hometown? Was it humanitarian to her grieving family?

The free flights became "humanitarian" flights because someone lobbied for them. None of these illegals-enabling NGOs, let alone the Catholic bishops, the pope, and other clerical scolds, who lecture the public about "welcoming the stranger," have said, or will say, a thing about this humanitarian issue.

Blithely, they ignoring the nation's duty to defend the helpless -- as in Laken Riley. She and the many victims of illegals being allowed in without vetting are mere collateral damage on their grand Utopian let-'em-all-in project.

The killers rolling in are right in front of their faces yet they say nothing. Corner them and they might pay lip service to how lamentable it all is, but it's hard to view any of them as sincere.

Mass border crossings allow every criminal in the world to enter the U.S. illegally and stay here, because they have their fierce protection rackets in the NGOs and among the clerical class. The pope, after all, says that sending back an illegal like Ibarra to his homeland is "grave sin."

They put out these moral distortions because some hate America and want it taken down a peg and others are focused on harvesting and gathering government money.

Hence, the free flights.

It's terrible stuff. Ibarra clearly didn't belong in this country but he was allowed in and allowed to stay after crossing our border illegally. Worse still, he got privileges and emoluments no U.S. citizen gets, such as free flights, and even freedom from having to show photo I.D. to board, as if he were in a privileged class.

And those who defend this setup get away with it because the tissue of lies is so dense from the perpetrators, beneficiaries and leaders of this great wave of global illegal immigration.

They lied about a border crisis, they lied about their "strict vetting" of migrants being allowed in without papers, and they lied about free flights. There's nothing they won't lie about to get what they want.

Meanwhile, Laken Riley lies mangled in her grave, thousands of other victims of murder, robbery, rape, arson and other crimes go largely ignored, while hundreds of thousands of children are dragged in and released into the U.S. as sex slaves or sweatshop labor, some of them actually kidnapped in Mexico itself to serve that purpose (a largely unreported story).

Border czar-designate Thomas Homan was right that the entire open border policy is an inhuman crime with victims all around.

The Laken Riley murder trial discloses the utter moral bankruptcy of the perpetrators of this crime repackaged as a 'humanitarian' obligation.

This November's election was a resounding statement that it's got to stop.