Sanctuary Cities and Judicial Madness

Judge blocks Trump's effort to end sanctuary cities -- the day after a border patrol agent is bludgeoned to death.

On Sunday, November 19, 2017 two United States Border Patrol agents were attacked and one of the agents, identified as 36 year-old Rogelio Martinez, died of massive injuries to his head and body, possibly caused by rocks.  His partner, who has not yet been identified, was grievously injured but is expected to survive.

On November 20th CBS News and the Associated Press jointly reported on the attack which reportedly occurred about 110 miles southeast of El Paso Texas and 30 miles from the U.S. / Mexican border.

El Paso is directly across the U.S./Mexican border from Ciudad Juarez, one of the most violent cities in Mexico and has become synonymous with the deadly drug trade.

Meanwhile even as news reports about the deadly attack on members of the United States Border Patrol were being made public, on November 20, 2017 San Diego-Union Tribune reported, “Judge permanently blocks Trump order that cut funding to sanctuary cities.”

That disheartening and infuriating report began with this excerpt:

A federal judge has permanently blocked President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued the ruling on Monday in lawsuits brought by two California counties, San Francisco and Santa Clara. Orrick said Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.

There is a clear nexus to these two events that has not been covered in the news.

Border Patrol Agent Rogelio Martinez was killed because he and his seriously injured partner were performing their sworn duties, protecting America and Americans by securing our dangerous border.

The individuals who attacked those valiant agents escaped and, for all we know, are presently hiding out in a city in the United States.  It is likely that they would feel most secure in a Sanctuary City that will happily ignore that they are illegally present in the United States. 

If, indeed the this the case, that city is harboring dangerous fugitives who have already demonstrated depraved contempt for human life and the laws of our nation.

Providing fugitives with sanctuary is a violation of law and constitutes a contradiction in terms, logic and morality and places others in that community at risk.

Our immigration laws deem harboring and shielding illegal aliens from detection and related crimes to be felonies.  The statute of relevance to these crimes is Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses.

Consider this excerpt from that statute:

Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(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.

Encouraging/Inducing -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who -- encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

Illegal entry of aliens into the United States poses a direct threat to national security and public safety.  The preface of the official report,  “9/11 and Terrorist Travel - Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” begins with the following paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal.

Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

Immigration anarchists have come to use deceptive language to obfuscate the truth about America’s borders and immigration laws.

Aliens who evade the inspection process conducted at ports of entry conducted by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) Inspectors are not vetted and their very presence in the United States is unknown to the DHS. 

Such unlawful entries are properly described as Entry Without Inspection (EWI).  However, in a turn of language that could have been produced by the fictional “Ministry of Truth” of George Orwell’s “1984,” immigration anarchists refer to such violations of our borders as “entering undocumented.”

This example of semantic artifice is as outrageous as it would be to describe a bank robber making an “undocumented withdrawal” of money from the bank that he robbed.

The terms “Sanctuary City” or “Sanctuary  State” provide an additional example of manipulation of language to achieve political objectives. 

Dictionaries define a “sanctuary” as a place of refuge or safety.

Sanctuary Cities should be referred to as “Magnets for criminals, fugitives and terrorists.”

America’s immigration laws were enacted to provide refuge and safety for all who live in the United States by preventing the entry of aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable diseases, suffer extreme mental illness are criminals, terrorists, spies, fugitives, members of violent gangs or otherwise pose a threat to national security and/or public safety.

Finally, our immigration laws were enacted to protect American workers from unfair competition foreign workers.

Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded and serve as the guide for CBP Inspectors at ports of entry.  A review of that statute, which is comprehended within the Immigration and Nationality Act, will verify the foregoing.

Aliens who are lawfully admitted, either as immigrants or non-immigrants need no protection from immigration law enforcement authorities.  Indeed, annually immigration officers admit approximately one million lawful immigrants and admit tens of millions of non-immigrants (temporary visitors).  Our immigration officials naturalize hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year bestowing upon them the highest honor a nation may provide to an alien, citizenship.

America’s immigration laws are utterly and totally blind as to the superficial issues of race, religion and/or ethnicity.

Furthermore, illegal entry is considered a continuing offense.  Generally when an individual commits a crime, the venue where the crime must be prosecuted is determined by the jurisdiction where the crime was committed.  This is the case for violations of laws on the local, state or federal level.  When a bank robber flees from the jurisdiction where the bank he/she robbed is located, that individual must be returned to the jurisdiction in which the robbery took place.

However, where illegal entry into the United States is concerned, the venue for prosecuting the crime is “where found.”  This is because this violation of law is a continuing offense.  An alien who runs our nation’s borders does not somehow gain lawful status by getting further from the border.

As I noted in a recent article, Sanctuary Cities Betray America, Americans and Immigrants, there is no “inverse square law” where this crime is concerned.

Immigration anarchists frequently (falsely claim) running the border is not a crime.  In fact, aliens who have been convicted of committing serious crimes and have been previously deported may face up to 20 years in prison for unlawful reentry as established in Title 8 U.S.C. 1326.

Finally, one of the key issues identified in the 9/11 Commission Report and the report 9/11 and Terrorist Travel from which I quoted earlier, was the need for effective immigration law enforcement from within the interior of the United States.

Consider this unambiguous quote from 9/11 and Terrorist Travel:

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

Judge Orrick needs to read the 9/11 Commission Report and the United States Constitution, especially Article IV, Section 4 which states:

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Invasion has been defined in part as:

            An incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity:

            An unwelcome intrusion into another's domain

The oath of office taken by law enforcement officers, judges and other officials make it clear that our Constitution and our laws must all be enforced.  Our laws are not a menu from which those who take an oath of office can pick or choose as one might when ordering food in a restaurant.

Share