California Politicians Backing Sanctuary Policies Better Lawyer Up

It is not a matter of if but when.  President-Elect Donald Trump’s Department of Justice will almost certainly seek criminal prosecution of California politicians backing various illegal sanctuary laws and policies aimed at protecting illegal immigrants from deportation, and rightly so.

The strategy was kicked off recently with a letter sent to California Governor Gavin Newsom and various sheriffs, police chiefs, district attorneys, mayors and supervisors in sanctuary cities and counties by the America First Legal (AFL) foundation, founded by Stephen Miller.  Miller will soon serve as Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security advisor.  The letter warns that sanctuary laws and policies violate federal immigration law and “subjects those who abide by it to significant risk of criminal and civil liability.”

This comes on the heels of incoming Border Czar Tom Holman’s warning to the same officials: “if you knowingly conceal or harbor an illegal alien from a police officer, it is a felony. To impede a federal law enforcement officer is a felony, so don’t cross that line.” He further warned, “We’ve got a strong AG coming in, Pam Bondi, and we will present these prosecutions, so you know, don’t test us!”

Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ), chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, also stated that he expects Bondi to go after these officials for “obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting criminal cartels.”  

This leaves little doubt the Justice Department will pursue these officials, likely first with a warning letter similar to the AFL letter, then with federal indictments. The last time America saw something like this was during the Civil Rights era when state and local officials in the South refused to follow federal desegregation laws.  It was resolved primarily through federal marshals and troops. 

The size and scope of the migrant crisis is far greater. Thus, the Trump administration must employ an “all of the above” approach, including indictments. As laid out in the AFL letter, federal law is clear that an “official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, [DHS] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status” of an individual. Further, according to the letter, individuals can be held criminally liable for failing to adhere to the law with a penalty of up to five years in prison per alien. 

What may make such cases challenging is the fact that the Biden administration has granted parole to most illegal migrants as they await their asylum hearing years down the road.  Thus, technically, they are presently legally residing in the U.S. However, the AFL letter notes that the federal laws apply “regardless of whether an alien may be considered lawfully present at the time of the conduct, so long as the alien had initially ‘come to’ or ‘entered’ the United States unlawfully,” which these aliens did by illegally crossing the border before requesting asylum. In addition, Trump could implement any number of Executive Orders on day one, changing how the US deals with these illegal immigrants. For instance, he could reinstate the “remain in Mexico” policy, requiring these migrants to return to Mexico, or face deportation, as they await their hearing.

Of course, it was President Joe Biden’s order overturning the remain in Mexico policy which led to the migrant surge. On day one, Biden began allowing migrants to cross anywhere they pleased along our almost 2,000-mile border southern border. They were not required to enter through an official entry point. Cross the desert, the mountains, or the river at the place of your choosing (or, more accurately, at the drug cartel’s choosing). No problem, Biden brought the border patrol to you, and gladly processed you right there.  As a result, according to Customs and Border Patrol (CBD), 1.7 million migrants crossed in Biden’s first year, an over fourfold increase over the prior year.

Biden treated them as refugees seeking asylum, not illegal immigrants as before. That is the hook and the key to Biden’s reckless open border experiment. U.S. immigration law (Title VIII, Section 1158(b)) provides, “To establish that the applicant is a refugee . . .the applicant must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.”

Of course, the vast majority of these migrants are not coming here to escape persecution. They are coming because they are poor, which has never been grounds for asylum. If they were escaping persecution, where are the reports of millions of central and south Americans persecuted because of their race or religion? 

Biden has made a farce of our immigration laws and enforcement. Even his administration acknowledges that the vast majority of the migrants will be denied asylum at their hearing years down the road because they do not qualify. Worse, they acknowledge that for years they have not screened applicants to determine if they “pose a national security or public safety risk from asylum,” as required by law. Only earlier this year did DHS propose a new rule requiring screening of applicants within days of their arrival rather than at their hearing years later. 

This means we have an unknown number of migrants with violent criminal backgrounds and/or terror ties presently in the country. According to CBP, about twelve million migrants have crossed under Biden. A significant percentage likely have criminal records.  Even if it were just one percent that means 120,000 people to be very concerned about.

This is why sanctuary laws are so dangerous. Under the typical California sanctuary law, a person can be stopped, arrested, charged, convicted, serve time, and released (and have it happen all over again) without their immigration status ever being checked!  If it were checked, illegals could be reported to ICE and deported. In addition, ICE could attempt to determine and advise whether the person has a criminal record or is on a terror watch list. Why would local law enforcement not want to communicate with their federal counterparts?

According to LA Mayor Karen Bass, sanctuary laws “make our communities stronger and our city better.”  She does not explain how. The rationale espoused most often is that migrants would be afraid to report crimes if it may subject them to deportation.  But that concern is easily addressed by simply prohibiting officials from checking the immigration status of those who report crimes. Perpetrators of crime, however, should have no such protection.

Officials implementing sanctuary laws are breaking federal law and putting our citizens in danger. It was the CIA’s failure to properly communicate with the FBI that many believe led to the 9/11 high jackers not being caught. It is a virtual certainty that California sanctuary laws will result in violent crimes against its citizens. The Trump Administration intends to protect those citizens. Doing so may require prosecuting the officials putting them at risk.