The Counterattack Begins

New York recently passed a law, that allows illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. That’s flat wrong but they’re not alone. But they went further, they forbade DHS access to DMV records. That had repercussions. From Rachel Bovard in American Greatness.

But on Wednesday, DHS issued its first-ever clap back.

In response to New York’s law, DHS will strip New Yorkers out of the federal “trusted traveler” programs which have served to expedite the state’s cross border trade and travel with Canada for over a decade. Instead, New Yorkers and their businesses will have to do it all the old-fashioned way: with passports, long lines, and repeated customs inspections.

There is good reason for DHS to take this step. “We need to do our job,” acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf told Fox News.

It’s About More Than Licenses for Illegals

And it’s true. Though New York state may have intended only to block DHS enforcement against undocumented aliens, refusing to share DMV data cuts off a much broader swath of DHS’s ability to police for basic safety.

Due to the state’s new law, customs officers will no longer be able to see who owns the car they are inspecting or pulling over, ascertain whether or not that person is a citizen, or even be informed of any outstanding criminal warrants. This not only puts the officer at risk, but it also hamstrings his ability to identify and arrest violent criminals or help their victims.

Yep, and if you think it through, probably ¾ or more of American contacts with law enforcement are triggered by access to DMV records.

And so DHS strikes back and all those liberal New Yorkers can pay the price at American Ports of Entry. Hard to feel sorry for them since they wanted to signal their virtue. I’ll bet money it will also have an impact on their ability to obtain a security clearance. Throwing sand in the gearbox appears to have repercussions.

Paul Goldberg writing in News Thud tells us that isn’t all, either.

AOC and Ilhan Omar will not be happy. Barr is filing lawsuits, issuing subpoenas and warning Dems running these programs he is looking into filing criminal charges against them if they continue to defy the law.

“When we are talking about sanctuary cities, we are talking about policies that are designed to allow criminal aliens to escape,” Attorney General William P. Barr said in a speech to the National Sheriff’s Association.

“Their express purpose is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for other crimes. This is neither lawful nor sensible.”

Mr. Barr also warned sanctuaries that he’s ordered his department to review the law and see i9f criminal charges are possible

“This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States,” he said.

“The department is filing a complaint against the State of New Jersey seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against its laws that forbid state and local law enforcement from sharing vital information about criminal aliens with DHS,” Barr said.

“We are filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against King County, Washington, for the policy … that forbids DHS from deporting aliens from the United States using King County International Airport,” Barr continued.

“Further, we are reviewing the practices, policies, and laws of other jurisdictions across the country.  This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States,” Barr added, before saying the DOJ would start issuing “federal subpoenas to access information about criminal aliens in the custody of uncooperative jurisdictions.”

Time and past time. But better late than never. Why it’s almost like he believes in the rule of law or something.  Now, Mr. Attorney General, this is all well and good (It really is!) but when should we expect indictments in the jihad against the President?

Sanctuary Cities and the ‘Rule of Law’

English: U.S. Sanctuary Cities Map: cities tha...

English: U.S. Sanctuary Cities Map: cities that have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

We have had much to say in the last few years about the “Rule through and under the law”. It is the very basis of why our society works. Without the security of our property, there is no valid reason to build a small business, invest, or in truth do almost any of the things that have made America.  David Harsanyi over at The Federalist had some thoughts the other day, as well.

So let me get this straight: America is thrown into an overwrought political debate about the Confederate battle flag—a relic that has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting in Charleston—but is unwilling to engage in a conversation about the deliberate disregard of federal law that directly leads to the murder of at least one young woman?

That’s basically where we stand. After sending mixed signals, The Hill reports that Democrats will be making a concerted effort to defend San Francisco’s sanctuary laws and killing of Kathryn Steinle along the city’s famous waterfront.  Most Republicans will avoid the matter altogether for the sake of political expediency. Soon enough, I imagine, it’ll be xenophobic to bring it up at all.  One of these conversations, after all, is risk-free, jammed with self-satisfying preening about the right sort of evils. The other, morally complex—especially for the supporters of immigration reform (like myself) [and me, Neo]—and fraught with electoral consequences.

But let’s set aside immigration politics for a moment and consider a detail that’s often lost in this debate: Fact is, some people in America are free to ignore laws they don’t like, while others are not.  Hundreds of jurisdictions nullify federal immigration law, not because they question the constitutionality of law, but because they find those laws ideologically problematic and immoral.  And when I say “some” jurisdictions, I mean entirely liberal ones.

One of my British friends, yesterday, commented to me in an email that they didn’t understand how Hillary Clinton wasn’t in jail, instead of standing for president. I wish I had an answer myself.

Generally speaking, the Tenth Amendment is viewed as an artifact of a regressive time that is only used to advance racism and impede progress. So 1990s! So when Jan Brewer signs an Arizona law requiring police to determine whether a person was in the country legally critics claim it will mean an explosion of racial profiling by the state, and the Obama administration does everything it can to stop it. Immigration law is a federal matter, as you all know.

And when the administration is unsatisfied with Texas and other states enforcing the same federal law, Obama unilaterally, and without any of the oversight from the democratic process he pretends to cherish, exempts undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children from the law. Now, immigration is a matter ofWashington edict, not something for the states or, perhaps, even Congress, to worry about.

But San Francisco, well, it’s the purview of the city council to decide what happens—as long as those decisions comport with long-term liberal goals.

When cities—more than 200 of them—decide to pass their own laws “protecting” illegal immigrants, we are not talking about some calibration or prioritization of “enforcement” levels. The media often use a euphemism about a “lack of cooperation” between cites and DC when, in fact, jurisdictions are simply invalidating federal law. Can you imagine the reaction from the administration if Dallas passed an ordinance allowing local police to free criminals who had broken federal gun laws or hate-crime laws?  Can you imagine what would happen if 200 cities did the same?

Sanctuary Cities Represent The Worst Kind Of Liberal Lawlessness.

It seems to me, that one of the most pernicious effects of this entire thing, not excluding what appears to be the politicization of the Supreme Court, is the very obvious fact that it undermines the respect for the law. So many of us love Who Shot Liberty Valance not least because we have an instinctual knowledge that the rule of the law is preferable to the rule of the gun. Even when the gun is carried by a good man, it is always better to be under the rule of objective law. increasingly, we are not, and because of that very fact, our society is disintegrating, and becoming little more than a well equipped jungle.

When Ransom Stoddard is judicially murdered, we will have to go back to Tom Doniphan. It’s that simple, and that terrible.

%d bloggers like this: