IF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WON’T ENFORCE FEDERAL STANDARDS — WHY SHOULD CALIFORNIA ABIDE BY FEDERAL LAWS?
California despite all the talk — isn’t able to actually protect Undocumented Immigrants and actual Citizens whose only crime is that they look Latino. What if there was a way to change that.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT BE TRUSTED TO ENFORCE FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR CITIZENS:
US citizens have been detained by Federal officials without trial for weeks or months, even after they were able to prove they were citizens. Some have been deported also. Some are simply denied the rights that come with being a citizen such as being issued a pass port. This has gone on since at least 2011, and has happened under both the Democratic Obama and the Republican Trump periods.
Children have been separated from their parents by the thousands and forced to live in cages. This again happened during both the Obama and Trump periods. Children as young as 4 ,14 and 15 years of age, have been harassed and held by Federal agents, and deported even though they were citizens and this happened in 2011 to 2014 (years before anyone heard of Trump and the word President in the same sentence). Being a citizen — if you look Latino — has meant that you have no rights according to the Federal government for close to the last decade.
That mean seem an exaggeration — but I encourage you to look at the references and see for yourself. If DHS or the Border Guards think you are undocumented, they can pretty much hold you for as long as they want and deny you basic rights such as access to clear showers, enough food to survive, and access to passports.
The highest court in America recently said the Federal government can hold undocumented people for almost indefinitely. “The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government’s authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime — potentially even years — after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.”
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN’T BE TRUSTED TO ENFORCE ITS OWN STANDARDS FOR UNDOCUMENTED PEOPLE
Recently multiple Undocumented immigrant children died while in Federal detention centers. Lawyers who visited the facilities found the children without toothbrushes, or clean conditions, living in filth, and sleep deprived. The situation was bad enough that the California government had to sue the Federal government to uphold a federal standard for how people can be held in detention facilities. A decision came later that found that the Federal had in fact violated its own standards for how to treat people in detention facilities.
“The ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Fransisco hands a loss to the Trump administration, which had challenged a lower court decision two years ago ordering U.S. officials to provide basic personal hygiene items as well as adequate sleeping conditions, temperatures and food and water to children in detention at facilities in the Rio Grande Valley. The appeals court’s ruling essentially backs the two-decade old Flores agreement, which mandates key aspects of how immigrant children can be held by authorities…”
CALIFORNIA RECENTLY HAS TAKEN THE STANCE THAT WHERE FEDERAL AGENCIES FAIL TO HOLD UP STANDARDS — CALIFORNIA BY ITSELF WILL HOLD UP THOSE STANDARDS:
Recently Sacramento has felt that the Federal government should (a) ensure Federal environmental regulations stay consistent, (b) require Presidential candidates to provide tax returns for the last five years, and (C ) require technology businesses to respect data privacy. The CA government did not ask the Federal government to do these things. The moment politicians in Sacramento were worried the Federal government would not uphold standards it felt they should — the California government wrote laws that directed California to uphold what should be Federal standards.
“SB 1 — the California Environmental, Public Health, and Workers Defense Act of 2019. The bill would protect California’s environment from efforts by the Trump administration to derail environmental progress. At its core, this new bill makes sure that protections in existence prior to January 19, 2017 under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act are not weakened, and gives California state agencies the authority to enforce these protections under state law.”
“SB 27, by Senator Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), requires a candidate for U.S. President or California Governor to file copies of every income tax return filed with the Internal Revenue Service in the five most recent taxable years with the Secretary of State.” “These are extraordinary times and states have a legal and moral duty to do everything in their power to ensure leaders seeking the highest offices meet minimal standards, and to restore public confidence.”
AB-375, “California privacy law sets national agenda as federal talks fizzle”
If California is willing to create its own laws to enforce what it feels should be standards at the Federal level for everything on data privacy to federal elections to federal water standards — then why can’t it adopt the same preference for Federal immigration standards?
Especially when a majority of California said they were okay with doing this. In 2017 — “Sixty-five percent of California adults say the state and local governments should pursue their own policies to protect the rights of undocumented immigrants”.
The fact is that as long as California follows Federal leadership on immigration — its citizens who look Latino will continue to be harassed, held in detention without a trial, and have other rights denied to them. This will continue regardless of if Trump is in power or not, since these policies also existed during the 8 years of the Obama period.
The fact is — while California prides itself on supporting Undocumented immigrants in California, (with the California Values act aka the “Sanctuary Cities” law) — it can’t actually protect people from ICE raids. No State official, or State police officer will physically stop a Federal official from raiding a home and yanking out a person they believe to be undocumented and denying them their rights. California has gone out of its way to alert communities of coming ICE raids, and force companies to not cooperate with Federal officials on ICE raids, but it can’t and won’t actually stop Federal police from conducted a raid.
Until this happens California who are full citizens and look Latino and who are actually Undocumented will continue to have their rights denied, be denied basic fair treatment, will be harassed, and will live in fear of any of these things happening to them at anytime.
HOW TO ACTUALLY PROTECT CITIZENS AND UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS OF CALIFORNIA
In 2015, Montana residents grew tired of having Federal agents accidentally shooting or harassing people looking for gun violators and being completely free of any punishment because of Federal immunity. They proposed three times, and had a bill passed three times by their state government, that would (1) require any Federal official to inform the local County Sheriff, and under certain conditions the Attorney General of the state if they wanted to do a raid and to have to get permission before they conducted the raid, (2) if Federal agents conducted the raid without permission, the law made it okay for a local County sheriff to seek out and arrest that Federal official for violating state law.
“Marbut’s “Sheriffs First” bill, which cleared a Montana state Senate committee last week, makes it a crime for a federal agent to take any law-enforcement steps without first getting permission from the county sheriff.” “any FBI agent who tries to arrest a Montanan for a federal crime [without approval by the County] could be arrested — and charged with kidnapping.”
This law would exist in Montana if it was not blocked by the governor of that state there; “Similar laws have been passed three times by the Montana Legislature, and vetoed by the governor each time.”
This may sound illegal — but there is some precedent for this action. In Humbolt County, California, 1973 the county arrested a Federal official for violating state law. In Boundary County, Idaho, 1997, the county attempted to prosecute a Federal agent for violating state law. In Imperial County, California, in 2009, the County attempted to prosecute a Federal official for violating a state law. In Salt Lake City, Utah, 2014 — local police arrested a agent working for a Federal agency for violating state law. California has the most experience with arresting Federal officials for violating state law, and the precedent for this action goes up to 2014, only 5 years ago.
WHAT IF — California took the Montana law (printed below) and changed the wording so it only applied to Undocumented Immigration raids by Federal officials and passed the law. Then whenever a ICE raid happens, it sent police officers out to arrest Federal officers for violating State law. We have already seen that local counties can arrest Federal officials for violating state laws.
Now in each of the cases in Humbolt, Boundary, Imperial Counties and Salt Lake City, the Federal government let the arrest stand, and the Federal official be held in jail, and asked for the case to be transferred from a county court to a Federal court. The county court would always agree. The Federal judge over the case, would take up the case immediately and then declare that the arrest was void because of the Federal supremacy over state law.
WHAT IF — after every ICE raid the county, backed by State law enforcement sent officers to the Federal building asking to arrest those Federal agents who just conducted the raid. What if Counties backed by State law enforcement arrested Federal officials while they were arresting Undocumented immigrants (sort of catching the actor in the act) before they even got back to a Federal building.
WHAT IF — County courts didn’t deny that a case could be moved to a Federal court, but took a really long time, and moved exceptionally slowly to respond to the Federal request, leaving a Federal agent to languish in jail (just like Undocumented immigrants are left in Federal jails for unlimited periods).
According to the fact that in, Boundary, Humbolt AND Imperial Counties and Salt Lake City, local police did arrest Federal officials for violating state law, did hold them in jail and the Federal government NEVER SAID THEY COULD NOT DO THAT ON EACH OCCASION — it does appear that California could legally do everything proposed in the what if scenarios above.
The harassment of Federal officers just trying to do their job would certainly have a strong effect on the motivation of Federal officials down to each officer on conducting ICE raids. The harassment might be strong enough, that the Federal government agrees to abide by the state law, and ask for permission from the County before conducting ICE raids and not conducting them at all without Country and possibly California AG permission.
AT THAT POINT — CALIFORNIA COULD ACTUALLY PROTECT UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS AND CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA WHOSE ONLY CRIME IS THAT THEY LOOK LATINO.
Montana Legislature, 2015, House Bill 274 — — modified for CALIFORNIA
REPRINTED IN FULL
AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT GENERALLY REVISING LAWS REGARDING COOPERATION AND COMMUNICATION BETWEEN FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND COUNTY SHERIFFS; REGULATING ARRESTS, SEARCHES, AND SEIZURES [of undocumented immigrants] BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES; REQUIRING FEDERAL EMPLOYEES TO OBTAIN A COUNTY SHERIFF’S PERMISSION TO ARREST, SEARCH, AND SEIZE [undocumented immigrants] IF REQUIRED BY THE SHERIFF; PROVIDING EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR PROSECUTION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FOR VIOLATIONS IN CERTAIN CASES; REJECTING FEDERAL LAWS PURPORTING TO GIVE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES THE AUTHORITY OF A COUNTY SHERIFF; PROVIDING THAT THE COUNTY SHERIFF IS THE CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OF THE COUNTY;
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Section 1. Legislative findings. The legislature finds and declares that:
(1) the supremacy clause of the United States constitution provides that federal laws are only supreme if the laws are made in pursuance of the enumerated powers delegated to congress through the United States constitution;
(2) in the dual sovereignty of federalism, the states have always retained the powers referred to as “police powers” ;
(3) federal laws that purport to give federal employees unrestricted and supreme police powers in this state are not laws made consistent with or in pursuance of the United States constitution; and
(4) the United States court of appeals for the ninth circuit has held that federal employees are not exempt from accountability under state criminal laws because a federal officer claims qualified immunity, because a federal employee is following orders, or because a federal employee is acting in the employee’s official capacity.
Section 2. Purpose. It is the intent of the legislature to:
(1) ensure maximum cooperation between federal employees and local law enforcement authorities;
(2) ensure that federal employees who carry out arrests, searches, and seizures [of undocumented immigrants] in this state receive the best local knowledge and expertise available; and
(3) prevent misadventure affecting California citizens and their rights that results from lack of cooperation or communication between federal employees operating in California and local law enforcement authorities.
Section 3. County sheriff’s permission for federal arrests, searches, and seizures — exceptions.
(1) A federal employee who is not designated by CALIFORNIA law as a CALIFORNIA peace officer may not make an arrest, search, or seizure in this state without the written permission of the sheriff or designee of the sheriff of the county in which the arrest, search, or seizure will occur unless:
(a) the arrest, search, or seizure will take place on a federal enclave for which jurisdiction has been actively ceded to the United States of America by a CALIFORNIA statute;
(b) the federal employee witnesses the commission of a crime the nature of which requires an immediate arrest;
© the arrest, search, or seizure is under the provisions of 46–6–411 or 46–6–412;
(d) the intended subject of the arrest, search, or seizure is an employee of the sheriff’s office or is an elected county or state officer; or
(e) the federal employee has probable cause to believe that the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure has close connections with the sheriff that are likely to result in the subject being informed of the impending arrest, search, or seizure; OR
(F) THE SHERIFF HAS NOT INVOKED THE AUTHORITY OF THIS SECTION PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (6).
(2) The county sheriff or designee of the sheriff may refuse to grant permission for any reason that the sheriff or designee considers sufficient.
(3) A federal employee who desires to exercise an exception under subsection (1)(d) shall obtain the written permission of the California attorney general for the arrest, search, or seizure [of an undocumented immigrant] unless the resulting delay in obtaining the permission would probably cause serious harm to one or more individuals or to a community or would probably allow time for flight of the subject of the arrest, search, or seizure in order to avoid prosecution. The attorney general may refuse to grant permission for any reason that the attorney general considers sufficient.
(4) A federal employee who desires to exercise an exception under subsection (1)(e) shall obtain the written permission of the CALIFORNIA attorney general. The request for permission must include a written statement, under oath, describing the federal employee’s probable cause. The attorney general may refuse to grant permission for any reason that the attorney general considers sufficient.
(5) (a) A permission request to the county sheriff or CALIFORNIA attorney general must contain:
(i) the name of the [undocumented immigrant] subject of the arrest, search, or seizure;
(ii) a clear statement of probable cause for the arrest, search, or seizure or a federal arrest, search, or seizure warrant [of a undocumented immigrant] that contains a clear statement of probable cause;
(iii) a complete statement that particularly describes the place to be searched, the things to be searched for, and the persons or things to be seized;
(iv) a statement of the date and time that the arrest, search, or seizure is to occur; and
(v) the address or location where the intended arrest, search, or seizure will be attempted.
(b) To constitute valid permission, the request may be in letter form, either typed or handwritten, but must be countersigned with the original signature of the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff or by the CALIFORNIA attorney general. The written permission is valid for 48 hours after it is signed. The sheriff or attorney general shall keep a copy of the permission request on file.
(6) (A) AT THE SHERIFF’S DISCRETION, A SHERIFF MAY ELECT NOT TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION OR MAY ELECT TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION FOR ONE OR MORE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES, ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES OF A SPECIFIED FEDERAL AGENCY, OR ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. IF A SHERIFF ELECTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THE SHERIFF MUST PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE AFFECTED FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AS FOLLOWS:
(I) IN PERSON BY VERBAL NOTICE TO THE AFFECTED FEDERAL EMPLOYEE; OR
(II) IN WRITING BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF California.
(B) IF NOTICE IS PROVIDED IN PERSON TO THE AFFECTED FEDERAL EMPLOYEE, THE SHERIFF SHALL FILE THE NOTICE WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISPATCH SERVICE AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE. THE NOTICE IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND CONTINUES UNTIL THE SHERIFF REVOKES THE NOTICE.
© IF NOTICE IS PROVIDED TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF California, THE NOTICE IS EFFECTIVE 1 WEEK AFTER THE NOTICE IS POSTMARKED AND CONTINUES UNTIL THE SHERIFF REVOKES THE NOTICE.
Section 4. Remedies. (1) An arrest, search, or seizure or attempted arrest, search, or seizure [of an undocumented immigrant] in violation of [section 3] is unlawful, and the persons involved MAY be prosecuted by the county attorney for kidnapping if an arrest or attempted arrest occurs, for trespass if a search or attempted search occurs, for theft if a seizure or attempted seizure occurs, and for any applicable homicide offense if loss of life occurred. The persons involved MAY also be charged with any other applicable criminal offense in Title 45.
(2) To the extent possible, the victims’ rights provisions of Title 46 must be extended to the victim or victims by the persons and entities involved in a prosecution.
(3) The county attorney MAY prosecute once a claim of violation of [section 3] has been made by the county sheriff or designee of the sheriff,
Section 5. Invalid federal laws. Pursuant to the 10th amendment to the United States constitution and this state’s compact with the other states, the legislature declares that any federal law purporting to give federal employees the authority of a county sheriff in this state is not recognized by and is specifically rejected by this state and is declared to be invalid in this state.
Section 6. Section 7–32–2121, MCA, is amended to read: “7–32–2121. Duties of sheriff — chief law enforcement officer. The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer of the county in which the sheriff is elected and shall:
(1) preserve the peace;
(2) arrest and take before the nearest magistrate for examination all persons who attempt to commit or have committed a public offense;
(3) prevent and suppress all affrays, breaches of the peace, riots, and insurrections that may come to the sheriff’s knowledge;
(4) perform the duties of a humane officer within the county with reference to the protection of animals;
(5) attend all courts, except municipal, justices’, and city courts, at their respective terms or sessions held within the county and obey their lawful orders and directions;
(6) command the aid of as many inhabitants of the county as are necessary in the execution of the sheriff’s duties;
(7) take charge of and keep the detention center and the inmates in the detention center, unless the detention center is operated by a private party under an agreement entered into under 7–32–2201 or by a detention center administrator or by another local government;
(8) endorse upon all notices and process the year, month, day, hour, and minute of receipt and issue to the person delivering them, on payment of fees, a certificate showing the names of the parties, the title of the paper, and the time of receipt;
(9) serve all process or notices in the manner prescribed by law;
(10) certify in writing upon the process or notices the manner and time of service or, if the sheriff fails to make service, the reasons for this failure, and return the papers without delay;
(11) take charge of and supervise search and rescue units and their officers whenever search and rescue units are called into service; and
(12) perform other duties that are required by law.”
Section 7. Codification instruction. [Sections 1 through 5] are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 44, and the provisions of Title 44 apply to [sections 1 through 5].
Section 8. Severability. If a part of [this act] is invalid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in effect. If a part of [this act] is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.
Section 9. Effective date. [This act] is effective on passage and approval.
-END -
REFERENCES:
“ An 18-year-old U.S. citizen who was detained in federal immigration custody for nearly a month has been released”
“9-year-old Julia Medina was detained by CBP for 32 hours despite her being a U.S. citizen. The agency reportedly had no explanation for why it took 32 hours to confirm her citizenship and release her… If a passport isn’t enough to prove citizenship, it’s not clear what people can do to avoid getting detained by ICE or CBP.”
“Maria Soto was born in 1971 in the Los Angeles County Hospital in California. She has her original birth certificate to prove it. She carefully guards the small, deeply creased and wrinkled document with a dozen other important papers at her home in southern Oregon. And yet the government refuses to give her a passport, telling her that her birth certificate and other documentation she has submitted is “insufficient.”
“Francisco Galicia, 18, says he was held in filthy, overcrowded conditions where he was not allowed to shower for 23 days, forced to sleep on a cement floor and not given enough food.” “he was malnourished, having dropped 26 pounds.”
“A Queens man who was wrongfully detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for two years”
“In an April 2018 investigation, the Los Angeles Times found that ICE had released more than 1,480 people from its custody since 2012 after investigating their citizenship claims.”
“The rate of wrongful detainer issuances in Travis County implies that ICE targeted at least 3,506 U.S. citizens in Texas and 19,873 nationwide with detainers that were subsequently canceled.” “Between 2006 and 2017”
2012 — “The troubling case of a 15-year-old U.S. citizen’s wrongful deportation has raised alarm about what immigration agents have long known is a serious problem: increased enforcement has led to the wrongful detention and deportation of U.S. citizens.”
“Since 2002, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has wrongly identified at least 2,840 United States citizens as possibly eligible for deportation, and at least 214 of them were taken into custody for some period of time, according to ICE records analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.”
2014 — “Immigrant Girl Will Be Deported Because Adoptive Father Missed Deadline While Serving in Afghanistan”
“Lyttle, who was born in North Carolina and suffers from bipolar disorder and cognitive disabilities, was inexplicably referred to ICE in 2008 as an undocumented immigrant from Mexico even though he had never been to Mexico, shared no Mexican heritage, and spoke no Spanish. ICE detained him for 51 days, despite substantial evidence that he is a U.S. citizen.”
“Peter Sean Brown was born in Philadelphia. But when he showed up at a Florida sheriff’s office for violating probation after testing positive for marijuana, he was told he would be detained and flagged for deportation — to the island of Jamaica — based on a request from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Brown spent three weeks in jail in April.”
2011- “Why was 4-year-old American girl deported?”
2011 — “14-year-old US Citizen Mistakenly Deported to South American Country”
1973 — California — “The Humboldt County Grand Jury indicted Mr. Clifton for second‐degree murder and also for involuntary manslaughter.” Federal drug enforcement officer shot Dirk Dickenson in the back, believing he had shot a Federal agent only moments earlier. Dickenson had offered no resistance and no weapon was visible, but the Federal courts ruled the Federal agent was immune from prosecution.
1997 — Idaho — Boundary County attempted to prosecute FBI agent Lon Horiuchi for the death of civilian. “Last week, a sharply divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi could face trial on an involuntary manslaughter charge in the death of Vicki Weaver in the 1992 standoff.”
2009 — California — The District Attorney of Imperial County asked the grand jury to indict ICE agent Cole Dotson for three counts of murder, and/or various lesser offenses. “Imperial County officials, … said federal agents get immunity only if their actions are “necessary and proper” to their duties, and that Dotson’s didn’t qualify.” “Imperial County District Attorney’s office unilaterally issued a complaint charging three counts of felony manslaughter with gross negligence and without malice.” “Dotson was apparently a laggard member of a surveillance team following a suspected meth smuggler. While trying to catch up with his buddies, he drove “his government car at speeds of more than 100 mph, according to the California Highway Patrol. When he went through the stop sign, his speed was estimated at 80 mph. Though the car had lights and sirens, they were not on.”
2014 — Utah — “Byron McDonald, a lieutenant with the Bureau of Indian Affairs Justice Services, was arrested by Salt Lake City Police after he allegedly pointed a gun at an Uber driver on Oct. 20.” “The Department of the Interior, which oversees the Bureau of Indian Affairs, released a statement regarding the incident shortly after saying McDonald had been on official travel at the time of the incident.”
