The ICE storm cometh. President Trump is scheduled to visit California the week of March 12. Trump plans to view prototypes of the border wall while in San Diego. Last week U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions filed a lawsuit against the Sanctuary State of California over three state laws that the feds state obstructs federal immigration law. The media has called the immigration battle between California and the Federal government a showdown akin to a Civil War over polar opposite immigration policies.
Has the South risen again in the form of California?
Did California resurrect the Confederacy with its Sanctuary State policies that appear to defy the Federal Government's sole authority over immigration law? Article 6 of the U.S. and the Supremacy Clause plus the legal doctrine of preemption enshrines and establishes Federal law as the supreme law of the land.
No state can override Washington. The South tried and a Civil War erupted. In 1861 it was North vs. South with Senator Jefferson Davis defying a Republican President Lincoln. In 2018 its the Lefty West and East Coasts led by Ultra Liberal California vs. Sensible America. Instead of Jefferson Davis, it is State Attorney General of California Xavier Becera and Governor Jerry Brown legally challenging a Republican President Trump and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
"The more things change, the more they stay the same." So true.
The Golden State these days seems to be more impoverished than rich with gold compared to its days as the land of the Gold Rush. A McKinsey Report released in early 2018 identified California as having one of the worst standards of living in the nation. In addition, the San Francisco Chronicle published an article around the same time that the Bay Area had the worst commute in the U.S.
Why did California seem to go from rags to riches? Some say it's the legacy of liberal policies which include sanctuary laws.
Speaking of Trump's trip to San Diego to preview border wall prototypes, the most recent immigration news from that city is the viral video of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers arresting a mother named Perla Morales-Luna on March 3. Morales-Luna was with her three daughters when CBP took her into custody as her children cried. In response, the video has sparked outrage by the liberal media and members of the general public. Critics are "outraged" at the "cruelty" of CBP.
On the surface it looks like Morales-Luna was yanked off the street by CBP and forcefully dragged from her children. The video suggests she was apprehended simply for being illegally in the country. However, the evidence according to CBP presents a different story.
CBP states that Morales-Luna was involved in a human smuggling operation. The agency also states she has a prior arrest on record. Morales-Luna was identified by CBP as an individual who recruited drivers to transport people into the U.S. illegally. Such activity constitutes human smuggling. Furthermore, CBP alleges that Morales-Luna was offered the chance to turn herself in during telephone conversations with her, but she refused. Her refusals were a form of conduct defined by the law as "WILLFUL defiance."
Yes. 10 million viewers of the video reacted to only part of the story. CBP responded to the public criticism with a statement that included:
"Morales-Luna declined to turn herself in after being contacted by phone in the smuggling investigation, and that she tried to flee in a nearby vehicle when agents confronted her on the street."
Every action has a consequence. In this case, CBP went and arrested her since she would not come in willingly. Not only was she a fugitive, she was also an illegal alien engaging in criminal activity and human rights violations. Morales-Luna had no right to reside in the country. On the day CBP took her into custody she was on her way to pay rent. Not only was Morales-Luna presence here unlawful, she was actively breaking the law.
So who are the real villains here? Is the "victim" actually the predator, not prey? Could the CBP officers who took Morales-Luna into custody actually be the heroes? Detaining a criminal who facilitated human smuggling prevents more human rights violations from happening. Although Morales-Luna was not charged with smuggling she has been transferred to ICE and is in deportation proceedings. An immigration judge will decide whether Morales-Luna is to be deported.
If CBP, DHS, and ICE were really wanting to round up everyone illegally in the U.S. they would stationed outside every Home Depot in America. There is a distinction between innocent economic migrants without papers versus illegal aliens who are convicted criminals or engaged in criminal activity proven by hard evidence. Morales-Luna was "targeted" because she was an illegal alien in the U.S. engaged in criminal acts involving human smuggling. Remember, she was the one identified by CBP as a violator of human rights.
CBP, DHS, and ICE are federal law enforcement agencies whose mandate includes combating human smuggling and trafficking. Morales-Luna was allegedly engaged in this form of criminal activity. CBP was acting in their jurisdiction when they arrested her.
Here is the statement from CBP in San Diego:
"Perla Morales-Luna was identified as a human smuggling facilitator who recruited drivers to transport illegal aliens from a remote border area in Eastern San Diego County to a stash house in National City as part of a larger transnational criminal organization. Other individuals associated with this criminal organization were arrested shortly after a smuggling event transpired in January of 2018 near Boulevard, California. Ms. Morales-Luna eluded arrest at that time, and despite direct phone conversations between her and U.S. Border Patrol agents, she refused to self-surrender to authorities. Due to her unwillingness to self-surrender and the fact that she was an illegal alien present in the United States she was deemed a flight risk and a targeted enforcement operation was approved for her arrest.
During the arrest on March 3, 2018, Ms. Morales-Luna refused to comply with the agents’ commands and physically resisted while attempting to abscond into a nearby vehicle. The video clearly shows the arresting agents carried out their duties appropriately, even when faced with a barrage of insults and confrontational agitators."
Ms. Morales-Luna was the only subject of this operation. Therefore, once she was in custody, agents immediately departed the area. The arresting agents ensured that Ms. Morales-Luna was able to arrange for her sister to take custody of her three children.
The United States Border Patrol is committed to dismantling transnational criminal organizations who profit from cross-border smuggling of humans, dangerous narcotics, weapons and other illicit contraband. Anyone that the U.S. Border Patrol can identify as part of these criminal organizations will be arrested and presented to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for prosecution. In the case of an illegal alien, they may be processed for removal from the United States in lieu of prosecution.
Ms. Morales-Luna has been processed for removal, issued a Notice to Appear and transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement Removal Operations. She will have a hearing before an Immigration Judge who will make the final decision in this case.
The DHS defines human trafficking as "a crime and a form of modern-day slavery involving the exploitation of children and adults."
According to the DHS website, their "Blue Campaign" is "the unified voice for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to combat human trafficking. Working in collaboration with law enforcement, government, non-governmental and private organizations, the Blue Campaign strives to protect the basic right of freedom and to bring those who exploit human lives to justice."
The last time a state or group of states defied the federal government on slavery the Civil War broke out. Is California the new Confederacy? Actions speak louder than words. In a way, the lawsuit filed against California by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions looks like a Civil War already being fought through court litigation and legislation.
California crying foul when the Feds enforce the law seems to suggest that the state wants lawlessness and to live up to the old nickname for San Francisco: the Barbary Coast.
Per Wikipedia: "The Barbary Coast was a red-light district during the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries in San Francisco which featured dance halls, concert saloons, bars, jazz clubs, variety shows, and brothels.
The Barbary Coast was born during the California Gold Rush of 1849, when the population of San Francisco was growing at an exponential rate due to the rapid influx of tens of thousands of miners trying to find gold. The early decades of the Barbary Coast would be marred by persistent lawlessness, gambling, administrative graft, vigilante justice, and prostitution."
Modern day San Francisco and the rest of California has drawn the ire of the Feds for its current version of political behavior "marred by persistent lawlessness and administrative graft."
No wonder sensible Californians are saying "California Here I Go," just like "the way of a now extinct Dodo" by fleeing in exodus for their own form of sanctuary from the senseless left coast's brazen disregard for the U.S. Constitution and Law and Order.
For more on the biased reporting about CBP's arrest of the San Diego mother, read this op-ed in the Washington Examiner.