Wednesday, November 30, 2016


Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to Sanctuary Cities: 

You Will ‘Comply With the Law’

SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Texas Governor Greg Abbott (shown) has said he’ll sign a law banning sanctuary cities in the Lone Star State. In a November 27 reply to an inquiry from a Twitter user who asked whether he would respond to overtures from political candidates who want Travis County to stop cooperating with ICE agents and make Austin a sanctuary city, Abbott tweeted back: “I'm going to sign a law that bans sanctuary cities. Also I’ve already issued an order cutting funding to sanctuary cities.”
Abbott criticized Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez in October 2015 after she said she would no longer comply with immigration hold requests for people accused of minor offenses, saying: “Your decision to not fully honor ICE’s requests to detain criminal immigrants poses a serious danger to Texans. These detainers provide ICE with the critical notice and time it needs to take incarcerated immigrants into federal custody.”
Sanctuary cities essentially are those that refuse to cooperate in enforcing federal immigration law and refuse to hold illegal aliens arrested on minor charges until ICE agents can pick them up. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may issue an immigration detainer to another federal, or to a state or local law-enforcement agency, to inform the agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an individual and to request that the agency notify ICE prior to the time when the individual would otherwise be released. It is this type of cooperation that the sanctuary cities refuse to engage in.
On November 15, Texas State Senator Charles Perry (R-Lubbock) filed a bill (S.B. 4) to end “sanctuary cities” in Texas and force compliance with Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers.
Courthouse News Service (CN) reported on November 18 that S.B. 4 requires local law-enforcement officers to provide notice to a judge or magistrate that an arrested person is in the country illegally if he or she cannot prove a legal right to be in the country within 48 hours.
The law would allow people to file complaints with the Texas attorney general if local authorities carry out sanctuary city policies that discourage enforcement of federal immigration laws.
The attorney general would then have authority to pursue the alleged violations in court, and the local municipality would be denied state grant money for the following year.
Perry explained his bill as follows:
Put simply, sanctuary city policies are any policies that prevent law enforcement from enforcing immigration laws already on the books. This can include, but is not limited to, prohibiting officers from inquiring about immigration status of suspected criminals or ignoring immigration detainers in our corrections system
CN cited Perry’s statement that more than 204,000 criminal aliens were in Texas jails between June 1, 2011 and October 31 this year.
“Of those, 66 percent were identified as being in the U.S. illegally at the time of their last arrest,” Perry said. “These arrests include 1,101 homicide charges, 65,118 assault charges, and 5,745 sexual assault charges.”
The Texas Tribune reported on August 31 that the Democratic candidate for Travis County sheriff, Constable Sally Hernandez, had promised to remove U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, from the county jail. She promised that, if elected, she would not hold illegal-alien inmates for ICE when the federal agency seeks to deport them.
“I just don’t think you solve the criminal justice process by deporting them,” Hernandez told the Texas Tribuneduring an interview in her office during the last week of August. “We talk about being progressive. I believe we need to lead the way.”
Hernandez’ Republican opponent, Joe Martinez, favored cooperating with ICE by holding immigrants the agency wants, as did the current sheriff of Travis County, Democrat Greg Hamilton.
“How can you release somebody back into the population to do more harm? Where is it going to stop? When you hurt or maim and kill somebody? An American citizen or another immigrant? The federal government has a job to do,” the Tribune quote Martinez as saying. “Let’s let them do their job.”
However, Hernandez won the race for Travis County Sheriff, whose jurisdiction includes the city of Austin, by a landslide, winning 60 percent of the vote to Martinez’ 32 percent.
It was probably this event that prompted the individual who tweeted Abbot to ask what he intended to do about Texas cities who declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities.”
The rise of sanctuary cities is a phenomenon that has appeared across the United States, especially in areas dominated by liberal Democratic-controlled city governments. A November 15 AP report noted several mayors who said they will resist President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to increase deportations of illegal aliens and refuse to cooperate in enforcing federal immigration laws. These include New York’s Bill de Blasio, Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel, and Seattle's Ed Murray.
“Seattle has always been a welcoming city,” the report quoted Murray as stating on November 14. “The last thing I want is for us to start turning on our neighbors.”
Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck told the Los Angeles Times that he will stick to a longtime hands-off policy on immigration issues. L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti supports that position, but stopped short of calling L.A. a sanctuary city because he said the term is “ill-defined.”
And, noted AP, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney restored sanctuary status to the city when he took office in January and said last week that the city would “protect” its residents, presumably from federal enforcement measures.
During the presidential campaign, Trump gave a speech in which he promised to “end the sanctuary cities” and said those “that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.” He blamed such policies for “so many needless deaths.”
While Trump’s promise to enforce our nation’s immigration laws is commendable, there is a good chance that most of those taxpayer dollars he threatened to withhold should not have been sent to the states anyway. If Trump aspires to be a constitutionalist president, he will do well to remember the words of James Madison, who has been called the father of our Constitution:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.
An ideal solution to ending sanctuary cities, therefore, might be to forget about granting or withholding federal funds to them, and supporting governors such as Greg Abbott who will do what needs to be done at the state level.
Related articles:


SEE: below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

The “tolerant” Left continues to flail in the weeks following the presidential election. Clinton supporters have already made headlines over their petulant and in some cases violent reactions to the election results, but after their kicking and screaming has failed to make any change, they’ve resorted to bullying and threats. According to, disgruntled individuals and groups have reached out to Electoral College voters not only to persuade them to switch their votes to Hillary Clinton, but also to threaten them with violence if they refuse.
The Electoral College will convene on December 19 so that the electors can cast their votes for Trump or Clinton, and all electors have pledged to vote for the candidate elected by their state.
But Clinton’s supporters are reaching out to the electors in states wherein it is not illegal for electors to change their votes. WND writes, “If Clinton’s supporters can get enough of the 163 electors from states where Trump both won and votes can legally be switched on Dec. 19, Hillary Clinton becomes the next president of the United States.”
In the history of the Electoral College, it is extremely rare for electors to vote against the candidate elected by their state. According to, there have been 157 electors since the founding of the Electoral College who changed their vote, of which 71 were changed because the original candidate died before the Electoral College cast its votes, and three chose to abstain from casting their vote for any candidate. No faithless elector has changed the outcome of an election.
Therefore, Clinton’s supporters are resorting to escalating threats to convince electors to violate their duties to vote for the candidate chosen by the state. According to BuzzFeed, the #NotMyPresident Alliance released the personal information of dozens of Electoral College members in states that went to Trump in an effort to encourage disgruntled people to reach out to and sway the electors.
One such harassed elector is Michael Banerian of Oakland County, Michigan, who told the Detroit News that he has received numerous threatening e-mails demanding that he vote for Clinton instead of Trump, despite it being illegal for Banerian to change his electoral vote in Michigan. “You have people saying ‘you’re a hateful bigot, I hope you die,'” he said. “I’ve had people talk about shoving a gun in my mouth and blowing my brains out. And I’ve received dozens and dozens of those emails. Even the non-threatening-my-life emails are very aggressive.”
“I’ve just gotten a lot of ‘you’re a hateful bigot and I hope you die,’ which is kind of ironic,” Banerian said, “that they’re calling me hateful and yet wishing for my death. They don’t even know me.”
Banerian is not the only one, according to the Michigan Republican Party. “Hearing from them that they are also receiving threats, I’m interested in getting a consensus from the group … and seeing if it’s something that we should report to the police,” Sarah Anderson, the Michigan Republican Party spokeswoman, told theNews. “It’s obviously something that we’re taking very seriously.”
Electors in Arizona are also being harassed, Fox News reports. “Arizona’s presidential electors are reportedly being hit by a flood of emails and phone calls demanding they defy the voters in their state and choose Hillary Clinton instead of President-elect Donald Trump — as part of a last-gasp bid to overturn the election,” Fox reported.
Georgia’s electors too are being bullied and threatened by Clinton supporters, as indicated in a statement by Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp. “The Presidential election is over but, unfortunately, the vitriol remains,” said Kemp. “Our office has received numerous reports of individuals hurling insults and threats at Georgia’s Electors because they are unsettled with America’s choice for President of the United States. This is absolutely unacceptable and those participating in or encouraging these efforts should stop. The electoral process in America has worked, and everyone — Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and others — should respect the will of Georgia’s voters and the Electors who represent them.”
In Texas, Republican Alex Kim said he and his fellow electors have been bombarded with e-mails and phone calls asking them to switch their votes to Clinton. “At first, everyone was kind of enchanted by it,” Kim told NBC5 in Dallas-Fort Worth. "Now all the electors are starting to get beaten down. There are some electors who have been threatened with harm or with death.”
Two Democratic electors are leading a movement called #HamiltonElectors to encourage members of the Electoral College to “vote their conscience” and dump Trump, the Washington Times reports.
Additionally, over four million people have signed a petition on asking all of the 538 electors to vote for Clinton instead of Trump. The petition reads like the rant of an angry bunch of sore losers:
On December 19, the Electors of the Electoral College will cast their ballots. If they all vote the way their states voted, Donald Trump will win. However, in 14 of the states in Trump's column, they can vote for Hillary Clinton without any legal penalty if they choose.
We are calling on the 149 Electors in those states to ignore their states' votes and cast their ballots for Secretary Clinton. Why?
Mr. Trump is unfit to serve. His scapegoating of so many Americans, and his impulsivity, bullying, lying, admitted history of sexual assault, and utter lack of experience make him a danger to the Republic.
Secretary Clinton WON THE POPULAR VOTE and should be President.
 Hillary won the popular vote. The only reason Trump "won" is because of the Electoral College.
But the Electoral College can actually give the White House to either candidate. So why not use this most undemocratic of our institutions to ensure a democratic result?
There is no reason Trump should be President.
"It's the 'People's Will'"
No. She won the popular vote.
"Our system of government under our Constitution says he wins"
No. Our Constitution says the Electors choose.
"Too many states prohibit 'Faithless Electors'"
24 states bind electors. If electors vote against their party, they usually pay a fine. And people get mad. But they can vote however they want and there is no legal means to stop them in most states.
The irony, of course, is that the petition calls Trump a bully when the same people who support the petition are in fact bullying electors to vote for the person they want.
Meanwhile, the ire over the Electoral College as seen in the petition results from a fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to be a constitutional republic versus a democracy. It is a sad testament to the fact that public and higher education is failing to teach Americans the history of the republic and the government that was created by the Founding Fathers. Those who support the Electoral College understand that it was designed to protect the smaller states from being dominated by the more heavily populated ones.
For some, however, it's more important to get their way than to protect everyone under the Constitution. They are still reeling from the fact that their safe spaces have failed to protect them from the blow that the election dealt.