The Absurd Reasoning a Clinton-Appointed Judge Used to Strike Down Sanctuary City Law

A federal judge in San Antonio appointed by President Bill Clinton, Orlando Garcia, has issued a temporary restraining order against portions of Texas’ new sanctuary city law.

SB 4, which was set to take effect on Sept. 1, outlawed sanctuary policies by Texas counties, cities, and municipalities.

This order is wrong on two levels: It interferes with the prerogatives of a state government, and it misinterprets federal immigration law. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton as well as Gov. Greg Abbott (the state’s former attorney general) have already announced that they intend to appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

As Garcia explains, SB 4 (which applies to illegal aliens already arrested or lawfully detained) does four things. It prohibits local government entities from preventing their police officers from:

1) Checking the immigration status of criminals.

2) Notifying the federal government that they are holding criminal illegal aliens.

3) Assisting or cooperating with federal immigration officers (including honoring detainer warrants on illegal aliens issued by federal authorities).

4) Permitting federal immigration officers to enter local jails and conducting investigations of criminal illegal aliens.

The penalties for violating SB 4 range from civil fines to criminal punishment.

In a 94-page opinion released Wednesday, Garcia refused to enjoin the first and second portions of the law. However, he stopped enforcement of the other provisions based on erroneous reasoning, ignoring the fact that state governments, unlike the federal government, have enormous power over local municipalities—including the power to dissolve them.

As the Supreme Court observed in 1907 in Hunter v. Pittsburgh, the “number, nature, and duration of the powers conferred upon [municipal] corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the state.”

Garcia was handicapped from enjoining the first and second provisions of SB 4 because they are similar to a law that Arizona passed back in 2010, to the great consternation of the Obama administration, which sued Arizona.

That case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which in 2012 in Arizona v. U.S., upheld the ability of states to require that the immigration status of criminals be checked and the federal government notified when local law enforcement officials are holding an illegal alien arrested for violating a local or state law.

The judge did temporarily enjoin the third and fourth provisions of SB 4 by totally misinterpreting federal law.

In order to encourage local jurisdictions to assist the federal government in enforcing immigration law, Congress added a section to federal immigration law, popularly known as the 287(g) program, which is codified at 8 U.S.C. §1357.

This allows the attorney general to enter into written agreements with local law enforcement authorities to provide them with both money and training in immigration enforcement.

The 287(g) program wasn’t intended to provide the exclusive means for local officials to help the federal government in immigration enforcement. It was simply meant to encourage more jurisdictions to do so by providing training and federal money.

The Obama administration hated this program so much it did everything it could to end it.

Yet Garcia illogically (or intentionally) misreads this statute to hold that local and state officials cannot assist or cooperate with federal immigration authorities in enforcement activities unless they meet all of the “exacting requirements” of the 287(g) program and its authorizing federal statute.

He does this despite the plain language of the statute that specifically states that this provision shall not “be construed to require an agreement” in order for state or local officials to “communicate with the attorney general regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or (B) otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the U.S.”

Another odd argument the judge makes is that the Texas statute violates the First Amendment because it contains a provision that says that local jurisdictions cannot “adopt, enforce, or endorse” a sanctuary policy. Garcia claims the word “endorse” is vague and overbroad.

But as Texas points out in the motion for a stay that it has already filed, a simple review of a dictionary shows that the word “endorse” means to “sanction,” and sanction means to ratify, authorize, or permit.

The language of SB 4 makes it obvious that it is intended to “stop local law enforcement agencies from having policies that obstruct cooperation with federal immigration officials.” This resolves any claim that the word “endorse” is “vague.”

The judge also found that requiring local law enforcement to honor detainer warrants violates the Fourth Amendment.

Detainer warrants are issued by the Department of Homeland Security for illegal aliens who are legally removable from the country and filed with local law enforcement officials, asking them to hold the illegal aliens for 48 hours so they can be picked up by federal authorities.

But as Texas says in its stay motion, “if the Constitution allows Congress to authorize federal immigration officials to take aliens into custody based on civil removability grounds, then it makes no difference for Fourth Amendment purposes whether state officials carry out the first 48 hours of that detention at the behest of the federal government.”

In other words, since federal authorities have the power to detain illegal aliens, “the fact that state officials are doing so at the direct request of federal officials” is irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment.

Texas is sure to appeal, and it should. Garcia’s decision not only interferes with the inherent police powers of state governments and their absolute authority over their political subdivisions, it severely misreads federal immigration law.

As the governor himself said, Garcia’s “decision makes Texas communities less safe. … [G]ang members and dangerous criminals … will be set free to prey upon our communities.” (For more from the author of “The Absurd Reasoning a Clinton-Appointed Judge Used to Strike Down Sanctuary City Law” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Classic Movie Is Now Too Controversial to Play in Theaters

The Daily Signal’s Facebook Live show “Top 10” features the top news stories of the week, many of which often go underreported by the mainstream media. This week, the film for which the first African-American won an Oscar for, “Gone With the Wind,” is now deemed “too controversial” to play in theaters. And an Indiana elementary school teacher told her students not to say God in class—and parents were outraged.

We also bring you some of the heroic acts from Hurricane Harvey—demonstrating America at its best. We covered all of this and much more on this week’s top 10 must-see moments. Check out the video.

(For more from the author of “This Classic Movie Is Now Too Controversial to Play in Theaters” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Group Fundraises for Texans’ Abortions – No Money for Hurricane Relief

A Texas-based non-profit has created an “Emergency Fund for Harvey Survivors,” a fundraiser focused on collecting funds for women who seek abortions in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.

The Lilith Fund “funds abortion and advocates for change through the movement for reproductive justice,” according to its mission statement. On Thursday, the group’s official Facebook page posted a graphic of Houston reading, “Join us in supporting Harvey survivors seeking an abortion but cannot afford it.” The post included a link to where users could donate money to assist displaced women obtain abortions.

Amid the devastating destruction of Hurricane Harvey, many different organizations, businesses, and individuals have raised millions of dollars to assist in aid, rescue, and relief efforts. President Donald Trump announced Thursday he would donate $1 million of his own money to the cause . . .

The Lilith Fund has chosen to focus its funding elsewhere amid emergency relief efforts.

While the organization’s social media post explained the donated funds would “assist displaced women obtain abortions,” the donation page says simply that it is an “Emergency Fund for Harvey Survivors.” There is no mention of abortions or that the donated money will be used to fund abortions. (Read more from “Group Fundraises for Texans’ Abortions – No Money for Hurricane Relief” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trans Model Fired for ‘All White People Are Racist’ Quip

French cosmetics giant L‘Oreal fired its first transgender model to appear on a British advertising campaign after she described all white people as racist on Facebook.

London-based model Munroe Bergdorf announced on her Facebook page on Aug. 27 that she was to be part of the French cosmetics brand’s new advertising campaign celebrating diversity.

In an online message that later appeared on Friday to have been deleted, Bergdorf said, according to the Daily Mail newspaper: “Honestly I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people.” (Read more from “Trans Model Fired for ‘All White People Are Racist’ Quip” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

DOJ Subpoenas Christian Pastor’s Views on Islam

In a sweeping defeat for Obama-era holdovers at the U.S. Department of Justice, a federal court has tossed out a case in which the department had subpoenaed a Christian pastor’s views on Islam.

The Islamic Center of Culpeper, Virginia, had already won a favorable settlement in its Obama-aided case against the city, which agreed to provide a permit for the mosque to pump sewage from a site where it wants to build a mosque, even though state environmental officials had said the site was not suitable for a septic system.

But that wasn’t enough for the lawyers who staff the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ. They wanted to make an example out of rural Culpeper County. How else to explain forcing a local pastor and other locals who spoke against the mosque at public hearings to turn over personal documents that would reveal their views on Islam?

Pastor Steve Harrelson of Mt. Lebanon Baptist Church was the main target in the sights of the DOJ, which sought bring him before an inquisition-type hearing, forcing him to testify about his opinions on Islam and also deliver up to the government his personal papers and documents.

But U.S. District Court Judge Norman Moon put an end to the witch hunt for “Islamophobes” in this small northern Virginia town that was being perpetuated by Obama-appointed U.S. attorneys. (Read more from “DOJ Subpoenas Christian Pastor’s Views on Islam” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Student Accidentally Receives $1 Million in Financial Aide

A university student in South Africa who discovered an erroneous deposit of $1 million in her financial aid account spent more than $60,000 of the fortune before authorities realized the mistake, school officials said.

The oversight occurred at Walter Sisulu University in Eastern Cape province when a massive over allocation of funds was accidentally loaded onto the student’s financial aid debit card.

The money, which was supposed to be a $100 stipend for food and books, was immediately available to the student, according to Intellimali, the company responsible for issuing the student cards. Four extra zeroes were added to the direct deposit. (Read more from “Student Accidentally Receives $1 Million in Financial Aide” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Is Trump Accepting the Resignation of an Ex-West Point Professor Who Criticized Obama’s Mother on Social Media?

William C. Bradford, a Trump administration appointee who heads the Energy Department’s Office of Indian Energy, resigned Thursday after claiming this week inflammatory comments that appeared to have been made by him online were the result of hacking . . .

The account that appeared to be Bradford questioned Obama’s birth certificate and called the former president’s mother “a fourth-rate p&*n actress and w@!re.” . . .

In June, following his appointment to the Department of Energy, The Washington Post reported provocative comments Bradford made on Twitter — including calling Obama a Kenyan and saying that the World War II-era internment of Japanese-Americans was necessary. Bradford apologized for the comments at the time in a statement to the Post, calling them “inexcusable.”

In 2015, Bradford resigned as a professor at West Point after penning an academic paper that argued the US military should target Islamic holy sites as part of the war on terror. (Read more from “Why Is Trump Accepting the Resignation of an Ex-West Point Professor Who Criticized Obama’s Mother on Social Media?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Border Patrol Launches Program to Scan the Face of Every Person Leaving U.S.

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have announced plans to scan the faces of all flyers exiting the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union reported:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has launched a “Traveler Verification Service” (TVS) that envisions applying face recognition to all airline passengers, including U.S. citizens, boarding flights exiting the United States. This system raises very serious privacy issues.

The only publicly available information comes from a privacy impact statement the Department of Homeland Security issued on the program, and a briefing CBP Deputy Executive Assistant Commissioner John Wagner gave to privacy advocates in Washington this week. The CBP envisions a system where airports install cameras at boarding gates to take pictures of all passengers leaving and entering the country. The pictures will have facial recognition software applied to them.

The Traveler Verification Service is currently being tested at six airports, including Boston Logan, New York JFK, Dulles in D.C., Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta, Chicago O’Hare, and Bush in Houston. TVS itself is part of the larger “Biometric Entry/Exit” program which was created in response to a congressional requirement to use biometrics to track individuals who may have overstayed their visas.

The ACLU explains how the program works:

The way the system works is that before departure, CBP obtains the passenger manifest for each flight, and then reaches through the government’s extensive, interconnected set of databases to assemble photographs on each passenger. Those include passport and visa photos as well as photos “captured by CBP during the entry inspection” and “from other DHS encounters.” The agency then compares face recognition templates (essentially, patterns) derived from those database photos to templates derived from live photographs taken by a camera at the boarding gate.

The ACLU warns the program will endanger civil liberties in several ways. The organization says the program will normalize facial recognition as a checkpoint technology. The danger, the ACLU says, is that once the government begins to collect biometrics from every person crossing the border, they will likely expand the practice to new places and for new purposes. Border Patrol told the ACLU they will delete live photos after 14 days, but that could change.

The most disturbing detail of this program is the fact that Congress has never authorized the use of facial recognition technology on Americans. That is set to change with the start of this new program. The ACLU says the onus is on airlines to begin resisting the implementation of this program and call for Congressional approval. The ACLU is not only calling on private airlines to demand transparency from the DHS, but to allow any passenger to opt out of the program.

“The airlines have a responsibility to ensure that customers’ rights are respected, yet they have not taken even some basic steps to fulfill this obligation,” the ACLU writes. “Until they have taken these steps—and received assurances from CBP that the agency will abide by certain privacy standards —they should not participate in these programs.”

Earlier in the summer, a writer with Yahoo Finance discussed new biometric policies on display during a recent demonstration at Washington’s National Airport.

“Instead of handing your boarding pass and ID to a Transportation Security Administration agent, you could soon simply place two fingerprints on a scanner to be recognized and ushered through security — and then you could repeat the process to board the plane,” Yahoo writes.

The reporter also had to scan their driver’s license and enter their Social Security number to participate in the fingerprint scan. The fingerprint and iris scans will be stored with the private company Clear. The company is promising not to sell the information to third parties, but Jeramie Scott, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Domestic Surveillance Project, says that Clear’s privacy policy doesn’t require it to delete your data if you cancel your membership.

The use of biometrics is only the latest infringement on privacy and liberty at the airport. In June, Activist Post reported that the TSA was testing out new measures that require passengers to remove books and paper goods from their carry-on luggage. According to reports from The Wall Street Journal and Sacramento Bee, the TSA has already begun to roll out these new invasive policies.

As the Bee notes, reading material is extremely personal and revealing about a person. If individuals know that their reading habits – whether they relate to philosophy, politics, sexuality, or religion – will be scrutinized they may began a process of self-censorship. It also presents the question, what type of reading material could be questionable or even, banned?

At this point the TSA is claiming that bombs could be hidden within books and are not focusing their efforts on content specifically. However, this is likely the beginning of an incremental strategy to remove as much freedom as possible for travelers. As the Sac Bee wrote, “We need to resist the creep of authoritarianism. During the Cold War, spying on neighbors was common in the Soviet Bloc. During the Chinese Cultural Revolution, people reported others for listening to Western Classical Music.”

The American Civil Liberties Union noted that there have already been multiple cases of passengers singled out for their First Amendment-protected expressions. “For example, in 2010 the ACLU sued on behalf of a man who was abusively interrogated, handcuffed, and detained for nearly five hours because he was carrying a set of Arabic-language flash cards and a book critical of U.S. foreign policy,” the ACLU writes. We also know that the DHS database known as the “Automated Targeting System,” which tracks information on international travelers, has included notations in travelers’ permanent files about controversial books in their possession.”

In a recent interview with Fox News, John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, seemed to confirm the goal of implementing the strategy on a nationwide scale. Kelly was asked whether or not the new policy of unpacking carry on luggage and separating food and electronics into separate bins will indeed go nationwide.

Although DHS officials declined to comment on specifics, ABC News reports that passengers may notice more swabbing of passengers’ hands and luggage to test for explosives. It is highly likely that the agencies book policy will be a part of these new strategies.

What are Americans going to do in order to combat the growth of the police state? Surveillance and militarization is the order of the day in America 2017. We need to demand airlines reject these biometric policies and stand together against further invasion of our privacy. (For more from the author of “Border Patrol Launches Program to Scan the Face of Every Person Leaving U.S.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Harvey Brings ‘Hell’ to Texas

By Jill Disis. Texas officials say they’ve gotten hundreds of complaints about price gouging and scams in the wake of Hurricane Harvey.

One convenience store in Houston reportedly charged $20 for a gallon of gas, $8.50 for a bottle of water and $99 for a case of water, according to the Texas Attorney General’s office.

The state has received 684 complaints in all, according to Kayleigh Lovvorn, a spokeswoman for the office. The agency has started looking into nine cases so far but expects more. (Read more from “Harvey Brings ‘Hell’ to Texas” HERE)

______________________________________

Texas Drivers Rush to Fill Gas Tanks as Pump Prices Rise

By Associated Press. Drivers lined up at gas pumps in parts of Texas Thursday as more stations ran out of gas and prices rose steeply in response to Hurricane Harvey’s impact on Gulf Coast refineries.

At least two major pipelines — one that ships gasoline across the southern United States and up to New York, and another that flows north to Chicago — have been slowed or stopped because of flooding and damage. Officials hoped to resume normal flow by Sunday, but meanwhile, the threat of shortages had people running to top off their tanks, even if their gauges weren’t on empty.

At a Shell Station at Interstate 635 in Dallas, manager Tim Flatt had an employee wave away motorists with a paper “Out of Gas” sign after they twice went dry on Thursday. They got a refill at about 10 a.m. and were drained again by 2 p.m. (Read more from “Texas Drivers Rush to Fill Gas Tanks as Pump Prices Rise” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

A Former FBI Agent Battling Deputy Director McCabe Said There Is a ‘Cancer’ Inside the FBI

When the FBI launched an investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, one of the bureau’s top former counterterrorism agents believed that FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe would have to recuse himself from the investigation.

Former Supervisory Special Agent Robyn Gritz was one of the bureau’s top intelligence analysts and terrorism experts but resigned from the bureau five years ago after she said she was harassed and her career was blocked by top FBI management. She filed a formal sexual discrimination complaint against the bureau in 2013 and it was Flynn, among many others, who publicly came to her aide . . .

A 16-year veteran with outstanding work performance reviews and accomplishments, Gritz alleges McCabe, along with other senior management, made it impossible for her to do her job and obstructed her ability to move up the ranks.

She eventually filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint [EEOC] in 2013 for sexual discrimination and a hostile work environment against McCabe and other superiors. In 2012 she received the only negative review in her career with the FBI, and it was conducted by the same supervisor she had named in her EEOC.

She told Circa, current senior level management, including McCabe, created a “cancer like” bureaucracy striking fear into FBI agents and causing others to resign. She eventually resigned herself, but her case is still pending. (Read more from “A Former FBI Agent Battling Deputy Director McCabe Said There Is a ‘Cancer’ Inside the FBI” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.