There is no question that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had an obvious first target in his effort rein in lawless sanctuary jurisdictions and the politicians who defend them. The three laws enacted by California in 2017 moved it into sanctuary statehood status \u2013 in direct conflict with the Federal government role in setting immigration policy, according to the lawsuit filed by the Justice Department this week.<\/p>\n
Gov. Jerry Brown reacted with predictable hyperbolic flair and outrage telling PBS\u2019 Newshour<\/em><\/a> the Trump administration was engaging in \u201cgutter politics\u201d and \u201csowing discord\u201d among the American people.<\/p>\n \u201cHe\u2019s going after men, women, and children, some who have worked 10 or 20 years picking our food, washing our dishes, building houses,\u201d adding that \u201cwe don\u2019t need a Gestapo-kind of tactic with vitriol spewing out of Jeff Sessions\u2019 mouth.\u201d<\/p>\n Similar overreach came from Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who\u00a0tipped off Bay Area<\/a>\u00a0residents to pending immigration raids and put the lives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in harm\u2019s way.<\/p>\n The Justice Department asserts in the lawsuit that California\u2019s sanctuary policies have created an \u201catmosphere of defiance\u201d which places the lives of federal agents at risk.<\/p>\n The Justice Department says the laws, \u201creflect a deliberate effort by California to obstruct the United States\u2019 enforcement of federal immigration law.\u201d<\/p>\n Schaaf issued a statement in response to Sessions\u2019 Tuesday rebuke of her actions, saying “we will continue to inform all residents about their Constitutional rights, and we will continue to support California’s sanctuary status.”<\/p>\n With the fire and fury dying down (a little), the lingering question is whether the attorney general challenges other sanctuary jurisdictions and\/or politicians like Schaaf that go beyond withholding cooperation to actively interfering with the enforcement of U.S. immigration law.<\/p>\n If Sessions goes on the road, there are plenty of options ahead. In addition to California, the states of Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermont, as well as more than\u00a0300 municipalities across the nation, have enacted some manner of sanctuary law.<\/p>\n He could narrow the list down to the 23 jurisdictions that were sent letters<\/a> in January ordering them to demonstrate they were not implementing sanctuary policies. A failure to show they were not in compliance with federal laws requiring local cooperation on immigration matters would, Sessions warned, result in the issuance of subpoenas.<\/p>\n Just north of the Golden State, Oregon politicians were also playing victim and vowing to fight.<\/p>\n \u201cOregon will not be bullied by a Trump Administration that is focused on dividing our country. I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure that the rights and values of all Oregonians are protected,\u201d said Democratic Gov. Kate Brown.<\/p>\n For more than 30 years, Oregon has been a sanctuary state, so it was no surprise when the state legislature recently passed two bills permitting DACA beneficiaries to continue to have access to in-state tuition and to renew their driver’s licenses.<\/p>\n Allowing illegal immigrants to hold driver\u2019s licenses is a bold rejection of the will of the people who voted in 2014 to defeat<\/a> a ballot initiative that would have given four-year driver\u2019s licenses to illegals.<\/p>\n But the Trump administration and Justice Department do have some allies in the sanctuaries, such as the group of Colorado state lawmakers who visited the White House for talks with administration officials about potential consequences for politicians who enact sanctuary policies.<\/p>\n The group included state Rep. Dave Williams<\/a>, the sponsor of HB 1134, the \u201cColorado Politician Immunity Act<\/a>.\u201d The measure would provide a \u201ccivil remedy against the state or a political subdivision of the state (jurisdiction) and against its elected officials for creating sanctuary policies.\u201d<\/p>\n In addition, it would allow victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens who had established residency in a sanctuary jurisdiction to file a civil action against either the locality and\/or against the elected officials who were responsible for creating a sanctuary jurisdictions, such as those in Aurora and Denver.<\/p>\n FAIR\u2019s David Jaroslav details the revival<\/a> of efforts to make Maryland a sanctuary state.