{"id":22593,"date":"2020-02-28T14:28:53","date_gmt":"2020-02-28T19:28:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=22593"},"modified":"2020-02-28T14:57:57","modified_gmt":"2020-02-28T19:57:57","slug":"ice-sanctuary-policy-san-diego-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2020\/02\/28\/ice-sanctuary-policy-san-diego-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"San Diego County Bends to Anti-Sanctuary Pressure – Just Not All the Way"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

At a time when an alarming number of cities and counties proclaim themselves \u201csanctuaries\u201d for illegal aliens, one large county has opted to buck that trend and \u2013 to a certain extent \u2013 comply with federal law. San Diego County, California, home to more than three million people, has announced<\/a> that it will share criminal records of illegal aliens with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). While San Diego County has a long way to go before it can officially declare itself fully compliant with federal immigration law, its latest move definitely represents a step in the right direction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to ICE spokeswoman Lauren Mack, the San Diego County Sheriff\u2019s Department is one of the first agencies to comply with a series of administrative subpoenas<\/a> issued by immigration officials in recent weeks. An administrative subpoena is a formal order to provide a government agency with information that it needs in order to perform its assigned functions. \u00a0ICE has also sent subpoenas to other state and local law enforcement agencies in the sanctuary states of California, Colorado, Connecticut, New York, and Oregon. San Diego County is one of more than 550 other<\/a> cities, counties, and states that have declared themselves sanctuary jurisdictions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

It comes across as tragically ironic that communities like\nSan Diego, which shield criminal illegal aliens from deportation, call\nthemselves \u201csanctuaries.\u201d In reality, these so-called \u201csanctuary communities\u201d\nput the lives of law-abiding residents at risk. As former Acting Director of\nICE Tom Homan explained<\/a>,\n\u201cnearly 10,000 criminal aliens that have been released, rather than turned over\nto ICE\u2026have recommitted another crime.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

All of those crimes were preventable, if the foreign nationals who committed them had been promptly removed from the U.S. A disgraceful example of such a preventable crime came out of New York City, where a criminal illegal alien released under the city\u2019s sanctuary policy went on to rape and murder<\/a> a 92-year-old woman. Where was her sanctuary?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only do these sanctuary policies threaten public safety, they also fly in the face of federal law. As reiterated by the Supreme Court numerous times \u2013 most recently in Arizona v. United States<\/a><\/em> \u2013immigration is the exclusive domain of the federal government. And as the Supremacy Clause<\/a> of the U.S. Constitution establishes, all federal laws supersede state laws and policies. Since 8 U.S. Code \u00a7\u202f1373<\/a> prohibits state and local governments from blocking the exchange of information regarding an individual\u2019s \u201ccitizenship or immigration status\u201d with federal immigration agencies, sanctuary policies violate federal law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The San Diego County Sheriff\u2019s Department continues to stress<\/a> that they want to remain, in some form, a sanctuary city. \u201cA federal subpoena creates a mandatory legal obligation and is not \u2018cooperation,\u2019\u201d the office argued in a statement. Of course, San Diego County\u2019s lawmen appear to have missed the fact that the Supremacy Clause obligates them to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, even in the absence of a subpoena. Nevertheless, their decision to comply with subpoenas from ICE shows that putting pressure directly on the officials responsible for implementing sanctuary policies is beginning to yield some positive results. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only time will tell if the San Diego effect sweeps to other\nsanctuary jurisdictions across the country. But for the sake of our safety and\nnational sovereignty, it\u2019s important that Congress and the Trump administration\ncontinue to keep the pressure on these so-called \u201csanctuary cities\u201d to follow\nfederal law. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At a time when an alarming number of cities and counties proclaim themselves \u201csanctuaries\u201d for illegal aliens, one large county has opted to buck that trend and \u2013 to a certain extent \u2013 comply with federal law. San Diego County, California, home to more than three million people, has announced that it will share criminal<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":81,"featured_media":10765,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[14],"tags":[100,1524,47,1349],"yst_prominent_words":[7849,4701,3888,7850,7853,1943,3057,2243,2008,1963,2168,3757,7848,7852,2063,2062,2059,7851,2329,2893],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22593"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/81"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22593"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22593\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22596,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22593\/revisions\/22596"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/10765"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22593"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22593"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22593"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=22593"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}