Friday, December 19, 2014

Mexican Official In Arizona Unwittingly Opens Up Avenue To Attack The Expansion Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty

A traitorous Mexican police chief, ostensibly an American citizen, but obviously loyal to Mexico and Mexicans, has announced that it will not enforce portions of the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, an Arizona statute commonly and mistakenly referred to as Senate Bill 1070.

Star-Tribune, December 17, 2014, by Astrid Galvan , Associated Press
Tucson, Arizona, Police Say They Will No Longer Check Immigration Status In Some Cases
TUCSON, Ariz. — Tucson police said Wednesday they will no longer fully enforce the state's landmark immigration law that requires local police to check the immigration status of people they encounter while enforcing other laws.
Chief Roberto Villaseñor said his officers will now only check immigration status and call the U.S. Border Patrol when a person has prior serious felony convictions, poses a threat to national security or has gang affiliations.
The criteria was set out for federal immigration authorities in an executive order issued last month by President Barack Obama intended to prioritize offenders for deportation.
The Arizona law, SB 1070, requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question the status of people suspected of being in the country illegally.

Now, the Mexican police chief has an excuse:

Villaseñor cited a provision in the law that says police should only enforce it when it is practical. He contends it is no longer practical because immigration authorities do not respond to calls by police in the vast majority of cases.
Tucson officers have placed about 11,000 calls to the Border Patrol since July on such matters and only received 94 replies, the chief said.
"So it's really a futile effort," he said.

And he is open that this is only a rationalization, as he supports illegal immigration and massive violations of Federal law.  Note that all employees, including police officers, in Tucson take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States as well as that of the State of Arizona.

Villaseñor has been a vocal opponent of the law but has said he is obligated to enforce it.

Of course, he feels an obligation to enforce it, but he isn't enforcing it.

However, this opens up the Obama Regime to a challenge in court to its illegal and unconstitutional Administrative Amnesty.

In fact, the Department of Homeland Security is obliged to respond and act when contacted by State and local law enforcement regarding illegal aliens.  Title 8 United States Code (USC) Section 1226 instructs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to create and maintain a system supporting State and local law enforcement in the area of immigration law.  For the uninitiated, all references to the Attorney General in the Immigration and Nationality Act (Title 8) were made applicable to the DHS Secretary by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School


(d) Identification of criminal aliens
(1) The Attorney General shall devise and implement a system—
(A) to make available, daily (on a 24-hour basis), to Federal, State, and local authorities the investigative resources of the Service to determine whether individuals arrested by such authorities for aggravated felonies are aliens;
(B) to designate and train officers and employees of the Service to serve as a liaison to Federal, State, and local law enforcement and correctional agencies and courts with respect to the arrest, conviction, and release of any alien charged with an aggravated felony; and
(C) which uses computer resources to maintain a current record of aliens who have been convicted of an aggravated felony, and indicates those who have been removed.

Furthermore, section (c) 8 USC 1226 requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to take into custody all illegal aliens.

(c) Detention of criminal aliens
(1) Custody
The Attorney General shall take into custody any alien who—
(A) is inadmissible by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1182 (a)(2) of this title,
(B) is deportable by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1227 (a)(2)(A)(ii), (A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) of this title,
(C) is deportable under section 1227 (a)(2)(A)(i) of this title on the basis of an offense for which the alien has been sentence  to a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year, or
(D) is inadmissible under section 1182 (a)(3)(B) of this title or deportable under section 1227 (a)(4)(B) of this title,
when the alien is released, without regard to whether the alien is released on parole, supervised release, or probation, and without regard to whether the alien may be arrested or imprisoned again for the same offense.

Now, much has been made of a legal challenge to the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty, as the concept of standing requires either authority to challenge the constitutionality of the law from legislation or a constitutional standing.  Generally, legislation and the Constitution requires the litigant to have suffered a harm.

In this case where the law requires DHS to respond and take custody of illegal aliens.  But DHS is not responding to its legal obligation. Congress by legislation mandated that DHS respond to State and local law enforcement who encounter illegal aliens. This gives every State and local government if it has a law enforcement function, as all do, legal standing to challenge the ongoing Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty for criminal aliens if the Regime does not respond to arrests of illegal aliens.  

This does not excuse or indemnify the RINO leadership John Boehner and Mitch McConnell from their failures and political consequences, but the reviews to date by courts show that all aspects of the Administrative Amnesty are unconstitutional. A challenge just needs a State or local government to take action, or a DHS employee to refuse to implement the Administrative Amnesty and wait upon  DHS to initiate disciplinary action, creating the injury that a litigant needs to sue on the amnesty issue.

No comments: