Homeland Security announces “sensitive” no-go zones”
President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security quietly announced this week that ICE and Border Patrol would follow new guidelines barring the apprehension of illegal immigrants that effectively creates safe havens from law enforcement.
Watch CW6 San Diego TV segment here
According to the Department of Homeland Security’s website a new policy granted additional protections for those in the country illegally. The policy makes it clear that law enforcement cannot apprehend illegal immigrants in “sensitive zones.
“When you’re putting or promoting on websites by the very law enforcement agencies charged to enforce immigration law that there are safe zones, every community across the entire United States of America including hospitals, churches, different places of employment, actual parades and marches are free. If you have a group of illegals that are protesting against the government that are here demanding additional rights and benefits or money, there’s no enforcement,” Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said. “It’s like me as a sheriff saying, well if you’re at this house or at this business or are in this building we will not arrest you.”
He said the new policy affects morale. “This gravely harms morale our law enforcement, Border Patrol, they are the heroes. These men and women who signed up to enforce the law and they have told me they feel handcuffed.”
Nevertheless, legal experts, like Jonathon Turley contend that President Obama is basically granting civil liberties to non-Americans when Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution states Congress has the exclusive power to dictate immigration law. But with presidential politics in full swing, Americans shouldn’t expect to see any major legislative changes to immigration reform anytime soon.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) describes “sensitive locations” as the following, but not be limited to:
- Schools, such as known and licensed daycares, preschools and other early learning programs; primary schools; secondary schools; post-secondary schools up to and including colleges and universities; as well as scholastic or education-related activities or events, and school bus stops that are marked and/or known to the officer, during periods when school children are present at the stop;
- Medical treatment and health care facilities, such as hospitals, doctors’ offices, accredited health clinics, and emergent or urgent care facilities;
- Places of worship, such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples;
- Religious or civil ceremonies or observances, such as funerals and weddings; and
- During public demonstrations, such as a marches, rallies, or parades.
DHS further defines enforcement actions taken by ICE or CBP to apprehend, arrest, interview, or search an individual, or to surveil an individual for enforcement purposes.
According to the website, “Actions not covered by this policy include activities such as obtaining records, documents, and similar materials from officials or employees, providing notice to officials or employees, serving subpoenas, engaging in Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) compliance and certification visits, guarding or securing detainees, or participating in official functions or community meetings.”
The new policies policies have been put in place by the Obama administration attempt to ensure that US immigration officials exercise “sound judgment when enforcing federal law at or focused on sensitive locations, to enhance the public understanding and trust, and to ensure that people seeking to participate in activities or utilize services provided at any sensitive location are free to do so, without fear or hesitation.”
DHS says there may be exceptions to the new policies, but a supervisor must review each case individually. However, the new policies could create an enforcement advantage to those in the country illegally. For example, persons in the country lawfully would have no restrictions by law enforcement and could be held accountable for crimes like failure to make childcare or alimony payments.
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) cited the new sanctuary policies as inconsistent with federal law. According to a new report by the Justice Department Inspector General (OIG), “failure to enforce the law could result in debarment from certain federal grants, claw backs of previously awarded funds, or other consequences, including prosecution.”
The immigration sanctuary status was examined for “compliance with 8 USC 1373, states that state and local governments may not have policies, ordinances, or practices that ‘in any way’ prohibit state or local officials from communicating or exchanging information with federal immigration agencies.” Other OIG findings included:
- All of the 10 jurisdictions selected for the OIG investigation had sanctuary policies that were inconsistent with federal law. The jurisdictions were: the state of California; the state of Connecticut; Chicago; Clark County, Nev. (home of Las Vegas); Cook County, Ill. (which includes Chicago); Miami-Dade County, Fla.; Milwaukee County, WI; Orleans Parish, La. (New Orleans); New York City; and Philadelphia.
- These 10 jurisdictions received more than $342 million from DOJ, representing 63 percent of the total value of the active DOJ law enforcement funding at the time of the report.
- In addition to the 10 sanctuaries that were investigated, the report identified several others with problematic policies: Newark, N.J.; Taos, N.M.; New Orleans; and San Francisco.
- Common efforts by sanctuaries to evade the applicability of 8 USC 1373 with a “savings clause,” for example by including language that says “except as provided under federal law” are not sufficient to be considered compliant with federal law and will not protect them from potential consequences of maintaining a sanctuary policy.
Plus a new Breitbart/Gravis poll revealed the pulse of American voters with a number of disclosures that politicians should find concerning.
- Six to one – immigration should be decreased rather than increased;
- 25 to one – unemployed Americans should have first dibs on jobs rather than foreign workers;
- A majority believes immigration is a net drain on the U.S.
- 61 percent believe that any politician who would hire a foreign worker over a U.S. worker is unfit to serve.
- 75 percent believe the nation needs “an immigration system that puts American workers first, not an immigration system that serves the demands of employers seeking to reduce labor costs.”
- A majority of voters (55 percent) disagree with Hillary Clinton’s call to release illegal immigrants arriving at the border into the United States and give them a chance to apply for asylum.