ICE Spokesman Quits, Bashes Trump Administration On Immigration Raids

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...969e4b009b705d5b50b?ncid=edlinkushpmg00000313

ICE Spokesman Quits, Bashes Trump Administration On Immigration Raids


James Schwab said that officials have spread misleading information about a recent immigration crackdown.


A spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Francisco resigned over the Trump administration’s handling of a
recent immigrant raid in the Bay Area.

James Schwab told the San Francisco Chronicle late Monday that administration officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions and President Donald Trump, grossly exaggerated the number of undocumented immigrants who avoided arrest after Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf tipped off the public days before the raid began on Feb. 25.

“I quit because I didn’t want to perpetuate misleading facts,” Schwab said. “I asked them to change the information. I told them that the information was wrong, they asked me to deflect, and I didn’t agree with that. Then I took some time and I quit.”

Schwab added that even if there had been no prior warning about the raid, “we were not ever going to be able to capture 100 percent of the target list.”

ICE said 232 people were arrested in the sweep, but claimed the number could have been higher.

“Efforts by local politicians have shielded removable criminal aliens from immigration enforcement and created another magnet for more illegal immigration, all at the expense of the safety and security of the very people it purports to protect,” the agency said in a statement.

Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan claimed that 864 “criminal aliens” escaped arrest, and Trump railed that close to 1,000 people would have been swept up, calling Schaaf’s warning “a disgrace.” Sessions accused the Oakland mayor of promoting “a radical open-borders agenda.”

Schwab disputed the claims and told CNN he could no longer “bear the burden ― continuing on as a representative of the agency and charged with upholding integrity, knowing that information was false.”

Schaaf applauded Schwab’s decision.

“Our democracy depends on public servants who act with integrity and hold transparency in the highest regard,” the mayor said in a statement.

Sessions escalated the dispute last week by filing a lawsuit against the state of California over its so-called sanctuary cities― areas that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Calif. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) characterized the move as “basically going to war against the state of California.”

The timing is uncanny, as Trump begins his first visit as president to California on Tuesday to check out prototypes for a border wall and attend a Republican fundraiser.

Let me see if I’m understanding this correctly. There are federal immigration laws in place. The state of California is actively aiding the violators of the law. Then, when the Feds announce they are going to conduct a raid, Schwab sounded the alarm which reduced the effectiveness of the raid. Now his is claiming someone was telling him to lie about the number of illegals aliens that escaped the raid?

Seems to me, he was on his way out for, at best, not enforcing federal immigration law and actually obstructing enforcement efforts. How would he even have enough credibility to have the opportunity to participate in the workings of government. It is not credible that they trusted Schwab enough to think he would be willing to lie for them. And why lie about a few illegals in the first place? The huge issue is why this guy was not doing his job.

Schwab should be charged with obstruction, slander, and conspiracy. His co-conspirators, including certain local government officials should be charged for conspiracy and obstruction as well.

It is a political freeroll, the Republicans are not going to lose California and should stop playing nice to the side that was behind the Russia collusion scam.

The Important US immigration laws should be enforced and those who obstruct these laws should be charged accordingly.

In order for the US to rein in illegal immigration, it is necessary to have border security and to have an effective system in place to punish and return illegals to their country of origin.

Punishment is important because less people will want to illegally enter the United States when word gets around.

Just as the Democrats argue that the cause of gun crime is due to guns being able to be purchased in nearby states, The Republicans can argue that sanctuary cities perpetuates illegal immigration. The difference is that Republican’s have the law on their side and the Democrats do not.

 

[Slartibartfast]

All politics are local, the city mayor vs the pres in Washington.

As James Madison envisioned it in Federalist No. 51, “the power surrendered by the people” would be “divided between two distinct governments,” creating a balance of power that would enable the “different governments [to] control each other.”

The Democrats do have law on their side.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

All politics are local, the city mayor vs the pres in Washington.

As James Madison envisioned it in Federalist No. 51, “the power surrendered by the people” would be “divided between two distinct governments,” creating a balance of power that would enable the “different governments [to] control each other.”

The Democrats do have law on their side.

Are you saying the Feds raid on illegal aliens in California was illegal?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Are you saying the Feds raid on illegal aliens in California was illegal?

I am saying that what makes law is a to-and-fro, a barter that never ends.

People have an inbuilt, evolved thing where chiefs, kings etc are respected in hierarchy. In primates that would be alpha males/females etc. That was when we lived as simple social animals, democracy created a new level.

The president is not a king though Trump is trying to position himself as pre-eminent over the other branches. The strong-man approach favored in Africa and Russia when getting largely what you want is not enough.

The mayors and whatnot have a duty to act on the wishes of the community. Resist and maybe the law is clarified, updated or they must yield. You may choose to grab one situation here and another there then make a comparison calling hypocrisy or other.

The connections of a healthy country are marvelously complex, sometimes slow and this is good.

 

[jem]

Its interesting watching lefties arguing for state rights now that Obama is not in power.
I remember tony or was it his prior handle arguing that the feds should crush states like arizona or texas who wish to enforce immigration law. I think tony said he would support doing it by military force even if people died.

I told the lefties we already had states nullifying federal law with pot laws. That did not sit well with the lefties.

now they are all for states rights... Welcome to our neo Cliven and Ammon Bundys.

I say... as long as you lefties remember this... welcome to the side which desires limited federal govt which follows the constitution as written... not some of the laws created by older sup ct decision.

Hell yes... its time for the states and its citizens to to fight back... even if this if it is pretty dumb to think that a state could push for more lax citizenship laws. I am sure you all are making those

However, the logical constitutional observer in me must point out... it makes sense that a state could more strictly enforce immigration laws. it does not make as much sense to think a state could be more lax.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

I am saying that what makes law is a to-and-fro, a barter that never ends.

People have an inbuilt, evolved thing where chiefs, kings etc are respected in hierarchy. In primates that would be alpha males/females etc. That was when we lived as simple social animals, democracy created a new level.

The president is not a king though Trump is trying to position himself as pre-eminent over the other branches. The strong-man approach favored in Africa and Russia when getting largely what you want is not enough.

The mayors and whatnot have a duty to act on the wishes of the community. Resist and maybe the law is clarified, updated or they must yield. You may choose to grab one situation here and another there then make a comparison calling hypocrisy or other.

The connections of a healthy country are marvelously complex, sometimes slow and this is good.

States rights versus the Federal Government?

How does one fairly reconcile a situation where a state has laws contrary to Federal laws and as a result of this state’s laws, a neighboring state suffers? Is the only appropiate course of the damaged state to sue the causing state? Can the damaged state demand enforcement of Federal laws by the Federal Government? Can the affected state create laws that allow them to question and search people attempting to enter from the state causing the damage?

It seems to me there are solid benefits for the Federal Government to have juristiction on certain laws and states can have their own laws as long as they are unlikely to hurt other people, are unconstitutional, or otherwise interfere with the basic functions of the Federal Goverment.

More fundamentally, where there are differences on opinion on issues that are considered critical by the interested parties, how should that be resolved? A nationwide vote of the people? Congress decides?

I see immigration as a fundamental issue that should be regulated by the Federal Government and affirmed by the people of the United States.

Most people feel they are not being represented by their government, whether Federal, State, or local.

I propose direct voter participation on certain national issues and to allow them have a direct say on immigration policies and who should iimplement it: State by state basis or Federal government.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

However, the logical constitutional observer in me must point out... it makes sense that a state could more strictly enforce immigration laws. it does not make as much sense to think a state could be more lax.

Using governmental authority to tip off targets of a federal investigation or attempted apprehension of criminals is OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.

Arguing that as a state or city employee you are not required to participate in federal activities because you are not a federal entity is one thing. Then stand down. But the Constitution does not empower you to be the lookout for a bank robbery just because you don't like banking laws.

Note that I am not saying they have the power to just stand down and do nothing where there is a detainer request made known. That is another issue altogether. And I do side with the sheriffs if the feds do not pick up the defendant within 49 hours of being notified of intended release. But not giving a reasonable notification or time to pick them up? NO.

 

[Slartibartfast]

States rights versus the Federal Government?

How does one fairly reconcile a situation where a state has laws contrary to Federal laws and as a result of this state’s laws, a neighboring state suffers? Is the only appropiate course of the damaged state to sue the causing state? Can the damaged state demand enforcement of Federal laws by the Federal Government? Can the affected state create laws that allow them to question and search people attempting to enter from the state causing the damage?

It seems to me there are solid benefits for the Federal Government to have juristiction on certain laws and states can have their own laws as long as they are unlikely to hurt other people, are unconstitutional, or otherwise interfere with the basic functions of the Federal Goverment.

More fundamentally, where there are differences on opinion on issues that are considered critical by the interested parties, how should that be resolved? A nationwide vote of the people? Congress decides?

I see immigration as a fundamental issue that should be regulated by the Federal Government and affirmed by the people of the United States.

Most people feel they are not being represented by their government, whether Federal, State, or local.

I propose direct voter participation on certain national issues and to allow them have a direct say on immigration policies and who should iimplement it: State by state basis or Federal government.

OK, well good luck with that. Not much I can say really.

 

[maximumpossiblesuffering]

It is my perception that most countries have tougher immigration laws than the US. What immigration laws we do have are not consistently enforce. It would be safe to say that most Americans, many immigrants, and even some illegal aliens are in favor of the United States immigration laws. It is in the short term best interests of the residents of a country and they know it. Less competition for jobs and less criminals, as in drug dealers, wanting to do business in the US and criminals on the run from their home country.

We citizens should demand enforcement of our Federal immigration laws including the prosecution of those that aid and abet illegal immigration as well as prosecution of those who obstruct the enforcement of immigration laws.

It is our civic duty to vote for the political candidate who has a solid record supporting the enforcement of our immigration laws. It is in our own best interest.