California's RNC Committeeman Shawn Steel--Resistance to Sanctuary State EXPANDS

California's National Committeeman Shawn Steel released this latest announcement regarding the spreading opposition to SB 54, the corrupt, lawless sanctuary state statute shoved down our throats by the lawless Democratic legislature.

The number of counties which have opted out is growing too.

This list was released as of Friday morning, May 11, 2018.

If there are any missing cities and counties on this list, feel free to contact me or Shawn.

Update No. 9 - Opposing Criminal Sanctuary Growing In North & Central California May 11, 2018

Butte & Mariposa Counties - Makes it 9 Counties - more votes coming soon

Mariposa County joins the movement Community members packed the supervisor chambers for almost three hours of the meeting to provide input about releasing deportable criminals into the public. Eventually, California's oldest county, the board members passed a resolution in opposition to California’s sanctuary law by a 4-1 vote.

First in LA County: Santa Clarita May 8, 2018 Local black residents pointed out that African-Americans need support before illegal aliens take advantage of generous American benefits. The city council voted 5–0 directing the City Attorney to challenge the criminal sanctuary laws.

Butte County joins the movement Supervisors voted May 8, 5-0 in favor of a political statement, a resolution that contends that the sanctuary law places “restrictions and limitations” on the Butte County Sheriff’s Office that could have a “potentially negative impact on public safety.”

San Jacinto joins other cities in support of DOJ opposing Senate Bill 54 May 9, 2018: San Jacinto Mayor Crystal Ruiz led the vote to oppose releasing deportable criminals. “Resident Pablo Hernandez, who said he came to the United States legally and served in the military for 38 years, suggested those who enter the country illegally are taking advantage of legal immigrants and should be stopped.”

Storm Troopers from Kevin De Leon demonstrate against Fresno officials...but missed their target.

Susan Tully of FAIR and myself were invited May 8 by Fresno County Chair Fred Vanderhoof to meet with three Sheriffs, several county supervisors and many city mayors and city officials. We expect to see good results coming from the Central Valley. Sheriff Margaret Mims, popular Fresno sheriff pointed out how the state is preventing local police and sheriffs from cooperating with immigration officials. Deportable prisoners, who hurt minorities need to be deported. Recidivism by this prison population will mean that more than 2/3 of these prisoners who are released, will return to jail in the next three years.

If you know what your county or city may be doing, let us know so that other community leaders are alerted.

The List of Counties & Cities that Officially Oppose Illegal Sanctuary Laws: May 10, 2018

Counties (9) Butte Kern Mariposa Orange San Diego Shasta Siskiyou Tehama Tuolumne

Cities (35) Adelano Aliso Viejo Anderson Barstow Beaumont Colusa Costa Mesa Dana Point El Cajon Escondido Fountain Valley Hesperia Huntington Beach Laguna Beach Laguna Niguel Lake Elsinore Lake Forest

Los Alamitos Lincoln Mission Viejo Newport Beach Orange Ripon Santa Clarita San Jacinto San Juan Capistrano Simi Valley Upland Villa Park Waterford Westminster Wildomar Yorba Linda Yuba City Yucaipa

If you have any questions, please email me atShawnSteel@ShawnSteel.com. Consider forwarding this email to interested parties.

Shawn Steel National Committeeman California Republican Party

Why Dianne Feinstein Refused to Vote Against Sanctuary Cities

In May, I received an e-letter from Dianne Feinstein explaining why she did not vote to defund or outlaw sanctuary cities in the United States. I believe that she issued me this response following my attendance at her town hall in West Adams.

Dear Mr. Schaper:

Thank you for writing to share your concerns about policies regarding “sanctuary cities.”  I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I understand that you are concerned about so-called “sanctuary cities,” in which local governments deny requests from federal authorities to detain undocumented immigrants or notify about the pending release of an undocumented immigrant.  I recognize that you support penalizing these jurisdictions for not complying with immigration detainer and notification requests, and impose greater Federal criminal penalties on individuals who unlawfully reenter the country.

"Undocumented immigrants"? Oh brother, this is what we are dealing with.

Unbelievable.

Shame on Feinstein! She refused to join
Senator Toomey to honor Kate Steinle

As you may know, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) introduced legislation last Congress regarding sanctuary cities.  Senator Cruz’s bill, the “Stop Illegal Reentry Act” (S. 2193), also known as “Kate’s Law,” would have increased sentences for immigrants who reenter the U.S. unlawfully.  Senator Toomey’s bill, the “Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act” (S. 3100) would have denied federal funding to any jurisdictions that did not comply with detention or notification requests from federal authorities. 

Guess what, DiFi? The House passed similar legislation--with the same names!--yesterday. How about that?! You better get busy and vote for these bills, or you are facing an early retirement.

To her limited credit, she has signaled her opposition to SB 54. Thank goodness, but let's see how long this lasts, especially if a more left-wing Democrat makes it into the Top Two against her.

I firmly believe that local governments should notify federal authorities upon request before releasing dangerous individuals into our communities.  In addition, I agree that local governments should be required to comply with these requests for such notice where they are unwilling to comply.

OK.

However, I voted against bills authored by Senator Cruz and Senator Toomey because I believe these bills would have swept up otherwise law-abiding immigrants and diverted important resources away from law enforcement agencies where it is most needed.  For instance, S. 3100 would have withheld numerous federal grants from local communities, including those that fund disaster relief efforts, economic adjustment assistance to those affected by military base closures, and public infrastructure projects.  In fiscal year 2015, California received $376.5 million in federal funding from grants targeted by Senator Toomey’s bill.  So, under this bill, California communities would have been at risk of losing important national security and safety funding.

"Otherwise law-abiding" except for the fact that they are in the country illegally, which make them not law-abiding, and therefore (wait for it) ... criminals. Therefore, they need to be deported, too.

Immigration is about safety and also sovereignty. We the People are entitled to secure borders and a clear cultural and moral identity separate from other nations.

Additionally, Senator Cruz’s bill created two new mandatory minimum sentences, which the U.S. Sentencing Commission estimated would have added 57,000 people to the prison population over five years, costing as many as billions of dollars to U.S. taxpayers.

Oh brother. Feinstein and her Democratic ilk doubled the national debt in eight years. Do we really care about another billion here or there? If she wants to engage in cost savings, why not ensure entitlement reforms and the closure of unnecessary programs.

Locking up violent offenders, especially illegal aliens, is worth the cost.

You may be interested to know that I had been working with local jurisdictions to strengthen participation in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), which facilitated collaboration between local and federal law enforcement to take custody of those individuals who pose a danger to public safety.  Unfortunately, President Trump terminated this program through his executive order titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.”  This executive order also directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to withhold all federal funding to any “sanctuary” jurisdictions that fail to comply with federal immigration laws.

Yes! Any jurisdiction which refuses to comply with and abide by federal law should lose its funding. This is an example of Democratic blaming the law-abiding President and his widespread supporters for the problems created by illberal, lawless municipalities.

Please know that protecting the safety of Americans is my top priority as a United States Senator, and I have strongly supported, and will continue to support, securing our border and preventing dangerous individuals from entering the United States.  During the 113th Congress, I voted in favor of the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform bill, the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act" (S. 744), which passed the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 32 on June 27, 2013.  Among other things, this bill would have provided an unprecedented $46 billion for border security, required the deployment of 38,405 new trained, full-time, Border Patrol agents, and mandated the completion of at least 700 miles of pedestrian fencing along our Southern border.  Unfortunately, S. 744 was not considered by the House of Representatives before the 113th Congress adjourned.

If DiFi really cared about securing our border, then why hasn't she appropriated the funding for the wall? Her vote for the Obamacare of Immigration Reform bills was a total dude, since it would allow for amnesty first before the securing of our borders.

No way.

She should help appropriate the $46 billion first--and only that.

Once again, thank you for writing. Should you have any other questions or comments, please call my Washington office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at https://feinstein.senate.gov. 

You can also follow me online at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and you can sign up for my email newsletter at https://feinstein.senate.gov/newsletter.

Best regards.

Sincerely yours,

  Dianne Feinstein

         United States Senator

Status on California's Sanctuary State Bill 54: What's Next?

It's been over a month.

The last vote cast on SB 54 was March 30th.

State Senator Kevin De Leon was hoping to put SB 54 on the emergency track.

As soon as it was passed out of the the legislation under two-thirds vote, then the signature from the Governor, the sanctuary state ordinance would enter into effect immediately.

Yet already De Leon was facing major pushback.

State Senatr Joel Anderson went up and down the state releasing a long list of potential criminals who would be protected from deportation with SB 54.

De Leon had to submit to a series of amendments, which would allow law enforcement to report certain criminals to ICE, the truth is that the sanctaury state bill will protect the vast majority of criminal illegal liens to stay in the state of California and re-offend.

More importantly for law makers, ICE will not be prevented from capturing and deporting illegal aliens. They will simply go directly into neighborhoods and deport not just the criminal illegal aliens, but any other illegal aliens whom they find the sweep.

Maybe the passage of SB 54 will be better for the state of California. At least this brazen disregard for the safety of all Americans has finally motivated California citizens to rise up and take back their government for the People.

So, what is the status on SB 54?

Yes, the bill has passed out of the State Senate.

Currently, it sits at the State Assembbly desk and has gone nowhere.

What's going on?

Every bill has to be assigned a policy committee, where the proposed legislation is accepted, rejected, or amended to pass onto another committee or to a floor vote.

Before the standing committees, the legislation gets assigned through the Rules Committee.

That could happen as early as next week.

The legislative assistance informed me that the normal legislative process has lead to this month and a half delay.

But I further suspect that lawmakers are not looking forward to taking a vote on this destructive piece of legislation.

Anyone who is paying attention to voters throughout the state should realize that law enforcement officials an elected officials at the county and even local city level are opposed to California turning into a sanctuary state!

So, what's the best approach to take?

First, contact the Assembly Rules Committee:

Then call the Assembly Public Safety Committee (since that was the first committee where SB 54 went in the state senate).

Also --

It's always pssible that the author of the bill--in this case State Senate President Kevin De Leon--can simply pull the bill entirely.

Give him hell. Here's the contact info for his office:

Capitol Office:
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: (916) 651-4024
Fax: (916) 651-4924

District Office:
1808 W. Sunset Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90026
Tel: (213) 483-9300
Fax: (213) 483-9305

Ban Sanctuary Cities! Tell Your CA Representative "Vote For AB 1252!"

CALL: CA Assembly Public Safety Committee in SUPPORT of AB 1252.
Promoting Cooperative Law Enforcement to Detain Criminal Aliens and to Eliminate Sanctuary Jurisdiction Act

File photo of Assemblyman Travis Allen, with members of We The People Rising.


Republican Assemblyman Travis Allen of Huntington Beach, CA is the author of AB 1252. https://ad72.asmrc.org/

This bill would END sanctuary jurisdictions in California and would enact the Promoting Cooperative Law Enforcement to Detain Criminal Aliens and to Eliminate Sanctuary Jurisdiction Act of 2017. The bill would authorize a resident of the State of California to bring a civil action alleging that a city, county, or city and county is a sanctuary jurisdiction. Read the bill at the end of this email.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1252


CALL
AB 1252 is scheduled for a 4/4/17 Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing. CALL THE COMMITTEE IN SUPPORT OF AB 1252.
http://apsf.assembly.ca.gov/

(916) 319-3744