Lynch DOJ Strong-arms Local Law Enforcement
Nov 30, 2016 by JAN LARUE
Denver Sheriff Patrick Firman made an executive decision that deputy sheriff applicants should be U.S. citizens.
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s Department of Justice, which claims to employ only U.S. citizens, would have none of it. Thus, the DOJ announced on Nov. 21 that it has shaken down another local law enforcement agency by settling an “immigration-related discrimination claim against the Denver Sheriff Department.”
Perhaps Firman thought that spending significant time and resources to properly train his deputies, who swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, Colorado’s Constitution, and local laws, carry firearms, and are authorized to use deadly force, should actually have allegiance to the United States, as opposed to “work-authorized immigrants” whose allegiance is to Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, or Syria, for example, and may return home.
The Lynch mob’s settlement agreement claims that the “largest sheriff department in the state of Colorado” violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), noting that:
“The INA’s anti-discrimination provision prohibits employers from limiting jobs to U.S. citizens except where the employer is required to do so by law, regulation, executive order or government contract. The Denver Sheriff Department was not subject to one of the INA’s exceptions.”
U.S. law codified at 8 U.S.C. 1324b makes it clear that exceptions include “discrimination because of citizenship status which is otherwise required in order to comply with law, regulation, or executive order.” The sheriff issued an executive order. Case closed.
According to President Ronald Reagan’s “Statement on Signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,” he understood that exceptions to the INA included “discrimination based on citizenship status when lawfully required under government authority.”
Nonetheless, DOJ has seized control of the employment policy of a local law enforcement agency, which apparently finds it cheaper to pay a fine than spend limited resources fighting the feds in court:
“Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Denver Sheriff Department will pay $10,000 in civil penalties; identify applicants who may have been disqualified from consideration for deputy sheriff positions due to the citizenship requirement and consider these applicants’ qualifications without regards to their citizenship; train its human resources staff on the anti-discrimination provision of the INA and review and revise its policies and procedures to comply with the requirements of the INA’s anti-discrimination provision.”
As an aside, let’s hope that the next U.S. Attorney General dismisses all unwarranted consent decrees against local law enforcement agencies and stops federalizing them.
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, expressed the rationale for the ham-handed takeover:
“Eliminating this unlawful citizenship requirement will help ensure that the Denver Sheriff Department hires the best and most qualified individuals to protect and serve. The entire community will benefit from these reforms.”
Ironically, DOJ job openings listed on its website on Nov. 22 clearly state: “Who May Apply? United States Citizens.” Job listings include: Assistant U.S. Attorney, clinical psychologist, secretary, pharmacist, health technician, telecommunications specialist, plumbing worker supervisor, social worker, human resources coordinator, program specialist, safety and occupational health specialist, communications specialist, medical officer, nursing assistant, and vocation training instructor-horticulture.
Horticulture? So only U.S. citizens are employed to plant daisies for the DOJ. And they tell us there are just some jobs Americans won’t do.
FBI job openings are also limited to “qualified U.S. citizens,” including: computer scientist, forensic accountant, mental health assessment specialist, general attorney, financial operations specialist, telecommunications specialist, IT SPEC, mission support analyst, physical analyst, biologist, realty specialist, industrial hygienist, special agent and locksmith.
Likewise, agents of the ATF, DEA, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Marshals Service must be U.S. citizens.
Here are some questions for Lynch and Gupta:
8 U.S.C. Sec.1324a prohibits hiring or recruiting any alien “knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien.” Sec. 7 states: “For purposes of this section, the term “entity” includes an entity in any branch of the Federal Government.” Since the DOJ isn’t enforcing federal law against “sanctuary” states, cities, and counties that harbor “unauthorized aliens,” why should Americans assume that the DOJ and its agencies aren’t hiring “unauthorized aliens” in violation of Section 7?
8 U.S.C. 1324b doesn’t exempt the federal government from hiring and recruiting “work qualified immigrants.” Why isn’t your “citizenship employment requirement” unlawful at the DOJ and its agencies, if it’s unlawful at the Denver Sheriff Department?
If you believe your own press release, that opening government employment to “work authorized immigrants” will “help ensure” that it “hires the best and most qualified individuals to protect and serve” and benefits “the entire community,” why do you “discriminate” against “work authorized immigrants” by excluding them from employment at the DOJ and its agencies? Or do you?
Apparently, Lynch and Gupta don’t believe the adage, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” Hiring and recruiting only U.S. citizens is good for the DOJ and its agencies, but not good for the department run by Sheriff Firman.
He got plucked instead.
original here
Dutch Parliament Moves Forward with Partial Ban on Face Veils
Nov 30, 2016 By Matthew Hrozencik
(CNSNews.com) – The lower house of the Dutch parliament overwhelmingly voted on Tuesday to approve a partial ban on wearing Islamic face veils, such as the burqa and niqab, in certain public places.
The legislation received a wide majority of votes in the chamber, with 135 of its 150 members voting in favor of the partial ban.
However, the measure must also be approved by the Dutch parliament’s upper house before it can be signed into law.
“Everyone has the right to dress as he or she wishes,” the coalition government led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte said in a statement in support of the legislation. “That freedom is limited only where it is essential for people to see each other, for example to ensure good service or security.”
Rutte also stated in May 2015 said that a partial ban on face coverings “does not have any religious background,” but is a “necessity… in places where public services are performed and safety must be guaranteed.”
The legislation passed Tuesday would place a limited ban on wearing “face-covering clothing” in certain public places, such as hospitals, schools, public transportation, and government buildings. It would also apply to facial covering items that are non-religious, such as ski masks and helmets. Violators would face a fine of up to €405 ($430).
However, the ban would not apply to those wearing veils while walking down the street or during sports activities or cultural events.
Freedom Party (PVV) leader Geert Wilders, who is currently on trial for allegedly inciting hatred against Muslims, has said he will push for a full burqa ban should his party win the general election in March.
But opponents of the legislation say that the ban violates veil-wearers’ freedom of expression and panders to anti-Islamic sentiments. “It is reprehensible to exclude these women and isolate them because of a subject anxiety among certain citizens,” said MP Tunahan Kuzu, who spoke out against the legislation.
“When we go to the town hall we have to identify ourselves, as well as at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport where we have to remove it,” said Karima Rahmani, a woman who also opposed the legislation. “The obligation to identify oneself is already provided for in the law.”
France passed a similar law banning the burqa and other face coverings in public spaces in 2010. The law’s legality was challenged, but it was upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in 2014.
Some lawmakers in Germany have also proposed a similar face veil ban.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/matthew-hrozencik/dutch-parliament-moves-forward-partial-veil-ban
SLOVAKIA PASSES LAW TO PREVENT ISLAM FROM REGISTERING AS A RELIGION
Europe’s rejection of Islamification continues to build momentum
Dec 1, 2016 Daily Express
The legislation hints at a dramatic changing attitude towards the religion in the past year across the continent, which has struggled to stem the escalating migrant crisis.
The former communist state has fiercely resisted European Union (EU) efforts to cope with an influx of migrants travelling into Europe by turning its back on the bloc’s introduction of migrant quotas.
But prime minister Robert Fico’s government has repeatedly said Islam has no place in Slovakia.
Read more
http://www.infowars.com/slovakia-passes-law-to-prevent-islam-from-registering-as-a-religion/
Former DHS Secretary UC President Janet Napolitano Tells Campus Police Not to Cooperate With Immigration Agencies
Dec 1 , 2016 by Warren Mass
University of California President Janet Napolitano (shown) announced on November 30 that her office will direct campus police departments throughout the 10-campus system not to cooperate with government agencies attempting to enforce federal immigration law.
In her statement, Napolitano said her office will “vigorously protect the privacy and civil rights of the undocumented members of the UC community and will direct its police departments not to undertake joint efforts with any government agencies to enforce federal immigration law.”
Napolitano’s office said that there are about 2,500 “undocumented” (i.e., in this country illegally) students enrolled across the UC system.
Concurrent with Napolitano’s announcement, UC released a statement of “principles in support of UC community members” affirming its intention to refuse to cooperate with any efforts by the incoming Trump administration to enforce our nation’s immigration laws.
The statement listed a detailed list of how its “principles” are to be implemented at all UC campuses and medical facilities, including, in part:
The University will continue to admit students consistent with its nondiscrimination policies so that undocumented students will be considered for admission under the same criteria as U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
No confidential student records will be released without a judicial warrant, subpoena or court order, unless authorized by the student or required by law.
No UC campus police department will undertake joint efforts with local, state or federal law enforcement agencies to investigate, detain or arrest individuals for violation of federal immigration law.
Campus police officers will not contact, detain, question or arrest any individual solely on the basis of (suspected) undocumented immigration status.
Napolitano also wrote an opinion piece published by the New York Times on November 30, headlined, “The Truth About Young Immigrants and DACA.” As she noted in the article, the acronym DACA in the headline refers to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. She went on to write that as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, she signed the June 15, 2012, directive that began, “I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security (D.H.S.) should enforce the nation’s immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home.”
On the same day, she recalled, President Obama announced the creation of DACA.
Napolitano’s entire article was essentially a defense of DACA, which she describes as “an initiative that has given temporary haven and work authorization to more than 700,000 undocumented minors, the so-called Dreamers.”
As we wrote in our article last August, the term DREAMer comes from the name of a piece of failed legislation, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act). DREAM was first introduced in the Senate in 2001 and reintroduced in the 107th through 111th Congresses. It never passed both houses, but President Obama was determined to implement it anyway. So on June 15, 2012, he announced that his administration would stop deporting young illegal immigrants who met certain criteria previously proposed under the DREAM Act.
As Napolitano noted in her Times article, the DACA program was formally initiated by a policy memorandum she sent on June 15, 2012, to the heads of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), ordering them to practice “prosecutorial discretion” toward some individuals who were brought to this country before their 16th birthday.
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson expanded DACA when on November 20, 2014 he sent an executive action memorandum to the heads of CBP, USCIS, and ICE that removed its age cap and extended work authorization to three years. Johnson’s order also expanded “deferred action” (another name for amnesty) by directing USCIS to establish a process, similar to DACA, for exercising prosecutorial discretion through the use of deferred action, on a case-by-case basis, to those individuals who have a son or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, have continuously resided in the United States since before January 1, 2010, and were physically present in the United States on the date of his memorandum, and at the time of making a request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS.
In response to that expansion of DACA, Texas and a number of other states sued the federal government. In the case of United States v. Texas, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas, issued an injunction on February 16, 2015, blocking the executive action, which granted amnesty to four million illegal aliens.
The Obama administration appealed the injunction, which went all the way to the Supreme Court. The high court’s vote on June 23 was a 4-4 tie. Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the court is evenly divided. That tied vote lets the original decision issued by Judge Hanen and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stand.
Despite that defeat of the expansion of DACA, Napolitano is continuing to defend the rejected program. Furthermore, she and many cities across the United States that have proclaimed themselves as “sanctuary cities” have said they will not cooperate with federal agencies in the apprehension of illegal aliens.
Given Trump’s repeated statement that he intends to more vigorously enforce federal immigration law and deport more illegal aliens, a standoff between the Trump administration and UC (which effectively has proclaimed each campus to be a “mini-sanctuary city”) and the sanctuary cities is sure to ensue.
Related articles:
How the Trump Immigration Enforcement Plan Might Be Enacted
Clinton Campaign to Enlist Illegal Immigrant Youth to Get Votes
Obama DACA Program Grants Amnesty to 664,607 Illegal Aliens
Supreme Court’s Tie Decision Leaves Intact Ruling Against Obama Amnesty Plan
Sessions: DREAM Acters Lying About Bill
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/24746-uc-president-janet-napolitano-tells-campus-police-not-to-cooperate-with-immigration-agencies
Tagged: abortion, al-Qaida, “Muslim Mafia, benghazi, Caliphate, Chemical Weapons, Christian, collapse of America, Constitution, dictator, foreclosure, Hamas, immigration, IRS, ISIS, Islam, Islamist, Israel, jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi, NSA, Obama, obamacare, radical Islam, rights, Second Amendment, Syria, Tea Party, Trump, Tyrannical Government, voter fraud, White House