American Bar Association to allow illegal immigrants to become lawyers

The American Bar Association (ABA) has voted to allow immigrants in the US illegally to take state bar exams in order to become licensed lawyers. The standard is already in effect in seven states, with the resolution providing guidance for others.

The “American Bar Association supports the principle that bar admission should not be denied based solely on immigration status,”stated the ABA’s House of Delegates resolution, passed Monday at its annual meeting.

The ABA suggests the resolution should be passed into state law. In its current form, the resolution isn’t enforceable, but it makes clear that the federal government should not get in the way of states granting a legal license to a candidate who passes the bar exam, even if they are in the country illegally.

“It provides guidance to courts and legislatures who are grappling with this [issue], and overall Congress itself, to say the legal profession approves of this,” attorney  Cesar Vargas  told RT.


Mexican-born Vargas is a participant in the Obama’s administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. He went through a four-year legal battle to open the admission of “undocumented immigrants” into the legal profession.

Thomas Kim, whose South Korean parents brought him to the United States on a tourist visa and then never returned home, sponsored the resolution. Kim said he faces an uncertain future, as it is still unclear if he’ll be eligible to practice law in Oregon after he earns his law degree from Arizona State University in 2018.

Kim won a full-time scholarship to study an undergraduate degree and won a full tuition merit scholarship to study law at Arizona State University.

“I am wanting to become a lawyer. I am wanting to become a lawyer who gives back to his community and gives back to this country that has been so generous to him. So I ask for your support,” pleaded Kim in a video posted by the ABA.

“This is nothing new. This is in total alignment with what the ABA has been doing since conception of its origin – commitment to diversity, commitment to equality and commitment to fairness,” he added.


Opposing the resolution was a delegate from the State Bar of Georgia.

“I would love to call them brothers and sisters of law but as lawyers we are tasked with upholding the rule of law. How can we uphold the law by supporting those who are violating the law to join our profession?” argued John R. B. Long.

Even if the resolution was to pass, Long said, individuals who clear the state bar will not be able to find employment with the government, and will have difficulty getting hired by most law firms.

“The practical effect is that you will be giving false hope to people who will take out a tremendous amount of debt as an undocumented alien, go to law school, sit for the bar, and be unemployable. For these reasons I disagree… and ask that the board vote against this resolution,” Long said.

So far, seven states have either allowed illegal immigrants to become lawyers, or made changes to the law to allow such a provision.

California passed a law in 2013 to allow some illegal immigrants to practice law. Florida officials facilitated the process for the Mexican-born Jose Godinez-Samperio to become a lawyer in 2014. Vargas was admitted to the New York state bar in 2016.

When it comes to such people finding employment, Vargas told RT that the law is malleable.

“It depends on the state agency. I could work for the Mayor’s office, I could work for a city council member but I couldn’t work for the District Attorney because you have to be a citizen,” Vargas said. “Even without DACA you could set up your own law firm. Law is creative and unfortunately I think some people think of it as a very academic issue, but legally there are creative ways to achieve the same results.”

DACA is a deportation relief and work permission program created by the Obama administration. It first accepted applicants in 2012 from immigrants who arrived to the US as minors and did not have citizenship status.

Under the program, 800,000 people were granted protection from deportation, but it is a temporary benefit that needs to be renewed every two years.

The Trump administration has kept the program in place but the deadline for its renewal is September 5; and ten states are threatening to take the administration to court unless it ends DACA.

“People like myself, I spent a decade being undocumented but during that time I went to college, went to law school, people started business, become licensed professionals, and if anything this reaffirms our commitment towards a permanent legislative solution,” Vargas told RT.


Judge dismisses Texas’ suit on ‘sanctuary city’ law…

Screen Shot 2017-08-10 at 3.21.28 PM

By Jon Herskovitz

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) – A U.S. district judge in Austin has rejected an effort by Texas to have a law that would punish so-called sanctuary cities be declared constitutional ahead of the measure taking effect next month.

The Republican-backed law is the first of its kind since Republican Donald Trump became president in January, promising a crackdown on illegal immigrants and localities that protect them. Texas is the U.S. state with the longest border with Mexico.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, appointed under Republican President George H.W. Bush, dismissed the case without prejudice late on Wednesday. The brief ruling did not give a reason.

Senate Bill 4 calls for jailing police chiefs, sheriffs and possibly frontline officers who fail to cooperate with U.S. immigration officials. The measure also allows police to ask about immigration status during a lawful detention.

After the law was approved in May, Texas sued major urban areas, including Austin, El Paso and Houston, as well as civil rights groups, saying they backed policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration officials.

At a June hearing, Sparks asked why a court should declare the law constitutional before it took effect on Sept. 1. He also questioned why he should hear the case when most of the parties were part of a separate lawsuit over the same law being heard in a federal court in San Antonio.

The defendants contended they had abided by federal law and the suit should be dismissed because Texas had no evidence showing it had been harmed by a law not yet in effect.

Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said on Wednesday he was disappointed with the ruling on what he called an “undoubtedly constitutional law.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, a civil rights group that has argued in court against the law, on Thursday said the Texas suit was a farce aimed at distracting attention from the harm that would come with SB 4.

“This is a significant blow to the State, and its legal posturing has only resulted in wasted taxpayer money,” Edgar Saldivar, senior staff attorney of the ACLU of Texas, said in a statement.

In the federal case in San Antonio, a small border town and some of the largest Texas cities told a judge in June that SB 4 could lead to an immigration police state and establish illegal racial profiling. They asked the court to halt it, saying it was unconstitutional.

Reporting by Jon Herskovitz; editing by Colleen Jenkins and Dan Grebler

Arizona Border Recon: Volunteers patrol US-Mexican border to catch migrants & smugglers

US President Donald Trump promised to build a wall along the Mexican-American border to fight drug smuggling and illegal immigration. The House of Representatives has passed a spending bill for its construction and $1.6 billion was allocated for it. 
However, some residents in the state of Arizona are still not content with the efforts made by authorities – and are taking matters into their own hands. Critics believe they are racist…

PrePaid American 

real American heros
Tony Tony 

Typical jew arguing for more immigrants but wont take any in to their racist appartide country

I did a week out there with them. Excellent group of Americans!!

Deport as many as you can America. They’ll turn your country into Mexico and leave nothing but piss and shit.
Kurt Boulter 

Sick of excuses made by idiots of why “illegal aliens” would rather die getting to American than be killed at home by the drug dealers! Stand up, band together, police the streets, and fight until all of the drug dealers and cartels are gone. There are tens of millions of people who hate the cartels, stand up and fight against the few who harass the many! When you have corrupt governments who are unable to, or are part of the problem through bribery and being on the take, it is the responsibility of the people to rise up and start defending themselves. Stop blaming the government and start blaming your gutless selves!
Jeff Texas 

They are not fleeing the drug cartels; they’re rushing to get the government hand outs. I don’t blame them for wanting to come here for a better life, which includes the hand outs. But they need to do it the “Legal” way. It’s not America’s fault they live in a sh*t hole of a country and it’s not our responsibility to fix it for them. Where are all the “America needs to mind its own business” cry babies when you need them? :p
Norman Rand Wolfe 

These are the TRUE PATRIOTS… THANK YOU for your service!!!
The OS 

Fuck that old lady. Illegal aliens are ILLEGAL! They need to fix their own fuckin country. Not impose on mine!!
Thomas Jefferson 

TOUGH SHIT you old bitch. NOT our problem and we arent going to pay for your problems. Take that shit and escape to Antartica, plenty of room there away from cartels. OR they can grow a pair of balls and organize and fight back against them… like an AMERICAN CITIZEN WOULD DO!

Broward County Comes Clean: Felons and Illegals Voted Big Time in 2016 Election!

Screen Shot 2017-08-08 at 11.18.44 AM


Here we go….FINALLY a Democrat admits to something we’ve suspected all along! What’s even more fascinating… it happened in… of all places, Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s own backyard, Broward County, Florida. You may remember Broward County. That was the county where Beranton Whisenant, a young attorney investigating voter fraud and fake passports turned up dead on the beach one morning.

Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes testified on Tuesday, this past week in a lawsuit that alleged she had failed to adequately purge voter rolls of ineligible voters including those who have died.

You see, at the time of the 2014 midterm elections, Broward County reported approximately 103 percent of the citizens of voting age were registered to vote — an impossibility, of course. Four years earlier, in 2010, Broward reported 106 percent of citizens of voting age were registered to vote.

Obviously, someone died and someone lied!

If you are not familiar with Broward County, Florida it has about 1.2 million voters and has the highest number of registered Democrats — about 600,000 — in the state.

Broward Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes is a Democrat and former teacher who was appointed by then Gov. Jeb Bush in 2003 to serve as Broward’s elections chief. She has run every subsequent election, and has served as the supervisor of elections in Broward County continuously for the past 14 years. Snipes is the named defendant in the suit, but she is not alone.

As I said, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of the conservative American Civil Rights Union in federal court in 2016.

The ACRU was represented by the Public Interest Legal Foundation which filed similar lawsuits in other states including North Carolina, Virginia and Texas. The president and general counsel of the foundation, J. Christian Adams, is a member of President Donald Trump‘s commission on voter integrity which has sought to collect voter roll data from all of the states. Trump’s allegations about widespread voter fraud in the 2016 election have repeatedly been debunked by PolitiFact, a Miami Herald news partner.

Screen Shot 2017-08-08 at 11.22.12 AM

After filing the suit, the local SEIU chapter representing health care workers in the county joined as an intervener, to defend against the charges and to prevent names from being removed from the Broward County voter roll. The group Demos, which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from George SorosOpen Society Institute, is contributing to Snipes’ legal defense and working to prevent any and all names from being removed from Broward’s voter roll.

In fact, Snipes was one of several elections supervisors in Florida who refused to follow through with the state’s request in 2011 that she and other county elections supervisors worked to verify the citizenship status of people on their rolls who had shown up in the state’s driver’s license databases as being noncitizens.

The complaint filed against Snipes alleges that she has violated federal law by failing to conduct reasonable voter list maintenance for federal elections. It does not allege that ineligible voters cast ballots. The lawsuit seeks that a judge order her to make improvements in handling list maintenance.

The complaint states that Broward’s voter rolls have “either more total registrants than eligible voting-age citizens or, at best, an implausibly high number of registrants,” according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Election Assistance Commission.

At the time of the 2014 general election, approximately 103 percent of the citizens of voting age were registered to vote, the complaint states.

Among actions the plaintiffs seek is for Snipes to request jury recusal forms from the clerk of courts to determine if anyone who has declared themselves a non-citizen has registered to vote. (Florida’s controversial attempt to purge non-citizens from the voter rolls before the 2012 election led to about 85 being removed statewide.)

Snipes disputed the allegations in a letter she wrote to ACRU in February 2016. Snipes wrote that Broward “adheres strictly” to the state’s guidelines about voter list maintenance. Court records show Broward removed about 240,000 voters between 2014 and 2016.

Screen Shot 2017-08-08 at 11.23.24 AM

“At no time in my tenure, which began in November 2003, has the number of registered voters outnumbered the live persons living in Broward County,” she wrote.

Before filing the suit, in January 2016 the plaintiffs sent letters raising concerns about voter roll maintenance to multiple Florida counties in addition to Broward including Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, Orange, Clay, Flagler and Santa Rosa. However, a lawsuit was only filed against Broward County.

When asked why the plaintiffs ultimately only sued Broward, a spokesman for the Public Interest Legal Foundation pointed to Adams’s opening statement in which he said that Snipes was unwilling to “engage in substantive discussions — essentially saying all counties in Florida who received a letter from the ACRU must be involved in those discussions.”

Adams questioning of Snipes began with a run-through of problems her office had last year alone: Voter cards with incorrect addresses mailed out to about 1,700 Davie and Cooper City voters; a printed ballot that had the word “no” in Haitian Creole where it should have read “wi” [yes]; and ballots mailed out that were missing the constitutional amendment on medical marijuana.

The trial initially began July 25th and was presided over by U.S. District Court Judge Beth BloomBurnadette Norris-Weeks represented Snipes.

Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood and Deerfield Beach, has 597,172 registered Democrats, 255,897 Republicans and 327,053 voters registered with no party affiliation. There are a total of 1,183,414 voters on the roll as of July 25, 2017.

In addition to the county having more than 103% registered voters, Snipes should have explained why Broward County, which has the highest number of Democratic voters in the state, has thousands of people over the age of 100 on its roll, and some as old as 130.

If that’s the case, someone should be in the Guiness Book of World Records, don’t you think? I mean the oldest person alive in the 2017 Guiness Book isn’t even 130 years old. So how could these numbers exist in Broward County?

If you remember this past year, allegations came out involving Voter Services and Registration Director Mary Hall and 4-5 employees writing and filling out false ballots.

A previous employee confirmed earlier,

“They’ve been at this [filling out absentee ballots]for days, working 4 to 5 employees some 16 hours a day each. There’s no telling how many ballots we are talking about. As many as they can each write in 16 hours a piece.”

Yet another allegation involves Voter Services and Registration Director Mary Hall, one of four employees a volunteer identified in a signed affidavit. The volunteer confirms the allegations made by a source claiming Hall and others were locked in a room filling in scores of absentee ballots for Mrs. Clinton and other Democratic candidates.

The volunteer, who was terminated ubruptly after witnessing the mass voter fraud operation in what employees called “The Pitney Bowes Room,” stated in their affidavit that they clearly saw these four individuals filling in “stacks” of ballots with the same pen given by the Supervisor of Elections to voters.

“Once in the room, I could see the four SEO employees sitting at the same table actively filling out election ballots,” the affidavit reads. “Each had a stack of blank ballots to the right of them (about an inch high) and a stack of completed ballots to their left… I could see that the bubbles on the right stack had not been filled in, while the bubbles on the left stack had been blackened in.”

“I could see that the SEO employees were using the same black pens (white body with a black cap) that the SOE supplies to voters at the polling sites. I was then told to leave the room by one of the employees.”

When the volunteer returned the next day, they were met by uniformed security guards and told they had been terminated.

In support of this volunteer’s account, Snipes — whose office has dealt with a series of mishaps and complications this election cycle — received a letter from Republican state party chairman Blaise Ingoglia alleging the elections department had illegally processed and opened scores of the more than 153,000 ballots that have been cast by mail in Broward back in August of 2016, in an article from the Miami Herald.

Screen Shot 2017-08-08 at 11.25.15 AM

Ingoglia said Snipes had erred by failing to convene Broward’s canvassing board while opening “tens of thousands” of absentee ballots, and by denying the public potential opportunities to contest problematic ballots.

The issue over Broward’s handling of absentee ballots arose when David Shestokas, a Florida Bar-certified attorney, was sent by the Republican National Lawyers Association from Chicago to watch the election in Broward.

In addition, Logan Churchwell, the head researcher for the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), which filed a suit against Broward County on behalf of the American Civil Rights Union (ACRU), told LifeZette on that he counted “thousands” of centenarians on Broward’s voter roll in data the county submitted to the federal Election Assistance Commission following the 2014 election.

“It doesn’t necessarily mean they’re dead,” he said, “but if you’re 130 years old, either find a gravestone, or call Guinness!”

It seems Snipes has also had some previous problems with ballots in Broward County. Like in 2012, when the Broward County canvassing board was set to finalize counts for overseas and military ballots and 1,000 ballots turned up in a warehouse.

Prior to that, we could go back to the reason why Snipes even got her job in the FIRST place! It was because in 2003, former Broward County Supervisor of Elections Miriam Oliphant was escorted out of her office and removed from her job after uncounted votes were found in a cabinet drawer and the department went a million dollars over budget.

Shall I continue….?

In addition, in 2014, the Broward County Supervisor of Elections was in another lawsuit filed by the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws over the statewide amendment on medical marijuana being left off some absentee ballots in the county.

Screen Shot 2017-08-08 at 11.26.24 AM

Amendment backers fell just shy of having medical marijuana approved by voters in 2014. The state requires 60 percent approval for constitutional amendments, and the ballot question was supported by 57.6 percent of voters. Wow! Are you really going to tell me that leaving off the amendment on medical marijuana wasn’t intentional? Come on man!

Snipes acknowledged the processes her office have been using aren’t perfect and that some non-citizens and felons have voted despite not being eligible — especially right before major elections when groups are actively registering new voters. But Snipes said the precautions her office takes are important to make sure eligible voters aren’t removed from the lists by mistake.

Ok….who’s buying this BS?  The fact is the Democrats lost the presidential election even with ALL their voter fraud that was committed not only in Broward County, Florida, but across the nation.  I’d tell you to ask Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who was in charge of Voter Expansion, but it turns out he was murdered after an alleged ‘botched robbery’.

If Americans don’t believe voter fraud is a problem, then they must have their heads buried in the sand.

Follow the money people!

Who did I say was defending Snipes?…oh, yes, that’s right, the local SEIU chapter representing health care workers in the county joined as an intervener, … the group Demos, funded by none other than George Soros and his Open Society.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to connect the dots.

Now you might ask, ‘why would a local SEIU chapter of health care workers be defending the Broward County Supervisor of Elections?’   Good question! Maybe it’s because they are all government employees protecting union jobs paid for by Democrats?

Snipes is being protected by government and union workers funded by George Soros. Need I say more?

It’s uncertain when Bloom will rule, but my guess is Snipes will keep her job and just get her hand slapped.  However, what Snipes did was commit a felony punishable by up to $10,000 and 3 1/2 years in prison.  Sad part is, she won’t get sent to prison, she will just get put back in the ‘cesspool’ or swamp in Broward County.

Most people believe the swamp that Trump is trying to drain only exists in Washington, DC.  The fact of the matter is, the center of the cesspool and voter fraud is in Broward County, right in Debbie Wasserman’s backyard. I’d tell you to just ask Bernie Whisenant who was a federal prosecutor investigating voter fraud in Broward County for more information, but it seems his body was found washed up on a Hollywood Beach.

It would seem when it comes to voter fraud and Democrats, knowing too much…can be a life alternating experience. As Debbie ‘Blabbermouth’ Schultz would say, ‘there will be consequences’. Let’s hope that when it comes to Snipes and voter fraud, there will be fines and a prison sentence for her crimes related to voter fraud in Broward County over the past 10-14 years. #DrainTheSwamp



Emanuel sues Trump Justice Department

Screen Shot 2017-08-08 at 10.59.35 AM

By Hal Dardick

Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Monday won praise from some representatives of Chicago’s immigrant community for going to court to block President Donald Trumps Department of Justice from withholding some police grant funding from so-called sanctuary cities.

Some of those same activists, though, contend Emanuel should do even more to prevent police from helping federal officials deport Chicago immigrants who entered the country without the required legal documentation. The mayor also caught more flak from U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who in stepping up his rhetoric said “no amount of federal taxpayer dollars will help a city that refuses to help its own residents.”

Screen Shot 2017-08-08 at 11.02.14 AM

The wide array of views coming from Emanuel’s City Hall, the White House and immigrant protection groups is a sign of the complex debate the mayor has entered by filing the lawsuit. It’s all further complicated by differing views on whether sanctuary city status fosters or hinders crime — as reflected in Sessions’ harsh words and the city’s contention that the Trump “administration’s rhetoric is divorced from reality.”

Emanuel’s lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court, asks a judge to block the Trump administration from enforcing three new conditions it included last week in applications for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant money. The city uses the grant to help buy police cars, purchase other equipment and fund an anti-violence program. Those applications are due Sept. 5, and the city wants a court order before the deadline, said Corporation Counsel Ed Siskel, the city’s top attorney.

The new conditions outlined by Sessions’ Justice Department: sharing immigration status information with federal officials enforcing deportation laws, providing unlimited police station access to those officials and giving them 48-hours notice of an arrested person’s release in cases of potential immigration violations.

City officials contend in the lawsuit that they do share immigration status information when they have it, but that’s rare because the city doesn’t keep it in the normal course of business.

Providing unfettered station access would interfere with police department practices, delay release of people being held and violate the 10th Amendment by “commandeering” local government functions, the lawsuit states. And holding people for 48 hours without a warrant or probable cause that they have committed a crime would violate 4th Amendment search and seizure limitations, it adds.

The suit also contends that the Justice Department has no authority to set conditions on the Byrne grant funding and is attempting to usurp the Congressional power of the purse. In short, the suit deems the conditions “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

This year, the city was counting on receiving $3.2 million from the grants in question, a relatively miniscule portion of the city’s overall $9.8 billion budget.

“We are at a time when every bit counts and every resource matters in this fight,” Siskel said. “In addition, we are bringing this legal challenge because the rhetoric and the threats from this administration, embodied in these new restrictions placed on public safety grant funds, are breeding a culture and a climate of fear within the communities in our city.”

Plus, the fate of Chicago’s grant application also would affect other local Illinois governments that include their funding requests in Chicago’s application, according to the lawsuit. They are Cook County, Bellwood, Calumet City, Chicago Heights, Cicero, Dolton, Evanston, Harvey, Maywood, Riverdale and Skokie.

And the outcome of the suit could have ramifications for far-flung local and state governments with sanctuary laws on the books. They include New York, Philadelphia, Miami and the state of California.

So it was no surprise that groups like Illinois Coalition for Immigration and Refugee Rights backed the mayor’s move. “We are all for defending Chicago’s policy with respect to immigration,” said Fred Tsao, the group’s senior policy counsel. He also said “the law is on the side of the city.”

Yet Tsao’s group is part of a broader coalition that for months has been pushing Emanuel to remove four exemptions from the city’s Welcoming City Ordinance, which sets its status as a sanctuary city.

That ordinance bars police from providing federal Immigration and Customs Enforcementofficials access to people in local custody. It also prohibits allowing ICE agents to use police facilities for interviews or investigations, and bars on-duty officers from responding to ICE questions or talking to ICE officials prior to a person’s release from custody.

But it does allow police to provide ICE officials access to immigrants suspected of entering the country illegally who are wanted on a criminal warrant, face criminal charges, have serious criminal convictions or are listed on Chicago gang databases.

The American Civil Liberties Union maintains those exemptions, which could result in holding in custody someone not guilty of a recent crime, “expose the city to liability for violations of the 4th Amendment,” according to a letter the ACLU sent to the mayor and aldermen last month.

Ald. Carlos Ramirez-Rosa, 35th, has been pushing to get Chicago to join other cities that have eliminated similar exemptions, but the Emanuel administration so far has rebuffed his efforts, as recently as Friday by canceling a meeting on the issue.

“It’s quite funny and hypocritical that at the same time as (Emanuel is) putting forward this lawsuit saying that we want to defend the Constitution, here the ACLU has said that our own sanctuary city policy is in violation of the supreme law of the land,” said Ramirez-Rosa, who also stressed that he supports the lawsuit.

Ramirez-Rosa’s view runs counter to the image Emanuel has tried to portray on the issue in mostly Democratic Chicago, which has a significant Latino population that’s become increasingly politically active.

Emanuel often expresses his opposition to Trump’s immigration views and in the past year backed other successful efforts to strengthen the Welcoming City Ordinance, create a legal fund to assist immigrants threatened with deportation and start developing a municipal ID program aimed mostly at helping immigrants without documentation make their way in the city.

He’s faced only limited opposition, often from Ald. Nicholas Sposato, 38th, who on Monday called the lawsuit “a bad idea,” saying the city was “breaking the laws” and had more important priorities.

While immigrant rights activists backed the mayor’s lawsuit, Sessions on Monday reiterated the Trump administration’s contention that sanctuary city status fuels crime.

Chicago officials “have demonstrated an open hostility to enforcing laws designed to protect law enforcement — federal, state, and local — and reduce crime, and instead have adopted an official policy of protecting criminal aliens who prey on their own residents,” Sessions said in a prepared statement.

“This is astounding given the unprecedented violent crime surge in Chicago, with the number of murders in 2016 surpassing both New York and Los Angeles combined,” Sessions added. “The city’s leaders cannot follow some laws and ignore others and reasonably expect this horrific situation to improve.”

That’s in direct opposition to the argument put forth by Emanuel and the city in its federal lawsuit, which contends that forcing local police to enforce immigration laws would dry up cooperation from the immigrant community. Addressing that issue, the lawsuit contends “the administration’s rhetoric is divorced from reality.”

Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance, according to the lawsuit, “promotes public safety by ensuring that no city resident or visitor, regardless of immigration status, is afraid to cooperate with law enforcement, report criminal activity to the police, testify as a witness in court or seek help as a victim of crime.” It also ensures “police officers focus on criminal activity occurring in Chicago instead of federal civil immigration infractions.”


He then went on to assault another woman and commit multiple break-ins before finally being caught while running from police

Chris Menahan | Information Liberation – JULY 27, 2017

An illegal immigrant from Mexico who has been deported 20 times was arrested Monday night in the sanctuary city of Portland for allegedly breaking into a 65-year-old woman’s home, tying her up, sexually assaulting her, threatening to kill her and stealing her car.

He then went on to assault another woman and commit multiple break-ins before finally being caught while running from police.

The assailant was identified as Sergio Jose Martinez, 31, of Mexico. Martinez also goes by the nicknames “Poison” and “Smyley” and the fake names “Sergio Alberto Martinez” and “Erick Acosta.”

Martinez is reportedly a drug addicted meth addict and an alcoholic with a massive rap sheet.

From KOIN 6:

Martinez moved to Portland within the last three years. He appears to be transient with no fixed address. He has used a Northwest Portland shelter as his mailing address. Martinez told officials that he picks up construction jobs to make money.

Martinez is a meth and marijuana user and told the sheriff’s office alcohol is his most serious addition. Earlier this year, he told jail staff that he consumes four to six 24 oz. beers per day. In the past, he said he has consumed as much as 10 beers per day.

Records also show that Martinez has told county staff that he has numerous mental health issues including bipolar, schizoaffective, and borderline personality disorder.

His criminal record is extensive.

In California, his conviction record includes:
2008 – Burglary
2010 – U.S. alien found in U.S. following deportation;
2014 – Parole violation
2015 – Battery, theft, and obstructing a public officer
2016 – Illegal entry into the U.S.

“Defendant has entry/removal from United States to/from Mexico 20 times with at least 5 probation violations from re-entry,” according to court documents filed in March 2017.

His most recent removal from the United States was in November 2016, but it remains unknown when he re-entered the U.S.

Records show that Martinez has lived in Multnomah County consistently since 2017. The county has issued 9 failure to appear warrants against Martinez since September 1986.

Portland’s Democrat Mayor Ted Wheeler insisted Portland remain a sanctuary city in defiance of Donald Trump late last year.

“There’s no place in this community for sexism, racism, religious intolerance or xenophobia,” Wheeler said. “I don’t think the values that we’ve espoused in this community are up for debate and we’re not going to be intimidated by the threat of withdrawal of federal funds to backtrack on what are really fundamental values.”

“I’m underscoring the fact that Portland is not going to backtrack on our values,” he said. “We will remain open, we will remain welcoming and we’re going to remain safe.”

Wheeler has not commented on this illegal alien’s rape and crime spree. Instead, today he chose to counter-signal Trump for moving to ban transgenders from serving in the military.

Screen Shot 2017-07-27 at 3.15.16 PM

Massachusetts can’t legally hold immigrants on ICE detainer requests – state court

The top court in Massachusetts has ruled that authorities have no right to hold an immigrant after they have been released for a crime. However, some on the federal level disagree.


The state’s Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled Monday after the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement requested a court order that illegal immigrants facing deportation be held for up to 48 hours after their initial cases are resolved.


That amounts to a new arrest of a person, the state court found, which is not authorized by the laws of Massachusetts. This is the first ruling of this situation that applies to an entire state, according to Massachusetts’ attorney general, Maura Healey, Reuters reported.

The decision by the court cited states’ rights in their final decision in the case.

“Massachusetts law provides no authority for Massachusetts court officers to arrest and hold an individual solely on the basis of a Federal civil immigration detainer, beyond the time that the individual would otherwise be entitled to be released from State custody,” the court wrote, according to court documents.

Sreynuon Lunn, of Cambodia, was the focus of the case. Lunn entered the US in 1985 as a refugee, but was ordered to be deported in 2008 due to a slew of criminal convictions. His home country declined to accept him, and so he was ordered free. However, Lunn was arrested again in Boston in 2016 for unarmed robbery. Suffolk County prosecutors failed to present a case against him, and he was released into the custody of ICE, Reuters reported.

After being detained by the agency, Lunn’s attorney challenged the transfer to ICE custody because of the fact that Massachusetts law does not allow police to keep anyone in their custody who do not have any pending charges. The ruling on Monday states that neither the federal nor state law has the power, in Massachusetts, to hold a person without a criminal warrant.

“In short, this was a civil immigration detainer,” the justices wrote, according to the documents. “It alleged that Lunn was subject to, and was being sought by the Federal authorities for the purpose of, the civil process of removal. It was not a criminal detainer or a criminal arrest warrant. It did not allege that the Federal authorities were seeking Lunn for a criminal immigration offense or any other Federal crime, for purposes of a criminal prosecution.”


The US Department of Justice lawyers had previously stated in the case that ICE detainer requests are an established legal example of cooperation between federal and local law enforcement.

“You have that power,” Joshua Press, a DOJ attorney, said in April during oral arguments in the case, the Boston Herald reported.

The SJC did not agree with the assertions of the DOJ and stated that the state police may only make arrests for criminal offenses. “Conspicuously absent from our common law is any authority (in the absence of a statute) for police officers to arrest generally for civil matters, let alone authority to arrest specifically for Federal civil immigration matters,” the judges wrote.

Some civil rights groups say that this ruling in Massachusetts could potentially set an example for rulings in states around the country. The ACLU of Massachusetts responded in a statement after the trial’s conclusion.

“This court decision sets an important precedent that we are a country that upholds the constitution and the rule of law,” the group said in a statement. “This victory is the first of its kind in the nation. At a time when the Trump administration is pushing aggressive and discriminatory immigration enforcement policies, Massachusetts is leading nationwide efforts by limiting how state and local law enforcement assist with federal immigration enforcement.”