Los Angeles schools offer to blatantly break the law in opposing ICE

Hotair ^ | 05/11/2017 | JAZZ SHAW

[SeekAndFind]

The folks on the left coast may want to kick those Calexit talks into high gear because the state of California is acting more and more like their own country at this point anyway. The latest shot fired in the race to “Resist! Trump!” and thwart the efforts of law enforcement to protect our borders comes from one of the largest school systems in the nation… Los Angeles. The school board enacted new policies this week which go far beyond simply “refusing to cooperate” with immigration enforcement agents, declaring that they will actively move to prevent ICE officers from conducting their lawful duties. (LA Times)

The Los Angeles school board on Tuesday unanimously approved a set of policies that board members said would provide families with a higher level of protection from federal immigration raids.

Among the safeguards in the sweeping set of guidelines: No immigration officers will be allowed on campus without clearance from the superintendent of schools, who will consult with district lawyers. Until that happens, they won’t be let in, even if they arrive with a legally valid subpoena.

“L.A. Unified is basically saying fear stops at [our] door,” said school board member Ref Rodriguez, who co-sponsored the lengthy measure.

Note that we’re not talking about any sort of random raids or fishing expeditions here. The LA school board is saying that even if officers have a properly issued warrant or subpoena for a specific illegal immigrant they will block the door and prevent the officers from entering until the Superintendent of Schools can be contacted. That individual will no doubt be taking their sweet time, dragging in lawyers and offering every possible opportunity for the suspect to escape. That’s not a policy difference on the part of the school board… it’s a direct example of obstruction of justice and a violation of federal law.

The school is probably counting on the fact that the feds don’t want the sort of media story which would result from photos of federal agents dragging a kindergarten teacher off the campus in handcuffs and they’re probably right. But that doesn’t leave the White House with no options to explore. You couldn’t ask for a clearer justification to cut off all federal education funding to the entire Los Angeles school district. There are rules against cutting all funding to states or municipalities as retribution over political disagreements, but a statement of intent to violate the law by a school district couldn’t be interpreted as anything other than a valid reason to freeze specific funding from the Department of Education.

And that would be a sizable bite. The LA district receives something in the range of $10M in federal grants and other funding annually. (California receives the most such funding of any state in the nation.) The firestorm in the media would be immediate, with cries about how the administration was “harming the children” but this one rule they have passed could readily be held up in response. Stop breaking the law and you can have your grant money back. It’s really as easy as that and the White House should move on this at once.

[Mercat]

hmmm. legally valid warrant. I am willing to bet that there is a statute saying that anyone interfering with the execution of a legally valid federal warrant can be arrested.

[georgiegirl]

Our county was considering this “safe haven” resolution too, which was supported “reportedly” by ALL the teachers. On the day of the school board meeting to vote on this, most of the concerned speakers were for the safe haven, they were representing the education system. Only 3 (including yours truly) represented the opposing side. We were delighted to hear that against all odds, the resolution never made it to a vote. One board member (pro) made a motion to vote, but the rest of the board did not offer a “second”. Thank the Lord that most on our school board are still good solid folk.

[Wallace T.]

During the Obama Administration, the few public officials who even suggested that local or state authorities could defy the Supreme Court's ruling on the “marriage” of homosexuals by not issuing licenses were reprimanded. The case of former Justice Roy Moore of Alabama, who was subject to a Star Chamber type proceeding for expressing his opinion, was an example. And this was in Alabama, one of the most conservative states. Yet we have local and state authorities in California, New York, and elsewhere openly defying Federal authority on the issue of illegal immigration. Due to liberal judges appointed by Clinton, Obama, and even in some cases by the Bushes, who will overturn any attempt of the Executive Office to punish the state or local officials, they will get away with their defiance.