ritten Communications
PC - Torres - Received 1/26/25
ritten Communications
PC - Torres - Received 1/26/25
611PennsylvaniaAveSE #231 | Washington, DC20003 | www.aflegal.org December23, 2024
Via email
ChairwomanNoraVargas
SanDiegoCountyBoardofSupervisors
1600PacificHighway, Room335
SanDiego, CA92101
[email protected]
DearChairwomanVargas:
Federallaw is clear: aliensunlawfullypresentin the UnitedStatesaresubjectto re- movalfromthecountry, andit is a crimeto conceal, harbor, orshieldthem.1 It is alsoa crimetopreventfederalofficialsfromenforcingimmigrationlaw.2 Theselawswereduly enactedbythepeople’selectedrepresentatives. UndertheSupremacyClauseoftheU.S.
Constitution, theyarethelawofthelandandsupersedeanyStateor locallawsto the contrary. In ourdemocraticrepublic, all Stateandlocalofficialsmustcomplywith them.
Federallawimposesseriousconsequencesforobstructingtheexecutionoffederalimmi- grationlaw. So-called “sanctuary” jurisdictionsthat forbidcompliancewith federalim- migrationlawandcooperationwith theofficialswhoenforceit are, therefore, breaking the law. Moreover, sanctuaryjurisdictionsarestrictly prohibitedfromrequiringtheir employeestoviolatefederalimmigrationlaw.
WehaveidentifiedSanDiegoCountyasasanctuaryjurisdictionthatisviolatingfederal law. In fact, onDecember12, 2024, theSanDiegoCountyBoardofSupervisorspassed aresolutionstatingtheCountywill notassistorcooperatewith federalImmigrationand CustomsEnforcement (ICE), “includingby givingICE agentsaccessto individualsor allowingthemto useCountyfacilitiesfor investigativeinterviewsor otherpurposes, expendingCountytimeorresourcesrespondingtoICEinquiriesorcommunicatingwith ICE regarding individuals’ incarcerationstatus or releasedates, or otherwise participatingin any civil immigrationenforcementactivities.” This resolutionclearly violatesfederallawandsubjectsthosewhoabidebyit tosignificantrisk ofcriminaland 1 8U.S.C. § 1324.
2 18U.S.C. § 372.
Attachment1
WrittenCommunications
PC - Torres - Received1/26/25
2 civilliability. Accordingly, wearesendingthislettertoputyouonnoticeofthisrisk and insistthat youcomplywith ournation’slaws.3
Theimportanceofthis issueis notjustabstractorhypothetical. AccordingtoICE, asof September25, 2024, therewere425,431convictedcriminalsin theUnitedStateswho wereillegalalienswith final ordersofremovalenteredagainstthemandwhowerenot currentlybeingdetained.4 Additionally, therewere222,141non-detainedillegalaliens in the UnitedStateswith final ordersof removalwhohadcriminalchargespending againstthem. Thisaddsup to 647,572illegalaliens. Accordingto ActingICE Director PatrickJ. Lechleitner, oneofthereasonsforthishighnumberofcriminalalienswhoare freefromdetentionis that “‘sanctuary’ policiescanendup shieldingdangerouscrimi- nals, whooftenvictimizethosesame [immigrant] communities.”5 Moreover, yoursanctuarypolicieshavehada realimpactonyourlocalresidents. For example, in April 2024, ICEarrestedfourillegalalienswhohadbeenconvictedofdrug traffickingor multipledrug possession-relatedoffensesinvolvingmethamphetamine, fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, or syntheticdrugs. SanDiegowasnamedin Mayasthetop entrypointforillegalalienscrossingintotheUnitedStatesafter37,370unlawfulentries into SanDiegoin April alone. In response, CountySupervisorJim Desmondadmitted that “humansmugglershaveidentifiedCalifornia, particularlythe SanDiegoborder sector, asthepathofleastresistanceforillegalimmigration.”6 I. The Federal Government has authority over immigration and aliens.
AstheSupremeCourthasexplained, “[t]hefederalpowertodetermineimmigrationpol- icyiswellsettled.”7 “TheGovernmentoftheUnitedStateshasbroad, undoubtedpower overthesubjectofimmigrationandthestatusofaliens.”8 TheU.S. Constitutionempow- ersCongressto “establishanuniformRuleofNaturalization.”9 Furthermore, thefederal government’s poweroverimmigrationcomesfromits “inherentpowerassovereignto 3 AdamShawandBill Melugin, California countyvotesto ramp up sanctuarypoliciesaheadof Trump deportationpush: ‘Radical policy’, FOXNEWS, (Dec. 10, 2024), https://perma.cc/QY27-K4X6; Adopting aBoardPolicyonImmigrationEnforcementtoEnhanceCommunitySafety (Districts: All), SanDiego Cnty. Bd. ofSupervisors (Dec. 10, 2024), https://perma.cc/Q7G2-3K72. 4 AdamShaw, Tensof thousandsof illegal immigrants with sexualassault, murder convictionsin US:
ICE data, FOXNEWS, (Sept. 27, 2024), https://perma.cc/F4FM-6966. 5 LetterfromPatrickJ. Lechleitner, SeniorOfficialPerformingtheDutiesoftheICEDirector, toHon.
TonyGonzales, U.S. HouseofRepresentatives (Sep. 25, 2024), https://perma.cc/A5BV-UUL5. 6 ERO San Diego arrests 4 noncitizens with drug-related convictions during nationwide law enforcement effort, U.S. IMMIGRATIONAND CUSTOMSENFORCEMENT, (April 8, 2024), https://perma.cc/ME93-TZKU; Shari Rendall, Illegal Aliens Flock to San Diego, Making it the Top Entry Point for Illegal Aliens, FAIR, (May20, 2024), https://perma.cc/A9B4-DZXA. 7 Arizona v. United States, 567U.S. 387, 395 (2012).
8 Id. at 394 (citationomitted).
9 U.SCONST. Art. I, § 8, cl. 4.
WrittenCommunications
PC - Torres - Received1/26/25
3 controlandconductrelationswith foreignnations.”10Conversely, “[u]ndertheConstitu- tion the statesaregrantedno suchpowers; theycanneitheraddto nortakefromthe conditionslawfullyimposedbyCongressuponadmission, naturalizationandresidence ofaliensin theUnitedStatesortheseveralstates.”11
UndertheImmigrationandNationalityAct (INA), Congressspecificallypermitsstate andlocallaw enforcementofficersto assistfederalofficialsin enforcingimmigration law.12 No federallaw, however, allowsstateor localofficialsto subvertor ignorethe requirementsoftheINA. In fact, federallawimposessignificantcriminalandcivilpen- altiesonthosewhodoso.
II. Federal law preempts any State or local law prohibiting or restricting a State or local official from communicating with DHS about an individ- ual’s immigration status.
TheINA specificallypreemptsStateandlocalrestrictionsonlocalofficials’ communica- tionswith DHS. It statesthat “[n]otwithstandingany otherprovisionof Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or localgovernmententityor officialmaynotprohibit, or in anywayrestrict, anygovernmententityorofficialfromsendingto, orreceivingfrom, DHS] informationregardingthecitizenshiporimmigrationstatus, lawfulorunlawful, ofanyindividual.”13
TheSupremeCourthasclearlyexplained: “Thereis nodoubtthat Congressmaywith- draw specifiedpowersfrom the Statesby enactinga statutecontainingan express preemptionprovision.”14Congressdidexactlythatin Section1373oftheINA. Therefore, sanctuarypoliciesforbiddingStateor localofficialsfromcommunicatingwith DHSare unlawful.15
10 Arizona, 567U.S. at 394 (citationomitted).
11 DeCanasv. Bica, 424U.S. 351, 358n.6 (1976) (quotingTakahashi v. Fish & GameComm’n, 334 U.S. 410, 419 (1948) (emphasisadded)).
12 See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1324(c) (arrestsfor criminalviolationof the INA’s prohibitionsagainstsmug- gling, transporting, orharboringaliensmaybemadenotonlybyfederalimmigrationofficers, butalso by “all otherofficerswhosedutyit istoenforcecriminallaws”); id. § 1252c (authorizingstateandlocal lawenforcementtoarrestunlawfullypresentalienswhohavebeenpreviouslyremovedandconvicted ofa felony); id. § 1103(a)(10) (empoweringDHSto authorizestateandlocallawenforcementofficers, whenan “actualor imminentmassinflux of aliens . . . presentsurgentcircumstancesrequiringan immediateFederalresponse,” to performfunctionsoffederalimmigrationofficers); andid. § 1357(g) ( allowingDHSto enterinto written agreementswith Stateor localgovernmentsto assistin “investi- gation, apprehension, or detentionofaliensin theUnitedStates” andalsospecificallyallowingsuch cooperationevenwithoutwrittenagreements).
13 8U.S.C. § 1373(a) (emphasisadded).
14 Arizona, 567U.S. 399.
15 U.S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2.
WrittenCommunications
PC - Torres - Received1/26/25
4 III. Concealing, harboring, or shielding aliens is a federal crime.
By complyingwith yourjurisdiction’s sanctuarylaw or policies, youandyoursubordi- natesappearto beengagingin faciallycriminalactionsandpotentiallysubjectingany- oneimplementingthosepoliciesto punishment. Thisis becauseanyonewho “conceals, harbors, or shieldsfromdetection” “an alien [who] hascometo, entered, or remainsin theUnitedStatesin violationoflaw,” or whoattemptsto doso, is committinga federal crimeif thatpersonkneworacted “in recklessdisregardofthe” alien’sunlawfulpresence or entrancein theUnitedStates.16 Similarly, it is a crimeif anindividual “encourages orinducesanalientocometo, enter, orresidein theUnitedStates, knowingorin reck- lessdisregardofthefactthat suchcomingto, entry, orresidenceisorwill bein violation oflaw.”17It isalsoacrimetoaidandabettheaboveviolationsortoengagein conspiracy to committhem.18 Thepenaltyfor anyoftheabovecrimesis fiveyears’ imprisonment peralien involved.19
Furthermore, becausethelanguage “cometo, entered, orremains” isphrasedin disjunc- tiveform, federalappellatecourtshaveheldthat theaboveprovisionsapplyto conduct regardlessof whetheran alienmaybeconsideredlawfully presentat the time of the conduct, solongasthealienhadinitially “cometo” or “entered” theUnitedStatesun- lawfully.20 Accordingly, if an alieninitially enterstheUnitedStatesillegallyandlater receivesparolestatusor someothertemporaryquasi-lawful status, that later lawful statusfailsto insulateyouor othersimplementingyourjurisdiction’ssanctuarylawor policiesfromcriminalexposureandlongprisonsentences.
IV. Your jurisdiction’ s sanctuary policies could expose you and your subor- dinates to criminal liability for conspiracy to commit a federal offense and conspiracy to impede a federal officer.
Becauseyourjurisdiction’s sanctuarylawsor policiesusuallyrequiremultipleofficials to coordinatetheir activities, all suchofficialscouldbecriminallyliableundermultiple federalcriminalconspiracystatutes.
16 8U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).
17 8U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).
18 8U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v).
19 8U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B)(ii) (“foreachalienin respecttowhomsucha violationoccurs”). 20 United Statesv. Esparza, 882F.2d143, 145–46 (5th Cir. 1989); accordUnited Statesv. Francisco, 30F. App'x 48, 49 (4th Cir. 2002); seealso United Statesv. Hernandez-Garcia, 284F.3d1135, 1138 ( 9thCir. 2002) (holdingthat thedisjunctivenatureofthelist meansthat notall threeelementsmust beprovedfor thestatuteto applyandthat Section1324thereforeapplies “[s]o longasan alienhas cometo theUnitedStatesunlawfullyandthetransporterknowsthis”).
WrittenCommunications
PC - Torres - Received1/26/25
5 Forexample, “[i]f twoormorepersonsconspireeithertocommitanyoffenseagainstthe UnitedStates ... in anymanneror foranypurpose, andoneor moreofsuchpersonsdo anyacttoeffecttheobjectoftheconspiracy,” theneverypersoninvolvedin theconspir- acyfacesa penaltyof up to fiveyears’ imprisonment.21 Thus, because8 U.S.C. § 1324 makesit acrimetoconceal, harbor, orshieldaliens, everyemployeein youragencywho isinvolvedin implementingsanctuarypolicies—evenif theydonotdirectlyconceal, har- bor, orshieldanalien—wouldpotentiallyfacefiveyearsin prison.
Similarly, it isa crimefor “twoormorepersons ... [to] conspireto prevent ... anyperson from ... dischargingany duties” of “anyoffice, trust, or placeof confidenceunderthe UnitedStates.”22 Thiscrimecarriesa penaltyofup to six years’ imprisonment. Thus, employeesin yourjurisdictioninvolvedin implementingsanctuarypoliciesthat prevent federalimmigrationofficersfromcarryingout their dutieswouldpotentiallyfacesix yearsin prison.
Additionally, it isacrimecarryingapenaltyofupto20years’ imprisonmentforanyone who “knowingly ... engagesin misleadingconducttowardanotherperson, with intentto causeor induceanypersonto ... beabsentfromanofficialproceedingto whichsuch personhasbeensummonedbylegalprocess” orto “hinder, delay, orpreventthecommu- nicationtoalawenforcementofficerorjudgeoftheUnitedStatesofinformationrelating tothecommissionorpossiblecommissionofaFederaloffenseoraviolationof ... parole[] or releasependingjudicialproceedings.”23 Thismeansthat youandyoursubordinates couldpotentiallyfaceup to 20yearsin prisonfor anymisleadingactionsthat helpan aliento avoidremovalproceedings. Youandyoursubordinateswouldalsopotentially facethesamerisk fortakingactionsthat preventfederalauthoritiesfromgettinginfor- mationaboutaliens’ immigrationviolationsor their failureto abideby conditionsfor releasependingimmigrationproceedings.
V. Your jurisdiction’ s sanctuary policies could expose you and the other individual officials and employees involved to potential personal finan- cial liability to private plaintiffs.
Concealing, harboring, or shieldingalienscouldalsotriggerliability underthefederal RacketeerInfluencedandCorruptOrganizationsAct (RICO) statute.24CivilRICOrem- ediesareavailableto “[a]ny personinjuredin his businessor propertyby reasonof a violation” and “shallrecoverthreefoldthedamageshesustainsandthecostofthesuit, 21 18U.S.C. § 371.
22 18U.S.C. § 372.
23 18U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(D) and (b)(3).
24 See18U.S.C. 1961(1) (listing 8U.S.C. § 1324asapredicateRICOoffense).
WrittenCommunications
PC - Torres - Received1/26/25
6 includingareasonableattorney’sfee.” 18U.S.C. § 1964(c). Publicofficialswhohavecom- mittedRICOviolationsmaybesuedin their individualcapacities.25 Thus, anyindivid- ual whohasbeenharmedby yourjurisdiction’s sanctuarypolicies, suchasvictimsof crimescommittedbyaliensyouhaveharbored, maysueyouandanyotherofficialsin- volvedin harboringthat alienfortripledamages. Also, youandtheotherpublicofficials andemployeeswhoenforceorfollowyourjurisdiction’ssanctuarypoliciescouldfacelia- bility underthesubstantivedueprocessstate-createddangerdoctrine.26 VI. Conclusion
AsPresidentTheodoreRooseveltsaid, “[n]omanis abovethelawandnomanis below it; nordoweaskanyman’spermissionwhenwerequirehimtoobeyit. Obediencetothe lawis demandedasa right; notaskedasa favor.”27 TheAmericanpeoplehavespoken throughtheir representatives. Yourjurisdiction’s sanctuarylawsor policiestherefore makea mockeryofAmericandemocracyanddemonstratea shockingdisrespectforthe ruleoflaw. Forthesereasonsalone, youshouldabandonthem. Butnomatteryourviews onourUnion, the factofthe matteris that youandthe otherofficialswhosupportor enforcesanctuarylaws, policies, andregulationshaveaverypersonalstakein themat- ter – youeachcouldfacecriminalprosecutionandcivilliability foryourillegalacts. We urgeyoutodotheright thing, protectyourcitizens, andcomplywith federallaw.
Bestregards,
s/ JamesRogers
JamesRogers
SeniorCounsel
AmericaFirst LegalFoundation
25 Gentyv. Resol. Tr. Corp., 937F.2d 899, 913 (3d Cir. 1991) (holdingthat plaintiffs couldnot sue municipalityfor triple damagesunderthe RICOstatutebut that they couldbring “a RICOaction againstthe municipalofficersthemselves”); Pelfresnev. Vill. of Rosemont, 22F. Supp. 2d 756, 761 ( N.D. Ill. 1998) (individualmunicipalofficialssuedin their individualcapacitieswere “properRICO persons” whocouldbesuedfortriple damages).
26 See, e.g., Polancov. Diaz, 76F. 4th 918 (9th Cir. 2024); Irish v. Fowler, 979F.3d65 (1stCir. 2020); L.R. v. SchoolDistrict of Philadelphia, 836F.3d235 (3dCir. 2016); Penav. DePrisco, 432F. 3d38 ( 2dCir. 2005).
27 TheodoreRoosevelt, Third Annual Messageto theSenateand HouseofRepresentatives, Dec. 7. 1903, availableat https://perma.cc/E7BD-ZQBS.
WrittenCommunications
PC - Torres - Received1/26/25
Attachment 2
Written Communications
PC - Torres - Received 1/26/25
Written Communications
PC - Torres - Received 1/26/25
Written Communications
PC - Torres - Received 1/26/25
Written Communications
PC - Torres - Received 1/26/25
Written Communications
PC - Torres - Received 1/26/25
Written Communications
PC - Torres - Received 1/26/25
Written Communications
PC - Torres - Received 1/26/25
Written Communications
PC - Torres - Received 1/26/25
If C
SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE RESOLUTION NO. 1992
SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
UPHOLDING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL RESIDENTS
WHEREAS, the vision and values of the Southwestern Community College District demonstrate our commitment to equity, dignity and respect; and
WHEREAS, the Governing Board has adopted Resolution 1984: Supporting and Respecting Immigrants and Resolution 1988: Guiding Principles for Undocumented Students; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board ofthe Southwestern Community College District wishes to further demonstrate its commitment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin and California’ s Unruh Civil Rights Act which additionally outlaws discrimination based on ancestry, age, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board ofthe Southwestern Community College District believes all residents deserve equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment ofthe United States Constitution; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board ofthe Southwestern Community College District further believes the Fourteenth Amendment’ s Equal Protection Clause requires us to provide equal protection under the law to all people within ourjurisdiction to reject irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Southwestern Community College District Police will not detain, question or arrest any individual solely on the basis of personal characteristics such as religion or suspected immigration status; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Southwestern Community College District will not release any personally identi? able student information, including any data related to immigration status, without ajudicial warrant, or court order, unless authorized by the student; and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Southwestern Community College District will not participate in the creation or maintenance ofany registry designed to facilitate discriminatory treatment of its residents or students based on any personal characteristic protected by the Unruh Act or the United States Constitution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Governing Board ofthe Southwestern Community College District this 10‘ hday ofJanuary, 2017.
Tim Nader, Gove Board President or E. Vargas, Governing B rd Member Grise a A. D- gado, G erning Board Vice President ///’
Freda Hernandez, Student Governing Board
Roberto Alc} 1rttar, Gl3vernt Mem’ ber
Norma L. Hernandez. Governing Board Member Robert P. Deegan, Governing ard Secretary Attachment 4
Written Communications
PC - Torres - Received 1/26/25