The mayor of Los Angeles said he’s not getting “transparency” about the recent raids conducted by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and vowed to “continue to protect our people.”
Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said in a statement Monday that ICE launched “a series of targeted enforcement operations across the country” last week that were routine, with targets including “convicted criminal aliens and gang members, as well as individuals who have violated our nation’s immigration laws, including those who illegally re-entered the country after being removed and immigration fugitives ordered removed by federal immigration judges.”
ICE officers in the Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, San Antonio and New York City areas arrested more than 680 during the sweeps, he said, and “of those arrested, approximately 75 percent were criminal aliens.”
L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti told MSNBC this morning that while he received “some initial briefings from ICE officials, it’s unclear how they’re targeting people and whether there’s any new policies.”[…]
Garcetti said he’s “too pro-family” and “too pro-economy” to support the sweeps, noting that 54 percent of businesses in his city have been started by immigrants.
“I guess I’m too pro-Constitution to say that our local law enforcement officials should continue a policy that we do not deputize them as immigration officials. That’s something that’s four decades old and I’m too pro-police to stop listening to my police professionals who say, we need that trust in the communities we police. We should be focused on local crime,” the mayor continued, adding “it’s been a good week for the Constitution” as people learn their rights.
Thank You Zip and PJM .
So, He's too "Pro Constitution".
Does he mean that US immigration law constitutes treason?
Section 3: Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason. Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of royal successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.
In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses." In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:
As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government. He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"