Andrew Napolitano does not, the best that SLL can tell, allow his political predilections influence his legal analyses, which is certainly refreshing. From Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:
Earlier this week, the Trump Department of Justice told the mayor of Chicago that it would cease funding grants to the Chicago Police Department that had been approved in the Obama administration because Chicago city officials were not cooperating with federal immigration officials.
The DOJ contended that Chicago officials were contributing to lawlessness by refusing to inform the feds of the whereabouts of undocumented foreign-born people, thereby creating what the feds derisively call a “sanctuary city,” and Chicago officials have argued that their police officers and clerical folks are not obligated to work for the feds.
Who is correct?
The concept of a sanctuary city does not mean it is a place where federal law is unenforced by the feds. Rather, it is a place where local authorities have elected not to spend their tax dollars helping the feds to enforce federal law. The term “sanctuary city” is not a legal term but a political one. The Trump administration has used the term to characterize the governments of towns and cities that have created safe havens for those who have overstayed their visas by refusing to tell the feds who these folks are and where they can be found.
Can local authorities refuse to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word, yes. There is no legal obligation on the part of local authorities to help the feds with manpower or resources or data to enforce federal law within the jurisdiction of those local authorities.
During the Clinton administration, when Congress passed legislation that directed local law enforcement to enforce a federal gun registration scheme, the Supreme Court invalidated the statute. It ruled that the feds cannot commandeer local and state officials and compel them to enforce federal laws; the feds can enforce their own laws.
To continue reading: Sanctuary Cities and the Rule of Law
Sweden is being overrun by Middle Eastern and Northern African refugees. Admitting it is considered bad form, and doing something about it beyond the pale. From Judith Bergman at gatestoneinstitute.org:
- The Swedish state, in true Orwellian style, fights those Swedish citizens who point out the obvious problems that migrants are causing.
- When police officer Peter Springare said in February that migrants were committing a disproportionate amount of crime in the suburbs, he was investigated for inciting “racial hatred”.
- Currently, a 70-year-old Swedish pensioner is being prosecuted for “hate speech”, for writing on Facebook that migrants “set fire to cars, and urinate and defecate on the streets”.
The security situation in Sweden is now so critical that the national police chief, Dan Eliasson, has asked the public for help; the police are unable to solve the problems on their own. In June, the Swedish police released a new report, “Utsatta områden 2017“, (“Vulnerable Areas 2017”, commonly known as “no-go zones” or lawless areas). It shows that the 55 no-go zones of a year ago are now 61.
In September 2016, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and Minister of Interior Anders Ygeman refused to see the warnings: in 2015, only 14% of all crimes in Sweden were solved, and in 2016, 80% of police officers were allegedly considering quitting the force. Both ministers refused to call it a crisis. According to Anders Ygeman:
“… we are in a very difficult position, but crisis is something completely different. …we are in a very strained position and this is because we have done the biggest reorganization since the 1960s, while we have these very difficult external factors with the highest refugee reception since the Second World War. We have border controls for the first time in 20 years, and an increased terrorist threat”.
A year later the Swedish national police chief is calling the situation “acute”.
|In 2015, only 14% of all crimes in Sweden were solved. In 2016, 80% of police officers were allegedly considering quitting the force. Nonetheless, Prime Minister Stefan Löfven (pictured above) refused to call it a crisis. (Photo by Michael Campanella/Getty Images)
Sweden increasingly resembles a failed state: In the 61 “no-go zones”, there are 200 criminal networks with an estimated 5,000 criminals who are members. Twenty-three of those no-go zones are especially critical: children as young as 10 years old are involved in serious crimesthere, including weapons and drugs, and are literally being trained to become hardened criminals.
To continue reading: Sweden: A Failed State?
It won’t spoil the article, only pique curiosity and stimulate readership, to reveal Mr. Orbán’s crime: he’s a national leader who puts the interests of his nation before those of a supranational organization. From F. William Engdahl at journal-net.org:
Some people seem like they never learn how to play the game. At the top of the list in the European Union these days is Hungary and her stubborn Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán. He just doesn’t seem to get it. He doesn’t understand that it’s not “European” to defend the sovereign rights of your citizens and your nation. No matter how the EU faceless technocrats hovering around the dubious Luxembourg EU President Jean-Claude Juncker try to educate Orbán and his government, he doesn’t seem to get it.
The past year has been a tough one for the Brussels’ EU political correctness Supremos. First Mr Orbán insisted on going through with a national referendum. How anti-European! Letting citizens vote on issues affecting their lives in their own countries! What a dangerous idea if that ever spreads. Next thing you know women might demand genuine equality and to be taken seriously as human beings. Horror!
Last October 2016 Viktor Orbán’s government organized a referendum vote on whether to let the faceless, unelected EU Commission of President Jean-Claude Juncker (or his successors) dictate the number of refugees from North Africa and the Middle East Hungary would be forced to welcome, including to pay for and more. The Hungarian voters voted with over a whopping 98% in agreement with their Prime Minister that Brussels should have no such right.
In matter of fact it was Germany and France in September 2015 who convinced EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to turn to using a “qualified majority” vote, a sly way under the EU Lisbon Treaty to ram through decisions of the more powerful states against the smaller EU member wishes. Instead of the EU practice of using unanimity to decide such sensitive matters as forced taking of refugees, Germany and France forced through a relocation plan for 120,000 refugees using a qualified majority vote in an area where it has no legal competence to act according to EU legal scholars.
Fortunately, Brussels could ignore the Hungarian referendum vote on a technicality that just under 50% of eligible voters voted. Soros-allied NGO’s and their allies in Hungary waged a massive boycott campaign before the vote. “Whew! That was a close call. Democracy almost caught us in the act.”
And just to be sure no one in the rest of the EU would get suspicious that some basic democratic rights were being trampled on in Hungary, the anti-nationalist mainstream EU media threw a relentless barrage of calumny against Orbán for even daring to ask a popular vote.
To continue reading: The Unspeakable Crime of V. Orban
Today’s pickings were slim. Only a couple of articles meet SLL readers’ high standards. Douglas Murray discusses the disconnect, which may be starting to narrow, between Europe’s people and leaders on mass migration. From Murray at gatestoneinstitute.org:
- “[T]he more generous you are, the more word gets around about this — which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa. Germany cannot possibly take in the huge number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.” — Bill Gates.
- The annual survey of EU citizens, recently carried out by Project 28, found a unanimity on the issue of migration almost unequalled across an entire continent. The survey found that 76% of the public across the EU believe that the EU’s handling of the migration crisis of recent years has been “poor”. There is not one country in the EU in which the majority of the public differs from that consensus.
- At the same time as the public has known that what the politicians are doing is unsustainable, there has been a vast effort to control what the European publics have been allowed to say. German Chancellor Angela Merkel went so far as to urge Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to limit posts on social media that were critical of her policies.
Is Bill Gates a Nazi, racist, “Islamophobe” or fascist? As PG Wodehouse’s most famous butler would have said, “The eventuality would appear to be a remote one”. So far nobody in any position of influence has made such claims about the world’s largest philanthropist. Possibly — just possibly — something is changing in Europe.
In an interview published July 2 in the German paper Welt Am Sonntag, the co-founder of Microsoft addressed the ongoing European migration crisis. What he said was surprising:
“On the one hand you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees. But the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this — which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa. Germany cannot possibly take in the huge number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.”
These words would be uncontroversial to the average citizen of Europe. The annual survey of EU citizens recently carried out by Project 28 found a unanimity on the issue of migration almost unequalled across an entire continent. The survey found, for instance, that 76% of the public across the EU believe that the EU’s handling of the migration crisis of recent years has been “poor”. There is not one country in the EU in which the majority of the public differs from this consensus. In countries such as Italy and Greece, which have been on the frontline of the crisis of recent years, that figure rockets up. In these countries, nine out of ten citizens think that the EU has handled the migrant crisis poorly.
To continue reading: Europe’s Mass Migration: The Leaders vs. the Public
Eastern Europe just isn’t getting with the EU/Angela Merkel program. From Giulio Meotti at gatestoneinstitute.org:
- “The greatest difference is that in Europe, politics and religion have been separated from one another, but in the case of Islam it is religion that determines politics” — Zoltan Balog, Hungary’s Minister for Human Resources.
- It is no coincidence that President Donald Trump chose Poland, a country that fought both Nazism and Communism, to call on the West to show a little willingness in its existential fight against the new totalitarianism: radical Islam.
- “Possessing weapons is one thing, and possessing the will to use them is another thing altogether”. — Professor William Kilpatrick, Boston College.
In a historic speech to an enthusiastic Polish crowd before the meeting of the G20 Summit leaders, US President Donald Trump described the West’s battle against “radical Islamic terrorism” as the way to protect “our civilization and our way of life”. Trump asked if the West had the will to survive:
“Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?”
Trump’s question might find an answer in Eastern Europe, where he chose to deliver his powerful speech.
|President Donald Trump gives a speech in Warsaw, Poland, in front of the monument commemorating the 1944 Warsaw Uprising against the Germans, on July 6, 2017. (Image source: The White House)
After an Islamist suicide-bomber murdered 22 concert-goers in Manchester, including two Poles, Poland’s prime minister, Beata Szydło, said that Poland would not be “blackmailed” into accepting thousands of refugees under the European Union’s quota system. She urged Polish lawmakers to safeguard the country and Europe from the scourges of Islamist terrorism and cultural suicide:
“Where are you headed, Europe? Rise from your knees and from your lethargy, or you will be crying over your children every day”.
A few days later, the European Union announced that it would begin proceedings to punish Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic for their refusal to accept migrants as the European Commission had decided under a 2015 scheme it created.
To continue reading: Eastern Europe Chooses to Keep Western Civilization
Bill Gates says the solution to huge refugee inflows from Africa into Europe, attracted by Europe’s generous benefits, is to dump those benefits directly on poor, corrupt African nations. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
n an interview published Saturday, Bill Gates told German newspaper Welt am Sonntag that Europe will be devastated by African refugees if they don’t “make it more difficult for Africans to reach the continent,” and the solution lies in European nations committing billions of taxpayer money towards overseas aid.
According to Gates, the combination of explosive population growth in Africa combined with Europe’s notoriously generous open-border migrant welfare programs – as illustrated by the ‘German attitude to refugees’ have incentivised migrants to flood into Europe.
“On the one hand you want to demonstrate generosity and take in refugees, but the more generous you are, the more word gets around about this – which in turn motivates more people to leave Africa.”
While Germany has been one of the pioneers of the open door policy, it cannot “take in the huge, massive number of people who are wanting to make their way to Europe.”
Thus Gates advised European nations to take action in order to make it “more difficult for Africans to reach the continent via the current transit routes.”
How to stop them?
Gates, whose third world vaccination programs have contributed to Africa’s population explosion, suggested that heaping tons of money onto Africa while taking steps to prevent transit into Europe is the best solution.
After calling Germany’s commitment to allocate 0.7% of GDP towards foreign aid ‘phenomenal,’ Gates encouraged ‘other European nations to follow its example.”
(Because Africa is of course known for efficiently managing billions in foreign aid without corruption to ensure that their people are taken care of. Surely Europe’s donations will create an Africa that rivals downtown Hamburg.)
To continue reading: Bill Gates Urges End To Generosity, Fears African Refugees Will Decimate Europe
Bashar al-Assad is supposedly the devil incarnate, behind only Vladimir Putin as the Great Satan. Yet, as Assad’s government, with the aid of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, regains control of Syria, Syrian refugees who left the country are returning. Don’t tell the US government; this will screw up its narrative completely. From Whitney Webb at theantimedia.org:
Crucial to the Western narrative of the Syrian conflict is the assertion that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator who has taken to killing his own people over the course of Syria’s six-year-long conflict. This allegation has been the crux of the “humanitarian” justification for foreign military intervention in Syria that would seek to depose Assad’s government, a justification frequently used by the U.S. and its allies prior to an invasion or the toppling of an extant regime.
While this narrative has been pervasive in media coverage of the Syrian conflict, it is now being debunked by the very Syrian refugees that the media purported were fleeing Assad in the first place. According to a recent statement from Andrej Mahecic, a spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, an estimated 440,000 displaced Syrians who remained in the country have returned to their homes since the year began. In addition, 31,000 refugees in neighboring countries also returned to Syria in the first half of the year, with 260,000 having returned to Syria from other nations since 2015.
Though Mahecic noted that these refugees represent only a “fraction” of the five million Syrian refugees living in neighboring countries, what is notable is that nearly all of those who have decided to come back are settling in areas of Syria controlled by the government or where the Syrian government has made major territorial gains against ISIS and US-backed militants like al-Nusra Front in recent months – namely Aleppo, Hama, Homs and Damascus.
To continue reading: Over 500,000 Syrian Refugees Return To Government-Controlled Areas Of Syria