California senate approves bill to ratify king's decree stopping deportations

Publish this under "Color me not-a-bit-surprised": California's state senate has voted for a bill that would shield illegal immigrants from being deported--thus legally accomplishing the same thing that King Barack did more simply--by royal decree.

The bill would prohibit local cops from turning over illegal immigrants to the feds for deportation unless the illegal had known "serious" felony convictions. If an illegal arrested for any crime was able to post bond, local police departments could not detain them even if federal officials had issued a detainer, provided they had no "serious" convictions.

Can you guess who introduced the bill? Sure you can: a Democrat. From San Francisco. It sailed thru the senate 21-13 and is expected to pass the state house. If it does pass, Governor Moonbeam Brown--a big leftist and supporter of both illegal immigration and anything else that would weaken conservative values--is expected to sign it.

I also suspected that this piece of stealth disaster has a few "woolyboogers" in it--carefully-crafted legal loopholes and gotchas that are intended to allow even more damage than the "friendly" press has discovered (or at least, more than they'll tell you). I say this because of long experience with such techniques by my state legislatwhores, who are certainly neither smarter nor less ethical than those in the Golden State.

And sure enough, I found one: Click here for the bill's text. Then scroll down near the bottom, under definitions:

“Eligible for release from criminal custody” means that the individual may be released from criminal custody because one of the following conditions has occurred:

(1) All criminal charges against the individual have been dropped or dismissed.
(2) The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges filed against him or her.
(3) The individual has served all the time required for his or her sentence.
(4) The individual has posted a bond.
(5) The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law, or local policy.

Did you catch it? An illegal is eligible for release if just ONE of the five conditions is met. And there at the very end, after all the uncontroversial, expected boilerplate saying things like "will be released if he's served all the time on his sentence," is the woolybooger: "...or local policy."

This means if San Francisco has--not a law, but simply a "policy"--of releasing all illegals before even checking on their status, said illegal is "eligible for release" under the soon-to-be-law of the state.

Cute, huh?

Now, if you owned a conservative news outfit--Breitbart, anyone? CNS?--and you somehow were able to catch any of the bill's co-authors and ask them if this was possible, you'd get an avalanche of indignant denials.

"Ridiculous!" they'd bluster. "I can't believe you'd ask such an un-serious question!" they'd bellow.

The less-educated might even hazard "That term doesn't allow that at all." When the plain, uncamouflaged language does indeed allow just such an effect.

But hey, what do you care? You likely don't live in California, so this bill will have no effect on you, right? True. I'm just pointing out the technique so you can stop it when it gets to your state.

Because it will--sooner than you think.


Oh, and like so many crappy liberal bills, the sponsors of this disaster gave it a terminally-cute acronym name based on a goofy title that totally disguises its true effects: It's the Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools Act -- the TRUST Act.

Scheming politicians do this to make bills that will rape you sound as healthy as apple pie. The cutesy acronym makes a great 'hook' for newspaper editorial and headline writers and presumably lulls many readers/voters into believing the bill is indeed safe and delightful when it's really incredibly hostile to your interests.

Case in point, from the NY Slimes June 21st:

A bill moving through the California Legislature, aptly named the Trust Act, seeks to counter the damage done to community policing and public safety by...

Hell, no media bias there, eh? "...seeks to counter the damage done to community policing..."??? When the truth is, "seeks to allow illegals to stay here permanently, like King Barack already decreed."

If pols wanted to repeal the Constitutional right for private citizens to own guns I fully expect the acronym name for the bill would be something like "the PRETTY FLOWERS Act" or some such.