A manhunt is underway in Northern California after an
illegal alien gunned down 33-year-old Newman police officer Ronil Singh
Wednesday night. From Fox News:
The
suspect sought in connection with the murder of a California cop earlier this
week is in the U.S. illegally, authorities revealed on Thursday.
The unidentified man alleged to be behind the slaying of Newman police Cpl. Ronil Singh, 33, “is considered armed and dangerous,” Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson said during a news conference on Thursday afternoon, vowing that the manhunt would “relentlessly continue.”
The unidentified man alleged to be behind the slaying of Newman police Cpl. Ronil Singh, 33, “is considered armed and dangerous,” Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson said during a news conference on Thursday afternoon, vowing that the manhunt would “relentlessly continue.”
Singh leaves behind a five month old son and a wife. He
came to America as a legal immigrant in pursuit of his dream to become a police
officer.
"This is not a big department. This is a department
of 12. This is a man that i saw everyday he worked. This is a man I relieved on
Christmas day so he could go home and spend time with his family and newborn
child," Newman Police Chief Randy Richardson said. "He was truly just
a human being and an American patriot. Ron was not born in America. Ron was
born in Fiji. He came to this country with one purpose and that was to serve
this country."
"One of my first hires was Ronil Singh. He had a
thick accent, he was hard to understand at time because English was not his
first language," he continued. "When I sat with him in the chief's
interview, he told me he came to America to become a police officer. That's all
he wanted to do."
__________________
IN
OTHER NEWS
Sarah Huckabee Sanders Condemns CNN for Going
After U.S. Troops in Iraq on Christmas
By Lauretta
Brown | Townhall
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders
tweeted a condemnation of CNN Thursday after they targeted U.S. troops in Iraq
because some of the troops displayed hats and logos supporting President Trump
during his visit.
“CNN will attack anyone who supports President Trump,
including the brave men and women of our military who fight everyday to protect
our freedom,” she tweeted.
Troops bringing President Trump "Make America Great
Again" hats to sign.
In the article Sanders
linked to in her tweet, CNN argued that the troops with Trump “Make America
Great Again” hats may have violated Department
of Defense guidelines saying that "active duty personnel may not
engage in partisan political activities and all military personnel should avoid
the inference that their political activities imply or appear to imply DoD
sponsorship, approval, or endorsement of a political candidate, campaign, or
cause."
“A US military official told CNN the MAGA hats that Trump
signed at the Ramstein Air Base event in Germany were personal and brought
there by military personnel in hopes of getting an autograph,” CNN noted. “The
official contended that it was not a campaign event and that the hats were used
as support for Trump, not as a statement of political support.”
Capt. Christopher Bowyer-Meeder, a spokesperson for the
US Air Force, Europe, told CNN that no policy violations have been brought
forward and that “there is no rule against Airmen bringing personal items to be
signed by the president.”
_____________________
Oh Noes! Obama Signed Stuff for Troops, Too
By Katie Pavlich | Townhall
After slamming President Trump
for failing to visit U.S. troops during Christmas time earlier this week and
then having to completely backtrack when news broke he was in Iraq...visiting
active duty troops, the media is still finding ways to criticize.
CNN's latest concern? That U.S.
service members dared to ask President Trump to sign their Make America Great
Again [MAGA] hats. In fact, they're accusing soldiers of breaking U.S. military
protocol that could result in punishment.
But it turns out President
Obama signed personal objects, like his photo, while visiting U.S. troops
during his tenure.
First Lady Michelle Obama also provided her signature to
those who asked.
And no, U.S. troops didn't
violate any rules by asking President Trump, or Obama, for a signature.
As usual, the outrage only came
down on one side.
___________________
John Roberts would be more credible rebuking
Donald Trump if he did more to rein in the lower courts.
By The Editorial Board | The Wall Street Journal
Supreme
Court Chief Justice John Roberts and President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill in
Washington, D.C., Jan. 30, 2018. Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
Chief Justice John Roberts was praised far and wide last
month when he chastised President Trump for referring to a judge who ruled
against his migrant asylum policy as an “Obama judge.” The Chief was right to
defend the independence of the judiciary, but he’d stand on firmer ground if he
also did more to rein in the growing political excesses of the judiciary.
Time and again in the last two years, lower-court judges
have overturned Trump policies on dubious legal grounds. Worse, they have
issued injunctions that block the policies nationwide before considering the
merits. These injunctions used to be a rarity, but judges know that appeals can
take months to get to the Supreme Court and in the meantime the executive
branch is stymied. Over time this will make the judiciary look more political,
not less.
***
One example is Mr. Trump’s recent asylum restrictions.
The President's immigration enforcement can be blunderbuss and heavy-handed.
But the latest rules are calculated to promote order at the southern border amid
an unrelenting flow of Central Americans seeking entry. Any President would
have to put limits on this unprecedented migrant surge.
The U.S. asylum system was established after World War II
to provide refuge for persecuted foreigners, but it needs an overhaul.
Immigrants apprehended at the border can dodge immediate deportation by seeking
asylum. Claims can take years to process, and in the meantime applicants are
released into the nation’s interior.
We support generous immigration, including flexible guest-worker
visas that can adapt to a changing labor market. But many migrants seeking
asylum in the U.S. aren’t escaping persecution, and the surge in claims is
straining government resources while eroding public support for legal
immigration.
Enter the Trump Justice Department, which in June
directed immigration courts to bar migrants who say they are fleeing domestic
or gang violence from receiving asylum. Last month the Justice and Homeland
Security departments also limited asylum eligibility to migrants who present
themselves at ports of entry, as opposed to entering the U.S. illegally and
then seeking asylum.
Nonprofits assisting asylum-seekers have sued under the
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows any migrant “who arrives in
the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival)” to apply
for asylum. The law also conditions asylum on a “well-founded fear of
persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a
particular social group, or political opinion.”
But most migrants fleeing gang violence do not fall into
these categories, and the law gives the President authority to “establish
additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under
which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum.” A President may also
temporarily “impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem” are in
the national interest.
In other words, the law balances Congress’s
constitutional powers over immigration with the executive’s Article II
authority to protect the homeland. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld
the President’s authority to limit migration within parameters established by
Congress, including a government policy during the 1990s of interdicting
Haitians at sea.
Yet liberal judges have been ignoring Supreme Court
precedent. Last week federal Judge Emmet Sullivan declared the June asylum
restrictions “inconsistent with the intent of Congress” and ordered the Trump
Administration to return to the U.S. deported migrants who claimed they had suffered
domestic abuse in their home country.
This followed a nationwide injunction by Judge Jon Tigar
last month blocking the Administration’s limits on asylum eligibility to ports
of entry. That’s when Mr. Trump lambasted the “Obama judge” on Twitter. Mr. Trump
played the bully as usual, but he’s right that too many judges are grafting
their political preferences onto the law and arrogating to themselves powers
that belong to the legislature and executive. Judges are supposed to consider
the likelihood of a lawsuit’s success as well as the balance of harms before
they enjoin a policy.
No surprise, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel
summarily dismissed the Trump Administration’s policy reasons for asylum
restrictions and breezed past nuances in the law. But Judge Edward Leavy
skewered the majority’s analysis in a tart dissent.
“The majority concludes that the [Justice Department]
Rule conditioning eligibility for asylum is the equivalent to a rule barring
application for asylum. But the statute does not say that, nor does the Rule,”
he explained, adding that “the government has made a sufficient showing of
irreparable harm, and the public has a significant interest in efficient border
law administration.”
***
Last week Chief Justice Roberts joined the four liberal
Justices to sustain the injunction, 5-4. Perhaps the Chief felt obligated to
sustain Judge Tigar’s injunction after defending him against Mr. Trump. Or
maybe he wanted to reinforce the Court’s independence after Mr. Trump replaced
Anthony Kennedy with Brett Kavanaugh.
But these are political considerations, and the Court’s
job is to uphold the Constitution, as the Chief explained in his June opinion
upholding Mr. Trump’s third travel ban. Like the challenge to the asylum
restrictions, the travel-ban case involved an apparent tension in the
Immigration and Nationality Act. But the Court eventually found that the
President was acting within his authority.
The Chief is said by his admirers to play the long game
and wants the Court to take a more modest role in American politics. Sounds
good. But failing to stop usurpations by lower courts encourages judges to act
like politicians and undermines public confidence in the judiciary’s
independence. The Chief has to send a message of discipline and restraint to
willful lower-court judges as much as to Mr. Trump.
