[Note: federal district court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Per the U.S Constitution, they are lifetime appointments. By design, federal judges are appointed not elected. The word “unelected” tries to infer a scandalous slur and overlooks this basic structural truth. This intentional mis-characterization is simply one branch of government (the Executive) attacking and denigrating another (the Judiciary), by trying to stir ‘populist’ resentment against an American institution, merely because it didn’t like a ruling. At a minimum, it’s terribly crass, but it’s also destructive and dangerous to our democracy, and a continuing assault on one of the remaining institutions capable of opposing or constraining Trump’s authoritarian impulses.]

unilaterally [again, district court decisions are unilateral by design. It’s what judges do – they issue rulings. At the district court level, it is one judge per court room. (It’s only at the appellate level that we see multi-judge panels. So the use of ‘unilaterally’ here is intended to suggest a judiciary run amok, when in fact it’s only describing how the judicial system is set up. It is superfluous and intentionally misleading. The goal here is to denigrate one branch of government by misinforming the public about how our government works.] rewrote immigration policy [it absolutely did not] for our Nation.

[The court ruling simply stated that the Executive Order (itself an attempt to rewrite immigration policy) exceeded the authority of the Executive branch. That’s (one of) the court’s job(s). It’s in the job description. In a basic civics class, the issue is what teachers would call ‘separation of powers.’ It’s the job of the judiciary to make those determinations on actions taken by the other two branches of government. (See, Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137) As the district court concluded,  the Executive Order attempted to take action that’s properly the province of the Legislative branch, and moreover, the Executive Order exceeded even Congress’ authority had they passed it as a law (instead of Trump signing it as an EO). That’s a Fail x2. And none of this even steps into the Justice Department’s preposterous, throw-their-hands-up-in-surrender argument that the EO was functionally toothless, but rather “merely an exercise of the President’s bully pulpit.” Seriously, that’s what they argued, which I suppose is what happens when a showman president send his Justice Department into court to defend the indefensible.]

Federal law explicitly states that “a Federal, State or Local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”  8 U.S.C. 1373(a).  [This is a correct cut-and-paste of 8 U.S.C. 1373(a). We should congratulate the Office of the Press Secretary for making it through a complete sentence without objection, though the bulk of it is a quotation from another source.] That means, according to Congress, a city that prohibits its officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities — a sanctuary city — is violating the law.   Sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, block their jails from turning over criminal aliens to Federal authorities for deportation.  [This was not the issue before the court; the issue was the legality of the Executive Order as an exercise in Executive Branch authority. The district court made no ruling on this topic.] These cities are engaged in the dangerous and unlawful nullification of Federal law in an attempt to erase our borders. [Too many things wrong with this last bit to wade too far in here. I must say though that part about “attempt[ing] to erase our borders” is as preposterously hyperbolic as it is false. The whole notion behind a sanctuary city is based on leaving all border issues to the federal government (DHS, INS, ICE, CBP, etc.) where it properly (read: Constitutionally) belongs, and not depleting limited local law enforcement resources by forcing them to perform federal government tasks.]

Once again, a single district judge [once again, that’s how the system is set up under the Constitution] — this time in San Francisco [conveniently, San Francisco is a long-standing conservative target as a symbol of everything wrong with the liberal Left. That’s not on the White House here, though, as that’s where the district court is seated. Nonetheless, the Office of the Press Secretary doubtlessly made certain to include the city’s name for effect. It’s the long-standing “there they go again” slur/dog-whistle.] — has ignored Federal immigration law [Goddammit, knock it off. Federal immigration law was NOT ignored. It wasn’t the issue. The issue was whether the EO was a constitutional exercise of Executive power.] to set a new immigration policy [Didn’t] for the entire country.  This decision occurred in the same sanctuary city that released the 5-time deported illegal immigrant who gunned down innocent Kate Steinle in her father’s arms.[This is a citation to an outlier case of egregious violence committed by an undocumented alien to invoke a demonstrably false impression that ALL undocumented immigrants are violent (by nature?). (Crime statistics reveal the opposite – that undocumented immigrants commit crimes of all types in percentages lower than U.S. citizens. The primary recurring theme? Fear the Other (more specifically, Fear the brown Other). Interestingly, no mention was made of the failure of the federal immigration system to keep out a 5-time deportee, presumably because this administration is now responsible for immigration, and they were wary of the stink.] San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, [irritatingly false, and not the issue, as discussed, supra] and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands. [JFC! Settle the f* down. Is this an official statement issuing from the office of a United States President or a page out of a cheap true-crime novel? Show a little class, or at least feign it, for chrissakes.] This San Francisco judge’s erroneous ruling is a gift to the criminal gang and cartel element in our country, empowering the worst kind of human trafficking and sex trafficking, and putting thousands of innocent lives at risk. [Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.]

This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach [isn’t] by a single, unelected district judge [Get it through your thick skulls. This is how the judiciary is structured. By constitutional design.]  Today’s ruling undermines faith in our legal system [actually, the only ‘undermining of faith’ occurring here is this petty, sniveling, denigrating and misleading Statement] and raises serious questions about circuit shopping. [Whoa, slow up. Where did this come from? You never mentioned forum shopping before. P.s., It’s not (forum shopping), but you don’t even bother to spell out the lie you base this allegation upon. Straight up, if the ‘sanctuary’ city in question is San Francisco, then the federal district court in San Francisco is the obvious and appropriate forum for this challenged to be raised. Not even a whiff of forum shopping (which courts, by the way, are none too keen on.]  But we are confident [desperately hoping] we will ultimately prevail [by a slim 5-4 majority] in the Supreme Court [now that we have put Neil Gorsuch in Merrick Garland’s seat], just as we will prevail in our lawful efforts to impose immigration restrictions necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States. [Whatever. Knock yourself out, but yes, of course, please do everything legal to keep out terrorists. No non-terrorist American opposes this.]

In the meantime, we will pursue all legal remedies to the sanctuary city threat that imperils our citizens, and continue our efforts to ramp up enforcement to remove the criminal and gang element from our country.  Ultimately, this is a fight between sovereignty and open borders [this is all ‘blah, blah, blah,’ but one quick point: virtually NO ONE is in favor of ‘open borders,’ so stop saying that. Note: This is a straw man construct that this President* often tries to pin on Obama/HRC and the Democratic Party in general], between the rule of law and lawlessness, [nonsense] and between hardworking Americans and those who would undermine their safety and freedom. [I actually think those who would undermine our safety and freedom are working damned hard at it (and thus qualify as ‘hardworking’), but enough with the us versus them, please. If we wanted to go deep into the weeds about actions ‘undermining Americans’ safety and freedom,’ I suggest a better starting point would be reckless, uninformed brinksmanship with an unhinged leader of a nuclear power under the guise of cartoon Tough Guy posturing.]

[There. All better.]