Sabatini proposes Lake consider how to ‘combat' illegal immigration
Lake County Commissioner Anthony Sabatini wants to make it illegal for undocumented immigrants to enter the county, giving local authorities a directive to assist the Trump administration in deportations.
Sabatini opened discussion during Tuesday's board meeting about a potential local ordinance modeled after one previously enacted in Jacksonville.
'I think, at the state and local level, we need to be doing everything we can to address this very important issue of illegal immigration,' he said. 'I think eventually, this commission should take action to make sure we're doing everything in our power to combat this issue.'
The Jacksonville ordinance is on hold, however, as it was based on a new Florida law that a federal judge on April 4 issued a temporary restraining order against, saying it was likely unconstitutional.
Sabatini said he proposed the item to start the discussion and position Lake County to impose harsher penalties against undocumented immigrants if that is allowed.
'We have a new president, illegal immigration has become a major issue, there's all types of efforts towards deportation and the states are stepping up,' he said. 'Florida passed one of the first laws in the country to remove illegals from the state.'
The new law (SB 4-C) passed earlier this year as part of an effort to crack down on undocumented immigrants coming into the state. Sabatini argued a temporary restraining order against the law— halted on 4 by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams — stands on 'extremely dubious, unconstitutional grounds.' Florida's attorney general also has said the law is not improper.
The law created state crimes for undocumented immigrants who enter or re-enter Florida. Immigrant advocacy groups and others challenged it on ground it violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes the federal government as the 'supreme law of the land' and could designate immigration enforcement as a federal responsibility.
Sabatini said wants county officials to discuss immigration enforcement regularly while it waits on a final court ruling.
'As I'm getting this information from different parts of the state and the court system, I'm going to start putting it on the agenda once a month just to check in,' he said. 'So that when we do get an ordinance, we will be lawfully allowed to enact this law.'
Sabatini did not share specifics on how Lake County would implement the law should it be allowed to move forward, but said he wanted to take time for input from other commissioners.
Commissioner Tim Morris raised concerns about the potential cost of enacting the law in Lake County if it stands.
'We're going to have impacts on the jail population, the cost of housing and medical,' he said. 'They'll have to have representation, which means it's probably the public defender. The state attorney's going to be involved and the sheriff.'
Sabatini said he shares Morris' concerns and that's what he wants to have ongoing conversations.
'It may be a meeting or two or a few from now we'll put it back on,' he said. 'Or I'll request respectfully for it to be put back on so we can talk about it again and then maybe eventually have a vote.'
Tuesday's meeting was not Sabatini's first effort to make significant moves regarding immigrants in Lake.
In January, Sabatini urged Tom Homan, then a nominee for director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to begin the process for deporting the more than 21,000 undocumented immigrants he said were in in the county. Homan is now the Trump administration's border czar.
'Lake County has a population of over 435,000 people, yet contains 21,000+ illegal aliens, one of the highest concentrations of illegals in the state of Florida,' Sabatini wrote in the letter to Homan. 'As a Lake County Commissioner and strong supporter of the nation's immigration laws, I can assure you that the citizens of my county would greatly appreciate the efforts of your agency.'
Have a tip about Lake County? Contact me at jwilkins@orlandosentinel.com or 407-754-4980. Follow GrowthSpotter on Facebook and LinkedIn.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump orders Marines to Los Angeles as protests escalate over immigration raids, demonstrating the president's power to deploy troops on US soil
President Donald Trump ordered a contingent of about 700 Marines to Los Angeles on June 9, 2025, in response to what Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth described as 'increased threats to federal law enforcement officers and federal buildings.' This dramatic escalation of the military presence in Los Angeles followed Trump's June 7 order to send about 2,000 National Guard troops into the city. Both measures were Trump's response to what he called 'numerous incidents of violence and disorder' by those protesting his administration's actions rounding up and deporting immigrants in the Los Angeles area. State and local officials decried Trump's actions, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the move 'purposefully inflammatory,' as well as 'an illegal act.' California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to block its deployment of National Guard members. Other critics of Trump's actions said the scale and character of the protests did not warrant such extreme measures. Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with William C. Banks, a scholar of the role of the military in domestic affairs, to understand the extent of a president's power to send American troops to Los Angeles. Can American troops be used inside the country? They can, but it is an extraordinary exercise of authority to use troops domestically. It has rarely been done in the U.S. as a way of responding to a civil disturbance. Congress has delegated that authority of deploying American troops domestically to the president in limited circumstances. Otherwise, the only authority is exercised by governors, who have control of the National Guard. Why was American law set up this way? The U.S. was founded in response to heavy-handed English use of the military by King George to interfere with the civil liberties and rights of the colonists in the lead-up to the American Revolution. So, when the founders created the U.S. Constitution, they were very careful to insert roadblocks that would make it difficult for the government to use troops to carry out its own programs. The country's framers also understood there might be occasions when it would be necessary to use the military domestically. They did a couple of things to control the exercise of military authority. One was to ensure that the commander in chief of the military was a civilian. Second, they gave the authority to call up the National Guard, what was known as the 'militia' in those days, to Congress, not to the president, in order to create a separation of powers. Under what circumstances can the president deploy troops to an American city? Under the Insurrection Act, which was signed into law in 1807, a president can deploy troops during what is called an insurrection, simply meaning when all hell breaks loose. The president can decide that it is 'impracticable,' according to the Insurrection Act, to enforce the laws of the U.S. in a given city, and he may call forth the military or the National Guard to help restore law and order. In order to invoke the Insurrection Act, the president first has to make a proclamation to those he calls the insurrectionists to cease and desist. Unless the alleged insurrectionists immediately do what the president says, the president then has the authority to deploy forces. Trump has repeatedly called the protesters in Los Angeles 'insurrectionists,' but has also walked those remarks back and hasn't made any kind of formal proclamation yet. When Trump ordered California's National Guard members to deploy to Los Angeles on June 7, he did so on a narrow statutory authority to protect federal buildings, properties and personnel that were trying to enforce immigration laws. What is the Posse Comitatus Act and how does it apply to the current situation in Los Angeles? Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878. This act's name derives from an arcane Latin term that means 'the power of the county.' This law establishes a legal presumption in the U.S. that the military, if it is deployed domestically, should not engage in law enforcement. This act is an important part of American law. It means that the military and National Guard are trained on this principle that they are not to engage in domestic law enforcement activities. Those are reserved for police, sheriffs and marshals. Invoking the Insurrection Act is the principal exception to this law. So the Insurrection Act allows the military to act as law enforcement officials? That's right. By invoking the Insurrection Act the military could act as cops and have the right to arrest, investigate and detain civilians, with only the Constitution as a check on its power. This is not a situation that California National Guard members have trained for. They are trained to fight actual wildfires, but this is something entirely different. Are there any legal roadblocks that could curb the president's authority to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles? The short answer to this question is no. Can state governors or other elected officials prevent U.S. troops from being sent to their cities? In many ways that is the main question right now. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, has said that the state doen't need these military forces. Newsom's June 9 lawsuit against the Trump administration argues that the authority over the National Guard is reserved for states, 'unless the State requests or consents to federal control.' That has not happened in this case. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: William C. Banks, Syracuse University Read more: From Kent State to Los Angeles, using armed forces to police civilians is a high-risk strategy Debates over presidential power to suspend habeas corpus resurface in Trump administration In a new era of campus upheaval, the 1970 Kent State shootings show the danger of deploying troops to crush legal protests William C. Banks does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
San Francisco Chronicle
6 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
California sues to prevent Trump from cutting funding over transgender athletes
The Trump administration's effort to cut off billions of dollars in funding to California schools for allowing transgender girls to compete in sports is both hateful and illegal, the state asserted in a federal court lawsuit Monday. The suit by Attorney General Rob Bonta's office on behalf of state education officials and Gov. Gavin Newsom's administration was triggered by last week's threat from President Donald Trump to withhold all federal aid to public schools in the state — more than $8 billion a year — after a transgender athete, AB Hernandez of Jurupa Valley High School, won two events at the state high school track meet. Harmeet Dhillon, the top civil rights official in Trump's Justice Department, has also told California school districts that they would forfeit federal funding unless they defied an order by the California Interscholastic Federation to allow students to join teams that corresponded with their gender identity. 'The demand that (school districts) discriminate against students on the basis of sex-based characteristics and gender identity … invites discrimination, harassment, and hostility into educational programs and activities, which undermine the social and emotional well-being of all students (and especially the well-being of transgender students),' the state's lawyers said in a suit filed in federal court in San Francisco. Trump issued an executive order on Jan. 20, his first day in office, declaring a government policy to 'recognize only two sexes, male and female,' as determined at birth. In addition to renewing efforts from his first administration to exclude trans athletes from girls' and women's sports and ban trans soldiers from the U.S. military, he has cut off federal funding for transgender health care. Dhillon, who practiced law in San Francisco before joining the Trump administration, has described transgender females as 'men pretending to be women.' The California Interscholastic Federation, which oversees sports competition in California public schools, implemented a state law in 2013 with an official policy declaring that students 'should have the opportunity to participate in CIF activities in a manner that is consistent with their gender identity.' Dhillon's June 2 letter to school districts asserted that the CIF policy would 'allow male participation in girls' interscholastic activities,' in violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on sex discrimination. But the state's lawsuit, filed against the U.S. Justice Department, said it was Dhillon who was advocating discrimination. 'Prevailing law holds that (Dhillon's) demand — namely, for schools to categorically ban transgender students from participating in athletic programs in accordance with their gender identity — violates the Equal Protection Clause,' the 14th Amendment's ban on government policies that discriminate based on race, ethnicity or gender. Deputy Attorney General Edward Nugent wrote in the court filing. He cited recent court rulings, including a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last September that an Arizona law banning transgender girls and women from female sports teams in schools and colleges was 'the essence of discrimination.' The Supreme Court, however, has not yet ruled on a case raising similar issues, a challenge to laws in Tennessee and other states that prohibit hormone treatments and other gender-affirming care for minors who identify as transgender. Nugent said Congress, whose laws govern Dhillon's Justice Department, has never authorized the department to issue a demand like Dhillon's letter to California schools. And he said medical studies show that transgender teenagers are 'at far higher risk of suicide' than other youths, particularly when their gender identity is denied. 'Athletics allow students to gain confidence, develop important social and emotional skills, build social connections, and experience the camaraderie of being on a team,' the state's lawsuit said. 'Being able to live consistent with one's gender identity is critical to one's health and well-being,' and that identity 'cannot be changed by medical, psychological or social intervention.'
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
California AG sues Trump after sovereignty 'trampled' by National Guard
The Brief California AG sued the Trump administration twice on Monday, bringing the total number of lawsuits to 22. AG Rob Bonta said the first suit is because President Trump "trampled" the sovereignty of Calif. by sending in the National Guard. The second suit involves "unlawfully imposing" immigration enforcement requirements on federal grants. SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Monday sued the Trump administration in two separate lawsuits, after he said the state's sovereignty was "trampled" when the president ordered National Guard troops to the immigration protests in Los Angeles. This marks 22 lawsuits the state of California has filed against the Trump administration to date. The first suit comes after Trump called for Gov. Gavin Newsom's arrest, after Newsom objected to the president sendng in the federalized National Guard being deployed to LA to quell anti-ICE protests over the weekend which "needlessly escalated chaos and violence." Bonta said the lawsuit, which names President Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and the Department of Defense, outlines why the takeover violates the U.S. Constitution and exceeds the president's Title 10 authority, not only because the takeover occurred without the consent or input of the governor, as federal law requires, but also because it was unwarranted. "Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion," Bonta said. "The president is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends. Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President's authority under the law– and not one we take lightly. We're asking a court to put a stop to the unlawful, unprecedented order." Under the California Constitution, Bonta said that Newsom is the commander-in-chief of the California National Guard. Bonta also named a second lawsuit against the Trump administration, where he was joined by attorneys general in Illinois, New Jersey and Rhode Island, and in spirit with 20 attorneys general across the United States. This suit involves what Bonta calls Trump "unlawfully imposing immigration enforcement requirements" on billions of dollars in annual U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants. "The president doesn't have the authority to coerce state and local governments into using their resources for immigration enforcement," Bonta said. "This is a blatantly illegal attempt to bully states into enacting Trump's inhumane and illogical immigration agenda. Once again, Trump's actions go beyond the scope of his presidential power."
