More California Cities Seek to Defy ‘Sanctuary State’ as Revolt Spreads

Good point given the nature of government.

 

1. U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part IX › § 1373

§ 1373. Communication between government
agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service
(a) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal,
State, or local law, 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.

(b) Additional authority of government entities
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal,
State, or local law, no person or agency
may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal,
State, or local government entity from doing
any of the following with respect to information
regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful,
of any individual:
(1) Sending such information to, or requesting
or receiving such information from, the
Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2) Maintaining such information.
(3) Exchanging such information with any
other Federal, State, or local government entity.

(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries
The Immigration and Naturalization Service
shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State,
or local government agency, seeking to verify or
ascertain the citizenship or immigration status
of any individual within the jurisdiction of the
agency for any purpose authorized by law, by
providing the requested verification or status
information.
(Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, §642, Sept. 30,
1996, 110 Stat. 3009–707.)

 

It's surreal, isn't it.

 

With as often as he gets destroyed on this forum it’s amazing he still comes back here.

 

Even a bunch of right-wing *******s getting mad at immigrants can further the ideological interests of your friendly neighborhood apocalypse communist.

 

And ICE is free to do that.
The constitution clearly spells out immigration is a federal responsibility not a state responsibility.

 

correcting you guys isn't trolling. It's debating.

it is not. It simply will not allow state funds to pay to enforce federal laws or aid federal law enforcement.

It does not.

 

and these states/cities are not violating this, which is why it's moronic for you guys to continue to call for public officials arrest.

 

As often as I get destroyed? lol

every exchange you and I have ever had, you have been completely demolished.

 

Most Americans have mixed feelings about those who defy Big Government.

Virtually the entire electorate including most serious leftists have joined the 'smaller government' right this the key issue.

“Record High in U.S. Say Big Government Greatest Threat, Now 72% say it is greater threat than big business or big labor”, by Jeffrey M. Jones, Gallup, 12/18/13.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/166535/r...syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=All

Ordinary Americans are united in their desire for reduced government size and power.
They are not united in a belief that the GOP will do what they want, but they know the DP is always the party of Big Government.

It would be amusing to watch Brown and his mayor prosecuted for aiding and abetting criminals. Officials should always be punished for violating the laws they create for the rest of us.

OTOH, giving the finger to the state is always a fine American instinctive response to authority.

 

maybe you'd like to actually have an intelligent conversation? Maybe take a stab at refuting anything I've said so far in this thread.

 

Heh, CA has been impeding their efforts to do so. It's one thing not to have to do the work, but when you start running interference for that work you've crossed the line.


It's not your job to apprehend the guy that just stole that ladys purse in front of you, however tripping, or getting in the way of the pursuing Cop might get you in a bit trouble.

 

Justice Scalia wrote:

“Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the State's officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

This position should not be surprising, given conservatives long-standing support for states’ rights and concerns about federal overreach. What’s more surprising is how quickly some conservatives neglect those principles when they wish to inflict federal policies they support on states and cities that disagree

 

They have been called sponsors since the 1890's to get immigrants into the country. WAY before welfare, food stamps and EBT. Simply make eVerify mandatory for ALL government benefits. As well as making a mandatory 5 years in jail for any Government worker that allows benefits to any illegal more than once. It happens all the time in California.

 

Yes, Moonbeam and the mayor need to Duck Duck Go "aiding and abetting".

 

Was Scalia's statement in a majority decision?

 

In some cases they are and one of the laws they are facing.

 

They are not. Not using state/local funds to enforce federal law, or aid federal law enforcement is not against the law. Announcing an impending federal raid or presence, is also not against the law, and is in fact protected by the 1st amendment.

 

No idea what you are laughing at. Most of your posts are quite easily refuted, particularly regarding health care.

 

Yes, 5 - 4.
Sorry, I can't find the exact link again, but you can check the case.
In 1997, the court ruled that a federal gun-control law violated the Tenth Amendment’s separation of powers. In his majority opinion in Printz v. United States, Antonin Scalia wrote that the Tenth Amendment prohibited the federal government from “commandeering” the cooperation of state governments in enforcing federal law.

 

You are correct. However California is also declaring their state a haven for criminals. If you or me were to hide one in our home we would be charged with harboring a criminal which is obviously a crime in itself. Furthermore California is targeting any individual or business who notifies authorities about employees or squatters. The people have a right to defend themselves from a state who is over stepping its bounds.

 

Yes they are I quoted the law it's not about funding or enforcing a federal law. And yes if you do something that interferes with a federal law enforcement agent carrying out their federal law enforcement activities, such as warning suspects being sought for arrest that is obstruction of justice.

 

lol now warning criminals that the law is coming is a 1a issue.

Hilarious.