California To Consider Enacting Statewide Sanctuary

I have no doubt they believe it. Liberals believe alot of false things.

 

lets test their theory.

 

I say we call their bluff...

- - - Updated - - -

Hey you forgot the most important part for them... Trump wouldn't be their president.

 

Federal laws are enforced by the federal executive branch, not by state executive branches. This is basic civics, man, unless you want to turn the U.S. into a dictatorship - which is exactly what some trumpettes advocate for.

 

That's what I'm waiting for.

 

So local cops cannot arrest someone who breaks federal law? Think about that for a minute....

 

Lol, please do tell where the U.S. Constitution empowers the president with executive authority over state and city law enforcement?

 

federal law contemplates and encourages cooperation from state and local authorities in the enforcement of immigration law.
8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) (otherwise known as Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)) authorizes the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into written agreements with state or local law enforcement agencies. These agreements allow state and local law enforcement officers to be trained and deputized to act as immigration agents. Although the 287(g) program, as it is commonly referred to, has largely been gutted by the Obama Administration, its provisions in the INA reflect Congress’ intent to allow state and local officers to act as partners—rather than adversaries—when it comes to the enforcement of federal immigration law. Importantly, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) does not require state and local officers to have such an agreement in place or otherwise ask permission to contact the federal government regarding an individual’s immigration status.

In addition to the 287(g) program, the federal government has also set the precedent for such cooperation between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials in other areas. These include: Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, the Criminal Alien Program, customs cross-designation authority, the Document and Benefit Fraud Tasks Forces, the National Fugitive Operations Program, Operation Community Shield, and Operation Firewall. Even the Priority Enforcement Program and its accompanying detainer scheme envision cooperation.

the supreme court has upheld state and local cooperation and assistance provisions.

In 2012, the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Arizona upheld state legislation that requires state and local law enforcement officers to make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the immigration status of persons involved in a lawful stop when officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present. Specifically, Section 2(b) of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 was found to be consistent with Congressional intent and therefore not federally preempted. Section 2(b) requires law enforcement to presume a detainee is lawfully present in the United States if he or she provides a valid Arizona driver’s license or similar identification, and prohibits law enforcement from considering race, color or national origin except to the extent permitted by the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions.
The Court found that the state provision did not conflict with federal law, but instead fostered the cooperation expressly encouraged in federal law between federal officials and state and local officials. Because federal law states that state or local officers may “communicate with the [federal government] regarding the immigration status of any individual,” without any special training and federal law expressly requires ICE to respond to any request made by state and local officials for verification of a person’s immigration status, the Court reasoned that Congress has affirmatively encouraged the sharing of information regarding possible immigration violations. The Court noted, in finding this conclusion, that “[c]onsultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system.”...
http://www.fairus.org/issue/the-role-of-state-local-law-enforcement-in-immigration-matters

 

So I assume this law will apply to enforcement of all federal laws? What about bank robbery? So much for consistency. California receives federal funds just like the other 49 with the expectation of cooperation. I hope they can get along without those funds. Maybe the illegals will pitch in.

 

The only crying and whining I've heard is from the 45th president of the U.S., but the criticism I've heard about the wall is (1) it will be ineffective and (2) it won't be worth the money, time, and materials spent to build it. I haven't heard any substantial complaints about more border security in general. Most communities realize they don't have the resources to figure out which immigrants are legal and which ones aren't, but they have figured out that discriminating against people simply because they "look foreign" is unconstitutional.

 

You consider people who voluntarily come here to work a "slave class?" Love how you guys just adjust your complaints as needed to support your underlying fear of outsiders. "They're a tax burden!" Oops, they are tax contributors. "They're slaves!" Oops they came of their own volition. "They're taking our jobs!" Oops, they're coming here and creating jobs, sometimes creating entire labor markets. "But... but... but... we just don't like other people!" OK.

 

I feel sorry for the sane people who live in that state. Thank God I don't live there!

 

I'm not the one defending illegal immigration.

I'm all for legal immigration. You know, not having to resort to Mexican cartels to get across the border, being robbed and raped along the way, not being paid slave wages, having the ability to have a pension n stuff.

If you support illegal immigration, you directly or indirectly support the oppression of people here illegally.

 

Facepalm to those who think sanctioning California wouldn't negatively and severely impact the rest of the country. Especially the red states. All these people talking tough are hilarious.

 

I just did just below your post.

Local law enforcement has always enforced federal laws, it's in their oath of office.

When I was a short timer in the Corps I was TAD to the Camp Pendleton Provost Marshals Office for a couple of months. Over 90% of the Marines and sailors who were apprehended for being UA or AWOL were apprehended by local law enforcement, not by the MP's or FBI.

Even today there's a bounty on apprehending members of the military who are AWOL. A private citizen has the authority in America to enforce the laws and make arrest aka citizens arrest. I've done it a few times in my life.

 

Illegals feasting at Cali's public trough with no federal EBT or SNAP money coming in. yeah, let me know how that works out.

 

exactly. it will be survival of the fittest in a month. All the rich will flee the state.

thats why I am all for this sanctuary city stuff. Let them congregate and the problem will take care of itself. dems have been putting black in ghettos for years. look anywhere there is a dem government and black and you will find lots of gettos.

 

Aren't they looking for a lot of money to help fund the high speed choo choo to nowhere? I know they were scamming the Obama admin for subsidies for various "green energy" boondoggles. Be good for the feds to keep the money and spend it on highways and bridges where normal people live.

 

Yeah and the most hilarious ones are the California lefties who think they will be able to get along without fed money. Besides, most of this craziness is concentrated in the blue areas in the corridor from San Fran to San Diego. Most of the rest of the state is ordinary people who are like normal Americans. Farmers, oilworkers, manufacturing.

 

I appreciate that you care enough.

California use to be a great state at one time. The best public schools in the nation, the best highways and roads and you had personal freedoms.

California started going into a tailspin starting in 1974 when a liberal loon became Governor. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown.

There needs to be a "Make California Great Again" movement.

 

Yeah, that whole "enumerated powers" thing is so 18th century. I hear ya.

 

Before the 1870's it was the individual states who were in charge of immigration not the federal government. It was the individual states who decided who could enter America.

During the early 1850's California was experience a crime wave in San Francisco. When they looked at who was committing all of the crimes it was whites from Australia. What did California do, they didn't allow white Australian immigrants to get off the boat. They had to enter America by way of the Oregon Territory or sail around the Horn and enter America in Texas or New Orleans.

 

It applies to the laws that local and state leaders think are within their capability and local or state interest to enforce. If they are, they enforce them. If they aren't, they don't. I for one hope we do not become some tyranny where the federal head has the power to order around state and city law enforcement.

 

Neither am I. Neither is anyone. But argue with a straw man to your heart's content!

We can agree on this. I can even agree that some - maybe even all - cities should work together to apprehend illegal immigrants. But I like our decentralized form of government, and if one city says it can't or doesn't want to expend its resources on enforcing a particular federal law, then I do not think the federal government should be permitted to bully them into doing so. You guys complained when Obama did it (as did I), you should be equally disturbed by Trump doing the same thing.

 

CA gave them Driver's licenses. CA encourages illegals to come there. CA's are so stupid as to keep re-electing pos's like Pelosi, Boxer and that other dumb anti-gun female senator.