‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

The response of the Justice Department should be "we will prosecute anyone who interferes with enforcing immigration laws with obstruction of justice."

Threatening someone to prevent them from reporting illegal activity - such as illegal immigration - is obstruction of justice and criminal extortion.

 

"That would be the end of the US" is an over-exaggeration. Secondly, who is saying we're going to eliminate the benefits of federation? All that's been discussed is ceasing Federal benefits to California for as long as they completely flaunt federal laws.

FWIW, the Liberals thought it was a great idea when Arizona was talking about enacting it's own immigration laws since the Feds weren't enforcing theirs. Why do you think they are being hypocrites about it now?

 

And then California says that ITS borders are open and thus no crimes have been committed. At that point the Repubs either throw out the 'states' rights' argument and enforce federal supremacy or they spin their wheels in legal mud as has happened with state level legal weed. I have no doubt the powers that be will have no issue with such hypocrisy but the voters will certainly take note and that forces them into an impossible decision. The only way out is to get Dems on board with enforcement as they've not goten bogged down in the 'states' rights' argument. I don't see that happening.

 

Cutting Federal support to a state is ending the benefits of federation for that state.

Did I ever speak out on that point? My position to that was 'Meh, states' rights.' Please don't confuse my calling out the stupidity and hypocrisy of our current government with being a liberal Dem (and I'm not insinuating I'm a Repub either).

 

Only as long as they refuse to comply with Federal law. Question: when Governor Brewer went up against President Obama over Federal immigration law, what position did you take, if any? Do you recall that the question of cutting Federal funds against non-compliant states regarding various issues under the Obama administration was brought up several times? Did you agree or disagree then?

 

Again, I come down on states' rights unless civil liberties are at stake. The thing about Obama is he's a Dem and the political trap the Repubs find themselves in with weed and immigration didn't apply to him (though he was apparently cool with legal weed personally considering his nonenforcement policy) to. LEGALLY the Feds are in a position of power as the Constitution clearly states that Fed law is superior but the Repubs are ideologically bound to both respect states' rights and enforce immigration law. It's a political trap that applies only to their party (and even then, only the immigration hardliners). A pro-enforcement Dem or federalist Repub government wouldn't have this issue, they'd just tell California 'No U!' and carry on.

 

No disagreement the Democrats favor Federal rule, which means they are hypocrites regarding California. No disagreement the Republicans favor State's Rights, which makes them hypocrites regarding California....and marijuana laws.

I consider myself a small "l" libertarian and a staunch defender of our Constitution. I consider abortion (up to 24 weeks), gay marriage and drug use to be individual choices and none of our government's business....which pisses off the RWNJs. OTOH, I'm equally supportive of our unenumerated rights of self-defense and our enumerated right to bear arms....which pisses off the LWLs.

This crap with California? I consider it the same thing as the Christian baker problem; forcing people to kneel before Federal law. Persuasion, IMHO, is better. Rather than forcing business owners to serve everyone with special rights, why not simply deny them Federal benefits like small business loans and government-backed insurance?

 

And yet you would have those who came here illegally be a certain class that is exempt from obeying the law.

 

The thing about the bakers vs. homosexuals was discrimination. It's 1 thing to place age restrictions based on law or throw out troublemakers that are chasing off customers and/or causing property damage but refusing to do business becuase of a life choice (that isn't even public) is a violation of civil rights (and unprofitable). Otherwise I agree with you except on abortion.

It's a strange place to be when you can claim to be both Right and Left depending on the issue. Everyone hates you and you can't agree with anyone come election day.

 

Also I have heard that Kalifornia is or has passed a law that anyone holding a drivers license can vote. Illegals get drivers licenses.
/www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/california-law-will-automatically-register-drivers-to-vote.html

 

I see your values are it's ok to break laws in order to better your life. Think of how much I could better my life by robbing the local bank.

 

Automatic registration at the time a drivers license is issued.

The thing is, it's still illegal for a non-citizen to vote, regardless, but with the vast majority of illegals using stolen identities, what would stop them? And if they did, how would anyone know, unless a difficult and costly investigation crossing known stolen identities with voting records were done.

There is ZERO will in California for that, as you can imagine.

 

Yes, I know it was about discrimination. My point is that it's not the government's place to legislate morality be it drugs, who ****s or marries whom, prostitution or which customers private businesses choose to service.

 

It's really time for California to secede. They are a net minus at this point.

 

That would be hilariously hypocritical given they always led the charge against the South secession and bowing to the almighty god of federalism when it came to dictating what others should think, do and believe.

 

Me thinx Kalifornia is lost for generations.

 

????"Life choice"? Actually, in almost every state you could refuse to serve any one for ANY life choice they've made, OTHER than sexual orientation or gender identity.

 

While true, committing a sexual act, be it heterosexual or homosexual, is a choice. Sexual preference is a different matter. Since it's mostly men who are vehemently anti-homosexual, I defy any of them to explain to me why they chose to be heterosexual. So far, none have. The few who were honest admitted it came naturally to them.

 

It does come naturally....fits right in with nature by gosh....would have to choose at some point to do otherwise!

 

What comes "naturally" is genetic. There is no "straight" gene. Our sexual preference is deeply wired into our psyche. Same for the sex drive of young men to the point they'll screw just about anything for relief. Still, that doesn't explain how homosexuality is a choice and heterosexuality comes "naturally" in the minds of those who disagree with my points.

 

Everyone laughs when a state considers secession, but what would happen if a state tried? Does America have the resolve to have another civil war to stay together?

 

Prior to 1861, the right of secession was debatable. Personally, I think it was legal. After the war, it was made illegal. If California seceded (it won't**) it would be an action which the President could nationalize the California National Guard to seize the capital, the Governor and all state representatives as traitors.


**Californians are so full of crap it's no surprise their crops are so well fertilized.

 

Who does this pompous windbag of an AG think he is believing he could undercut federal authorities on border issues?

I'd pay to see the look on his face when he finds that the only one facing action will be him. what on earth is cali thinking?

 

We don't have passion for anything, except illegals. We can't get enough of them.

 

Then the CNG says, "Uh, no, we take orders from the governor." The concept of nationalizing the NG (which are the military forces of each sovereign state, not the US) is that there is some national need (be it major disaster the locals can't deal with on their own or invasion) so the Feds can step in (almost always at the request of the governor commanding the NG and thus bilateral) to pool resources. If a state goes rogue, the CinC of the NG is the governor and the president can **** off.

People often forget that the whole reason for the concept of states' rights is that the US is an alliance of mutually independent nations, the EU with teeth if you will. Within reason the Feds are top dog but the Feds can't just casually usurp state institutions especially when we're talking about the military.