Trump Administration Sues California Over Immigration Laws

This is B.S. They are warning murders and sex offenders that ICE is coming. Punishing those who turn them in. They are working against the FEDs.

 

I agree, but I was referring to the act of marriage that predates state recognition. I think the state recognition should be abolished as well. In that would remain the aforementioned freedom of association, were any two people could engage in a marriage contract based upon personal beliefs.

 

I do as well. We need regime change in CA.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-evaded-capture-after-dem-mayors-warning.html

 

No state has rights. Only people have rights.

 

Another contestant in the Most Ridiculous Leftist Meme contest, I see.
California does not have the "right" to formulate it's own immigration policy.

As a corollary it also does not have the right to
oppose and impede the federal government when it attempts to enforce immigration law.

Try harder, guys.

 

I'm generally pro-states rights. However, the states should not have the right to create laws which infringed upon the safety of the rest of the nation and/or infringe upon the safety of federal agents in the state to enforce federal laws.

How would the left feel if instead of illegal immigrants, California's actions were seeking to protect international terrorists, or escaped convicts, or ??

 

Which murderers and sex offenders? Names please

 

Again, you don't support states rights.

Im not advocating for immigrations. States rights are not issue based. Either you support states rights, or you don't. And since "States Rights" is a core tenant of the republican party, I find it amusing to watch the right try to justify this one

 

All the people that ICE is rounding up are illegal immigrants with criminal records.

Why can't you understand that simple fact?

 

Because it’s a lie. Not a fact.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/02/23/politics/trump-immigration-arrests-deportations/index.html

 

From your own article:
"In 2017, the administration deported nearly 215,000 immigrants, 13% fewer than the nearly 250,000 deported in 2016. The percentage of those individuals who were non-criminals was steady at just over 40%."

This means nearly two of every three deported was a criminal. (And that's without arguing the fact that merely by being here illegally, they are criminals.)

 

Lol nearly half are NOT convicted criminals. You can’t claim it’s only criminals when nearly half are NOT. That’s called a lie

 

There literally...LITERALLY...are no states rights to ignore and worse, block, federal immigration law. That is not a "right" any state enjoys.

And when the left blocks ICE from doing their job, as sanctuary states have been doing, they are placing ALL states in jeopardy by
thwarting ICE as Oakland, California did recently and all sanctuary cities do on a regular basis (letting illegal felons and gang members run free).

In fact in the fifties and early sixties we had to send federal troops into Jim Crow states to get them to stop doing exactly what it is sanctuary states are doing right now....ignoring federal law and obstructing federal enforcement of it. Perhaps you've heard of this?

So I don't know if you've given a seconds thought to what you claim to advocate but it doesn't look like it and you are taking your place with your unique view of states rights right next to George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Orville Faubus. It suits you and your ideological fellow
travelers.

 

Oh the irony......

States rights has become an issue based right among the those on the right. Its a states rights issue when its something you support, its a federal law when you don't.

 

Thus conflating immigration with naturalization. The original intent of the Constitution was that states would control their own immigration, and even state citizenship (a status that is mentioned several times in the Constitution) and the Federal government would determine US citizenship (naturalization.) Kennedy ceded a great deal of state powers over to the Federal government with that decision. Not that conservatives, being the hypocrites that they are, care one iota about states rights when they want the FedGov to control something.

 

Hypocrisy abounds. Liberals and conservatives demand that law should reflect their emotional and moral outrage, rather than rely on principles and established precedent and the Constitution.

 

Fine. Let the state of California pay for their illegal aliens and not ask the federal government for a penny. Then you can have your state rights all you ****ing want.

 

Your pathetic commentary notwithstanding I see nothing that challenges my post in terms of law
or issues. Say hi to Lester, George and Orval for me.

Once more there is no "right" that permits states to ignore the laws they don't like or want to enforce.
Stop being a disingenuous stooge of the open borders crowd.

 

CNN....what a reliable and principled news source.

 

Moonbeam is whining and stomping is widdle commie feet about TrumpCo "going to war against the state of California"....

No, Moonbeam, you and your cabal of treasonous seditionists and insurrectionists are going to war against American citizens, the rule of law and US sovereignty.

 

Wrong! Immigration is and always has been a Federal Issue. Which makes perfect sense given that have complete freedom of travel between the States. When one State adopts an open border policy, without VISA controls between the States, they are adopting it for everyone in the Nation, and these spoiled pansies don't have that right.

States Objecting to Illegal Immigration Should Pass Laws Demanding That Any Product Produced in "Sanctuary Jurisdiction" Be Specifically Labeled as Such for Interstate Sale

The Constitution generally forbids any kind of interference with interstate trade -- but there are exceptions.

The Supreme Court found, for example, that a federal law demanding that goods made by prisoners in one state must be marked as "Prisoner-Made Goods" when shipped for interstate sale. The companies selling such prisoner-made goods objected, stating that such labeling would of course prejudice the public against buying them in the market.

But the Supreme Court found that such labeling requirements were a permissible regulation under the intestate commerce clause.

The United States Supreme Court held that transportation of prisoner made goods without proper labeling violated the Ashurst Sumners Act (ASA), 49 U.S.C.A. §§ 61-64, and the U.S. Constitution Act 1, § 8. The Kentucky Whip and Collar Co. (petitioner) manufactures horse collars, harnesses, and strap goods with Kentucky prisoner labor that it marketed in various states....

A transportation company refused to deliver goods which did not have the required labeling. So the company selling prisoner-made goods sued to compel the transport company to deliver them, challenging the federal law requiring labeling as contrary to the general constitutional prohibitions of interference with interstate commerce.

They lost:

Petitioner sued seeking amandatory injunction to compel transportation. The Court held, pursuant to ASA, that all prisoner made goods are to be transported with plain labels showing names and addresses of shipper and consignee, the nature of contents, and the name and location of the penal or reformatory institution where produced. Accordingly, the Court rejected the petitioner's constitutional challenge to the ASA.

So let it be proposed:

Congress should pass a law similar to the Ashurst Summers act requiring all products (or agricultural produce) made in a jurisdiction which is a "sanctuary jurisdiction," or which does not conform to a minimum level of enforcement of immigration laws, should be labeled (when sold interstate) as "PRODUCED IN A SANCTUARY JURISDICTION PERMITTING ILLEGAL WORK BY FOREIGN UNDOCUMENTED LABORERS."

The states which are interested in actually enforcing immigration laws may pass their own state laws requiring such labeling.

If these labels wind up prejudicing the public against buying California grapes or even California microchips... ah well. Who can object to better informing the public about how goods are made?

California is a state that is the most on-board with such labeling requirements itself. Look for any kind of water-bottle on Amazon, and you'll see a special label, required by California law, stating that the product does or does not contain BHP or whatever type of plastic Californians are all up in arms about this week.

Similarly, there are special labels, mandated by California law, about certain substances or ingredients in supplements and foods, and about what types of metal ions are present in batteries. That kind of thing.

Products routinely are required to carry the Warning Label that "Ingredient X has been linked to cancer by California Health Authorities."

If California feels it is empowered to demand that all other states carry the Warning Labels that Californians demand, then it's high time that all California-made goods carry the Warning Label "THIS PRODUCT PRODUCED IN A SANCTUARY JURISDICTION WHICH PERMITS OR ENCOURAGES LABOR BY UNDOCUMENTED ILLEGAL FOREIGN WORKERS."

And if people decide they'd rather buy produce and other goods from a non-sanctuary state, well: If California can require labels about BHP, why can't Oklahoma require labels about goods made in jurisdictions that illegally encourage illegal immigrant labor?

It could be useful to use against tech companies that suck up to China. "This search engine is known to help the communist Chinese government repress its people by censoring search results."

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/374212.php

CA isn't going to enjoy living under the rules they have put into place.

 

Immigration is not a State right.

Article II Section 9 Clause 1

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Constitution states no such thing.

The Constitution only mentions "state citizenship" once, in Article IV Section 2 Clause 1:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Immigration is a function of sovereignty, and the States are not sovereigns:

It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality. Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens (see American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, 213 U. S. 356), and operations of the nation in such territory must be governed by treaties, international understandings and compacts, and the principles of international law. As a member of the family of nations, the right and power of the United States in that field are equal to the right and power of the other members of the international family. Otherwise, the United States is not completely sovereign. The power to acquire territory by discovery and occupation (Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, 137 U. S. 212), the power to expel undesirable aliens (Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 149 U. S. 705 et seq.), the power to make such international agreements as do not constitute treaties in the constitutional sense (Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U. S. 583, 224 U. S. 600-601; Crandall, Treaties, Their Making and Enforcement,2d ed., p. 102 and note 1), none of which is expressly affirmed by the Constitution, nevertheless exist as inherently inseparable from the conception of nationality. This the court recognized, and, in each of the cases cited, found the warrant for its conclusions not in the provisions of the Constitution, but in the law of nations.

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)

 

State Citizenship is called 'residency'.

 

This is obviously not a state's rights issue and the disingenuous left either doesn't know that or more likely doesn't care.
We didn't allow George Wallace in Alabama and Lester Maddox in Georgia or Orval Faubus in Arkansas in the fifties and sixties to thumb their nose at the federal government when it came to desegregation although they claimed their states had the right to resist federal law.

Why are we going to let a nut case like Jerry Brown in California or Andrew Cuomo of New York or Bruce Rauner (?) of Illinois do the same with regard to sanctuary city policies, which are nothing more than a refusal to follow federal immigration law and a promise to hinder enforcement whenever and wherever they can.

Hopefully finally this action to sue California will force their hand once and for all breaking the grip that illegal immigrants have on the US, through the duplicitous democrat party and all their stooges.

 

Now that is an interesting blanket spin.

On one hand, Democrats encourage violation of the countries laws regarding illegal entry, residency, employment, etc.. On the other, Republicans want existing laws to be enforced.

Yet you suggest all sides are simply employing emotional and moral outrage towards what they think should be done.

Perhaps you should recheck the Constitution and rethink who is attempting to ignore the enumerated powers that it defines.