Trump Administration Sues California Over Immigration Laws

OK, no problem. Send in the military to clean things up and send CA the multi billion $ bill for abetting and aiding fine and the illegals round up.

 

Trump is too much of a puss to do anything meaningful. If Trump had any balls he would have declared CA in a state of emergency and sent in the military to clean things up.

 

It’s the right that cries “STATES RIGHTS” at every turn, NOT THE LEFT. But lets be honest, you want states rights when it fits your argument, and when it doesn’t you blame the left.

Your pathetic defense is noted.

 

Put that on a tape loop and play it over and over again for yourself. No state has a right to ignore the law.
LOL@U.

 

With freedom of travel within the States that simply will not work. CA isn't just letting them into CA, they are letting them into the US and at the same time claiming that they can ignore and break Federal law, because they don't like it. Essentially, that Federal Law is only binding if it promotes the "progressive" agenda. But, if Blue States will not obey the Federal Government when its in GOP control, obviously Red States will return the favor when the Dems return to Federal power. Dems return to their nullification roots.

But Super Secret Sleeper Agent McSnoozy Sessions the Sleepy Crime Dog has evidently pried his head off of his pillow long enough to actually file a lawsuit against the state of California over its "sanctuary" policies. The reaction from the usual gaggle of miscreants, momzers and tyrants is typical. I have mixed feelings about this; yes, I suppose protocol would dictate a lawsuit, but given that the Judicial branch is now a rouge entity and not a co-equal branch, and that the actions of California's political leaders border on open revolt, short of revoking their statehood, dissolving their state legislature and calling in the National Guard to take over, I would freeze all Federal monies that feed the beast as well as double if not triple my immigration enforcement activities. And yes, Libby Schaaf should be clapped in irons and prosecuted for interfering with law enforcement.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/u-s-justice-department-sues-california-sanctuary-policies/

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/374198.php

 

We had a civil war once because Southern states didn't want their institution of slavery, among other things, abolished.
California is treading in their boot steps and they are smart enough at least not to make the claim that they have a right to ignore
federal immigration law (unlike some of their stupider supporters)
But they are simply ignoring the federal government and doing what they want, all the same and some of their more radical residents actually think they should break away from the union and I'm tempted to wish them goodbye but we really can't let that happen
(not that it probably will).

This law suit should be the shot across their bow that stops this nonsense cold and throwing the Oakland mayor in jail would be nice touch to show we mean business.

 

Yes.

 

Moonbeam, Kamala-Toe, Becerra Slam Sessionszzzz Over Sanctuary State Lawsuit

 

Yes, and sadly it's always the SCOTUS and the stupid "rule of law" getting in the way of States anarchy. Stupid Constitution.

 

No their asking mayors not to obstruct justice by informing criminal illegal aliens about imminent ICE raids.

 

California is not "letting them in". The border is now and always has been, under the auspices of the federal government. There are no secret tunnels guarded and maintained by the State of California.
Much of the issues people have with the state's policies are because of lies. Sessions told one whopper after another the other day announcing his waste of taxpayer money, er,ah, lawsuit. He will lose simply because California is not in violation of any federal laws, he's making **** up. When someone is arrested in California they dutifully send that person's fingerprints to the FBI where it is determined if there are any outstanding warrants or injunctions. If the person is undocumented then their arrest info is passed on to ICE. If they are arrested for a number of serious crimes California will hold them for deportation but they will not hold them beyond the terms of their convictions for minor offenses. Why should they? They have paid their debt to California and I see no reason California should hold someone without hearing at their expense. Maybe if ICE focused on deporting criminal elements instead of Rotary Club members there would be no issue at all. Nobody is stopping them from going to the jails to interrogate and nobody is stopping them from picking up someone on their way out of jail.

 

Two words for you: Libby Schaff.
Oh...and this. https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/10...urn-arrested-illegal-immigrants-over-to-feds/

 

I would respond with https://www.mercurynews.com/2013/10...urn-arrested-illegal-immigrants-over-to-feds/
Oh my, that's your link, what do you know. Had you read it you would find it says exactly what I said. They will not hold someone beyond their sentence for ICE unless they were in for a long list of serious crimes. Why should California have to foot the bill to hold a shoplifter beyond his sentence because ICE is busy tracking down a Rotarian, father of two, restaurant owner?

 

Tell Libby Schaff that.
As a committed sanctuary advocate she proactively has taken a stance that gives a warning call to felons (rapists, drug dealers, etc.)
causing them to flee like cockroaches because ICE was set to conduct raids in Oakland.

Sanctuary officials refuse to cooperate with ICE and federal officials in ANY way and it's hardly a matter of having to hold some minor
criminal in their jail for an extra few days. They are actually impeding officers of the law from performing their tasks. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordeba...ities-must-cooperate-with-federal-enforcement

The step from non cooperation to actually opposing federal agents is a very big one and it's one you conveniently ignore or underplay.

 

In Rejecting US Immigration Law, California Has a Role Model: The Confederacy

 

Huh. Where is that in the Constitution? Article 4, section 2 is quite clear in mentioning "State Citizens." A resident is a temporary living status. Quite different from a state citizen.

 

You're right. Republicans tend to lick the boots of authority, even to their own detriminent. It's why, when there's a full seizure of guns, they'll talk about "cold dead hands" but grovel in front of the police as the come door to door.

Still, they hate the Constitution when it's not in their favor.

Have you found the word "immigration" in the Constitution, yet? Have you looked up the difference between a state citizen (article 4) and a US citizen?

 

What immigration law have they rejected? It's a trick question because the answer is none. They have chosen not to use state resources to assist in the enforcement of federal law where they feel said enforcement does not increase state security but on the contrary lessens it. Where it does increase state security, such as the deportation of gang bangers and other violent offenders then they do authorize spending state resources. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
It's probably the word sanctuary that confuses so many. It's not sanctuary in the classic use of the word where protection is offered. It simply means that the undocumented have no reason to fear the state in addition to the feds and can come forward to work with the state to make everyone safer.

 

And who do you think that "such Persons" refers to?

Precisely. That's why it's not under the control of Congress. Or, are you forgetting the 9th and 10th amendments?

And Article 3, section 2. How often does it need to mention state citizens?

Yeah, hey, we can't find anything here, so we'll find another excuse. Ask Dred Scott (one of those "such Persons") how that worked out.

 

Well, hey, if we are going to talk about the Constitution and the rule of law, are you familiar with previous injunctions against "commandeering" and how it has generally favored conservative viewpoints in the past?

Republicans are fair-weather constitutionalists and gleefully trample all over it, along with the rule of law, when it doesn't serve their agenda.

 

"California, we have a problem," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a speech Wednesday. "Here's my message — how dare you. How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of our law enforcement officers to promote a radical, open borders agenda."

Bingo.

California's Democratic Party has moved so far to the left of the political spectrum, it can no longer be considered a mainstream party. But it's nudging the state into a danger zone — one that most of its citizens don't realize could have a major impact on them.

The laws, together, make it a crime for businesses to voluntarily aid federal agents in nabbing undocumented workers; keep California law enforcement officers from telling federal agents when illegal immigrant detainees are released from jail, prison or other custody; and create special state inspections for federal immigration detention facilities.

Let's be clear: Whatever your views on immigration, California's actions are plainly illegal. The Constitution gives the federal government control over our borders and immigration, part of its duty to defend the U.S. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, meanwhile, establishes federal law as "the supreme law of the land."

This is a federal-state crisis, and deserves to be treated as such. Unfortunately, California's top politicians treat their law-breaking as a joke.

https://www.investors.com/politics/...-california-has-a-role-model-the-confederacy/

 

LOL

Tend to lick the boots of authority.....

So as the Democrats seek more and more control of citizens through government authority, and Republicans push back on the that, they are actually licking the boots of authority...

Seems you're not too interested in facts, just platitudes.

As to citizenship, where are you going with your question?

 

Yet we still await what law? We do know that the constitution protects state assets from seizure and that is exactly what ICE is doing when they tell state officials to hold someone without compensation.

My question to Sessions is how dare you risk the lives of Californians by making up ***** to advance your agenda?

 

No one ever said they where ONLY deporting convicted criminals. But two facts remain, One they are all criminals just by being here. Two many are convicted criminals, some rapist and murderers. I thought that liberals care about peoples safety? I live in California and the Only safety I see is for illegals, us citizens of the state do not matter. In the town I live in the people are the crime stoppers the police don't even get called. No point we are citizens we have no rights.

 

Yes someone did, as I quoted.