California becomes 'sanctuary state' in rebuke of Trump immigration policy

Rune said:
The crime?
Click to expand...

Violating the Constitution:

Article 1 Section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
 
Many just don't get it or they try to deny it. Immigration issues, undocumented or whatever, are federal issues. The states have no rights interjecting themselves into the argument. Many local law enforcement departments stopped trying to enforce immigration policy years ago due to budgetary concerns. They were spending millions housing suspected undocumented immigrants and the Feds refused to come and get them. They were notified time and again but without response in most cases. And they were not being reimbursed for their expenses in holding the suspects as the law requires. The suspects had not broken any immigration laws for which local law enforcement was encumbered to pursue. The Feds can whine all they want but they made their own nest in this respect. The Feds will lose this argument.

And The Investigations Continue,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
noise said:
i'm not going to do a simple redact. I read the SOURCES behind the OP- it's convoluted nonsense-manufactured dodges
to avoid simple compliance with ICE.

I sincerely hope SCOTUS rules on this patchwork insanity. The best ruling would be the states enter into a contract to receive federal funds.

California/the 9th/the entire west coast is bending itself into legal pretzels to avoid simple compliance
Click to expand...
You provided a link that is convoluted?
 
Althea said:
You provided a link that is convoluted?
Click to expand...

noise said:
good lord..did you read this?
How California's Trust Act shaped the debate on the new 'sanctuary state' proposal
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-...ary-state-immigration-20170910-htmlstory.html
I'm still on my first cup of coffee, but I've never seen such a bunch of confusion to dodge ICE detainers?

Why not just cooperate ( although the idea of putting a time limit on a detainer is valid, so locals do not over-hold)

It's clear (illegal) immigrants are driving the agenda, instead of illegals simply being subject to immigrtion law.
The argument is saying illegal activity should be shielded to comply with immigration advocates demands.

Just follow federalism -problem solved, instead of using arcane federalism for these carve outs
Click to expand...

^ link
 
PraiseKek said:
I know what it is, now wtf does it have to do with the comment you were responding to you stupid faggot?
Click to expand...

You are not only dense, but desperate, tardboy.

You included a comment about FEDERAL law, tardboy. I posted FEDERAL law, tardboy, to clarify WHY the states are not required to enforce it. If you were able to read and comprehend, tardboy, you would recognize the difference between that and civil rights.

Your ignorance of immigration law AND civil rights is astounding.
 
domer76 said:
You are not only dense, but desperate, tardboy.

You included a comment about FEDERAL law, tardboy. I posted FEDERAL law, tardboy, to clarify WHY the states are not required to enforce it. If you were able to read and comprehend, tardboy, you would recognize the difference between that and civil rights.

Your ignorance of immigration law AND civil rights is astounding.
Click to expand...

We were talking about the tenth amendment and the incorporation into the states of federal statutes which fall under Congresses enumerated powers your response to my post was a total non sequitur, god you're fucking dumb.
 
PraiseKek said:
We were talking about the tenth amendment and the incorporation into the states of federal statutes which fall under Congresses enumerated powers your response to my post was a total non sequitur, god you're fucking dumb.
Click to expand...

The response, asswipe, is that the Feds can only have locals enforce immigration laws if the locals enter into an agreement to do so.

Another massive failure on your part, tardboy.
 
domer76 said:
The response, asswipe, is that the Feds can only have locals enforce immigration laws if the locals enter into an agreement to do so.

Another massive failure on your part, tardboy.
Click to expand...

That is not what we were discussing you spic dick taking faggot.
 
Rune said:
OH MY GOD, RETARD, THAT WAS FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT.

You really are a dumb one.
Click to expand...

Wrong again fucktard:

For the 1975–76 school year, the Louisville, Kentucky school district, which was not integrated due to whites largely moving to the suburbs, was forced to start a busing program.[3] The first day, 1,000 protestors rallied against the busing, and a few days into the process, 8,000 to 10,000 whites from Jefferson County, Kentucky, many teenagers, rallied at the district's high schools and fought with police trying to break up the crowds.[9] Police cars were vandalized, 200 were arrested, and people were hurt in the melee, but despite further rallies being banned the next day by Louisville's mayor, demonstrators showed up to the schools the following day.[3] Kentucky Governor Julian Carroll sent 1,800 members of the Kentucky National Guard and stationed them on every bus.[3] On September 26, 1975, 400 protestors held a rally at Southern High School, which was broken up by police tear gas, followed by a rally of 8,000 the next day, who marched led by a woman in a wheelchair to prevent police reprisals while cameras were running.[3] Despite the protests, Louisville's busing program continued.[3]
 
domer76 said:
The response, asswipe, is that the Feds can only have locals enforce immigration laws if the locals enter into an agreement to do so.

Another massive failure on your part, tardboy.
Click to expand...

Furthermore; sanctuary cities are in overt violation of the following provisions of Federal Law:


Cornell Law SchoolSearch Cornell
Toggle navigation
U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part IX › § 1373
8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
US Code
Notes
prev | next
(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 entitiesNotwithstanding 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.)


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top