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

PraiseKek said:
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
Click to expand...

Don't ask, don't tell, bitch!
 
PraiseKek said:
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]
Click to expand...

nothing proven, not even close
 
noise said:
^ link
Click to expand...
Great...let's continue this dance. FROM YOUR LINK:

But Gov. Jerry Brown has been in talks with elected county sheriffs over possible changes to the bill, SB 54, after expressing reservations about signing the legislation should it come to his desk, telling NBC’s “Meet the Press” that some people here illegally who have committed crimes “have no business being in the country.”
 
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...

Yep; I don't call him DUMBER with IQ76 for nothing. :rofl2:
 
PraiseKek said:
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
Click to expand...

Not to mention sanctuary states. Can't wait for California to end up at the Supreme Court. But then, even when these morons lose in court they still think they are winning.
 
PraiseKek said:
Regulating drugs is not an enumerated power of the Federal Government in purely intrastate commerce, 10th Amendment applies.
Click to expand...

have federal drug laws ever been challenged in court on a constitutional basis.....since they've been around for over fifty years I would be surprised if the courts haven't already concluded you are wrong.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
have federal drug laws ever been challenged in court on a constitutional basis.....since they've been around for over fifty years I would be surprised if the courts haven't already concluded you are wrong.....
Click to expand...

I think so, pretty sure they are upheld under the interstate commerce clause which is BS when it is purely intrastate commerce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top