U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-07-2018, 08:51 PM
 
5,902 posts, read 6,351,297 times
Reputation: 5447

Advertisements

Sessions mentioned how the POS Oakland Mayor was obstructing justice by protecting violent criminals and putting agents and law abiding public lives in danger, makes sense they would target California first.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-07-2018, 09:26 PM
 
Location: TX Hill Country-Helotes, Pipe Creek/Lake Hills & San Antonio, TX
845 posts, read 1,352,784 times
Reputation: 1370
#MAGA WTG OAG Jeff Sessions!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2018, 10:07 PM
 
Location: Florida & Cebu, Philippines
2,808 posts, read 2,234,893 times
Reputation: 2852
It is about time people in govt be held accountable for their illegal actions, let's hope this is the first of many suits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2018, 06:18 AM
 
2,564 posts, read 1,595,583 times
Reputation: 3013
It sounds like Gov moonbeam is about to pop a blood vessel.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latim...outputType=amp
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2018, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Carmichael, CA
1,933 posts, read 2,726,978 times
Reputation: 2922
I get the sense from reading the local news stories that Governor Brown and state AG Becerra are under the impression that all Californians are solidly behind them in their fight to save the illegals from following Federal law.

But reading the hundreds of comments to the stores, it's seeming to lean towards support for the Feds. I wonder if Brown has even talked to the citizens to see what we think.

Who am I kidding? He still thinks we support his Bullet Train to Nowhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2018, 10:34 AM
 
2,564 posts, read 1,595,583 times
Reputation: 3013
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb73 View Post
I get the sense from reading the local news stories that Governor Brown and state AG Becerra are under the impression that all Californians are solidly behind them in their fight to save the illegals from following Federal law.

But reading the hundreds of comments to the stores, it's seeming to lean towards support for the Feds. I wonder if Brown has even talked to the citizens to see what we think.

Who am I kidding? He still thinks we support his Bullet Train to Nowhere.
They donít care. They think they can do whatever they want and still get elected. So far, thatís been true.

If anything is going to change, these people have to be voted out of office. I donít see that happening anytime soon but I hope Iím wrong.

I think itís a small percentage of people that post on forums like this or put comments in articles. Not enough to matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2018, 11:54 AM
 
3,454 posts, read 1,694,791 times
Reputation: 2201
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Not when an issue is precluded/superseded by the Constitution's supremacy clause.

Also, the sale and regulation of alcohol is almost an inherently function of state law. In relevant part, the 21st Amendment reads:

But, yes, my rationale applied primarily to employers and individuals, not to police officers. While not as strong of an argument, the same rationale applies to the law prohibiting cooperation from police departments (even if the department wants to) with the federal government on this issue. As is the case with private employers, the federal government cannot force states to implement federal law. But states cannot impermissibly interfere with the enforcement of federal law either. And prohibiting otherwise willing police departments from helping to enforce federal law. If the state had complete control over every police department within its boundaries, then this law would be different (indeed, inherent under the 10th Amendment, the right to not be compelled to enforce federal law includes the right to prohibit your subordinates from enforcing federal law). But CA does not have such control. That said, this may be a case for the California courts to hear; I know that federal courts can hear cases involving state law, but I'm not sure if this case meets the requirement for such.
You'll have to explain how this is precluded by the Supremacy Clause. There are three types of preemption via the Supremacy Clause--conflict, implied, and field. Conflict preemption occurs when it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law. A business is under no obligation to permit ICE's entry unless ICE gets warrant. Thus it is possible to comply with both state and federal law.

Implied preemption means what it says: is it implied that federal law preempts state law? One should not expect a court to find implied preemption here.

Field preemption means that there is such a complete system of federal regulation that the feds have occupied the field of regulation. There is no system of federal regulation for private business' cooperation with federal immigration. Hence, field preemption would not apply.

Even with these laws, ICE has options. They can get warrants. They can detain people on the street. What ICE wants to do is detain people in a law enforcement manner using administrative processes and state & local resources. The problem here is that the feds created a really stupid immigration system that they can't enforce. Immigration reform is the correct response.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2018, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
31,575 posts, read 53,094,619 times
Reputation: 14494
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post
You'll have to explain how this is precluded by the Supremacy Clause. There are three types of preemption via the Supremacy Clause--conflict, implied, and field. Conflict preemption occurs when it is impossible to comply with both federal and state law. A business is under no obligation to permit ICE's entry unless ICE gets warrant. Thus it is possible to comply with both state and federal law.

Implied preemption means what it says: is it implied that federal law preempts state law? One should not expect a court to find implied preemption here.

Field preemption means that there is such a complete system of federal regulation that the feds have occupied the field of regulation. There is no system of federal regulation for private business' cooperation with federal immigration. Hence, field preemption would not apply.

Even with these laws, ICE has options. They can get warrants. They can detain people on the street. What ICE wants to do is detain people in a law enforcement manner using administrative processes and state & local resources. The problem here is that the feds created a really stupid immigration system that they can't enforce. Immigration reform is the correct response.
Excellent post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2018, 12:11 PM
 
4,817 posts, read 2,344,925 times
Reputation: 4600
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge View Post

Even with these laws, ICE has options. They can get warrants. They can detain people on the street. What ICE wants to do is detain people in a law enforcement manner using administrative processes and state & local resources. The problem here is that the feds created a really stupid immigration system that they can't enforce. Immigration reform is the correct response.
Or they can just honor ice detainers that are issued for criminals. Then ice picks them up. its pretty simple. Then the FEDS can reimburse them for the extra day they have to stay there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2018, 12:23 PM
 
2,278 posts, read 704,028 times
Reputation: 3915
Legal experts are calling BS on Session's lawsuit.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ly-doomed.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top