74% of Californians do not support Sanctuary City policies according to UC Berkeley Poll (Los Angeles: taxes, live)

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

I don't care if you got it from Ronald Reagan's corpse itself, your premise makes absolutely no sense.

California politician's support of illegal immigration is not about "law and order, the validity of the constitution", they are completely contrary to those things.

Exactly.
How could blatantly choosing to ignore federal law = law and order?

It's crucial we enforce federal immigration laws and don't just let anyone in that can cross the border.
Just on principle , but the high cost of supporting them and the increased crime are also very real serious issues.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

As already pointed out, all points made are based on multiple conservative positions legitimately sourced and quoted as well as legal facts established through court actions. So if it all makes "no sense" to you then you cant find sense is conservative positions.

Which "conservatives" have said that California's current illegal immigration policy is about "law and order, and the validity of the constitution"?

Please list some names. That claims seems extremely dubious.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Exactly.
How could blatantly choosing to ignore federal law = law and order?

It's crucial we enforce federal immigration laws and don't just let anyone in that can cross the border.
Just on principle , but the high cost of supporting them and the increased crime are also very real serious issues.

Its been very well explained here. All you have to do is read.

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Which "conservatives" have said that California's current illegal immigration policy is about "law and order, and the validity of the constitution"?

Please list some names. That claims seems extremely dubious.

You are getting upset by simple truths? Californias position on these issues is the same as all the other places across the country - over 300 as quoted in one article. California is not unique. And yes, California officials up and down the state have said exactly what you dont like hearing.

The city of Huntington Beach, California, which is predominantly white and Republican, stopped honoring the hold requests last summer for purely legal reasons. A federal court ruling in Oregon said so-called immigration detainers, which ask local police to hold immigrants suspected of living in the U.S. illegally for up to 48 hours, were not sufficient reason to keep someone in jail.

"We don't have any policy or anything that prohibits our folks from interacting with ICE. We just follow the law," said Police Chief Robert Handy, adding his officers don't generally ask about immigration status because it doesn't relate to their cases, not because they're protecting anyone. "If they go get a warrant, we'll hold them in our jail. If they ask us to go help for a search warrant on a drug house, we're going to help them."

the reasoning behind local detainer policies. Places like Cook County, Illinois, and Santa Clara County, California, are trying to cultivate trust of police in immigrant communities. Others, such as San Bernardino and Riverside counties in California, cite fear of getting sued.

LAPD Chief Charlie Beck also reiterated that the department would not be in the business of enforcing federal immigration policy. “I depend on [undocumented immigrants] for support, I depend on them to be witnesses to crime, I depend on them to report crime, I depend on them to support the police department,” he told KPCC’s AirTalk. “And none of that is as likely to happen if we become an arm of immigration enforcement.”

Following the 2016 presidential election, Police Chief Sergio Diaz declared that Riverside police would not play a part in enforcing any potential mass deportations undertaken under Trump’s administration. “Our policy is we are not immigration agents. We’re in the crime business,” he said, according to the Press-Enterprise.

San Bernardino has made no proclamations identifying itself as a sanctuary county. Nevertheless, some immigration organizations, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for more restrictive immigration policies, have included the county on its lists of sanctuary cities and counties because the sheriff’s department has declined to comply with ICE detainer requests.

But the sheriff’s department didn’t necessarily make that policy decision based on protecting undocumented immigrants. The department told the Press-Enterprise in 2014 that officials were concerned about possibly being sued over those detainers, after a 2014 ruling in a federal district court found that an Oregon county violated a woman’s Fourth Amendment rights by holding her past her release date and without probable cause.

[CaliRestoration]

Uh, where was that list of conservatives you claimed said California's current immigration policy is about "law and order, and the validity of the constitution"?

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Exactly.
How could blatantly choosing to ignore federal law = law and order?

It's crucial we enforce federal immigration laws and don't just let anyone in that can cross the border.
Just on principle , but the high cost of supporting them and the increased crime are also very real serious issues.

Not only that, apparently he said many conservatives hold that opinion as well. I'm trying to get the list of noteworthy conservatives who have publicly said this.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Not only that, apparently he said many conservatives hold that opinion as well. I'm trying to get the list of noteworthy conservatives who have publicly said this.

You'll get that list on the 32nd of this month!

[RosieSD]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Why? Where I live the state is not running a deficit, facing a pension crisis, and does not have an over bearing regulatory structure that takes billions of dollars from residents every year.

I'm a problem solver at heart and I like to solve problems, not brag about successes.

Because you are not registered to vote in California, when you use the term "our elected officials" you are being disingenuous and unclear. The politicians in California are NOT "your" elected officials. So, the people you need to be encouraging to talk to "our elected officials" are the people in the forum for the state you reside.

To prevent misunderstanding, when posting on the forum of a state where you aren't registered to vote, it would be best if you are clear about which "elected officials" you are talking about. Perhaps you mean Federal officials -- in that case, specify "our elected Federal officials." Or, if you are referring to Californian elected officials, clarify by saying, "your elected officials in California" because they are not YOUR elected officials since you are not registered to vote here and don't live here.

It would also be so helpful if you could share the state where you reside and are registered to vote. Perhaps we Californians could learn something from your state's wonderful example since it is such a perfect place.

So, please do share with us the name of your state so that we Californians might be enlightened about what a "perfect" state looks like.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Not only that, apparently he said many conservatives hold that opinion as well. I'm trying to get the list of noteworthy conservatives who have publicly said this.

You have been provided multiple examples including Orange County, Huntington Beach, Riverside, San Bernardino which are all conservative. But curiously you are trying to re establish the playing field here by saying that California conservatives are different than other conservatives. There arent as many conservative leaderships in California as many other places, yet they do exist, have been quoted, and conform to what you dont like hearing. Jabbering on desperately doesnt make your point nor is it dignified. This thread has been corrected.

Originally Posted by jm1982

You'll get that list on the 32nd of this month!

Mark your calendar. This the first month ever when the 32nd occured on the 25th.

[slackercruster]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

65% of Hispanics do NOT support Sanctuary City policies.

So why do our elected officials continue to IMPOSE these unwanted policies upon California residents?

Even going as far as to hire Eric Holder at a cost of $25,000 a month to potentially defend against Federal enforcement of National immigration policy.

Sanctuary Cities: Restricting law enforcement risks public safety - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Trump needs to make a hotline to report illegal aliens and the companies they work for. Immigration can come in, confiscate their property, fine the companies massively and use the proceeds and the illegal aliens as a work force to help build the wall. After the illegal aliens have put in 6 months at hard labor they can be deported.

[slackercruster]

Originally Posted by BennyPhoenix

Because most Californians are stupid and keep voting for the politicians who create sanctuary cities.

Not to mention many of the voters are illegal aliens. He should see if he can jail some of CA's politicians for violating federal law. Trump need to fine CA massively for cleaning the mess up for them. Use the fines for paying for the wall.