Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:24 AM
 
2,528 posts, read 1,649,314 times
Reputation: 2611

Advertisements

If California will behave like Alabama in 1861, it needs to get the same treatment.

 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:25 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,972,306 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
A state taking on the feds usually does not end well for the state.

And I don't understand why you'd want to die on this particular hill, either. "Sanctuary City" isn't some kind of actual legal status. It is the legal equivalent of :


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ElbguULEO0
The states recently did very well in court when they fought Obama's EPA E.O.'s.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:32 AM
 
22,768 posts, read 30,645,513 times
Reputation: 14737
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
The states recently did very well in court when they fought Obama's EPA E.O.'s.
Well, they won, because it was a legally questionable EPA regulation in the first place. But, it was a long and difficult fight for the states, which required a decision by the Supreme Court, which is the point.

As far as that particular situation goes: there's an important distinction between air/water/soil quality, which the EPA is clearly authorized by the legislature to regulate, and carbon / climate change, which they are not. But let's not turn this into another EPA thread, we've got one going already.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:35 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,680 posts, read 44,457,584 times
Reputation: 13584
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
The states recently did very well in court when they fought Obama's EPA E.O.'s.
An EO isn't a law. There actually IS a law under which the mayors of the 'sanctuary' cities, 'sanctuary' college campus administrators, 'sanctuary' restaurant owners/managers, etc., can be prosecuted and imprisoned for from 5-10 years:

With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...1324a-offenses

That's a snippet. Read the entire law.

Those prosecutions need to start happening. Cut the heads off of the snakes, metaphorically speaking. Simple cases to win, as they've already publicly admitted to their crimes.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:50 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,972,306 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi View Post
Well, they won, because it was a legally questionable EPA regulation in the first place. But, it was a long and difficult fight for the states, which required a decision by the Supreme Court, which is the point.

As far as that particular situation goes: there's an important distinction between air/water/soil quality, which the EPA is clearly authorized by the legislature to regulate, and carbon / climate change, which they are not. But let's not turn this into another EPA thread, we've got one going already.
I had no desire to. Just noting that it's not that difficult when you are right and in this case there is a ton of precedent that ruled that this is a Federal issue, not state or local.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:52 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,972,306 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
An EO isn't a law. There actually IS a law under which the mayors of the 'sanctuary' cities, 'sanctuary' college campus administrators, 'sanctuary' restaurant owners/managers, etc., can be prosecuted and imprisoned for from 5-10 years:

With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...1324a-offenses

That's a snippet. Read the entire law.

Those prosecutions need to start happening. Cut the heads off of the snakes, metaphorically speaking. Simple cases to win, as they've already publicly admitted to their crimes.
You can't be charged with harboring someone here illegally when the courts have ruled many times over that the states can not make this determination.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:54 AM
 
34,620 posts, read 21,491,843 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I had no desire to. Just noting that it's not that difficult when you are right and in this case there is a ton of precedent that ruled that this is a Federal issue, not state or local.
There is also no law that the Feds have to give grants for things like transportation systems to California.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:57 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,680 posts, read 44,457,584 times
Reputation: 13584
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
You can't be charged with harboring someone here illegally when the courts have ruled many times over that the states can not make this determination.
You can when you publicly announce that you and your employees will not cooperate with federal authorities. For example:

LAPD won't turn over some illegal immigrants for deportation | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times
 
Old 01-28-2017, 06:14 AM
 
1,901 posts, read 2,018,664 times
Reputation: 4143
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
The states recently did very well in court when they fought Obama's EPA E.O.'s.
Big difference between taking a Fed Agency to court over a regulation (not a law) and defying Federal law.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 06:22 AM
 
8,924 posts, read 5,589,641 times
Reputation: 12559
Go California. The Boston Mayor also has some guts......
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.


Closed Thread


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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top