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.
I don't know, I have read arguments pro and con and it makes one think.
California is the size of some countries, even larger than a few. I don't live there, so I guess if I am an advocate of state's rights I would have to say what they do is their own business.
Circumventing immigration laws isn't a prerogative of states rights. California supporting illegals won't only impact California. Maybe Trump should be building a wall around CA instead of at the southern border, it appears CA is a lost cause.
I am all for states rights, but when states became states they signed on to follow the Constitution, and Federal Law. That was the deal to be part of the union. States like California violate the Constitution often, especially with the Second Amendment. Now they are doing it with another Constitutional item, illegal alien infestation. Pathetic. This is NOT a state's rights issue.
When states violate the Constitution, there is a court system to rectify that....all the way up to SCOTUS. So far trump's AG has failed in getting rulings against sanctuary cities. So, for now IT'S LEGAL. I know that's a trivial fact to trump supporters. Which is odd, because they are the first to say, We're a Nation of Laws. Unless a Federal court bans sanctuary city laws, they remain legal. No matter how much trump stamps his tiny little foot.
Circumventing immigration laws isn't a prerogative of states rights. California supporting illegals won't only impact California. Maybe Trump should be building a wall around CA instead of at the southern border, it appears CA is a lost cause.
I agree with you, but really that is not the argument. The sanctuary city idea is not about circumvention, the federal government is quite free to carry on in it's pursuit.
The Federal government can not force the state to devote any resources to enforcing the federal law. That is federal overreach.
The local communities have their own reasons. The biggest one seems to be that witnesses to a crime will not come forward out of fear of deportation. There is also the matter that employers have been known to exploit workers, a form of human trafficking, because the workers will not report the abusers out of fear. Sometimes it's just a matter of not paying the minimum wage, or illegal deductions or late payroll ... sometimes it is much worse and dark and sinister. In order to keep the community open to law enforcement, they are trying to allay fears.
For example, if your father (uncle, brother, daughter) was murdered (God forbid!) and the only chance witness or witnesses happened to be here illegally, they would likely not tell the police anything unless they felt safe in doing so. If you would want justice I am sure you would wish someone would come forward. In large cities and states these types of scenarios play out over and over again.
As long as no Federal dollars pay for it, California can become a "sanctuary state" all it wants.
the federal taxpayers now subsidize califronias medicare system Medi-Cal 75% , it was 50% but it has increased. It is not cheap getting free heath care to mexico
I don't know, I have read arguments pro and con and it makes one think.
California is the size of some countries, even larger than a few. I don't live there, so I guess if I am an advocate of state's rights I would have to say what they do is their own business.
It's a horrible idea. Immigration is--and should be--a federal issue, not a state issue.
When states violate the Constitution, there is a court system to rectify that....all the way up to SCOTUS. So far trump's AG has failed in getting rulings against sanctuary cities. So, for now IT'S LEGAL. I know that's a trivial fact to trump supporters. Which is odd, because they are the first to say, We're a Nation of Laws. Unless a Federal court bans sanctuary city laws, they remain legal. No matter how much trump stamps his tiny little foot.
When your judges are corrupt and are violating very basic principles of the Constitution, then there's a serious problem.
It's a horrible idea. Immigration is--and should be--a federal issue, not a state issue.
We're being set up for a civil war here.
Yes, it is a Federal issue and the Feds need to do their job and not expect the State to do it for them. That is really the point. No, there will be no civil war if they did this.
Quoted "A compromise hammered out earlier this week between Brown and California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León carved out exceptions to the new restrictions.
The changes allowed state and local law enforcement to communicate with federal immigration authorities if a person has been convicted of certain crimes. Corrections officers would also be permitted to work with federal agencies." End Quote
These 2.3 million undocumented immigrants are part of our state and most are decent hard working people and are here to provide a better life to their families. I have no problem with them staying and they should get a path to legalization and become full citizens like I said most are good people. Although I have zero tolerance for those that are convicted of crimes or are career criminals. Those that are violent, thieves, sexual offenders, gang members etc need to be hunted down and kicked out.
I am all for states rights, but when states became states they signed on to follow the Constitution, and Federal Law. That was the deal to be part of the union. States like California violate the Constitution often, especially with the Second Amendment. Now they are doing it with another Constitutional item, illegal alien infestation. Pathetic. This is NOT a state's rights issue.
**chuckles**
Not sure where all the Sanctuary is? The Fed can come in at any time..arrest any illegal they wish...raid businesses and farms..set up road blocks....set up sting operations..like fake construction jobs..and arrest as many illegals as they wish.
Seems a tempest in a teapot to me..all this does is say the California will not house prisoners for the Federal govt. and will not notify them when an illegal is released. So now they won't even ask. So what?
It is a Federal law..and it is up the the Federal LEA to enforce it. Now if the State was actively shielding known illegals..or physically providing Zones where they kept the ICE people out..with guns drawn..then we'd have an issue.
Truth is, the Govt. cannot afford to enforce their own laws..this is not the State's problem.
All boils down to money..the State is not required to spend theirs to enforce Federal law. The courts have been very clear on this.
Yes, it is a State's rights issue.
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.
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.
