California becomes 'sanctuary state'

[Swordsmyth]

Gov. Jerry Brown signed landmark “sanctuary state” legislation (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20170916-story.html) Thursday, vastly limiting who state and local law enforcement agencies can hold, question and transfer at the request of federal immigration authorities.Senate Bill 54 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54), which takes effect in January, has been blasted as “unconscionable” by U.S. Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-sessions-sanctuary-20170919-story.html), becoming the focus of a national debate over how far states and cities can go to prevent their officers from enforcing federal immigration laws. Supporters have hailed it as part of a broader effort by majority Democrats in the California Legislature to shield more than 2.3 million immigrants living illegally in the state.
Brown took the unusual step of writing a signing message in support of SB 54. He called the legislation a balanced measure that would allow police and sheriff’s agencies to continue targeting dangerous criminals, while protecting hardworking families without legal residency in the country.
“In enshrining these new protections, it is important to note what the bill does not do,” Brown wrote. “This bill does not prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement (http://www.latimes.com/topic/social-issues/u.s.-immigration-customs-enforcement-ORGOV0000136156-topic.html) or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way.”
Legal experts have said federal officials may try to block the law in court to keep it from being implemented. Some doubt such challenges would be successful, pointing to the 10th Amendment and previous rulings in which courts have found the federal government can’t compel local authorities to enforce federal laws.
On Thursday, Department of Justice spokesman Devin O'Malley declined to comment on the agency’s next move. Asked whether the administration would attempt to block the state law, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that federal officials “are spending every day we can trying to find the best way forward.
“The president will be laying out his responsible immigration plan over the next week,” she said. “And I hope that California will push back on their governor’s, I think, irresponsible decision moving forward.”
Brown’s decision comes as local and state governments are locked in legal battles with Sessions over his move to slash federal grant funding from “sanctuary jurisdictions,” where city and county agencies are limited when working with federal immigration officials. A Chicago federal judge largely blocked Sessions’ effort just hours before SB 54 cleared the Legislature on Sept. 16.

More at: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-brown-california-sanctuary-state-bill-20171005-story.html


Hopefully they will secede when they lose the federal grants.

[goldenequity]

I have mixed feelings as a proponent of State nullification powers/10th and a chained down Fed
while a simultaneous proponent of border controls and stricter immigration enforcement and prosecution.
It's a real tug o war.

[Swordsmyth]

I have mixed feelings as a proponent of State nullification powers/10th and a chained down Fed
while a simultaneous proponent of border controls and stricter immigration enforcement and prosecution.
It's a real tug o war.

Nullification is only for unconstitutional laws:

Article. VI....This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...

[anaconda]

LOL Dems now champions of the 10th Amendment!

[r3volution 3.0]

So, some Mexicans get to not be deported..

Big whoop

What actually matters...?

[Swordsmyth]

Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill into law Thursday to expand workplace protections (http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-after-a-dark-day-immigrant-rights-1504726192-htmlstory.html) for employees who came to the U.S. illegally, part of the state’s response to the Trump administration's call for greater immigration enforcement.
The bill (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB450) by Assemblyman David Chiu (D-San Francisco) prohibits employers from allowing federal immigration agents on private business property without a judicial warrant. It also requires business owners to give their employees public notice — within 72 hours — of federal immigration inspections of employee records.

Businesses that fail to provide notice to employees face penalties of $2,000 to $5,000 for a first violation, and $5,000 to $10,000 for each subsequent violation, though some exceptions may apply.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ice-threatens-more-apos-collateral-202629604.html (http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-expands-workplace-1507236616-htmlstory.html)


ICE chief threatens ‘at-large arrests’ after Calif. creates state sanctuary

The Trump administration will go after undocumented immigrants in their neighborhoods and at work in California, likely picking up “collateral” they were not initially targeting, after the state’s new “sanctuary” law goes into effect, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Homan said Friday.His statement was a condemnation of the law, which Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed on Thursday (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/california-sanctuary-state_us_59ce7423e4b05f005d341453), but also reads like a threat to undocumented immigrants in California. While the law was passed to protect them, ICE is now saying they are even more at risk of deportation and being separated from their families.
“ICE will have no choice but to conduct at-large arrests in local neighborhoods and at worksites, which will inevitably result in additional collateral arrests, instead of focusing on arrests at jails and prisons where transfers are safer for ICE officers and the community,” Homan said in a statement (https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/statement-ice-acting-director-tom-homan-california-sanctuary-law). “ICE will also likely have to detain individuals arrested in California in detention facilities outside of the state, far from any family they may have in California.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/cbcf99da-e63f-3957-b6a1-0ca64c9ce377/ss_ice-chief-threatens-%E2%80%98at-large.html

[TheCount]

LOL Dems now champions of the 10th Amendment!

And Reps suddenly against it...

[Swordsmyth]

And Reps suddenly against it...

What parts of Article. VI., Article I section 9 and Article IV section 4 don't you understand?

[TheCount]

What parts of Article. VI., Article I section 9 and Article IV section 4 don't you understand?The part where it says local police are federal immigration agents.

[Swordsmyth]

The part where it says local police are federal immigration agents.

Article. VI.

...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...


It's called the rule of law, you can't just ignore the ones you don't like.

If they REALLY don't like immigration law they should go through with CALExit, they just need to be prepared to lose the red counties, It's what should have happened about the fugitive slave laws in the 19th century, the North should have left and formed their own Union and let the south be. (Note that I agree that the fugitive slave laws and slavery were bad, and even if I support immigration law I will happily allow the DPRKalifornia to let anyone in that they want once they leave)

[Weston White]

Traitor Brown needs to be recalled and forced to move to NY, NY!


California Constitution, A.III, S.1: The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Ibid, S.3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

Cal. Gov. Code, Sec. 1360. Unless otherwise provided, before any officer enters on the duties of his office, he shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution of California.

California Constitution, A.XX, S.3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

“I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

_____ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) _____
and that during such time as I hold the office of _____ (name of office) _____

I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

Cal. Gov. Code, Sec. 1369. Every person having taken and subscribed to the oath or affirmation required by this chapter, who while holding office, advocates or becomes a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or violence or other unlawful means, is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code.

Ibid, Sec. 3109. Every person having taken and subscribed to the oath or affirmation required by this chapter, who, while in the employ of, or service with, the state or any county, city, city and county, state agency, public district, or disaster council or emergency organization advocates or becomes a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or violence or other unlawful means, is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code.

U.S. Constitution, A.I,S.8,C.4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...

Ibid, Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[TheCount]

It's called the rule of law, you can't just ignore the ones you don't like.

Based on the rule of law, who has the legal authority to enforce immigration law and detain aliens?

[Swordsmyth]

Based on the rule of law, who has the legal authority to enforce immigration law and detain aliens?

State and local law enforcement and federal law enforcement.

[Swordsmyth]

Traitor Brown needs to be recalled and forced to move to NY, NY!

California Constitution, A.III, S.1: The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Ibid, S.3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

Cal. Gov. Code, Sec. 1360. Unless otherwise provided, before any officer enters on the duties of his office, he shall take and subscribe the oath or affirmation set forth in Section 3 of Article XX of the Constitution of California.

U.S. Constitution, A.XX,S. 3. Members of the Legislature, and all public officers and employees, executive, legislative, and judicial, except such inferior officers and employees as may be by law exempted, shall, before they enter upon the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation:

“I, ___________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

“And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means except as follows:

_____ (If no affiliations, write in the words “No Exceptions”) _____
and that during such time as I hold the office of _____ (name of office) _____

I will not advocate nor become a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means.”

Cal. Gov. Code, Sec. 1369. Every person having taken and subscribed to the oath or affirmation required by this chapter, who while holding office, advocates or becomes a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or violence or other unlawful means, is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code.

Ibid, Sec. 3109. Every person having taken and subscribed to the oath or affirmation required by this chapter, who, while in the employ of, or service with, the state or any county, city, city and county, state agency, public district, or disaster council or emergency organization advocates or becomes a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force or violence or other unlawful means, is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code.

U.S. Constitution, A.I,S.8,C.4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...

Ibid, Article XIV (Amendment 14 - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

TheCount

They are violating their state constitution, there are parts of it I don't like but if they don't like them they need to change them, just like if they don't like constitutional federal law they need to leave the union.

[TheCount]

State and local law enforcement and federal law enforcement.

Don't just ignore the laws you don't like. They're all important.

Start with title 8 chapter 12 and move on from there. Who has the legal authority to enforce immigration law and detain aliens?

[Swordsmyth]

Don't just ignore the laws you don't like. They're all important.

Start with title 8 chapter 12 and move on from there. Who has the legal authority to enforce immigration law and detain aliens?


Protip: It's none of the three groups you mentioned

Who do you claim it is?

[timosman]

Don't just ignore the laws you don't like. They're all important.

Start with title 8 chapter 12 and move on from there. Who has the legal authority to enforce immigration law and detain aliens?

Ghostbusters? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe93CLbHjxQ

[Swordsmyth]

Don't just ignore the laws you don't like. They're all important.

Start with title 8 chapter 12 and move on from there. Who has the legal authority to enforce immigration law and detain aliens?

(a) Secretary of Homeland Security (1) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-1203952667-1201680065&term_occur=21&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=51&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103), the Secretary of State, the officers of the Department of State, or diplomatic or consular officers: Provided, however, That determination and ruling by the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=52&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103)with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling.

(2) He shall have control, direction, and supervision of all employees and of all the files and records of the Service (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-646160747-1201680097&term_occur=25&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103).

(3) He shall establish such regulations; prescribe such forms of bond, reports, entries, and other papers; issue such instructions; and perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under the provisions of this chapter.

(4) He may require or authorize any employee of the Service (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-646160747-1201680097&term_occur=26&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) or the Department of Justice to perform or exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder upon any other employee of the Service (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-646160747-1201680097&term_occur=27&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103).

(5) He shall have the power and duty to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=150&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) against the illegal entry of aliens and shall, in his discretion, appoint for that purpose such number of employees of the Service as to him shall appear necessary and proper.

(6) He is authorized to confer or impose upon any employee of the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=151&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103), with the consent of the head of the Department or other independent establishment under whose jurisdiction the employee is serving, any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder upon officers or employees of the Service.

(7) He may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-80204913-1201680099&term_occur=49&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103), establish offices of the Service (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-646160747-1201680097&term_occur=28&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) in foreign countries; and, after consultation with the Secretary of State, he may, whenever in his judgment such action may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this chapter, detail employees of the Service (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-646160747-1201680097&term_occur=29&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) for duty in foreign countries.

(8) After consultation with the Secretary of State (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-80204913-1201680099&term_occur=50&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103), the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=53&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) may authorize officers of a foreign country to be stationed at preclearance facilities in the United States for the purpose of ensuring that persons traveling from or through the United States to that foreign country comply with that country’s immigration and related laws.

(9) Those officers may exercise such authority and perform such duties as United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=152&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103)immigration officers (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-717612480-1201680039&term_occur=6&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) are authorized to exercise and perform in that foreign country under reciprocal agreement, and they shall enjoy such reasonable privileges and immunities necessary for the performance of their duties as the government of their country extends to United States immigration officers (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-717612480-1201680039&term_occur=7&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103).

(10) In the event the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=54&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) determines that an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens arriving off the coast of the United States, or near a land border, presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate Federal response, the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=55&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) may authorize any State or local law enforcement officer, with the consent of the head of the department, agency, or establishment under whose jurisdiction the individual is serving, to perform or exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder upon officers or employees of the Service.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1103


Short version: ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT THE FEDS WANT TO DO IT

[TheCount]

@TheCount (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=58229)

They are violating their state constitution, there are parts of it I don't like but if they don't like them they need to change them, just like if they don't like constitutional federal law they need to leave the union.
Can you show me the part of Title 8 which obligates or forces the states to do anything?

[TheCount]

(a) Secretary of Homeland Security (1) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-1203952667-1201680065&term_occur=21&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=51&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103), the Secretary of State, the officers of the Department of State, or diplomatic or consular officers: Provided, however, That determination and ruling by the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=52&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103)with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling.

(2) He shall have control, direction, and supervision of all employees and of all the files and records of the Service (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-646160747-1201680097&term_occur=25&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103).

(3) He shall establish such regulations; prescribe such forms of bond, reports, entries, and other papers; issue such instructions; and perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under the provisions of this chapter.

(4) He may require or authorize any employee of the Service (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-646160747-1201680097&term_occur=26&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) or the Department of Justice to perform or exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder upon any other employee of the Service (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-646160747-1201680097&term_occur=27&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103).

(5) He shall have the power and duty to control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=150&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) against the illegal entry of aliens and shall, in his discretion, appoint for that purpose such number of employees of the Service as to him shall appear necessary and proper.

(6) He is authorized to confer or impose upon any employee of the United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=151&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103), with the consent of the head of the Department or other independent establishment under whose jurisdiction the employee is serving, any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder upon officers or employees of the Service.

(7) He may, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-80204913-1201680099&term_occur=49&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103), establish offices of the Service (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-646160747-1201680097&term_occur=28&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) in foreign countries; and, after consultation with the Secretary of State, he may, whenever in his judgment such action may be necessary to accomplish the purposes of this chapter, detail employees of the Service (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-646160747-1201680097&term_occur=29&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) for duty in foreign countries.

(8) After consultation with the Secretary of State (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-80204913-1201680099&term_occur=50&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103), the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=53&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) may authorize officers of a foreign country to be stationed at preclearance facilities in the United States for the purpose of ensuring that persons traveling from or through the United States to that foreign country comply with that country’s immigration and related laws.

(9) Those officers may exercise such authority and perform such duties as United States (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-2032517217-1201680101&term_occur=152&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103)immigration officers (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-717612480-1201680039&term_occur=6&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) are authorized to exercise and perform in that foreign country under reciprocal agreement, and they shall enjoy such reasonable privileges and immunities necessary for the performance of their duties as the government of their country extends to United States immigration officers (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-717612480-1201680039&term_occur=7&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103).

(10) In the event the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=54&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) determines that an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens arriving off the coast of the United States, or near a land border, presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate Federal response, the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=55&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) may authorize any State or local law enforcement officer, with the consent of the head of the department, agency, or establishment under whose jurisdiction the individual is serving, to perform or exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder upon officers or employees of the Service.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1103


Short version: ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT THE FEDS WANT TO DO ITDon't be lazy; actually read the thing you're quoting. Only one subsection refers to state or local government employees, and that subsection explicitly requires the consent of that level of government. Which the new California law forbids.

Keep reading. Maybe somewhere in there you'll find a section which actually supports you. Or maybe you'll change your mind about the importance of all laws and decide that you only support the laws which you imagine exist rather than the laws which actually exist.

[timosman]

Can you show me the part of Title 8 which obligates or forces the states to do anything?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psFQMKcsIF8

[Weston White]

Can you show me the part of Title 8 which obligates or forces the states to do anything?

It is found by their oath of affirmation and hence sworn duty to serve and protect the U.S. Constitution and laws established thereunder, not to cherry pick those which further their own ideologies or political agendas.

[Swordsmyth]

Don't be lazy; actually read the thing you're quoting. Only one subsection refers to state or local government employees, and that subsection explicitly requires the consent of that level of government. Which the new California law forbids.

Keep reading. Maybe somewhere in there you'll find a section which actually supports you. Or maybe you'll change your mind about the importance of all laws and decide that you only support the laws which you imagine exist rather than the laws which actually exist.
California Constitution, A.III, S.1: The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Ibid, S.3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

Some other states might be able to make the claim that they can forbid "the head of the department, agency, or establishment under whose jurisdiction the individual is serving" from consenting but California can't, it is bound by it's own constitution.

[TheCount]

Ibid, S.3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

Some other states might be able to make the claim that they can forbid "the head of the department, agency, or establishment under whose jurisdiction the individual is serving" from consenting but California can't, it is bound by it's own constitution.

They're not refusing to enforce a statute, they're refusing to participate in a voluntary program.


There is no law which forces states to allow their law enforcement agents to be deputized by ICE, nor is there a law which requires states or law enforcement agents to report to ICE.

[TheCount]

It is found by their oath of affirmation and hence sworn duty to serve and protect the U.S. Constitution and laws established thereunder, not to cherry pick those which further their own ideologies or political agendas.

You're feel free to join the game of 'which law is it that they're violating' as well.

[Swordsmyth]

They're not refusing to enforce a statute, they're refusing to participate in a voluntary program.

The feds are asking them to enforce a statute and they are refusing, their own constitution makes it involuntary for them, they must agree.

Other states may or may not be bound to enforce this law although this is an argument against that:
It is found by their oath of affirmation and hence sworn duty to serve and protect the U.S. Constitution and laws established thereunder, not to cherry pick those which further their own ideologies or political agendas.

[timosman]

They're not refusing to enforce a statute, they're refusing to participate in a voluntary program.


There is no law which forces states to allow their law enforcement agents to be deputized by ICE, nor is there a law which requires states or law enforcement agents to report to ICE.

You sound like an angry version of Zippy.:rolleyes:

[TheCount]

The feds are asking them to enforce a statute and they are refusing, their own constitution makes it involuntary for them, they must agree.

Which statute?

[TheCount]

You sound like an angry version of Zippy.:rolleyes:I'm not angry, just amused by how the 'law and order' types seem to be ignorant of what that actually entails.

You can join in too.

[Swordsmyth]

Which statute?

The immigration laws, can't you remember what we are talking about from one minute to the next?

[TheCount]

The immigration laws, can't you remember what we are talking about from one minute to the next?
Which statute? The 'voluntary participation' one or the actual laws pertaining to the detention and deportation of non-citizens?

If the first, it's voluntary.

If the second, there are some issues:
1: As you already noticed, state and local law enforcement do not have the authority to enforce immigration law.
2: Without voluntarily asking/forcing the people that they interact with to provide proof of citizenship / immigration status, state and local law enforcement have no basis on which to detain.
3: Without voluntarily interacting with ICE, state and local law enforcement cannot determine the immigration status of a person that they detain.
4: Even if they were to detain a person, they would have to voluntarily inform ICE and then voluntarily transfer custody of that person to ICE.

[Swordsmyth]

Which statute? The 'voluntary participation' one or the actual laws pertaining to the detention and deportation of non-citizens?

If the first, it's voluntary.

If the second, there are some issues:
1: As you already noticed, state and local law enforcement do not have the authority to enforce immigration law.
2: Without voluntarily asking/forcing the people that they interact with to provide proof of citizenship / immigration status, state and local law enforcement have no basis on which to detain.
3: Without voluntarily interacting with ICE, state and local law enforcement cannot determine the immigration status of a person that they detain.
4: Even if they were to detain a person, they would have to voluntarily inform ICE and then voluntarily transfer custody of that person to ICE.

Nothing is voluntary for California, their constitution forces them to agree to the federal request that they consent to allow their officers to enforce immigration law.

[TheCount]

Nothing is voluntary for California, their constitution forces them to agree to the federal request that they consent to allow their officers to enforce immigration law.

Your reading comprehension continues to devolve. No matter how much bold underline extra-large font you apply, it will not make the thing that you imagine the law to say actually appear in the text of the law.


California Constitution, A.III, S.1: The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Ibid, S.3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

1: (a) and (b) do not apply because they're not declaring it unconstitutional (a) or refusing to enforce it (b).

2: (c) does not apply either because it is backwards: It says that a state law must be enforced, even if a federal law says otherwise. It does not state the reverse

3: That statute is not the state's to enforce:


(a)Secretary of Homeland Security
(1) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-1203952667-1201680065&term_occur=21&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=51&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103), the Secretary of State, the officers of the Department of State, or diplomatic or consular officers: Provided, however, That determination and ruling by the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=52&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103)with respect to all questions of law shall be controlling.


4: Even if none of the above 3 points were true, there is nothing to enforce and no enforcement provision. It is voluntary. If it were not intended to be voluntary, then the clause making it voluntary would not have been written.

Interpreting this as mandatory requires an a conscious act of willful stupidity and illogic:


(10) In the event the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=54&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) determines that an actual or imminent mass influx of aliens arriving off the coast of the United States, or near a land border, presents urgent circumstances requiring an immediate Federal response, the Attorney General (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-133271130-1485256779&term_occur=55&term_src=title:8:chapter:12:subchapter:I:section:1 103) may authorize any State or local law enforcement officer, with the consent of the head of the department, agency, or establishment under whose jurisdiction the individual is serving, to perform or exercise any of the powers, privileges, or duties conferred or imposed by this chapter or regulations issued there under upon officers or employees of the Service.

[Swordsmyth]

Your reading comprehension continues to devolve. No matter how much bold underline extra-large font you apply, it will not make the thing that you imagine the law to say actually appear in the text of the law.



1: (a) and (b) do not apply because they're not declaring it unconstitutional (a) or refusing to enforce it (b).

2: (c) does not apply either because it is backwards: It says that a state law must be enforced, even if a federal law says otherwise. It does not state the reverse

3: That statute is not the state's to enforce:




4: Even if none of the above 3 points were true, there is nothing to enforce and no enforcement provision. It is voluntary. If it were not intended to be voluntary, then the clause making it voluntary would not have been written.

Interpreting this as mandatory requires an a conscious act of willful stupidity and illogic:


(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

Immigration law is a statute, they are declaring it unenforceable, no appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations because the law allows the feds to authorize them.

California Constitution - CONS



ARTICLE V EXECUTIVE [SECTION 1 - SEC. 14]

( Article 5 added Nov. 8, 1966, by Prop. 1-a. Res.Ch. 139, 1966 1st Ex. Sess. )

SECTION 1.




The supreme executive power of this State is vested in the Governor. The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully executed



US CONSTITUTION
Article. VI.

...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding...

California has no choice.

[Weston White]

You're feel free to join the game of 'which law is it that they're violating' as well.

Sure, America's immigration laws, jackass. It is a crime under the USC to invade America's borders.

ETA:

Why is it police have no qualms about enforcing federal drug or gun crimes, for example. But immigration is some exception?

[TheCount]

California has no choice.

Correct; the state constitution (the part you so helpfully quoted) specifically dictates that the state must prefer its own statues over federal statues and regulations. Until such time as an appellate court (the 9th circuit - good luck) rules otherwise, they must obey the new state statute. I'll hit that part with every emphasis option possible so that you can notice it.


Ibid, S.3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

[Weston White]

Your reading comprehension continues to devolve. No matter how much bold underline extra-large font you apply, it will not make the thing that you imagine the law to say actually appear in the text of the law.



1: (a) and (b) do not apply because they're not declaring it unconstitutional (a) or refusing to enforce it (b).

2: (c) does not apply either because it is backwards: It says that a state law must be enforced, even if a federal law says otherwise. It does not state the reverse

3: That statute is not the state's to enforce:




4: Even if none of the above 3 points were true, there is nothing to enforce and no enforcement provision. It is voluntary. If it were not intended to be voluntary, then the clause making it voluntary would not have been written.

Interpreting this as mandatory requires an a conscious act of willful stupidity and illogic:

Dude, you are playing semantics. California "officials" are indirectly stating that immigration laws are unconstitutional as by their actions and intentions.

Do you not grasp the ramifications on what is a sanctuary city? It is more than simply not assisting federal agents with their operations, but also about not reporting suspected violations, not holding suspected violators, not passing on intelligence that is helpful for purposes of immigration enforcement, etc. And make no mistake, this is not just about Mexican border jumpers, it is as well about aiding and abetting terrorism, narco-trafficking, and counterfeiters.

[TheCount]

Sure, America's immigration laws, jackass. It is a crime under the USC to invade America's borders.

Who has the authority to enforce those immigration laws?


How should a state or local law enforcement officer lawfully determine the citizenship or immigration status without a) being deputized as an ICE agent or b) contacting ICE and divulging to the federal government the personal details of every person that they interact with?

Should state and local law enforcement confirm the citizenship status of every single person they interact with? How?

[timosman]

Who has the authority to enforce those immigration laws?


How should a state or local law enforcement officer lawfully determine the citizenship or immigration status without a) being deputized as an ICE agent or b) contacting ICE and divulging to the federal government the personal details of every person that they interact with?

Should state and local law enforcement confirm the citizenship status of every single person they interact with? How?

Are you still trying to make an argument?:confused:

[TheCount]

Dude, you are playing semantics. California "officials" are indirectly stating that immigration laws are unconstitutional as by their actions and intentions.

No, they're not. They are just telling police that they may not contact ICE to determine a person's citizenship/immigration status except under certain circumstances.



Do you not grasp the ramifications on what is a sanctuary city? It is more than simply not assisting federal agents with their operations, but also about not reporting suspected violations, not holding suspected violators, not passing on intelligence that is helpful for purposes of immigration enforcement, etc. And make no mistake, this is not just about Mexican border jumpers, it is as well about aiding and abetting terrorism, narco-trafficking, and counterfeiters.

Are you saying that if they see something, they should say something? That it is the obligation of state and local government to inform on their residents to the federal government? You specifically mention intelligence: Should participation in fusion centers be mandatory?


Does your logic also apply to police enforcement of anti-drug laws in states where use/possession/sale of those drugs is decriminalized? Make no mistake, drug trafficking is also tied to terrorism, narco-trafficking, and counterfeiting.

[timosman]

https://media.tenor.com/images/177cd7165d7bb00fe66f2387deea91b0/tenor.gif

[Weston White]

Who has the authority to enforce those immigration laws?


How should a state or local law enforcement officer lawfully determine the citizenship or immigration status without a) being deputized as an ICE agent or b) contacting ICE and divulging to the federal government the personal details of every person that they interact with?

Should state and local law enforcement confirm the citizenship status of every single person they interact with? How?

CLETS, NCIC and INTERPOL is a good starting point, just takes them a couple of minutes to run them and then make a phone call over to their local ICE office.

[Weston White]

They are just telling police that they may not contact ICE to determine a person's citizenship/immigration status except under certain circumstances.

Precisely, this is the same effect or result--their motive, because they want it to be unconstitutional because this is the base they advocate for, without it, they loose power and influence over conservatives. Neoliberalism is a mental illness.


Are you saying that if they see something, they should say something? That it is the obligation of state and local government to inform on their residents to the federal government? You specifically mention intelligence: Should participation in fusion centers be mandatory?

Immigrants are not proper residents and have very limited rights while here.

FedGov has enumerated power over immigration, while acts of terrorism may or may not be a federal matter, there would be many factors to consider, e.g., a riot in Watts or Oakland is not domestic violence under the Constitution until it progresses to a considerable degree, such is now being achieved by ANTIFA.


Does your logic also apply to police enforcement of anti-drug laws in states where use/possession/sale of those drugs is decriminalized?

I am not certain what you are referring to exactly? Should illegals not be permitted to use legal drugs or should illegals that use legal drugs be reported or contacted by police, regardless?


Make no mistake, drug trafficking is also tied to terrorism, narco-trafficking, and counterfeiting.

It may be in certain cases or by happenstance, but it is not in every case.

[Jamesiv1]

Middle Eastern Muslims overwhelm Europe. Mexicans and South Americans overwhelm the USA.

No national identity + no cultural identity = New World Order.

[TheCount]

CLETS, NCIC and INTERPOL is a good starting point, just takes them a couple of minutes to run them and then make a phone call over to their local ICE office.
On whom? Everyone?

Are you suggesting that every person in the US should be prepared to prove their citizenship to police at all times?

[TheCount]

Immigrants are not proper residents and have very limited rights while here.If the police can question the immigration status of everyone they meet, then everyone will have very limited rights while here.

[Weston White]

On whom? Everyone?

Are you suggesting that every person in the US should be prepared to prove their citizenship to police at all times?

No, on those they stop for legitimate purposes or are made aware of by concerned citizens.


If the police can question the immigration status of everyone they meet, then everyone will have very limited rights while here.

If police can run everybody they meet for wants or stops on their property, they can most certainly check their status as citizens.

[timosman]

On whom? Everyone?

Are you suggesting that every person in the US should be prepared to prove their citizenship to police at all times?

Goalposts moved! BTW, did anybody ever see Zippy and Count together?

[Weston White]

Actually, it does make a constitutional argument, and the facts seem skewed too, 1:3 Californians are immigrants, I don't think so. It also blends illegals as being immigrants.


7284.2. The Legislature finds and declares the following:

(a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent.
(b) A relationship of trust between California’s immigrant community and state and local agencies is central to the public safety of the people of California.
(c) This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians.
(d) Entangling state and local agencies with federal immigration enforcement programs diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of accountability between local, state, and federal governments.
(e) State and local participation in federal immigration enforcement programs also raises constitutional concerns, including the prospect that California residents could be detained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, targeted on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or denied access to education based on immigration status.

Also think this statute is a XIV Amend., as it is protecting a specific class of individuals from the scrutiny of law enforcement. Providing them a claim that others are not entitled.

[TheCount]

are made aware of by concerned citizens.

"Hello, Sheriff? Yes; my neighbor's chile rellenos are -too- good. Could you look into that for me? Oh, thank you so much. I'll put an extra 'thin blue line' bumper sticker on my car just for you."

[Swordsmyth]

Correct; the state constitution (the part you so helpfully quoted) specifically dictates that the state must prefer its own statues over federal statues and regulations. Until such time as an appellate court (the 9th circuit - good luck) rules otherwise, they must obey the new state statute. I'll hit that part with every emphasis option possible so that you can notice it.

This is not a law that can be enforced, this is a law that requires them to declare a statute unenforceable without an appellate court having made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

[Swordsmyth]

Which statute? The 'voluntary participation' one or the actual laws pertaining to the detention and deportation of non-citizens?

If the first, it's voluntary.

If the second, there are some issues:
1: As you already noticed, state and local law enforcement do not have the authority to enforce immigration law.
2: Without voluntarily asking/forcing the people that they interact with to provide proof of citizenship / immigration status, state and local law enforcement have no basis on which to detain.
3: Without voluntarily interacting with ICE, state and local law enforcement cannot determine the immigration status of a person that they detain.
4: Even if they were to detain a person, they would have to voluntarily inform ICE and then voluntarily transfer custody of that person to ICE.

8 U.S.C. 1373. That law says local governments “may not prohibit, or in any way restrict” the delivery of information about “the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual” to federal immigration authorities.

[Anti Federalist]

So, some Mexicans get to not be deported..

Big whoop

What actually matters...?

This matters a lot.

This is a state telling the whole fedgov to fuck itself.

Now, of course, being Kalifornia, they are doing for all the wrong reasons, but c'mon, this is a big fucking deal and should be supported completely and wholly.

California leftists now have not got a leg to stand on during the next Bundy incident.

[Swordsmyth]

This matters a lot.

This is a state telling the whole fedgov to $#@! itself.

Now, of course, being Kalifornia, they are doing for all the wrong reasons, but c'mon, this is a big $#@!ing deal and should be supported completely and wholly.

California leftists now have not got a leg to stand on during the next Bundy incident.

Unfortunately leftists are all hypocrites, CALExit is our only hope.

[TheCount]

8 U.S.C. 1373. That law says local governments “may not prohibit, or in any way restrict” the delivery of information about “the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual” to federal immigration authorities.
You're still looking? I thought you'd settled on your pretzel-logic of the California constitution meaning the exact opposite of what it says.

Regardless, as with nearly every reference that you use on this topic or otherwise, it does not seem as if you have actually read the thing that you are talking about. It gives the impression that you are just copy/pasting or reiterating an argument that you've seen posted elsewhere. Nothing in the California legislation violates 8 U.S.C. 1373. The information that they are prohibited from sharing with ICE does not include immigration status, and since the police are prohibited from asking about citizenship or immigration status, they don't have such information to transmit in the first place.


7284.6.

(a) California law enforcement agencies shall not:
(1) Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following:
(A) Inquiring into an individual’s immigration status.
(B) Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.
(C) Providing information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with Section 7282.5. Responses are never required, but are permitted under this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy.
(D) Providing personal information, as defined in Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s home address or work address unless that information is available to the public.
(E) Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants.
(F) Assisting immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(G) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal.
(2) Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. All peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency.
(3) Use immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody.
(4) Transfer an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with Section 7282.5.
(5) Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration authorities for use within a city or county law enforcement facility.
(6) Contract with the federal government for use of California law enforcement agency facilities to house individuals as federal detainees, except pursuant to Chapter 17.8 (commencing with Section 7310).

[Swordsmyth]

You're still looking? I thought you'd settled on your pretzel-logic of the California constitution meaning the exact opposite of what it says.

Regardless, as with nearly every reference that you use on this topic or otherwise, it does not seem as if you have actually read the thing that you are talking about. It gives the impression that you are just copy/pasting or reiterating an argument that you've seen posted elsewhere. Nothing in the California legislation violates 8 U.S.C. 1373. The information that they are prohibited from sharing with ICE does not include immigration status, and since the police are prohibited from asking about citizenship or immigration status, they don't have such information to transmit in the first place.

If I am wrong on this particular law it still doesn't change the rest.

And lets put the goal posts back where they belong shall we? Even if California is not doing something illegal they are doing something WRONG.

[TheCount]

If I am wrong on this particular law it still doesn't change the rest.

In order for there to be 'the rest' there would have to be other laws which they are violating.



And lets put the goal posts back where they belong shall we? Even if California is not doing something illegal they are doing something WRONG.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lebowski-opinion1.jpg

[Weston White]

You're still looking? I thought you'd settled on your pretzel-logic of the California constitution meaning the exact opposite of what it says.

Regardless, as with nearly every reference that you use on this topic or otherwise, it does not seem as if you have actually read the thing that you are talking about. It gives the impression that you are just copy/pasting or reiterating an argument that you've seen posted elsewhere. Nothing in the California legislation violates 8 U.S.C. 1373. The information that they are prohibited from sharing with ICE does not include immigration status, and since the police are prohibited from asking about citizenship or immigration status, they don't have such information to transmit in the first place.

So you are arguing that the Legislature did not know what it was speaking of when it ratified 8 U.S.C. 1373?

What if an illegal voluntarily discloses their status to law enforcement?

And there is more in play here than merely an officer asking the question, it also pertains to say, ICE calling the police and asking them to hold onto somebody they have in custody or are detaining for something else.

Make no mistake illegals and their attorneys are going to seek protection from prosecution under this statute for a whole host of criminal activities.

It is clear this statute violates federal supremacy, official's Oath of Affirmation, and results in an unavoidable XIV Amend. violation.

[TheCount]

So you are arguing that the Legislature did not know what it was speaking of when it ratified 8 U.S.C. 1373?

Do you think that I should go off of what the legislature actually wrote in 8 USC 1373, or what I imagine that they might have intended but did not actually write into law?



What if an illegal voluntarily discloses their status to law enforcement?

Likely that person would be detained if it were in connection with some other crime. California's law does not forbid law enforcement from arresting people who have committed immigration violations unless that is the sole reason for the arrest.




And there is more in play here than merely an officer asking the question, it also pertains to say, ICE calling the police and asking them to hold onto somebody they have in custody or are detaining for something else.

California's law allows ICE to do that, so long as they follow the law and get the warrant. What it forbids ICE from doing is requesting the detention of someone based on no more than a phone call.





Make no mistake illegals and their attorneys are going to seek protection from prosecution under this statute for a whole host of criminal activities.

This statute does not contain any protection from prosecution for anyone, illegal or otherwise.

[Weston White]

Do you think that I should go off of what the legislature actually wrote in 8 USC 1373, or what I imagine that they might have intended but did not actually write into law?

Sure have at it, (notwithstanding is a fancy way of just staying in spite of or to despite)


(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 entities
Notwithstanding 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.


Likely that person would be detained if it were in connection with some other crime.

This is besides the point.


California's law does not forbid law enforcement from arresting people who have committed immigration violations unless that is the sole reason for the arrest.

Herpa Derpa!?!?! Derp!!!


California's law allows ICE to do that, so long as they follow the law and get the warrant. What it forbids ICE from doing is requesting the detention of someone based on no more than a phone call.

Negative, runs much deeper than simply this.


This statute does not contain any protection from prosecution for anyone, illegal or otherwise.

Negative, hence the term "sanctuary state", the State of California has in effect limited the available resources and logistics of ICE greatly. The mostly likely chance point of contact of illegals within a state will be with local authorities, not ICE personnel.

[TheCount]

Sure have at it, (notwithstanding is a fancy way of just staying in spite of or to despite) Information regarding immigration status. Only. Nothing else. Exactly as I said.

Can you point out the part of the California statute forbidding the transmission of that particular information? I don't see it.



Negative, runs much deeper than simply this. Well then point it out, by all means. The statute that I quoted specifically allows release of a detainee to ICE if a warrant exists. That's in keeping with federal law.




Negative, hence the term "sanctuary state", the State of California has in effect limited the available resources and logistics of ICE greatly. The mostly likely chance point of contact of illegals within a state will be with local authorities, not ICE personnel.California has no control over the resources and logistics of ICE.

Are you proposing that every member of law enforcement in the country is or should be deputized as part of ICE, in effect federalizing all levels of law enforcement?

[Weston White]

Information regarding immigration status. Only. Nothing else. Exactly as I said.

Can you point out the part of the California statute forbidding the transmission of that particular information? I don't see it.

It prevents law enforcement for enforcing laws pertaining to immigration violations and from anything that respectively inquires ""into an individual’s immigration status."

It prevents law enforcement from upholding their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution; and California legislators and the governor have each violated their oaths of public office.


Well then point it out, by all means. The statute that I quoted specifically allows release of a detainee to ICE if a warrant exists. That's in keeping with federal law.

Read that bill yourself, it covers and requires inactivity and prevents funding of everything ICE related. An officer cannot inquire into somebody that is here illegally, thus a catch-22 is created as a result--or a loophole as referred to by Democrats--and the chances of an illegal having a warrant or quite literally zero, especially considering that they can just make up a new name and DOB for each contact with law enforcement and nobody will know the better of it.


California has no control over the resources and logistics of ICE.

God, are you truly this damned dumb? Really? Go reread this and think about it, you freaking moron, idiot. Jackass. (Have I driven the point home yet?)


Are you proposing that every member of law enforcement in the country is or should be deputized as part of ICE, in effect federalizing all levels of law enforcement?

Again, refer to my above response.

[TheCount]

It prevents law enforcement for enforcing laws pertaining to immigration violations and from anything that respectively inquires ""into an individual’s immigration status."

Which has nothing to do with the federal law that you keep quoting. Like I said.



It prevents law enforcement from upholding their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution; and California legislators and the governor have each violated their oaths of public office. Sounds either very serious or like a broad nonsensical claim which someone might fall back upon after realizing that there's actually no federal law that's being violated.



Read that bill yourself, it covers and requires inactivity and prevents funding of everything ICE related. California is not responsible for funding ICE. Its bills do not affect ICE funding.



An officer cannot inquire into somebody that is here illegally, thus a catch-22 is created as a result--or a loophole as referred to by Democrats--and the chances of an illegal having a warrant or quite literally zero, especially considering that they can just make up a new name and DOB for each contact with law enforcement and nobody will know the better of it.How would someone "inquire into someone who is here illegally?". If the officer already knows that the person is here illegally, then no inquiring is needed.



God, are you truly this damned dumb? Really? Go reread this and think about it, you freaking moron, idiot. Jackass. (Have I driven the point home yet?)

Again, refer to my above response.If you're unable to explain yourself, then maybe I'm not the stupid one.

[Weston White]

Count, seriously, go try gaslighting elsewhere. You are an utter failure here.

[TheCount]

Count, seriously, go try gaslighting elsewhere. You are an utter failure here.Thank you.

[Ender]

Personally, I don't want ICE or any Fed/alphabet org to have any say on what a state can do.

THAT is totally unconstitutional.