Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 66

Thread: California becomes 'sanctuary state'

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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 of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws relate to the powers, functions, and duties conferred upon the President, Attorney General, 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 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 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 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.

  5. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  6. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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?
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius


    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.

  8. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius


    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  9. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    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?

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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?
    What is the punishment for the attempted murder of freedom on earth? 👁👁

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    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.

  12. #41

    Default

    What is the punishment for the attempted murder of freedom on earth? 👁👁

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius


    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  14. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius


    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  15. #44

    Default

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

    No national identity + no cultural identity = New World Order.
    1. Don't lie.
    2. Don't cheat.
    3. Don't steal.
    4. Don't kill.
    5. Don't commit adultery.
    6. Don't covet what your neighbor has, especially his wife.
    7. Honor your father and mother.
    8. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
    9. Don’t use your Higher Power's name in vain, or anyone else's.
    10. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.

    "For the love of money is the root of all evil..." -- I Timothy 6:10, KJV

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    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?

  17. #46

  18. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius


    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  19. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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?
    Last edited by timosman; 10-07-2017 at 08:32 AM.
    What is the punishment for the attempted murder of freedom on earth? 👁👁

  20. #49

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Weston White; 10-07-2017 at 08:23 AM.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius


    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  21. #50

  22. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    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 $#@! 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.

  25. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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).

  27. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  28. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    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.

  29. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Weston White; 10-13-2017 at 06:12 AM.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius


    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

  30. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    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.




    Quote Originally Posted by Weston White View Post
    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.

  31. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    Likely that person would be detained if it were in connection with some other crime.
    This is besides the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    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.
    The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius


    Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Illinois is officially a ‘sanctuary state’
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-29-2017, 06:30 PM
  2. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-25-2017, 08:50 AM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-10-2016, 02:30 PM
  4. Ted Cruz targets sanctuary cities after California murder
    By Brian4Liberty in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-13-2015, 06:02 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-10-2008, 05:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •