• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Could Cut Off Feds In Response To Trump Threats

ajn678 said:
Its incredibly to me that we have representatives in our own country that would rather bow down to illegal immigrants than enforce the rules of our nation. Sanctuary cities are the exact thing that I was hoping Trump would crack down on when he became president. Government officials that refuse to do their job and do not enforce federal laws in regards to immigration should be charged and then released from their positions.
Click to expand...

The whole "sanctuary" label is nothing but window dressing.

No laws are even being broken in the first place. City law enforcement is under no obligation to work with state law enforcement or with the feds (although of course it's always better if they do).

And the feds can't force other law enforcement personnel to carry out their own orders. That would be involuntary servitude, and therefore unconstitutional. Unless somebody actually defies a federal law, they've got nothing.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The whole "sanctuary" label is nothing but window dressing.

No laws are even being broken in the first place. City law enforcement is under no obligation to work with state law enforcement or with the feds (although of course it's always better if they do).

And the feds can't force other law enforcement personnel to carry out their own orders. That would be involuntary servitude, and therefore unconstitutional. Unless somebody actually defies a federal law, they've got nothing.
Click to expand...

Wow, you know nothing about how America works.
 
beerftw said:
Their funds could cover most of their entitlements, if the shifted stuff around, using money they would not be sending, their problem is though military, how could they afford to continue a welfare system and provide a military force to keep lets say mexico from invading.
Click to expand...

what i mentioned in only a tip of the iceberg, CA also is in debt and they owe money [they are continuing to borrow] ,their credit rating would drop like a stone their economy would crash, although i believe over time CA could survive it take a long time and many people would suffer, mostly those would are dependent on the welfare state.

i dont think you would see any sort of hostile invasion but more of an incorporation were that ever to happen
 
RenoCon said:
And considering their anti-gun policies there would be a whole lot of low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...

Having purple hair and carrying profane signs or just wearing a *****hat will save them, I'm sure.
 
Manc Skipper said:
If XCalifornia does the Texas thing and secedes, the Trumpees would see that as a yuge swing to them in the Electoral College vote in 2020
Click to expand...

The DNC would lose 55 EC votes, and their game plan of gaining power through demographics changes would be lost.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
So prove me wrong, instead of acting like a Trumpsucker.
Click to expand...

States cannot willingly go against federal laws. By protecting illegal immigrants, they are going against federal laws.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The whole "sanctuary" label is nothing but window dressing.

No laws are even being broken in the first place. City law enforcement is under no obligation to work with state law enforcement or with the feds (although of course it's always better if they do).

And the feds can't force other law enforcement personnel to carry out their own orders. That would be involuntary servitude, and therefore unconstitutional. Unless somebody actually defies a federal law, they've got nothing.
Click to expand...

you posting is wrong, because it states things which are not happening.

the federal government is not wanting the states to pickup illegals, it wants states to inform the federal government of criminals the states have arrested for crimes.

once the criminal has done his time in jail the state is require to inform ICE, who would pickup the illegals from the state jail and deport them.
 
Bob N said:
j-mac: it's to get the voter base stirred up. I wouldn't get set to hear shots on any Fort Sumter in CA. ;)
Click to expand...

The voter base in Cali is so liberal, you really think they need "stirring up"?
 
We're more divided than ever now. I thought multiculturalism was going to result in unity?

California is both the most populated state, and the state with the most immigrants. Wherever you live, this is your future too if we continue to go in the direction we've been going.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
The whole "sanctuary" label is nothing but window dressing.

No laws are even being broken in the first place. City law enforcement is under no obligation to work with state law enforcement or with the feds (although of course it's always better if they do).

And the feds can't force other law enforcement personnel to carry out their own orders. That would be involuntary servitude, and therefore unconstitutional. Unless somebody actually defies a federal law, they've got nothing.
Click to expand...

Not working with the feds is one thing. In the case of most sanctuary cities they actually sabotage federal efforts. Which is exactly what happened with Kathryn Steinle. If you don't want to work with the feds then don't work with the feds. The City of San Francisco engaged in sabotage to help get an illegal immigrant free, provided the illegal with a gun, and gave him locations of hang-out spots so that he could pick a target.
 
j-mac said:
In the past I have blown off bloviating like this from Cali...But, as an exercise, How far could this go? What are the steps if these two things, ie; Feds cut funds, and Cali retaliates in kind, happen? What would be next in that?

This is in addition to a thread I believe was in here concerning this story:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-campaign-secede-gains-momentum-030236966.html

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
It could go nowhere because the adults in California are smart enough to know how ridiculous the whole thing is.
 
Jack Hays said:
It has happened before.

[FONT="][URL="http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/pictures/w-t-sherman-picture.htm"]
sherman-sitting_small1.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[FONT="][URL="http://www.sonofthesouth.net/union-generals/sherman/pictures/w-t-sherman-picture.htm"]General William T. Sherman Picture[/URL][/FONT]​
Click to expand...

would be against the words of the father of the constitution, James madsion
 
j-mac said:
Could the federal government take over the State?
Click to expand...

Of course. How else do you think the 13th-15th amendments were passed?
 
Master PO said:
you posting is wrong, because it states things which are not happening.

the federal government is not wanting the states to pickup illegals, it wants states to inform the federal government of criminals the states have arrested for crimes.

once the criminal has done his time in jail the state is require to inform ICE, who would pickup the illegals from the state jail and deport them.
Click to expand...

And neither cities nor states have any legal obligation to do so, for reasons that I outlined. Failure to act is not a crime.
 
reinoe said:
Not working with the feds is one thing. In the case of most sanctuary cities they actually sabotage federal efforts. Which is exactly what happened with Kathryn Steinle. If you don't want to work with the feds then don't work with the feds. The City of San Francisco engaged in sabotage to help get an illegal immigrant free, provided the illegal with a gun, and gave him locations of hang-out spots so that he could pick a target.
Click to expand...

Sabotage would in fact qualify under obstruction of justice. But can anyone prove it?
 
Bob N said:
Yeah. Rick Perry made suggestions to this and Texas played their voter base too. ;)
Click to expand...

Texas has been a solid Red State for some time now.

There was no need for Perry to play us ( Im a proud Texan ....Yay Texas ! )

We voted for him and kept our State Legislator Red because we think they're doing a hell of a job running the State

Dont believe me ? How close did Wendy Davis ...." girl power !! " come to defeating him ??
 
DifferentDrummr said:
And neither cities nor states have any legal obligation to do so, for reasons that I outlined. Failure to act is not a crime.
Click to expand...

the federal government is not accusing the states of crimes.

question.. so you are in favor of criminal illegals staying in the USA..........instead of them being deported?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom