• 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!

Trump DOJ sues California over 'interference' with immigration enforcement

chuckiechan

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump DOJ sues California over 'interference' with immigration enforcement | Fox News

The Trump Justice Department filed a lawsuit Tuesday night against California, saying three recently-passed state laws were deliberately interfering with federal immigration policies.

It marked the latest legal and political confrontation with the nation's most populous state, which the federal government says has repeatedly stood in the way of its plans to step up enforcement actions in the workplace and against criminal aliens.
Click to expand...

It’s about time for states to understand states rights do not include modification of federal immigration law. In addition, you cannot expect to so blatantly disrespect federal laws as if you dare them to enforce them. My guess is this will be a fast track to POTUS and they will decide who is in charge of immigration once and for all.

You’d have to live in California to get a feel for the outsized claims of self importance liberals have here in California to appreciate the stakes. They honestly believe they can pick and choose what federal they follow.

They honestly feel that they are only required to cooperate with democrat administrations.
 
Why would you enact laws like this?

One of those laws offers additional worker protections against federal immigration enforcement actions. Senior Justice Department officials have said it's prevented companies from voluntarily cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

Employers are mandated under the law to demand ICE agents present a warrant or subpoena before entering certain areas of the premises, or when accessing some employee records.


Another state law dubbed known by critics as the "sanctuary state" bill protects immigrants without legal residency by limiting state and municipal cooperation with the feds, including what information can be shared about illegal-immigrant inmates.
 
holbritter said:
Why would you enact laws like this?

One of those laws offers additional worker protections against federal immigration enforcement actions. Senior Justice Department officials have said it's prevented companies from voluntarily cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.

Employers are mandated under the law to demand ICE agents present a warrant or subpoena before entering certain areas of the premises, or when accessing some employee records.


Another state law dubbed known by critics as the "sanctuary state" bill protects immigrants without legal residency by limiting state and municipal cooperation with the feds, including what information can be shared about illegal-immigrant inmates.
Click to expand...

Got to protect that cheap labor force, one way or the other I guess.

California is on a quick slope going down hill and I don't think its going to be saved in my lifetime.
 
It'll be interesting to see how this lawsuit turns out -- what California is doing is close to political secession, which really can't be allowed.
 
HowardBThiname said:
It'll be interesting to see how this lawsuit turns out -- what California is doing is close to political secession, which really can't be allowed.
Click to expand...

How is sanctuary states any different than states that legalized marijuana? Those states are not only ignoring federal law but have now enabled people to break the federal law openly.
 
Praxas said:
How is sanctuary states any different than states that legalized marijuana? Those states are not only ignoring federal law but have now enabled people to break the federal law openly.
Click to expand...

The difference lies in the federal government's will to push the issue. At first, Obama was very much against states legalizing marijuana, but he lightened up. Abraham Lincoln, however, was strongly focused on not allowing some states to continue to own slaves, and you see what that led to.

In my opinion, we're going to witness a battle of wills on this issue that could rival those of the pre-Civil War South.
 
Praxas said:
How is sanctuary states any different than states that legalized marijuana? Those states are not only ignoring federal law but have now enabled people to break the federal law openly.
Click to expand...

Or DACA/DAPA which created a sanctuary country using an EO. Next up - allowing state taxes to be considered charitable contributions to defeat the $10K IRS SALT deduction limit to give tax breaks to "the rich".
 
HowardBThiname said:
The difference lies in the federal government's will to push the issue. At first, Obama was very much against states legalizing marijuana, but he lightened up. Abraham Lincoln, however, was strongly focused on not allowing some states to continue to own slaves, and you see what that led to.

In my opinion, we're going to witness a battle of wills on this issue that could rival those of the pre-Civil War South.
Click to expand...

By "push the issue" - do you mean actually enforce the law? Why arrest a "drug dealer" when you allow the state to make millions by imposing a "sin tax" on recreational drug sales? CA, like TX, benefits substantially from getting additional House seats from the illegal immigrants being counted in the census as well as additional federal education aid.

As long as we have DACA/DAPA, 12 million illegal immigrants and only 5K ICE agents to patrol the entire US interior then its hard to say that serious enforcement of immigration law is expected.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Or DACA/DAPA which created a sanctuary country using an EO. Next up - allowing state taxes to be considered charitable contributions to defeat the $10K IRS SALT deduction limit to give tax breaks to "the rich".
Click to expand...

My point still stands. The right likes to complain that sanctuary cities and the federal government should drop the hammer on them because they are thumbing their nose to federal law, but then some of them turn right around and say "states rights" on the marijuana issue. Can't have it both ways. As for DACA, I see no problem in not wanting to punish children that had no choice to come here and not forcing them to go back to a country they don't even know.
 
HowardBThiname said:
The difference lies in the federal government's will to push the issue. At first, Obama was very much against states legalizing marijuana, but he lightened up. Abraham Lincoln, however, was strongly focused on not allowing some states to continue to own slaves, and you see what that led to.

In my opinion, we're going to witness a battle of wills on this issue that could rival those of the pre-Civil War South.
Click to expand...

Well of course it is a battle of wills. My point was there are those saying that it is wrong for a state to thumb their nose at THIS federal law, but then say it is ok for states to thumb their nose at federal law over marijuana. Can't have it both ways there. On the immigration issue, I don't think Trump will win his lawsuit against a state.

The best he is going to be able to do is send ICE in there to enforce the federal law.
 
Praxas said:
My point still stands. The right likes to complain that sanctuary cities and the federal government should drop the hammer on them because they are thumbing their nose to federal law, but then some of them turn right around and say "states rights" on the marijuana issue. Can't have it both ways. As for DACA, I see no problem in not wanting to punish children that had no choice to come here and not forcing them to go back to a country they don't even know.
Click to expand...

DACA/DAPA rewards folks that bring their kids along when they violate immigration law. Are you in favor of open borders so long as bringing kids along is used to justify it?

DACA 101: two foreign national kids were brought here at age 2 (thus are age 13 now) - the one that arrived on 6/14/2007 is a "dreamer" and can stay but the one that arrived on 6/16/2007 is deportable. Does that make any sense at all?
 
I don't get all the hub bub... State of California should just pull a downward trend graph off the internet somewhere, change the titles so that it shows number of illegal immigrants on the decline, and give it to Trump. He'll throw it in the paper, no one will actually check, and Cali can continue to do whatever it wants. It's not like Trump cares one way or the other, he just wants the headline. Give it to him, let his base have a little party, and move on with life. If he were serious about real immigration reform, he wouldn't be speaking in memes. If he wants meme, give him memes, I say. Then continue along as if America will still exist after this donut is gone...you will, don't worry...in the meantime, appease the child.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
DACA/DAPA rewards folks that bring their kids along when they violate immigration law. Are you in favor of open borders so long as bringing kids along is used to justify it?
Click to expand...

Yet again, how is it the kids fault they are here?

DACA 101: two foreign national kids were brought here at age 2 (thus are age 13 now) - the one that arrived on 6/14/2007 is a "dreamer" and can stay but the one that arrived on 6/16/2007 is deportable. Does that make any sense at all?
Click to expand...

Like anything else, dates matter. No it doesn't make sense but there has to be a boundary some where. Why is it that on 6/14/2007 when a person is 20 it is not ok for them to drink alcohol but on 6/15/2007 when they turned 21 it is. Does that make sense?
 
Praxas said:
1) Yet again, how is it the kids fault they are here?



2) Like anything else, dates matter. No it doesn't make sense but there has to be a boundary some where. Why is it that on 6/14/2007 when a person is 20 it is not ok for them to drink alcohol but on 6/15/2007 when they turned 21 it is. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

1) How is it not rational to deport a 13 year old who is not legally here along with their family?

2) Yes, because every person, both before and upon reaching age 21, is treated equally under that law - that is an important constitutional concept.
 
chuckiechan said:
Trump DOJ sues California over 'interference' with immigration enforcement | Fox News



It’s about time for states to understand states rights do not include modification of federal immigration law. In addition, you cannot expect to so blatantly disrespect federal laws as if you dare them to enforce them. My guess is this will be a fast track to POTUS and they will decide who is in charge of immigration once and for all.

You’d have to live in California to get a feel for the outsized claims of self importance liberals have here in California to appreciate the stakes. They honestly believe they can pick and choose what federal they follow.

They honestly feel that they are only required to cooperate with democrat administrations.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution.
 
chuckiechan said:
You’d have to live in California to get a feel for the outsized claims of self importance liberals have here in California to appreciate the stakes. They honestly believe they can pick and choose what federal they follow.

They honestly feel that they are only required to cooperate with democrat administrations.
Click to expand...
the right wing does the same thing. 10USC246 is also, federal law. Don't fix a Bad moral for Standard for less fortunate illegals regarding bearing True Witness to federal laws, right wingers.
 
Oborosen said:
Got to protect that cheap labor force, one way or the other I guess.

California is on a quick slope going down hill and I don't think its going to be saved in my lifetime.
Click to expand...

We are advocating for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage in California.
 
HowardBThiname said:
It'll be interesting to see how this lawsuit turns out -- what California is doing is close to political secession, which really can't be allowed.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. Anything more intrusive is just wasting money on socialism on a national basis.
 
Praxas said:
How is sanctuary states any different than states that legalized marijuana? Those states are not only ignoring federal law but have now enabled people to break the federal law openly.
Click to expand...

States have their own laws. And their own Court system.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1) How is it not rational to deport a 13 year old who is not legally here along with their family?
Click to expand...

It's a great "I got mine so **** everyone else" mentality you have.

2) Yes, because every person, both before and upon reaching age 21, is treated equally under that law - that is an important constitutional concept.
Click to expand...

No, it still doesn't make sense. Why is it a day after someone is responsible enough to drink on their 21st birthday but not the day before?
 
danielpalos said:
States have their own laws. And their own Court system.
Click to expand...

Correct, so if a state decides that they are not going to enforce the federal immigration law that is up to them right? You can't have it both ways and not look like a hypocrite.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
By "push the issue" - do you mean actually enforce the law? Why arrest a "drug dealer" when you allow the state to make millions by imposing a "sin tax" on recreational drug sales? CA, like TX, benefits substantially from getting additional House seats from the illegal immigrants being counted in the census as well as additional federal education aid.

As long as we have DACA/DAPA, 12 million illegal immigrants and only 5K ICE agents to patrol the entire US interior then its hard to say that serious enforcement of immigration law is expected.
Click to expand...

You only need that many ICE agent on the American Express. All foreign nationals in the US should have a federal id. A simple fee or fine, can make that happen, with existing personnel.
 
danielpalos said:
We are advocating for a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage in California.
Click to expand...

That makes sense because an income of $30K/year allows paying rent and buying medical care insurance in CA cities. Oh, wait...
 
Praxas said:
Well of course it is a battle of wills. My point was there are those saying that it is wrong for a state to thumb their nose at THIS federal law, but then say it is ok for states to thumb their nose at federal law over marijuana. Can't have it both ways there. On the immigration issue, I don't think Trump will win his lawsuit against a state.

The best he is going to be able to do is send ICE in there to enforce the federal law.
Click to expand...

We really can have it both ways -- because we do. It might not be the most consistent thing ever, but we keep doing it.
 
Didn't Arizona get sued for trying to enforce federal immigration law when the DOJ didn't want it enforced? Seems like the result of a state-smackdown would be the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom