• 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 wants to keep immigrants from getting welfare — which is already law

Your article says Pena stated: You shouldn't hunt headlines, they always come back to bite you. Browns response was nothing more than a response to what Pena stated here in Sacramento.
Errr... yeah... the section you're quoting pretty much supports my assertion. Unless you think he was making a joke to entertain the people in the audience.

California and Brown have been quite aggressive in terms of the "Sanctuary State" process. The state has barred state and municipal law enforcement from aiding federal immigration efforts, including asking those in custody of their immigration status. It bars schools, libraries, courthouses and other "safe zones" to follow the same policies. (ICE can show up there, but won't get any aid from those facilities). The state even provides driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants. Sure sounds welcoming to me.


And yet states and locals are required to transmit the required information as requested by Federal Law, no matter their claim of sanctuary or not.
Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes. - LA Times
...yes, I was pretty clear that a governor making an open statement of "welcome" to undocumented immigrants has no legal force, nor can a state violate federal law.

The extent of required cooperation required by law is fairly limited, and attempts to require more cooperation could get shot down as violations of federalism. E.g. attempts to pressure "sanctuary" states and cities are already facing court challenges; and I'm pretty sure that any federal law that tries to turn state and local law enforcement into de facto ICE agents would violate the Constitution.
 
Errr... yeah... the section you're quoting pretty much supports my assertion. Unless you think he was making a joke to entertain the people in the audience.
Errrr...no it doesn't. He was simply responding to what Pena stated as to those already here. At no point did Brown invite or coerce foreigners to come here.

California and Brown have been quite aggressive in terms of the "Sanctuary State" process. The state has barred state and municipal law enforcement from aiding federal immigration efforts, including asking those in custody of their immigration status. It bars schools, libraries, courthouses and other "safe zones" to follow the same policies. (ICE can show up there, but won't get any aid from those facilities). The state even provides driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants. Sure sounds welcoming to me.
It can sound whatever it wants to you, it doesn't change the fact that Brown didn't invite anybody here. DACA recipients receiving a DL with federally mandated information on the DL does what exactly? LEO can skip asking the status of a criminal and forego the federal mandate, and they can forego federal funds pertaining to LEO as well, as Judge Orrick in the SF case has already stated.



...yes, I was pretty clear that a governor making an open statement of "welcome" to undocumented immigrants has no legal force, nor can a state violate federal law.
It wasn't an open statement of welcome to undocumented immigrants made by Brown.

The extent of required cooperation required by law is fairly limited, and attempts to require more cooperation could get shot down as violations of federalism. E.g. attempts to pressure "sanctuary" states and cities are already facing court challenges; and I'm pretty sure that any federal law that tries to turn state and local law enforcement into de facto ICE agents would violate the Constitution.
Trump could re-institute 287(g) which made ICE agents out of local LEO. As it stands right now, if LEO attains the status of a foreigner in custody, they are mandated by federal law to share that information. There are no laws the state or the locals can make to deny that requirement.
 
Errrr...no it doesn't. He was simply responding to what Pena stated as to those already here. At no point did Brown invite or coerce foreigners to come here.
And yet, for some odd reason he never objected to the characterization which was all over the press. Go figure.


It can sound whatever it wants to you, it doesn't change the fact that Brown didn't invite anybody here....
The state is sending a message, loud and clear, that it supports immigrants, and rejects the policies (for lack of a better term) of Trump and his fellow xenophobes.


Trump could re-institute 287(g) which made ICE agents out of local LEO.
287(g) is a voluntary program. Trump cannot use it to force any state or local police to operate as ICE agents.


As it stands right now, if LEO attains the status of a foreigner in custody, they are mandated by federal law to share that information. There are no laws the state or the locals can make to deny that requirement.
...and more inaccuracies. Surprise!

Local law enforcement are not required by any federal laws to inquire about the immigration status of anyone in custody. They are only required to report someone if ICE has a warrant or detainer request for them. State and local legislatures can -- and have -- passed laws telling officers not to ask about immigration status. SB-54 is merely one example of that.
 
And yet, for some odd reason he never objected to the characterization which was all over the press. Go figure.
There was no characterization all over the press. :SHRUG:



The state is sending a message, loud and clear, that it supports immigrants, and rejects the policies (for lack of a better term) of Trump and his fellow xenophobes.
The state can exclaim all it wants in regards to sanctuary whatever for those already here, at no point does it tell foreigners in other nations, yes come here and be in my state, as you claimed earlier. It's nothing more than the State Govt trying to protect its residents.



287(g) is a voluntary program. Trump cannot use it to force any state or local police to operate as ICE agents.
No ****. I never stated Trump could force 287(g) onto any law enforcement. Strawman much?



...and more inaccuracies. Surprise!
Look at you creating your own strawmen to burn. SMFH

Local law enforcement are not required by any federal laws to inquire about the immigration status of anyone in custody. They are only required to report someone if ICE has a warrant or detainer request for them. State and local legislatures can -- and have -- passed laws telling officers not to ask about immigration status. SB-54 is merely one example of that.
That's right, LEO are not required by federal law to inquire about the immigration status of their detainee (just like I said in comment 52 above), yet when they run a background check it goes through the DHS / ICE database. SB-54 hasn't passed yet, its still in committee. There is no guarantee it will pass and if it does there is no guarantee that it is Constitutional.

https://www.voanews.com/a/a-look-at-state-actions-on-us-sanctuary-cities-in-2017/3843510.html
 
Last edited:
What you're saying is not totally correct. Between 1986 and 2001 America offered SEVEN amnesties to allow undocumented people to get citizenship. IIRC, far less than half of those eligible applied and the figure may have been as many as seventy percent never applied.

It's pretty common to find undocumented foreigners who have children and grand-children born in the United States. As I see it, we're bass ackwards on this: this year some 780,000 people will become citizens of the United States. Maybe half that number will be allowed to come in and work (excluding agricultural workers.) I think we have the equation 180 degrees opposite of what it should be.

If you don't want be a citizen of this country that is fine. Once you are granted legal immigration status you are here for as long as you want. Your children will become US citizens and should be. I don't know of anyone that has a problem with that.

The problem is the illegal aliens who think that breaking our immigration laws is a path to citizenship. NO! I MEAN HELL NO. It is not right to reward scum with no respect for our laws when millions of good law abiding people are being denied immigration status. Every sneaky lawless alien should be deported and denied reentry into this country for years. Repeat offenders should be denied access to this country for life.

I have no problem issuing work visas just like every other country in the world but that is not the same as being granted immigration status and should not be. Children born here to people legally here on work visas should have the option of becoming US citizens if they choose. There parents if here legally with no criminal record should be allowed to apply for immigration status and I have no problem with that.

But people here visiting who have a baby in an attempt to circumvent our immigration laws should not be automatically become citizens. And clearly lawless aliens who are here illegally having children to circumvent our laws should not be rewarded. Rewarding bad behavior needs to be stopped. No if ands or buts.
 
Back
Top Bottom