California judge refuses to bring back Trump's sanctuary cities ban

[notquiteright]

Congratulations leftists, the rule of law means nothing to you and once again the state of California leads the way showing again why California should never be allowed to elect our President due to its population.

Rabid right 'laws' get struck down all the time, the rule of law extends past partisan legislators... :roll:

No city is a true sanctuary city- unlike a church which traditionally is a sanctuary- no city has refused to hand over someone the feds had a warrant for.

What Trump was attempting was to turn local LE into de-facto federal agents with no compensation- the exact opposite of that, failure to become federal agents was punished by with holding the PEOPLE'S MONEY... :doh

Trump would punish his cherished 'forgotten man' because the local governments are standing up for their rights, now that is arrogance gone amuck!!!! eace

 

[chuckiechan]

Your one sentence OP included a demand to strip Californians of their right to vote. Why is it ok for you to demand THE LAW OF THE LAND and the constitution be violated all because you're unhappy with a judge's ruling in a state you don't even live in?

If these illegal immigrants respect the constitution more than you, maybe they should take your spot.

You don't get hyperbole do you? The right to vote cannot be stripped from a state. Or didn't you know that? Allowing illegals to hide in your community is also illegal. You are saying states have their own rights to decide who comes in and who doesn't. Sanctuary has that purpose since some felons are released to ICE, but not all.

 

[slo1111]

California judge refuses to bring back Trump's sanctuary cities ban | Fox News

Congratulations leftists, the rule of law means nothing to you and once again the state of California leads the way showing again why California should never be allowed to elect our President due to its population.

Part of the problem is that you over simplify the issue and don't include the full "rule of law" issues rolled up in state rights.

Let me ask you this. If the Feds request a state or city hold someone detained, is there not protocol that they have to have reasonable reason for making the request? Does the state not have an obligation or right to ask for claification or extra information to validate the request is legal or should they not have any obligation to vet the request and just hand over all detainees to the Feds that they ask for.

Realize I'm widening the scope beyond ICE. Now widen from states to companies like tech companies. Should they roll over to all feds requests for data?

This goes beyond over simplified an illegal alien is illegal therefore they should be held.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

 

[RabidAlpaca]

You don't get hyperbole do you? The right to vote cannot be stripped from a state. Or didn't you know that? Allowing illegals to hide in your community is also illegal. You are saying states have their own rights to decide who comes in and who doesn't. Sanctuary has that purpose since some felons are released to ICE, but not all.

I'm glad you recognize that the right to vote can't be stripped and that when the OP suggested we do just that he was being obtuse and unreasonable. California is not preventing ICE and the federal government from enforcing immigration laws. They are not required to use local law enforcement resources to help them, they have better things to do like catch and prosecute actual violent criminals and not just the brown people you hate having near you.

It's funny how federal law is somehow sacred and should trample the will of the people and state's rights as soon as it's something you care about.

 

[Chomsky]

California judge refuses to bring back Trump's sanctuary cities ban | Fox News

Congratulations leftists, the rule of law means nothing to you and once again the state of California leads the way showing again why California should never be allowed to elect our President due to its population.

While I don't like some of what some cities are doing in terms of "sanctuary", Trump better learn the Constitution and tenets of Federalism.

His promotion of a big-brother authoritarian government, is really getting out of hand. He is trying to concentrate power at the top, out of his office. His building a national voter database is one example.

And just the other day, Jeff Sessions announced an end run on state laws protecting against police asset forfeiture. I even started a thread on it:

DP

Trump seems to be running an authoritarian government war against state and municipal rights, consolidating power in Washington. Exactly the opposite of what we need, and the opposite of what our forefathers envisioned.

 

[Conservative]

Well if the locals have 'every right' to make their own laws and policies, but those can be rendered invalid by those inside the Beltway, why do we even have local government? Why do the states exist?

Now I agree and support the US Constitution, and understand that any legitimate federal law must "in accordance with the foregoing powers" as listed in Article I Section 8, but I also understand the meaning of the 10th Amendment.

So whether California wants to object to questionable federal law, I think they have that right. Micro-managing the immigration question has never worked well for the feds, and that is not likely to change.

I favor local rule over micro-management from thousands of miles away.

Making your own laws that violate FEDERAL LAW seems to be no problem for you. If you want to make laws that violate the Federal Laws then the Federal taxpayers have no reason to fund your state and should be able to withhold that money. Why do you have such a problem with understanding what ILLEGAL means?

 

[Conservative]

Ahh you one of those.

Problem one.. immigration law has not really been enforced for the last what.. 50+ years? So you have people who have lived illegally in the US for decades and have families and what not. Under the rule of law, they would be kicked out if caught. That is inhumane.. just as your present and past governments are using the "rule of law" to kick out adopted children because of an administrative error 30+ years ago.. it is pathetic.

South Korean Adopted At Age 3 Is To Be Deported Nearly 40 Years Later : The Two-Way : NPR

That is your "rule of law" and it is pathetic.

Problem 2. Now, a new person who came the last say 5 years or whatever small time amount.. throw the book at them.. but you dont go out of your way to deport taxpaying illegals, just because they broke the law 20 years ago and successive governments failed to enforce the rule of law. Deport the criminal illegals, and the recently arrived.. but leave the rest to be able to become citizens.

Your so called rule of law, is just another idiotic attempt to stack the books politically as you know fully well, that if these illegals became legal, and were able to vote, that they would not vote for your people. Add to that, the usual racism and xenophobia and you have the conservative "rule of law", which is highly selective against those they see as the enemy... GOP rule of law goes out to attack and discriminate, not to be inclusive and help people.

So because a FEDERAL LAW hasn't been enforced makes that FEDERAL LAW invalid? Absolutely stunning how laws in your book that you don't agree with aren't followed. Don't give a damn about someone who violates the law and then faces the consequences as I learned a very young age something apparently you never learned that there are consequences for poor choices made in life. Coming to this Country ILLEGALLY and then not trying to get legal status is a poor choice and there are consequences. You don't like it, tough, I don't want federal funds going to states that support ILLEGAL Immigration. Let your state do what you and they want with your state tax dollars

 

[Conservative]

Your one sentence OP included a demand to strip Californians of their right to vote. Why is it ok for you to demand THE LAW OF THE LAND and the constitution be violated all because you're unhappy with a judge's ruling in a state you don't even live in?

If these illegal immigrants respect the constitution more than you, maybe they should take your spot.




No ****, Sherlock. The OP demanded all Californians have their right to vote for the President stripped from them. What does that have to do with illegals?

See therein lies your problem this isn't about LEGAL immigration but rather sanctuary cities that violate FEDERAL LAW. How can anyone say that an ILLEGAL IMMIGRATE supports the Constitution when they violate the vary laws that Constitution authorizes Congress to enact?

And as usual you totally take the comment out of context, this isn't about California losing their right to vote but rather their sole right because of their population to elect the President of the United States. Trump lost the Popular vote by 3 million and lost California by 4 million. See if you can connect the dots

 

[Conservative]

One of the early USSC Justices, cannot remember his name right now, went on the record in an early case and noted that no citizen has an obligation to obey an illegitimate law. I agree with that sentiment in general, and by 1850 juries were routinely acquitting defendants charged under the Fugitive Slave Act, noting that it was an illegitimate and foolish and cruel law. Whether repealed or not I don't know, but before long there were no more prosecutions brought under that law.

So, maybe various California cities feel that the Sanctuary City issue is an example of the federal government over-stepping its bounds? Maybe they are laying the groundwork for a court case?

Don't know the answer, but I'm glad to see somebody complaining over cruel and stupid and likely illegitimate federal policies and laws.

Illegitimate laws? What the hell is that, any law that you don't agree with? If the law was passed by Congress it is legitimate

 

[Conservative]

Rabid right 'laws' get struck down all the time, the rule of law extends past partisan legislators... :roll:

No city is a true sanctuary city- unlike a church which traditionally is a sanctuary- no city has refused to hand over someone the feds had a warrant for.

What Trump was attempting was to turn local LE into de-facto federal agents with no compensation- the exact opposite of that, failure to become federal agents was punished by with holding the PEOPLE'S MONEY... :doh

Trump would punish his cherished 'forgotten man' because the local governments are standing up for their rights, now that is arrogance gone amuck!!!! eace

That is typical leftwing bull**** and ignores the Constitution. You believe the law is unconstitutional then take it to the SC and let them decide. Until then it is the law of the land and no FEDERAL TAXPAYER dollars should ever go to states that violate written law.

 

[Conservative]

Part of the problem is that you over simplify the issue and don't include the full "rule of law" issues rolled up in state rights.

Let me ask you this. If the Feds request a state or city hold someone detained, is there not protocol that they have to have reasonable reason for making the request? Does the state not have an obligation or right to ask for claification or extra information to validate the request is legal or should they not have any obligation to vet the request and just hand over all detainees to the Feds that they ask for.

Realize I'm widening the scope beyond ICE. Now widen from states to companies like tech companies. Should they roll over to all feds requests for data?

This goes beyond over simplified an illegal alien is illegal therefore they should be held.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

I disagree with you, the law is very clear and states are violating that law by allowing ILLEGALS to be in the country, taking taxpayer dollars to fund services for them, and not requiring them to adhere to US Law. California even allows them to have a driver's license which is proof of citizenship and authorization to vote. Yes, there is protocol and it is established by the Supremacy Law, read it and enforce it.

 

[Conservative]

While I don't like some of what some cities are doing in terms of "sanctuary", Trump better learn the Constitution and tenets of Federalism.

His promotion of a big-brother authoritarian government, is really getting out of hand. He is trying to concentrate power at the top, out of his office. His building a national voter database is one example.

And just the other day, Jeff Sessions announced an end run on state laws protecting against police asset forfeiture. I even started a thread on it:

DP

Trump seems to be running an authoritarian government war against state and municipal rights, consolidating power in Washington. Exactly the opposite of what we need, and the opposite of what our forefathers envisioned.

Your first paragraph says it all. Law abiding citizens shouldn't like or expect their tax dollars going to states that violate federal law. The issue that you cite has nothing to do with the OP

 

[JamesBY]

California judge refuses to bring back Trump's sanctuary cities ban | Fox News

Congratulations leftists, the rule of law means nothing to you and once again the state of California leads the way showing again why California should never be allowed to elect our President due to its population.

Where did you ever get the idea that Trump's whims are the rule of law in America?

 

[chuckiechan]

I'm glad you recognize that the right to vote can't be stripped and that when the OP suggested we do just that he was being obtuse and unreasonable. California is not preventing ICE and the federal government from enforcing immigration laws. They are not required to use local law enforcement resources to help them, they have better things to do like catch and prosecute actual violent criminals and not just the brown people you hate having near you.

It's funny how federal law is somehow sacred and should trample the will of the people and state's rights as soon as it's something you care about.

I care about illegal alien criminals being released back into the community as if we are stuck with them like we are "citizen criminals". Don't release them - pack up their **** and deport them and give them ten years in the joint if they return.

 

[Chomsky]

Your first paragraph says it all. Law abiding citizens shouldn't like or expect their tax dollars going to states that violate federal law. The issue that you cite has nothing to do with the OP

You can keep trying to sling your Washington big-brother anti-federalism crap on me, but I'm not buying it.

There's a reason why the Constitution left the voting determination at the state level. If you and Trump think you know better than our forefathers, good for you - but don't try to push your crap on us.

 

[notquiteright]

Illegitimate laws? What the hell is that, any law that you don't agree with? If the law was passed by Congress it is legitimate

Ahhh no it doesn't... If the law passes court muster then it's legitimate, plenty of laws get struck down that Congress passed... eace

 

[Conservative]

You can keep trying to sling your Washington big-brother anti-federalism crap on me, but I'm not buying it.

There's a reason why the Constitution left the voting determination at the state level. If you and Trump think you know better than our forefathers, good for you - but don't try to push your crap on us.

The Founders got it right, creating the electoral college, you don't like it, change it. How does the electoral college sling "Washington Big Brother" to anyone? Voting determination? Does that include Illegals, Felons? You have no problem with anyone just coming into this country and voting?

 

[Conservative]

Ahhh no it doesn't... If the law passes court muster then it's legitimate, plenty of laws get struck down that Congress passed... eace

This one hasn't and until it is it should be enforced and if you don't enforce the law you shouldn't get federal taxpayer money

 

[PeteEU]

So because a FEDERAL LAW hasn't been enforced makes that FEDERAL LAW invalid? Absolutely stunning how laws in your book that you don't agree with aren't followed. Don't give a damn about someone who violates the law and then faces the consequences as I learned a very young age something apparently you never learned that there are consequences for poor choices made in life. Coming to this Country ILLEGALLY and then not trying to get legal status is a poor choice and there are consequences. You don't like it, tough, I don't want federal funds going to states that support ILLEGAL Immigration. Let your state do what you and they want with your state tax dollars

Then you are against statute of limitations too right?

 

[Chomsky]

Well if the locals have 'every right' to make their own laws and policies, but those can be rendered invalid by those inside the Beltway, why do we even have local government? Why do the states exist?

Now I agree and support the US Constitution, and understand that any legitimate federal law must "in accordance with the foregoing powers" as listed in Article I Section 8, but I also understand the meaning of the 10th Amendment.

So whether California wants to object to questionable federal law, I think they have that right. Micro-managing the immigration question has never worked well for the feds, and that is not likely to change.

I favor local rule over micro-management from thousands of miles away.

What's happening with Trump, is an autocratic authoritarian shift in federal government, centralized in the White House.

This is exactly what our forefathers did not want!

And having Washington control and vet the voting process, might be the most dangerous facet of this administration yet. The vote, and its determination, should be the power of the People, not the government.

 

[notquiteright]

That is typical leftwing bull**** and ignores the Constitution. You believe the law is unconstitutional then take it to the SC and let them decide. Until then it is the law of the land and no FEDERAL TAXPAYER dollars should ever go to states that violate written law.

Typical rabid right bull**** that is ignorant of the Constitution. Trump's EOs are being tested in the courts so that part is being done even as we type. Second there is NO LAW demanding the local agencies act as federal agencies. With holding the PEOPLE'S money in an attempt to force local agencies to do the fed's job is 'Gubmint ovahreech' when the rapid right didn't like what Obama wanted. But authoritarian feds is perfectly fine when a con man serial liar holds the highest office in the free world.. eace

 

[Kal'Stang]

What do you call someone who wants to strip his political enemies of their basic rights, such as the right to vote? Why do you hate America and our constitution so much?

Political enemies? Just who has Trump tried to strip a political enemies right to vote?

 

[Conservative]

Then you are against statute of limitations too right?

I can see you have no respect for US laws therefore you are definitely in the right place

 

[Chomsky]

The Founders got it right, creating the electoral college, you don't like it, change it. How does the electoral college sling "Washington Big Brother" to anyone? Voting determination? Does that include Illegals, Felons? You have no problem with anyone just coming into this country and voting?

Yes, with the vote determined at the state level.

Your plan here is take take the vote out of the hands of the People, and control it in Washington. You want Washington, specifically Trump, to vet our votes.

This is exactly what the forefathers did not want. No matter how hard you try to justify it.

 

[notquiteright]

This one hasn't and until it is it should be enforced and if you don't enforce the law you shouldn't get federal taxpayer money

Oh but now it is being tested and this is how it gets tested, like the DOMA laws... you should educate yourself.

Now what local law hasn't been enforced? What federal warrant was denied by a local? You seem to think all law enforcement has jurisdiction in all areas... how many times had a fed agency refused to cooperate with the locals?

I love how the right wing wants the central government to 'own' OUR MONEY when it suits them but rants a blue streak when a penny goes someplace they don't like (even if it really doesn't)... :doh