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

[Conservative]

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.

Your opinion noted, looks to me like that was a problem the last 8 years as well but didn't bother you then with ACA and the mandate being an example. Power to the people isn't the issue, giving all states equal opportunity is and when you have almost 39 million people with that entitlement mentality it minimizes the power of the other smaller states thus the Electoral College. Obviously you don't like it, so change it. You want California to have more influence than the rest of the country? See how that plays out in the courts? Think the other 49 states are going along with it?

 

[Conservative]

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

Got it, you don't like US Laws or particular US laws, challenging them in favorable courts doesn't make the laws illegal until the SC decides. Didn't seem to be an issue with Obama or was that just because you liked Obama and have understanding of basic civics? By the way it is the PEOPLE'S money not just California and if California wants to fund illegals, let them do it with their own dollars

 

[Kal'Stang]

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.

Immigration law has ALWAYS been federal jurisdiction. Let me ask you, what did you think of Arizona's law against immigration? Did you support the federal government suing them because Arizona was over stepping its bounds?

 

[Conservative]

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.

Again, how am I taking the votes out of the hands of the people? Did you ever read our History and why the electoral college was created? Washington doesn't control the electoral process and isn't taking anyone's right to vote away. You want illegals to vote and haven't given any valid reason for that so you keep moving the goal posts wanting big states to elect our President. God help us if all states operate like California

 

[Kal'Stang]

They're not. This has been covered ad nauseam. Sessions wants local police, who do not fall under the purview of immigration, to carry out deportation duties.

No, he wants them to actually inform the federal government when they have illegal aliens in their custody and keep them until immigration agents can pick them up. That is not carrying out deportation duties. That is carrying out the law. Laws that have been around longer than either of us have been alive.

 

[Conservative]

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

Test away, litigate away and ultimately the SC will decide and when they do you aren't going to like the outcome but in the meantime it is the law of the land, live by it. Read the Constitution and learn what PROVIDE and PROMOTE actually mean. You have every right to have your local laws that don't violate federal law enforced in your state. If you want your state to fund illegal's services do so with state not federal dollars

 

[Chomsky]

Your opinion noted, looks to me like that was a problem the last 8 years as well but didn't bother you then with ACA and the mandate being an example. Power to the people isn't the issue, giving all states equal opportunity is and when you have almost 39 million people with that entitlement mentality it minimizes the power of the other smaller states thus the Electoral College. Obviously you don't like it, so change it. You want California to have more influence than the rest of the country? See how that plays out in the courts? Think the other 49 states are going along with it?

To bolded 1] I am against the ACA, especially the individual mandate.

To bolded 2] There's nothing to change, the forefathers got it right. The states run the voting process, not the feds.

 

[Chomsky]

Again, how am I taking the votes out of the hands of the people? Did you ever read our History and why the electoral college was created? Washington doesn't control the electoral process and isn't taking anyone's right to vote away. You want illegals to vote and haven't given any valid reason for that so you keep moving the goal posts wanting big states to elect our President. God help us if all states operate like California

You are attempting to take the vetting of the voting process away from the states, and cede it to Washington.

You can't see where this is leading?

Do we want Washington reviewing and determining our national vote? Do you really want to give them that power?

 

[Conservative]

To bolded 1] I am against the ACA, especially the individual mandate.

To bolded 2] There's nothing to change, the forefathers got it right. The states run the voting process, not the feds.

Yes, they do and they elect their own Representatives by direct vote, not so with the President

 

[Cardinal]

No, he wants them to actually inform the federal government when they have illegal aliens in their custody and keep them until immigration agents can pick them up. That is not carrying out deportation duties. That is carrying out the law. Laws that have been around longer than either of us have been alive.

If states want to change the laws in order to add that to local law enforcement's purview, I suppose they can do that. But until then they're not required to. And I wouldn't blame states for not changing the laws seeing as the concept of sanctuary cities actually allows police to maintain order in a community that would otherwise look at them with distrust.

'A day after Donald Trump was elected president, two detectives walked up to a building site in Koreatown. The pair was hoping to find someone who might have witnessed a motorist intentionally knocking down a construction worker.

They introduced themselves to a group of Latino workers. The workers got up and walked away.

“Trump is coming,” one of them said as he left.

To Det. Brent Hopkins, the scene was a stark illustration of the difficulties he could face depending on how far President Trump goes in enlisting local law enforcement to rid the country of people who are in the U.S. illegally.

“It is my job to investigate crimes,” said Hopkins of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Wilshire Division, who also serves on the police union’s communications committee. “And if I can’t do that, I can’t get justice for people, because all of a sudden, I’m losing my witnesses or my victims because they’re afraid that talking to me is going to lead to them getting deported.”'

'I?m not going to do it.' Police aren't eager to help Trump enforce immigration laws - LA Times

 

[Conservative]

You are attempting to take the vetting of the voting process away from the states, and cede it to Washington.

You can't see where this is leading?

Do we want Washington reviewing and determining our national vote? Do you really want to give them that power?

how am I doing that in a Representative Democracy, you elect your state, local, and Congressional leaders by popular vote. The President is elected by the electoral college. Looks to me like you are indeed voting for your own Representatives

 

[Kal'Stang]

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

California does not honor hold orders for illegal immigrants. So yes, they do refuse to hand someone over that the feds have a warrant for.

 

[Nickyjo]

And so it appears that this Conservative fully supports the Federal Leviathan, and would have it so that local people cannot make their own laws and procedures. This Conservative appears to favor rule from Washington as far superior to rule from local sources.

Goodness!

Let's be fair to the Conservative. He is not really saying that Californians shouldn't have the right to make laws, simply deploring the laws made.

That said, there are some defensible humanitarian and law enforcement reasons for some cities to decide not to cooperate with the immigration authorities. And what did Trump expect, after campaigning by using using bigotry and misinformation about immigrants and refugees, that the left, such as it is, wouldn't hit back? You reap what you sow, to coin a phrase.

 

[Chomsky]

how am I doing that in a Representative Democracy, you elect your state, local, and Congressional leaders by popular vote. The President is elected by the electoral college. Looks to me like you are indeed voting for your own Representatives

With votes determined & vetted at the state level ...

 

[Kal'Stang]

If states want to change the laws in order to add that to local law enforcement's purview, I suppose they can do that. But until then they're not required to. And I wouldn't blame states for not changing the laws seeing as the concept of sanctuary cities actually allows police to maintain order in a community that would otherwise look at them with distrust.

'A day after Donald Trump was elected president, two detectives walked up to a building site in Koreatown. The pair was hoping to find someone who might have witnessed a motorist intentionally knocking down a construction worker.

They introduced themselves to a group of Latino workers. The workers got up and walked away.

“Trump is coming,” one of them said as he left.

To Det. Brent Hopkins, the scene was a stark illustration of the difficulties he could face depending on how far President Trump goes in enlisting local law enforcement to rid the country of people who are in the U.S. illegally.

“It is my job to investigate crimes,” said Hopkins of the Los Angeles Police Department’s Wilshire Division, who also serves on the police union’s communications committee. “And if I can’t do that, I can’t get justice for people, because all of a sudden, I’m losing my witnesses or my victims because they’re afraid that talking to me is going to lead to them getting deported.”'

'I?m not going to do it.' Police aren't eager to help Trump enforce immigration laws - LA Times

Your post here has nothing to do with what has been asked of sanctuary cities/states. Those places are refusing to hold illegal immigrants that they have already caught on unrelated charges that are wanted by the federal government. This has nothing to do with detective work. The people are already caught. Why are you attempting to spin this into something that its not?

 

[Chomsky]

Yes, they do and they elect their own Representatives by direct vote, not so with the President

That's an interesting argument, but erroneous.

Because it is the States that determine the voting and vetting of their electors.

It all comes down to federalism. The states determine their thing, then feds then do what they want with it after.

 

[Cardinal]

Your post here has nothing to do with what has been asked of sanctuary cities/states. Those places are refusing to hold illegal immigrants that they have already caught on unrelated charges that are wanted by the federal government. This has nothing to do with detective work. The people are already caught. Why are you attempting to spin this into something that its not?

It seems you don't know what this topic is about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

I'll come back when you're caught up.

 

[lurchadams]

And so it appears that this Conservative fully supports the Federal Leviathan, and would have it so that local people cannot make their own laws and procedures. This Conservative appears to favor rule from Washington as far superior to rule from local sources.

Goodness!

Conservatives scream "states rights" as long as the states advocate laws that discriminate against a protected class. Otherwise, whatever a state tries to do is "unconstitutional".

 

[Conservative]

Let's be fair to the Conservative. He is not really saying that Californians shouldn't have the right to make laws, simply deploring the laws made.

That said, there are some defensible humanitarian and law enforcement reasons for some cities to decide not to cooperate with the immigration authorities. And what did Trump expect, after campaigning by using using bigotry and misinformation about immigrants and refugees, that the left, such as it is, wouldn't hit back? You reap what you sow, to coin a phrase.

And your reply was expected, there are certain laws that you don't like therefore you feel the right to ignore them. We are a nation of laws and if you don't like them change them but until they are changed enforce them. You want to fund illegals, do so with your own money not federal dollars and the Supremacy Clause is quite clear. What I continue to notice here is a total lack of civics understanding by far too many

 

[Conservative]

With votes determined & vetted at the state level ...

Yep, states that violate federal law and protecting, funding, and offering aid to illegals in the form of a valid drivers license have credibility in the voting process in that alternate liberal universe you live in.

 

[lurchadams]

wikipedia

Maybe when California loses Federal funding...

Two can play at that game. California contributes substantially more to the Fed than they get in return.

 

[Conservative]

That's an interesting argument, but erroneous.

Because it is the States that determine the voting and vetting of their electors.

It all comes down to federalism. The states determine their thing, then feds then do what they want with it after.

If the states do their own thing and violate Federal law why are the states entitled to Federal support and federal taxpayer dollars

 

[Conservative]

Conservatives scream "states rights" as long as the states advocate laws that discriminate against a protected class. Otherwise, whatever a state tries to do is "unconstitutional".

Protected class? Illegals are protected by what law? Seems you have no understanding at all of the word ILLEGAL. Look it up

 

[Conservative]

Two can play at that game. California contributes substantially more to the Fed than they get in return.

Good cut off funding and secede. Good Riddance. But like most liberals you have no understanding at all what the federal govt. sends to the states, ALL TO FUND FEDERAL MANDATES and EXPENSES. Seems you believe the states should fund those federal mandates and federal expenses

You almost need a Passport to get into California now with so many illegals

 

[lurchadams]

Protected class? Illegals are protected by what law? Seems you have no understanding at all of the word ILLEGAL. Look it up

Ill Eagle. I sick bird?