Law California Is Now Officially A Sanctuary State For All Illegal Immigrants

I dont blame him.. Especially with talks of indefinitete detention.

Yeah the illegal aliens are wrong, but so is "indefinite detention" and I know yall aint trying to foot the bill for slave labor.
 
I'm glad sanctuary cities are being targeted. I'm more about border control than rounding every one up but I don't like the policy of sanctuary cities and I am glad to see it backfiring.
 
Pretty irresponsible if you ask me, some of them could be gang members.
 
Its probably just a trick to get them to go to a different town. "Hey, ICE is on the way! Better go live somewhere else."
 
Democrats would rather force taxpayers to spend 55k a year housing them to repay the privatized prison lobbyists for their generous campaign contributions
 
Damn, usually mobs have to pay a heafty fee to have government officals to tip them off to a raid. California sure does pander to their criminals
 
That's pretty cool of the mayor and i would do the same thing.
 
ICE feud with Oakland mayor over illegal-immigration raids gets personal
February 28, 2018

schaaf.jpg

OAKLAND, Calif. -- The political battle over sanctuary cities has exploded into a public feud between the head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Libby Schaaf, the mayor of Oakland, California. It started when the mayor tipped off residents about a federal roundup of people living in the U.S. illegally.

Reaction to the mayor was swift. Some called her office directly, while others posted on Facebook.

"People like you make this country much more dangerous," one post read.

A video shows one of the 150 undocumented immigrants being arrested in a multi-day, targeted sweep throughout Northern California, including Oakland.

Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan didn't hold back Wednesday.

"It's beyond the pale," Homan said. "I've been doing this for 34 years and this is a whole new low -- to intentionally warn criminals that law enforcement is coming. I just can't believe it happened."

"She gave them warning," he said. "And there's 800 that we were unable to locate because of that warning."

At Oakland City Hall, the mayor was unapologetic about tipping people off to the recent roundup. She said she's even willing to go to jail to protect Oakland's sanctuary city status.

"Every day as the mayor of Oakland I make decisions that are criticized. That comes with the job," she said.

CBS News pointed out that she is being accused of protecting people with criminal records.

"What I did was my job as the mayor of Oakland and reflective of the values of the people that I represent," she responded.

Under President Trump, immigration arrests are up 42 percent compared to under former President Obama. While criminal arrests under both administrations were about the same, 24,443 vs. 25,626, non-criminal arrests -- 3,121 vs. 13,548 -- saw a 334 percent spike under Mr. Trump.

Hundreds of protesters took to the streets of San Francisco on Wednesday.

Juan Pierto, an undocumented 25-year-old who has been living in the U.S. for 17 years, said depression is rising in his family.

"Some don't want to go out of their houses and that's no way to live," he said.

ICE said deportations will continue as planned. As for tipping off her community, Schaaf says she'll do it again.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-feud-with-oakland-mayor-over-immigration-raids-gets-personal/
 
WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department sued the state of California over so-called “sanctuary” policies that try to protect illegal immigrants against deportation, ramping up a confrontation over whether local police should enforce federal law.

The lawsuit, filed late Tuesday in federal court in Sacramento, the California state capital, takes aim at three state laws passed last year that the Justice Department contends violate the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of illegal immigrants has become increasingly heated since Donald Trump became president last year and signaled that he planned to target a wider swath of people for deportation.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ia-over-sanctuary-policies-idUSKCN1GJ07T?il=0

The fight is ramping up now. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. Hopefully Jeff Sessions takes a hard L.

Thoughts?

@Quipling
@panamaican
@Darkballs
 
I'm not about a W or an L.


I want constitutional laws to stay, and unconstitutional to go.
 
Justice Department suing California over three 'sanctuary state' laws;
Gov. Brown calls complaint 'political stunts'

Marilyn Icsman, USA TODAY | March 6, 2018



The Department of Justice is suing California over three state statutes that federal officials say interfere with their immigration authority.

The lawsuit combats California’s "sanctuary state" laws that shield immigrants from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is expected to make a formal announcement Wednesday at a California Peace Officers’ Association event in Sacramento, the California capital.

“The Department of Justice and the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Sessions says in prepared remarks for the event. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe that we are going to win.”

The lawsuit is the latest move under the Trump administration to crack down on sanctuary cities. Under Trump, DOJ has tried a mix of political and financial pressure against sanctuary cities, threatening to cut off federal law enforcement grants unless cities agree to identify and hold suspected immigration offenders.

The suit is coming now because California has just passed through the department's review process, officials said. Other cities and states with sanctuary laws are still under review. The 23 sanctuary cities that were hit with a subpoena by Sessions have responded and are being reviewed on a rolling basis, officials said.

California's laws are being addressed because they also are new, were widely seen in the media and go farther than other states' laws, officials said.

The complaint names state laws AB 450, SB 54 and AB 103 and alleges that each was created to impede existing immigration laws.

• AB 450 prohibits private employers from cooperating with federal immigration officials and requires that private employers notify employees in advance of a potential worksite enforcement inspection. DOJ claims that this forces California employers to be caught between state and federal law. Business owners could be fined $2,000 to $10,000 for failing to comply with AB 450.

• SB 54 prevents local law enforcement from providing information to federal authorities about the release date of undocumented immigrants who are in their custody and bans the transfer of these criminal immigrants to federal custody. This breaks federal law that pertains to communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, DOJ officials said.

• AB 103 imposes a state-run inspection and review of the federal detention of immigrants held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts and includes a review of immigration processes and the circumstances in which immigrants were apprehended. This review applies only to facilities with civil immigration detainees. The law seeks to regulate federal immigration detention, according to the complaint, which is not allowed under the Constitution.

“Our duty at the Department of Homeland Security is to enforce and uphold the nation’s security laws as passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement. “California has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and responsibility of the Congress to to protect our homeland.”

California Gov. Jerry Brown slammed the Trump administration and called Sessions' legal maneuvering a political stunt.



DOJ cites the 1974 Supreme Court case Arizona v. United States as precedent for their case. In that case, the court ruled that only parts of Arizona’s immigration law would be allowed to take effect.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ia-over-three-sanctuary-state-laws/401418002/
 
Last edited:
Disclaimer: I'm sure there are plenty of relevant details that I don't know so I'm just passing written gas.

I think 2 are debatable and the 3rd in the state's favor.

The law that allows the state to inspect federal detention centers (first I heard about that) seems to be in the fed's favor. The one where private employers are not allowed to voluntarily work with the fed on immigration is less less clear cut since I know that this is about granting the fed access to employee records without a warrant and that's less clear to me. The one about tipping off immigration when the state and local law enforcement is going to release a prisoner is probably in the state's favor since it's about a state agency's protocols.

The whole thing is going to have implications well beyond immigration law and into the limits of state power vs. federal.
 
WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department sued the state of California over so-called “sanctuary” policies that try to protect illegal immigrants against deportation, ramping up a confrontation over whether local police should enforce federal law.

The lawsuit, filed late Tuesday in federal court in Sacramento, the California state capital, takes aim at three state laws passed last year that the Justice Department contends violate the U.S. Constitution.

The issue of illegal immigrants has become increasingly heated since Donald Trump became president last year and signaled that he planned to target a wider swath of people for deportation.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ia-over-sanctuary-policies-idUSKCN1GJ07T?il=0

The fight is ramping up now. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. Hopefully Jeff Sessions takes a hard L.

Thoughts?

@Quipling
@panamaican
@Darkballs

Enforcing laws is so lame....
 
Enforcing laws is so lame....

It's not the State's responsibility to do the Federal government's job for them unless specific funding is provided to carry out that function.
 
It's not the State's responsibility to do the Federal government's job for them unless specific funding is provided to carry out that function.
This. The rationale to "punish" justice departments by suing them or limiting their funding is asinine.
 
This. The rationale to "punish" justice departments by suing them or limiting their funding is asinine.

Personally I don't think eroding state's rights is a bad thing. It made sense when the rate of communication was so slow to give states the ability to act with more autonomy.

But now with the internet and other forms of high speed communication a collection of semi-autonomous states is at a disadvantage. Herding cats, etc.

Centralization is more efficient, it's just in the past the rate of communication limited and even capped that efficiency.

A lot of the problems we're dealing with in the country are solved in some states, but exacerbated in others because of bad state policy and state resistance to federal decrees.
 
It's not the State's responsibility to do the Federal government's job for them unless specific funding is provided to carry out that function.

Yeah, and that's totally the same as dubbing yourself a "sanctuary". Nice try, Irrational Poster.
 
Back
Top