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

[Quipling]

Oh I agree, there really is no reason to want them to do so but should you be held to the threat of fines should you volunteer to do so if requested without said warrant? Look, we both know why this is being done. We simply don't agree on the reasoning nor do we have to.

I'll be honest with you. I really have nothing against undocumented immigrants, except in the case of criminals but then that's not an issue of them being undocumented just criminals, I believe they have the right to become citizens. Pretty much all of my objections center around the undocumented part. I realize the outcome for most if they come forward, but I also believe we have a right and need to know with as much certainty as possible who is within our borders. Not necessarily what they're doing, but the fact they are here at all.

My feelings are that all such with no criminal record and that can show they are either actively in school, currently employed or of retirement age should be offered the option of citizenship. All those found to have a criminal record should have that record evaluated for severity of crime and either be deported as an unnecessary threat , offered limited citizenship for a defined period wherein they have to show employment for the majority of the period and no accrued felonies after which they obtain full citizenship, or sufficient time having passed since last criminal arrest for a felony showing a likelihood of "rehabilitation".

If that makes any sense.

It's pretty straightforward and easy to understand. If I may summarize:

Productive or likely to be -> citizenship, with a particularly severe/recent criminal history being disqualifying.

I also am a little surprised - its a more liberal immigration policy than that held by many dems. Its certainly far to the left of our current immigration policy.

 

[helltoupee]

Oh I agree, there really is no reason to want them to do so but should you be held to the threat of fines should you volunteer to do so if requested without said warrant? Look, we both know why this is being done. We simply don't agree on the reasoning nor do we have to.

I'll be honest with you. I really have nothing against undocumented immigrants, except in the case of criminals but then that's not an issue of them being undocumented just criminals, I believe they have the right to become citizens. Pretty much all of my objections center around the undocumented part. I realize the outcome for most if they come forward, but I also believe we have a right and need to know with as much certainty as possible who is within our borders. Not necessarily what they're doing, but the fact they are here at all.

My feelings are that all such with no criminal record and that can show they are either actively in school, currently employed or of retirement age should be offered the option of citizenship. All those found to have a criminal record should have that record evaluated for severity of crime and either be deported as an unnecessary threat , offered limited citizenship for a defined period wherein they have to show employment for the majority of the period and no accrued felonies after which they obtain full citizenship, or sufficient time having passed since last criminal arrest for a felony showing a likelihood of "rehabilitation".

If that makes any sense.

I think we largely agree, except with one minor point.

An employer should not be allowed to voluntarily give up employee information because it's not their information, it belongs to the employee. If I work for somebody, and they have things like my bank account information for direct deposits, should they be given the leeway to supply that information to anyone they want?

To me, this is kind of like HIPAA laws in the healthcare industry - just because a doctor or psychologist has intimate knowledge of everything about you, doesn't mean they can indiscriminately supply that information to anyone they want.

 

[helltoupee]

Leftists coercing by force? Whats new? Fucking nazi bitches.

Righties giving up basic American freedoms on the excuse that we need to catch the bad guy? Nazi bitches indeed.

 

[Teppodama]

It's pretty straightforward and easy to understand. If I may summarize:

Productive or likely to be -> citizenship, with a particularly severe/recent criminal history being disqualifying.

I also am a little surprised - its a more liberal immigration policy than that held by many dems. Its certainly far to the left of our current immigration policy.

Your summary is correct. And yes, I guess it is more liberal than anyone might consider would be my opinion but it's how I feel on the subject without my usual bullshitting on here. The "dream" of America was never solely for those already here. It was meant as a hope for those looking for such and unable to find it within their own lands. Shared in good faith, it's truly a beautiful thing and we do it a disservice if we turn away from that outstretched hand. But we can do it better, safer, intelligently and legally. That's only sensible given the realities of the world we live in and our responsibilities to our citizens.

 

[Teppodama]

I think we largely agree, except with one minor point.

An employer should not be allowed to voluntarily give up employee information because it's not their information, it belongs to the employee. If I work for somebody, and they have things like my bank account information for direct deposits, should they be given the leeway to supply that information to anyone they want?

To me, this is kind of like HIPAA laws in the healthcare industry - just because a doctor or psychologist has intimate knowledge of everything about you, doesn't mean they can indiscriminately supply that information to anyone they want.

I would say I have to agree, there should be a limit to what personal information an employer can provide on it's employees but I also don't believe placing potential legal constraints on employers cooperating with request for information they CAN share without resorting to a warrant. I would question any need for medical information for instance. Lists of employees however is not something I would see as giving undue information.

 

[helltoupee]

I would say I have to agree, there should be a limit to what personal information an employer can provide on it's employees but I also don't believe placing potential legal constraints on employers cooperating with request for information they CAN share without resorting to a warrant. I would question any need for medical information for instance. Lists of employees however is not something I would see as giving undue information.

On the surface, yes. Unfortunately, imo, it can lead to a slippery slope.

 

[Teppodama]

On the surface, yes. Unfortunately, imo, it can lead to a slippery slope.

So many of the choices we are currently making with our society are potential slippery slopes. But then, that's why you define the narrow focus of what is acceptable and what is not. That still allows some semblance of choice without always resorting to the need for warrants. Which while certainly taking care of the nominal issues off legality also builds further time sinks into already laborious processes and sets up potentially obstructionist and belligerent interactions with Federal agencies.

 

[Cuzcatlan]

Hey, guess what.

The DEA has just announced that they are going to be inspecting everyone's homes once a month in order to catch more drug dealers.

Oh. And the local PD Vice squad also wants your wife to submit to vaginal inspections every week on the off chance that they catch a couple more prostitutes. You game?

It's incredibly funny that you guys are missing the point of why this law is so troubling. The law is taking away the rights of business owners too chose if they want to comply with ice agents.

If a ICE agent comes to a business owner without a warrant and request too enter you have a right too say "yes or no." California has basically taken that right away. You have too say "no" or the California goverment will come down on you.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

California just got one goose step closer.

 

[National Acrobat]

Whether you agree with this particular exercise of resistance to federal power by a state or not, if you believe the federal government is well beyond its intended scope and in need of reigning in this is how it will happen.

The central government has shown itself entirely incapable of checking itself. Its going to be up to the states to crackdown on federal usurpations and unconstitutional behavior.

We need more of this not less.

 

[JSnake]

I remember it was the liberal position to HURT employers that hire illegals..... they cant keep their angle straight. Ever since..... ever, the right has labeled the left as "Open Borders crowd". They are exactly that. Dont even hide it anymore. They want open immigration, open border policy.

It's like they know their policies are so bad/corrupt they can't rely on the native population to keep them in power any more.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Let’s challenge the federal govt by letting the state strip away property rights from its residents. That will teach them!

 

[oldshadow]

This should be intresting.

Say the feds, all fed organizations work to the letter of the law.

This includes the FBI only giving any help required by law.

How about the DEA enforcing federal laws.

Both sides can play at this game and I hope they do.

 

[Toothless King]

CA politicians want to punish CA residents for complying with federal law?

what is next? Are CA politicians going to punish residents for submitting W2 to IRS?

 

[Teppodama]

It's pretty straightforward and easy to understand. If I may summarize:

Productive or likely to be -> citizenship, with a particularly severe/recent criminal history being disqualifying.

I also am a little surprised - its a more liberal immigration policy than that held by many dems. Its certainly far to the left of our current immigration policy.

Question for you because I'm interested in your thoughts and enjoying this conversation actually. What are your feelings on quotas? Are you of the unlimited or limited mindset? What out "Chain" migration?

I'll share first

I believe a realistic quota should be set yearly with an eye toward levels of success of integration affecting the next years quota. Unlimited immigration for one i believe to be a problem if a nation is unable to realistically afford or help to assimilate those it lets in. There is an an upper limit to how quickly and to what degree a nations services can handle influxes when it comes to draws on social services and job markets. It does no good to the potential citizen or the hosting nation to take on citizens that end up on the doll for extended periods of time. That is just a drain on national and state resources. There is also a real impact on communities when large groups of singular demographics are moved into an area in sufficient numbers to fundamentally change the demographic of the area. That hinders assimilation and instead simply creates enclaves of a particular foreign society with all the attendant pros and cons. If sufficiently divergent from the hosting nations social, political and ideological norms that can lead to real problems.

Regarding the idea of chain migration. I see no issue with a newly minted citizen wishing to bring their family with them. I believe they should be given swift consideration for citizenship as well given they pass a complete background check. I however believe such consideration should be limited to immediate family IE. Wife and children. I could lighten up enough for agree to dependent senior citizens limited to the parents of either the citizen husband or wife. I fully understand the close dependency and unity that many other cultures have regarding care of elderly parents and grandparents as primary caregivers.

 

[Oeshon]

looks like a good time to remove all federal funding to CA.

 

[funcrusher2007]

This Jan law brown passed is just another in a series of laws the dictator and chief has been busy with...gas tax/registration also.

On the flip side though...

even though I don’t agree with Browns immigrantion law, I find it beyond hypocritical of the pro states rights crowd. Had this law been the opposite footing... where as ice wasn’t actively pursuing immigrants and the state was, the righty’s would be screaming,”but my States rights!” Lol..
Just a funny observation.

 

[funcrusher2007]

looks like a good time to remove all federal funding to CA.

Meh, considering we are a donor state(California almost splits even on tax vs federal funding) don’t think anyone would care.

 

[oldshadow]

This Jan law brown passed is just another in a series of laws the dictator and chief has been busy with...gas tax/registration also.

On the flip side though...

I even though I don’t agree with Browns immigrantion law, I find it beyond hypocritical of the pro states rights crowd. Had this law been the opposite footing... where as ice wasn’t actively pursuing immigrants and the state was, the righty’s would be screaming,”but my States rights!” Lol..
Just a funny observation.

More then willing to let California go states rights if we go states rights across the board.

It's funny according to the left states rights is racist, Well unless it's something like this or weed.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

lmao @ "owners" (masters) giving consent to search their "property" (human beings persons/papers) without warrant.

You're not black no matter how hard you've tried since being a kid. Give it up they will never accept you even when you say ridiculous shit like this.