California Playing Brinkmanship with Nullification- Mexican Standoff

[jem]

Why support idea of not deporting criminals? I do not understand that at all? Why not keep americans and even illegal immigrants safer. and save a ton of money on repeat offenders.


76.6 percent

Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.Jun 17, 2014
Recidivism | National Institute of Justice
www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx

I'm a staunch constitutionalist. California is not impeding the job of the feds, it's just not helping them. If ICE wants to wait outside or barge into a state court house (as they have been doing) to drag illegals out, they're well within their constitutional right.

 

[Cuddles]

Why support idea of not deporting criminals? I do not understand that at all? Why not keep americans and even illegal immigrants safer. and save a ton of money on repeat offenders.


76.6 percent

Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested. Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.Jun 17, 2014
Recidivism | National Institute of Justice
www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx

Did I say anything of the sort? Seems to me like Cali. just doesn't agree on turning illegals over petty crime (possession, no license, etc...) when the illegals are just being accused and not proven guilty yet (which is all that's needed for deportation per the EO).

 

[fhl]

Lincoln said in his inauguration statement that as long as southern states collected the import duties and forwarded them to Wash DC, everything would be alright. But if they didn't, he would send in troops.

The south didn't, Lincoln sent in troops and began slaughtering everyone opposed to the federal gov'ts orders.

That's the template. Liberals have lauded it for a century.

 

[Cuddles]

Lincoln said in his inauguration statement that as long as southern states collected the import duties and forwarded them to Wash DC, everything would be alright. But if they didn't, he would send in troops.

The south didn't, Lincoln sent in troops and began slaughtering everyone opposed to the federal gov'ts orders.

That's the template. Liberals have lauded it for a century.

nvmnd that other pesky dark detail huh?
yes pun intended.

 

[achilles28]

They stopped being part of the country years ago. Just a formality now. Perhaps they would like to become part of mexico?

Great idea. Let them blow out California then ban entry under terror-related executive order. Let them enjoy their own bed.

 

[Tsing Tao]

The whole Calexit is as ridiculous as Texas wanting to Secede a few years back. I think the fed's have the rights over federal law (as was the case in AZ), and the states have all the rights to not use their budgets on the issue (as in Cali). Really I see no contradiction whatsoever here.

Example one, the state wanted to enforce law that's federal jurisdiction using state agencies (unconstitutional).
Example two, the state is under no obligation to enforce federal law using state agencies (constitutional). It's not barring federal law agencies from coming in and doing their thing.

A prime example is pot. The states are choosing not to abide to federal law, it does not mean the feds can't come in and shut you down.

Excellent analogy. Agree with everything you said.

The only aspect of this discussion that gets dangerous is when the federal government overreaches and begins to enforce law in areas that the state should have the right to determine.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Agree with everything you said.

He got it exactly backwards.

The federal preemption doctrine comes into play when a state is acting at odds with federal law. Arizona was applying federal law, Obama was the one trying to frustrate the law by not enforcing it. The court decision was clearly wrongly decided but why would that surprise anyone? The courts are now an enforcement wing of the far left.

Sanctuary cities are clearly attempting to frustrate federal immigration law by refusing to cooperate with ICE. It's no different than if they refused to forward firearms background checks to the FBI. The cities may have legitimate gripes about the burden of complying with federal law. So do school systems, water and sewer treatment facilities, housing agencies, etc etc. They don't get to pick and choose.

 

[fhl]

nvmnd that other pesky dark detail huh?
yes pun intended.

You're peddling fake news.

Straight from the mouth of Lincoln that he was only doing it to 'preserver the union', not to get rid of slavery.

Is the truth too much to handle?

https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm


"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. "

 

[Tsing Tao]

He got it exactly backwards.

The federal preemption doctrine comes into play when a state is acting at odds with federal law. Arizona was applying federal law, Obama was the one trying to frustrate the law by not enforcing it. The court decision was clearly wrongly decided but why would that surprise anyone? The courts are now an enforcement wing of the far left.

Sanctuary cities are clearly attempting to frustrate federal immigration law by refusing to cooperate with ICE. It's no different than if they refused to forward firearms background checks to the FBI. The cities may have legitimate gripes about the burden of complying with federal law. So do school systems, water and sewer treatment facilities, housing agencies, etc etc. They don't get to pick and choose.

Everything he said was good except for the "unconstitutional" comment. Apart from that, what was incorrect?

 

[jem]

I think you need to read up on the policy of our cities here in California.
Its far more dangerous.
74 percent of Californians want to end sanctuary cities.

For instance... I saw an article when looking yesterday that says L.A. wont even let ice know when some immigrants incarcerations end.

Did I say anything of the sort? Seems to me like Cali. just doesn't agree on turning illegals over petty crime (possession, no license, etc...) when the illegals are just being accused and not proven guilty yet (which is all that's needed for deportation per the EO).