Justice Department to Sue California Over Sanctuary Policies

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Rhonindk, Mar 6, 2018.

  1. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #1
    ARTICLE
    ARTICLE


    Looks like the gloves are going to start coming off.
    Wonder what else is in store. Either way, this should make for some entertaining headlines here in Cali.

     
  2. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    So much for the GOP being for States Rights.
     
  3. SusanK macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2012
    #3
    Blue states don't count in this administration.
     
  4. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #4
    That’s a transparently cheap shot with no substance.

    I’m a State’s right person. But since their immigration policies isn’t limited to just a Californians, not on this.
     
  5. Populism, Mar 6, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2018

    Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #5
    So, in favor or against states rights?

    Or is your post a witty troll post?
     
  6. edk99 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #6
    I'm all for building a wall around California and deporting all illegals from the other 49 states to California. If there are so eager to protect and support them they can have them.
     
  7. Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    I say give California one more shot. Let’s see how this governor race goes.
     
  8. 0007776 Suspended

    0007776

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #8
    I’m in favor of a balance between states rights and recognizing that some things effect the whole country. Deciding if they are going to waste state taxpayer dollars enforcing federal laws that the Federal government is responsible for enforcing is an area that is support states rights. If the GOP wants to take a harder line on immigration they should raise taxes so they can hire more agents to enforce them instead of expecting states to waste their money to do the Fed’s job.
     
  9. Rhonindk thread starter macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #9
    The Northern half maybe. I like my beach. :D
     
  10. ericgtr12 macrumors 65816

    ericgtr12

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2015
    #10
    California has the 6th largest economy on the planet. Hate them all you want but they cover a lot of what Republicans refuse to in order to keep red states afloat.
     
  11. duffman9000 macrumors 68000

    duffman9000

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Deep in the Depths of CA
    #11
    I’d take that deal if we could cut off funding to the poor red states. It’s time for those states to stop leeching from the more prosperous states.

    Furthermore, they also have to keep their poor citizens. No more shipping them off to fair-weather states because their home states are too cheap to house them.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 6, 2018 ---
    Mordor, AKA “the bay”, should be walled off lol.
     
  12. Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #12
    Exactly!
     
  13. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #13
    Immigration isn't a states right.
     
  14. ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #14
    I consider the general declaration of being "for states' rights" to be largely hollow and meaningless.

    There are some things that should left to the states and some that should not. Saying you're "for states' rights" seems to be a kind of virtue-signalling more than a cogent political position; it always comes with an asterisk and a list of exceptions. It's not a bad thing to recognize that there are some domains that belong to the federal government.
     
  15. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #15
    "They" are human beings not "Them"
     
  16. blackfox Suspended

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #16
    I am all for a case study. Let California go down this path, rest of the nation their own way. Meet back in 2020...
     
  17. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    Ridiculous statement, the right is for states enacting laws and managing themselves where there are not provisions in the constitution, immigration policy is clearly a federal responsibility. Sanctuary laws are literally anti-federal enforcement laws.
     
  18. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #18
    California has wanted this fight in court for a while, now they have it.
     
  19. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #19
    It will be a race to go as far left as you can.
     
  20. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #20
    Okay. “I support the Second Amendment” is largely hollow and meaningless declaration as well. Nothing new.
     
  21. ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #21
    Well, the right to keep and bear arms is more specific than "states' rights", so it's not quite the same, but even then, one can support the 2nd amendment and support various gun control measures, yet many act like the support of any kind of gun control necessarily contradicts the 2nd amendment. It's another situation where statements of support are just begging to be labeled hypocrisy (even inaccurately).
     
  22. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #22
    If the federal government is the one who enforces immigration then they enforce immigration. I was for Obama coming down on Gov Brewer when she wanted AZ to take the lead on border security and I'm OK on the federal government coming down on California for pissing in the face of our immigration laws because they think they're the "cool kid".
     
  23. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #23
    I am all for reasonable restrictions as long as they actually cause change.

    But for example, the Parkland shooter was using 10 round magazines, not 30's. So any ban on 30's was useless in this situation. People adapt to regs that are easy to get around.

    But as I have stated before, I am all for moving AR's and the like into Class 3 status. Full federal BG check, notification of Chief LEO in your area, sales only through FFL. No problem.

    But I also want something back. Like national reciprocity or CCW. Also would like funding to go after straw purchasers/sellers and mandatory sentences for gun crimes.
     
  24. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #24
    Yet you've been remarkably silent on Georgia passing laws punishing a company for its use of the 1A. You don't want to go down this road of hypocrisy, trust me.

    No-one is stopping the federal government from coming in. The state laws being passed are saying that the state is not going to assist in the federal government enforcing federal laws. If the Feds want to come in to take care of it, the feds should do it, not pass the buck down to the states to do their job for them.

    BL.
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    You realise most of the red states would then instantly go bankrupt?
     

Share This Page

200 March 6, 2018