More than 2 Million Undocumented Immigrants Will Now Be Protected By California's Sanctuary Law

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Oct 6, 2017.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-2-million-undocumented-immigrants-200742053.html
    got a feeling even more will flock to CA due to this :rolleyes:
     
  2. yaxomoxay macrumors 68040

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
  3. QueenTyrone macrumors 6502a

    QueenTyrone

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    #3
    Well, good for cali......arent they in a massive amount of debt or something of that matter?
     
  4. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    yes we are, welcome to the PRSI section.
     
  5. QueenTyrone macrumors 6502a

    QueenTyrone

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    #5
    I've been in here a few times, you guys just get too heated too fast.
     
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    well, that is because everyone else is WRONG, except me of course :p
     
  7. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #7
    Come on in. There’s plenty of room for more.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 6, 2017 ---
    We were, but have largely dug ourselves out and are doing much better financially.

    And commercial sales of marijuana begin in 2018, so government coffers will have another source of income soon.
     
  8. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502a

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #8
    sure hope weed sales come into play, CO is doing pretty good
     
  9. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #9
    I see this as violating federal law and California might loose federal funding. And that is just the start.
     
  10. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #10
    I haven't read California's new law myself and thus can't rule out the possibility that it does some things which conflict with federal law. That said, I'm curious why you think it violates federal law.

    Generally speaking, the federal government can't force states to assist in enforcing federal law. So even if federal law required states to do some of the things that sanctuary laws prevent state officers from doing, such federal law would likely be unconstitutional. See, e.g., Printz v U.S. (1997) for more on what's known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

    The federal government also can't coerce states into enforcing federal law by threatening to deny them unrelated funds. The federal government could, e.g., deny to states funding for immigration enforcement programs because those states won't assist the federal government in enforcing immigration laws. But it likely couldn't deny those states general education funding for that reason.
     
  11. Gutwrench Contributor

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #11
    That’s it. I’m lighting my couch on fire in the street!! :mad:
     
  12. DearthnVader macrumors 6502a

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #12
  13. QueenTyrone macrumors 6502a

    QueenTyrone

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2016
    #13
    LOL
     
  14. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #14
    Same thing they tried with the travel ban and was upheld by the courts. It's not about assisting federal officers as many are already in custody by local law enforcement. They wanted them be held until federal authorities show up, instead of releasing them. The justice department has already geared up and ready to enforce federal law.
     
  15. Zenithal macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #15
    Produce prices should remain relatively the same.

    JK brings the 'muy' to 'muy caliente'.

    Should go kaboom.
     
  16. Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #16
    It's not at all the same thing as with the travel ban. This involves very different legal issues. This has to do with principles of federalism - the separation of powers between the federal government and states. (That is in addition to the question whether federal law requires what this law prevents to begin with.) The travel ban case involves, among other things, the Establishment Clause.

    And holding people who would otherwise be released so as to be able to turn them over to federal authorities is assisting in enforcing federal laws. The federal government can't, as a general matter, commandeer state officers (or state resources) and compel them to do that.

    Lastly, the travel ban wasn't upheld by the courts. The first version was blocked by numerous courts and the administration didn't even bother appealing that version to the Supreme Court as, I suspect, it realized it had essentially no chance of winning with that version. It had already accomplished what it was trying to with that version of the travel ban. (I think it knew when it issued the first version of the travel ban that that version had no chance of surviving court challenges.)

    The second version was also blocked by some courts (but not all which considered it). The Fourth and Ninth Circuits issued (or upheld) preliminary injunctions baring its enforcement in various regards until it could be fully considered. The administration asked the Supreme Court to hear the matter and, in the meantime, stay the preliminary injunctions. The Supreme Court agreed to hear it and stayed the preliminary injunctions in some regards while leaving them in place in some regards. In other words, even the Supreme Court blocked enforcement of the travel ban in some regards. In a subsequent administration appeal, the Court again ruled partially in favor of Hawaii and partially in favor of the administration.

    But the Court hasn't heard the merits case yet, so we don't know whether it would uphold the travel ban. There's a good chance the Court would uphold the travel ban in some regards and invalidate it in others (similar to what it did with regard to the preliminary injunction). That said, the Court is now in the process of deciding whether the case is moot. It may decide that it no longer needs to decide the case in light of the President's proclamation from September or because, by their own terms, certain provisions of the executive order being challenged have already expired. Reading between the lines of the Court's order from July, I thought that the Court didn't expect to have to decide the case because it expected the case to become moot before it did.
     
  17. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #17
    I'd say it's a win-win. All of the illegals will move to California and out of the states that actually care about immigrants following laws. California tax payers can pay for them, problem solved.

    In fact I think Cali should open their southern border and offer free health care to everyone who crosses.
     
  18. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #18
    And we can run them right up the left coast and right on into Van :D

    They can grab a coffe in Wash and warm up!
     
  19. s2mikey macrumors 68020

    s2mikey

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2013
    Location:
    Upstate, NY
    #19
    Yes. Excellent idea. Of course, my home state of NY will get jealous because we also love pissing away taxpayer money so we’ll probably match this BS situation. That’s why I’m moving in a few years.

    Effing joke.
     
  20. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #20
    Waiting till reality smacks the idiots out here in the face. I seriously hope the feds pull major bucks and leave the state short.
     
  21. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #21
    And they can knowingly transmit AIDS without fear of being charged with a felony! The great state of California. At this point I'm willing to hear ideas about selling the joint back to Mexico. Call it North Tijuana if you want.
     
  22. Rhonindk macrumors 68040

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    sitting on a beach watching a DC simulation ...
    #22
    Northern Baja and Really Northern Baja
     

Share This Page

21 October 6, 2017