California illegally ignores judicial ruling outlawing sanctuary cities

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/10/01/california-flips-bird-judge-ruled-sanctuary-cities/

 

Last time a state did this, South Carolina, it was called sedition and nullification. Something needs to be done

[Nathanael D. Striker]

What are Charter Cities? If they are only a subset of the cities in California, then the law still applies to non-Charter cities.

[mido9]

What are Charter Cities? If they are only a subset of the cities in California, then the law still applies to non-Charter cities.

It's a city that follows its own laws and procedures for some municipal activities and other simple government functions, basically, with restrictions(so you can't just say, right, killing all black people is totally justified in this city). The 'charter' is basically that city's constitution.

 

San francisco, LA, and Sacramento for instance are charter cities

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Ah, I see. Don't some Charter Cities already have Sanctuary Status on their own accord? Also, couldn't this still apply to areas outside the Charter Cities?

[Proto]

i'm with it tbh.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

i'm with it tbh.

Strip CA of their electoral votes and march the troops in till they stop being seditious bastards imo 

 

CA deserves to be treated like the deep south was after the civil war

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Strip CA of their electoral votes and march the troops in till they stop being seditious bastards imo 

 

CA deserves to be treated like the deep south was after the civil war

How about no? Taking away Electoral Votes is essentially stripping Californians of their right to vote in Presidential elections. And if I recall correctly, South Carolina didn't get that treatment during its nullification stuff.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

How about no? Taking away Electoral Votes is essentially stripping Californians of their right to vote in Presidential elections. And if I recall correctly, South Carolina didn't get that treatment during its nullification stuff.

You need to read up on reconstruction my boi

We also declared war on South Carolina during nullification. I'm down for martial law in any city that ignores federal laws if you want

---

 

Insurrection Act of 1807, a president can deploy troops anywhere in the United States under a specific scenario.

 

"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings," the act reads, "he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State."

 

A girl in my home state was murdered last month by another illegal from Cali. Something needs to happen

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Strip CA of their electoral votes and march the troops in till they stop being seditious bastards imo 

 

CA deserves to be treated like the deep south was after the civil war

Okaaaaay, Winter, please try and be less heated about this topic. I don't want to be at work tomorrow and check the site and find a half dozen emotion driven posts to deal with.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Okaaaaay, Winter, please try and be less heated about this topic. I don't want to be at work tomorrow and check the site and find a half dozen emotion driven posts to deal with.

Look I wanted Trump to ignore the courts on DACA and the Travel Ban, and in the end he won on the latter, and will probs win the former as well at SCOTUS, but there are rules that people have to follow. CA just saying nah isn't ok. Even you love sanctuary cities...

[Phantom Roxas]

You need to read up on reconstruction my boi

We also declared war on South Carolina during nullification. I'm down for martial law in any city that ignores federal laws if you want

---

 

Insurrection Act of 1807, a president can deploy troops anywhere in the United States under a specific scenario.

 

"Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings," the act reads, "he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State."

 

A girl in my home state was murdered last month by another illegal from Cali. Something needs to happen

 

https://psmag.com/social-justice/inside-californias-ongoing-sanctuary-state-battle

 

 

The case will likely end up in the California Supreme Court, says Sameer Ahmed, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union's Southern California office. And he is confident that Sacramento will prevail.

 

"The California Supreme Court has interpreted the provision of the California constitution that allows charter cities to control their municipal affairs," Ahmed says. "They created a four-part test. One part says that if the state law addresses a matter of statewide concern, even if it addresses a municipal affair, a charter city cannot opt out of it."

 

A city deciding to simply ignore a statewide law is no better than if California as a state similarly ignored Trump's own harmful and discriminatory policies. California isn't "illegally ignoring a judicial ruling", so the title of this thread is completely false. It's a Charter City trying to exempt itself from state law when it cannot do so.

 

I say "If" because, as far as I can tell, imposing sanctuary cities is not inherently against federal law, and SB-54, the California Values Act in question, was upheld by a federal judge, so it seems that California has followed due process. While their decisions do go against Trump's own desires, it's more that California is expressing their rights to enact new bills, and Trump's threats of retaliation, such as defunding the state, was met with a ruling against Trump. Trump may be unhappy with California's actions, but that doesn't make any of it illegal.

 

California's actions do not constitute unlawful obstruction or rebellion, and in South Carolina's case, had more to do with their secession. While movements like Calexit do exist, they consistently fail, so for the most part, it doesn't seem that there is any due cause to implement the Insurrection Act.

[vla1ne]

Just wondering, but wouldn't the very purpose sanctuary cities be pretty much ignoring laws regarding illegal immigration?

[Phantom Roxas]

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54

 

It repeals existing laws, not ignore them. It primarily serves to prohibit local law enforcement from acting as immigration agents, which they should not be doing anyway. Whether you agree with the bill is another matter, but it's still legal, and does not ignore the law.

[vla1ne]

"Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters."

 

that sounds pretty normal to me. what reason is there to repeal a provision that would alert immigration enforcement to the potential presence of illegal immigrants, especially considering it requires the person in question to have committed a crime first. it even attempts to limit joint investigations, which makes no sense. if you're after a suspected gang, drug ring, a smuggling ring, or even regular criminal, that's suspected of having ties across borders, having all relevant departments, local and federal participate is the most efficient and effective way to ensure that everything is ended quickly and with minimal harm to any civilians.

 

"© This trust is threatened when state and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school, to the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians."

 

then why repeal the first provision?

 

"(a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent."

 

;legal immigrants and illegal immigrants need to be differentiated. one has been vetted and allowed to enter, the other is an unknown and presents all the hazards that come with said risks.

 

 

 

if you have committed no crimes, the top clause holds no weight over you. Nor does restricting law enforcement cooperation actually help the innocent. this feels a lot like spite, wrapped in legal jargon. it will likely provide no form of security to the people who need it, and create unnecessary red tape when dealing with criminals, or reporting said criminals. by limiting the potential flow if information via bureaucracy, they are going to further destroy california. not quickly, but slowly, over time, as their refusal to see what a hole they're placing themselves into cuts into their citizens. People who are capable are already leaving, the rest are likely to follow down the line.

 

there's far more i could say on that, but it's late.