It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Senate OKs statewide immigrant sanctuary bill

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: FissionSurplus


This is pure speculation/intuition on my part, BUT, I suspect there is a game plan with deliberate moves rather than some local 'weirdness' as many assume.

I suspect California seriously plans to leave the Union. It isn't voter-based. It seems closer to TPTB level, perhaps in conjunction with individuals in Mexico to join Mexico or as an aligned, independent nation. Financial backing via, the U.N., perhaps China, even cartel money.

State-wide amnesty in the face of a Trump led pushback that is around the 70% mark in national support is beyond any logical explanation other than a deliberate strategy to leave.

Not that I particularly have a problem with it. The 'Union' and the 'experiment' looks to be a failure, or at least, run it's course. It may, in fact, allow other states which prefer a constructionist view of the Constitution to resurge.

Just idle thoughts on my part.

edit on 4-4-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and so many of you were arguing for States' Rights just the other day ...

What happened to "alll the US needs to do is deliver my mail and stay out of my business!"



OH no no. Lincoln made that very clear the states rights end where the federal enforcement begins remember?
So youre ok with california performing a Confederate style move? Such as ignoring the Fed jurisdiction over Immigration and law?



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

the EU hack Junckers must know more than hes letting on and his comments about breaking up the US might be some inside baseball references to stuff behind the scenes.


good point.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Because at the end of the day, even the most Rightwing-Libertarian is a Statist who wants their version of authoritarian Government control



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: FissionSurplus

That is the only way Democrats will keep a hold on that state, as they have not problem allowing illegals vote in elections.

After all they gave them the right to have driver licenses.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Breaking up the US.. been tried before. Been mentioned a lot recently.

Let them secede.. cut all funding. Id be interested to see what happens.
Wonder what we'd do with the mil bases there...



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   
One interesting point is county sheriffs are elected and don't have to follow this law.
the sheriff, an elected official, is usually known as the highest law enforcer of the county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official.
politicalvelcraft.org... -court-quashes-obamas-claim-to-supremacy-clause/
www.thenewamerican.com...
These sheriffs may play it cool and not directly turn over illegals but may make a phone call telling ICE that a person will be released at a time and place so that ICE can be waiting.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
I know there has been a lot of talk in conspiracy circles about "Balkanizing" the United States and separating it out by regions. I believe that Erdogan, the Turkish ruler and blowhard of the month, was stating that he would 'push' for states like California and Texas to secede from the USA and create chaos, while flooding Muslims in to Europe as well as here.

We here in Georgia remember the civil war quite well. I am not a native Georgian but the 'scorched earth' policy of General Sherman still lives in the hearts of long time families in this state and is burned into the psyche of every southerner. If we're stuck with federal oversight, it's only fair that every other state is too.

So where does that leave California? I believe their position is precarious, because they have many problems that they will need federal assistance with. When the Oroville Dam started to look like it was going to fail, Moonbeam Brown went to Trump, hat in hand, very contrite, and asked for money.

Now they're back to telling the feds to stuff it where the sun doesn't shine.

Wait until all their ailing water infrastructure fails. Wait until their aquifer in the central valley is full of salt water and nothing grows anymore. Wait until they frack the beejeebus out of rock that is so fractured and fault ridden that it triggers a massive quake of biblical proportions.

My feeling, as a native Californian, is that they are a heavy liability and I wish they'd get out of Uncle Sugar's trough before they suck it dry. They are the doorway for every person angry at the west to come in and cause a lot of trouble. They refuse to close the door, much less lock it. Okie dokie then. We need to close the door on them.



posted on Apr, 4 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
you know how the south had problems with the north cause their economy was based around slavery and they didnt want to give that up.....its the same situation in california. Much of californias economy ad infrastructure is based on slavery. Cheap labor. Illegal immigrants. They cant seperate from that system of economy without total collapse.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and so many of you were arguing for States' Rights just the other day ...

What happened to "alll the US needs to do is deliver my mail and stay out of my business!"


US Immigration is not a State right so it's not a State rights issue. By being in California they now have access to the whole of the US.

Is California guaranteeing these illegal aliens and responsible for them and any harm they cause?



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
... and so many of you were arguing for States' Rights just the other day ...

What happened to "alll the US needs to do is deliver my mail and stay out of my business!"




Actually I encourage it and I just wish they would take all You loons and secede from the union all together.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: tribal

It's actually illegal for the government to withhold federal funding from a state to coerce it to obey federal law.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tribal

It's actually illegal for the government to withhold federal funding from a state to coerce it to obey federal law.

Depends on how it's done. It would require help, Trump can't do it alone.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tribal

It's actually illegal for the government to withhold federal funding from a state to coerce it to obey federal law.

Depends on how it's done. It would require help, Trump can't do it alone.

No it can't be done. Even with help.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: tribal

It's actually illegal for the government to withhold federal funding from a state to coerce it to obey federal law.

Depends on how it's done. It would require help, Trump can't do it alone.

No it can't be done. Even with help.

Existing grants would be difficult, but yes, with help, future grants can be.

It's possible existing grants can too if they can show a connection.

Perhaps the intentional harboring of illegals could be claimed those illegals get access to the funding, and therefore the State is assisting with Fraud and the grant needs to be terminated until such time as the State stop assisting fraud.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That sounds insidious and likely to end up being tied up in the courts as unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That sounds insidious and likely to end up being tied up in the courts as unconstitutional.

Never said it would work, I said it would be a possible way to attempt it.

I personally would agree with it. IF even one illegal immigrant who is being shielded is committing fraud then the State is assisting in that fraud by protecting them. If they choose to continue that, they should lose everything. If you do not like the law change it, you can't simply choose to not follow it.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You realize that if you are attempting unconstitutional methods to force a state to obey the government, you are breaking the spirit of your intentions right? The ends don't justify the means. ESPECIALLY in regards to enforcing the constitution.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: FissionSurplus
I realize this is a can of worms, but what gives California the right to ignore the sovereignty of the United States, along with it National Security, by allowing those who are here illegally to stay and have "sanctuary"? WHAT are they thinking, besides more democratic votes?



SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers gave initial approval Monday to a measure that prevents law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration officials, a measure that proponents said rebukes President Donald Trump for his immigration crackdown. It makes California a statewide sanctuary for many people who are in the country illegally. The state Senate passed the measure on a 27-12 vote, sending it to the state Assembly over the objection of opponents who said it endangers the public by shielding felons from being deported. The bill, SB54, advanced after Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Democrat from Los Angeles, amended it to let state and local law enforcement notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement federal agents before convicted serious or violent felons are released from custody. De Leon also stripped the bill of a provision that would have required a two-thirds vote. Passing the measure with a simple majority means it wouldn't take effect until Jan. 1, while the previous version would have taken effect immediately. "We will cooperate with our friends at the federal level with serious and violent felons. But we won't cooperate or lift a finger or spend a single cent when we're talking about separating children from their mothers, mothers from their children," de Leon said. "That's not who we are as a great state."


www.yahoo.com...

I notice that children and women are often used by politicians to hide behind something more nefarious. I cannot imagine why flooding a state with illegals, when there is already a lack of jobs and an almost impossible tax rate, would be good for anybody. The burden of indigent patients and children who cannot communicate in English is already more than California can deal with. I lived in California for the first 40 years of my life so I'm not a stranger to this kind of chicanery on the part of Sacramento, but to thumb their nose at federal law, while their hand is out asking for federal fund to help support these people, boggles my mind.

I also want to say that my parents are immigrants and came here legally, and this, to me, is a slap in the face to every single legal immigrant here on American soil.

I have sympathy for human beings, but this goes beyond the pale. Personally, I think California should secede and be done with it. They are jeopardizing our national security. I am not a racist, but I believe in following the law when it is beneficial for the country. When I worked in Texas in social services, many immigrants stated they noticed a lot of people who were not Hispanic coming over the border with them....who spoke no Spanish, and who were most likely (they thought) Middle Eastern.

This dog won't hunt, Monsignor.


Not really sure what to say except it was pretty much expected.

Democratic votes won't matter as they have always been dems in CA.

Anywho...I guess we will see how well this works soon. Trouble is they aren't going to be getting the federal funding they have been and the state can't keep up their own expenses so this will likely backfire as bad as most knee jerk reactions do...miserably and in the spotlight.



posted on Apr, 5 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You realize that if you are attempting unconstitutional methods to force a state to obey the government, you are breaking the spirit of your intentions right? The ends don't justify the means. ESPECIALLY in regards to enforcing the constitution.

That's for a court to decide.

If a state is actively protecting people who are defrauding the government then the method they are using to commit fraud should be cut off.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join