Trump says he's thinking about pulling ICE from California

a reply to: FredT

Thats not better. Its not something adults in government should have ever considered. You cant tell a law enforcement agency how to do their job.

Not calling them as you put it is still sending mixed messages about their purpose. They arent border "security guards". They are IMMIGRATION and customs ENFORCEMENT.

The state legislature is to blame and should maybe lose the support of ICE. Hire some HS dropouts to not look at scanners or do their job. A federal entity taking itself seriously is maybe too much for what Cali wants.

So California gets to pick and choose which laws to follow or not but Trump doesn't?

It's not an "invasion" if you are inviting them in and telling them they can stay. What a waste of money to provide agents who are unable to do their job due to state laws....

I'm not an American though so don't know the ins and outs but that's what I take from this?

a reply to: FredT

Last I remembered each state had it's own National Guard,or state militia,why is it now everyone wants Feds involved,if we reduced federal government we would all be better off,you socialist's all want government in your home

a reply to: FredT

This is confusing...

You see, California has been receiving flak over the last few years, over its tendency to provide sanctuary to persons whose immigration status is in question. People from some quarters whine constantly about it, have made a big fuss of it, and have been very pleased to see the phobic stain upon the arse of creation that is Trump, vocalising from his position of complete ignorance on the topic, despite the fact that having him as a mouthpiece is like saying "Yeah, sure, my arguments are ill thought out, not cohesive at all, but damn if they aren't the loudest and the dumbest!".

People have been falling over themselves to praise the ethnostatist dirtbag that America elected during the last election there, for his anti-immigrant stances, and his willingness to say xenophobic things in public and on television. But, here the man is, saying to all and sundry, what boils down to "California have been really lax on immigration. In order to show them whose boss around here, lets remove the federal agency that has to do with immigration, from the entire state."

Now, I know I am but a simple Briton, not familiar with the ways of the US (of course, thats nonsense. I may not know everything about any one thing, but I know an awful lot about everything), but even so, this seems to be giving the Californians every little thing they want. It appears to me that California does not WANT to get rid of people from its territory, just because they happen to possess no valid paperwork. It appears as if California refuses to aid the federal government in ejecting taxpaying individuals, with thriving businesses and dependent families, from either the territory of California, or indeed the United States as a whole. Removing the Immigration Customs Enforcement agency from Californian soil, seems to play into the hands of the very people with whom Trump has an issue.

Can someone explain to me where I have misunderstood the situation? And if I have not, can someone explain how this move punishes anyone at all?

a reply to: FredT

It's not an invasion if the state is willingly enticing and accepting them.

I do, however, feel that he would definitely be failing to apply and enforce the laws of the federal government equally if he did this.

I get his desire to punish California, and it certainly deserves it, but he does forget that there are areas of the state who voted for him and are relatively deep red who deserve that law enforcement, even if the state and some local governments act like jackasses.

Make em unemployed. If they are getting paid they need to do their jobs. Easy really.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: FredT

This is confusing...

No, it's really not at all.

Can someone explain to me where I have misunderstood the situation? And if I have not, can someone explain how this move punishes anyone at all?

Sure, but I would ask you first, since you already opined about it, can you ensure that your opinion on the matter is an educated one? Also, can you explain how this DOESN'T punish the state and local communities?

If you answer those, I'll happily guide you in the right direction, starting with the reality that not all Californians espouse the political ideology of places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego (speaking of ignorant, but loudest, mouthpieces).

And yes, I grew up in California for 19 years, and still have dozens of family members and friends living there, so I am abreast of the issues in California (even better than most of them, honestly).

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
And yes, I grew up in California for 19 years, and still have dozens of family members and friends living there, so I am
No, it's really not at all.

I was born in Compton, raised in the beach area around El Segundo - - for 40 years.

As a native, you should know CA was "Mexican" farmland and rancheros. Those of Mexican ancestry were the majority citizens of CA and probably still are.

Who are the invaders again?

Yes, I know, "Legal vs Illegal" - - but, profiling in CA is cultural racism.

It's not like the south, that was build by white Christian aristocrat plantation and slave owners.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well, it does not punish the State of California, because the State of California has a reputation for a reason, and that reputation is that people keep voting for folks to represent them and make their State laws, who refuse point blank to enact anti-immigration policies of the sort that Mr Trump wants. Therefore, its not punishing the State at all to remove an agency from it, that if the voting majority of people had any time for in the first place, they would have elected people to their State legislature who were prepared to work with ICE, and the Federal government more broadly, on immigration.

That the people have NOT voted for representatives who are prepared to do as Trump tells them, or comply with ICE to the letter, but instead hide folk, or simply fail to report potential immigration violations, suggests that the voters, at least in the majority, would quite like ICE to jump of a cliff.

If the majority of voters felt otherwise, those they elected would be prone to compliance.

originally posted by: Gothmog
Trump ploy. Get the enemy to relax...
Then , "the hammer falls"

President the Donald, is a poker player. In chess, one tries to anticipate the opponent moves, while also trying to entrap them. In poker, one uses various methods...including bluffing....to affect the decisions of the other players. Getting them to fold at the most advantageous times is just about as important as getting them to go all in, when your cards are strong. Both involve constant pressure to keep the opponents unsure of themselves. Great poker players know, that winning every hand they possibly can, is a foolish long term strategy, because then it all relies on just the fall of the cards.

originally posted by: Enderdog

originally posted by: Gothmog
Trump ploy. Get the enemy to relax...
Then , "the hammer falls"

President the Donald, is a poker player. In chess, one tries to anticipate the opponent moves, while also trying to entrap them. In poker, one uses various methods...including bluffing....to affect the decisions of the other players. Getting them to fold at the most advantageous times is just about as important as getting them to go all in, when your cards are strong. Both involve constant pressure to keep the opponents unsure of themselves. Great poker players know, that winning every hand they possibly can, is a foolish long term strategy, because then it all relies on just the fall of the cards.

I wouldn't even give him credit as a chess player.

He's a narcissist, egotistical, bully - - - trying to throw his weight around.

It's worked in his questionable business practices - - - where no one could protect the little guy.

a reply to: Annee

So, nothing of substance, just a review about who was there first, huh?

At least it's nice to know that every time I see your avatar pop up, now my mind can rap, "Comin' straight outta Compton!"

I was raised in actual farmland, in the crotch of the San Joaquin Valley...now your mind can sing "On the Street of Bakersfield" when you see my avatar.

I feel like we got something accomplished, here

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Annee

So, nothing of substance, just a review about who was there first, huh?

At least it's nice to know that every time I see your avatar pop up, now my mind can rap, "Comin' straight outta Compton!"

I was raised in actual farmland, in the crotch of the San Joaquin Valley...now your mind can sing "On the Street of Bakersfield" when you see my avatar.

I feel like we got something accomplished, here

So, you refute what I stated?

a reply to: TrueBrit

It absolutely punishes the state taxpayers and the municipal taxpayers in areas that openly harbor illegal immigrants.

There are myriad studies that show or hint at the additional cost of things like public assistance and medical costs in places prone to illegal immigration, but I don't have the time to look up and cite them right now. Maybe I'll come back and do so.

So, no, the politicians aren't punished at the ballot box, but plenty of Californians--the people who actually matter--are punished in their bank accounts because of poor decisions by politicians.

As you can see, there are plenty of places that are "red" counties in California, the problem is that, like in many other states, the will of those people are drowned out by the high-population areas. The funny thing is, if you look at the areas that are highly affected by illegal immigration and the exploitation of these people (the San Joaquin Valley), there is mostly red running up it, starting in my home county, Kern.

a reply to: Annee

Refute what? That California used to be Mexican territory.

Yeah, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

I grew up in the central valley, which is home to the vast majority of the state's farmland. The counties running up that valley up through the Stockton area all are majority conservative in their voting habits. I fully understand the impact and population of long-established Hispanic residents, and honestly, many of them are conservatives, and many of them are against illegal immigration.

I don't even need to address your silly racial profiling comment, because that has nothing to do with what I said--I in no way discussed how illegals are found or discovered.

So, again, I ask you: Refute what? Nothing you said had much, if anything, to do with my comment to which you replied.

a reply to: FredT

His style is to make empty threats in the hopes he can get others to come back around to his way of doing things. It's the way he tried to negotiate as a real estate investor and while it might work in some real estate deals, it's a bad way of governing.

It's under the Department of Homeland Security. Acting Director Homan would probably go along with it, since he's Trump's appointee and has spoken against sanctuary cities. It's hard to say what Nielsen will do as director of DHS.

The judicial branch may step in to block it. Congress may also block it on the grounds that playing favoritism and punishing states is a very bad policy.

originally posted by: Enderdog

originally posted by: Gothmog
Trump ploy. Get the enemy to relax...
Then , "the hammer falls"

President the Donald, is a poker player. In chess, one tries to anticipate the opponent moves, while also trying to entrap them. In poker, one uses various methods...including bluffing....to affect the decisions of the other players. Getting them to fold at the most advantageous times is just about as important as getting them to go all in, when your cards are strong. Both involve constant pressure to keep the opponents unsure of themselves. Great poker players know, that winning every hand they possibly can, is a foolish long term strategy, because then it all relies on just the fall of the cards.

Government isn't poker... it's a tit-for-tat game (aka "multiple move Prisoners' Dilemma.")

He's picked the wrong strategy. Government by bluffing is a terrible idea, because you have nothing to fall back on when your bluff is called. Then you look weak and unprepared.

Heck, it doesn't even work in parenting. We all have seen that mom who screams threats constantly and bargains with the kids and is ignored completely by her kids.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
I get his desire to punish California, and it certainly deserves it, but he does forget that there are areas of the state who voted for him and are relatively deep red who deserve that law enforcement, even if the state and some local governments act like jackasses.

Thankfully those red area are int he minority and ironically need immigration to make the agriculture work.

SO lets say for a minute what we are doing is illegal which based on courts haven't really been determined you would have thought that someone like Sessions and Trump who have a hard on for Immigrants would have a case before a Federal Court by now.

If your saying the state does not deserve Federal aid and it should all be pulled out then the state should STOP paying federal taxes of which it gets back less than it gives. I'm game. based on population and GDP, its a viable solution IMHO.

Its interesting thought some have bought into his rhetoric that immigrants are illegals and if you hear him tell it the responsibility for MS-13 solely lies on our lax immigration policies. Yet shockingly enough in addition to California they seem to be flourishing in Deep RED states. With a trumpesq immigration support

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: FredT

His style is to make empty threats in the hopes he can get others to come back around to his way of doing things. It's the way he tried to negotiate as a real estate investor and while it might work in some real estate deals, it's a bad way of governing.

I hear you but I'm past the stage where I can just let his stupid act pass and sometimes it sticks. I also am reluctant to have my fate int he hands of Paul Ryan et al.