Calif AG: We Will Prosecute Employers Who Cooperate with Fed Immigration

[S.J.]

Good for Becerra - Keep your big gub-ment mitts out of state issues!

All of a sudden you're against 'big gub-ment'? Didn't mind it when Obamacare was being forced down our throats, did ya?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no constitutional crisis. If the antagonists interfere with federal enforcement, charge them, pick them up and remove them from the scene.

There is still one I think because if California passed a law making cooperating with the feds illegal, even if the feds have a warrant or order, you now have a person being criminally liable no matter what they do. Until it is resolved it is a crisis.

This issue should be resolved at the federal borders by the federal government, not State interiors.

That horse already left the barn for the people we are talking about.

That doesn't solve the whole problem. It should not be federal policy to create problems and then have to, "throw money at them", for the benefit of capitalists.

We have a Commerce Clause. Tourism is a form of Commerce. Not everyone wants to immigrate and become naturalized.

A police state is merely the wrong economic model since it does not conform to our Commerce Clause.

Some guy picking strawberries or busing tables is not a tourist.

why not? some people merely need to work for awhile and wait for a good exchange rate.

 

[martybegan]

There is still one I think because if California passed a law making cooperating with the feds illegal, even if the feds have a warrant or order, you now have a person being criminally liable no matter what they do. Until it is resolved it is a crisis.

This issue should be resolved at the federal borders by the federal government, not State interiors.

That horse already left the barn for the people we are talking about.

That doesn't solve the whole problem. It should not be federal policy to create problems and then have to, "throw money at them", for the benefit of capitalists.

We have a Commerce Clause. Tourism is a form of Commerce. Not everyone wants to immigrate and become naturalized.

A police state is merely the wrong economic model since it does not conform to our Commerce Clause.

Some guy picking strawberries or busing tables is not a tourist.

why not? some people merely need to work for awhile and wait for a good exchange rate.

Um, no. when you come on a tourist visa, you come on a tourist visa.

If you cross the border illegally, you cross the border illegally.

Either you are stupid, a troll, or both.

 

[DrLove]

Good for Becerra - Keep your big gub-ment mitts out of state issues!

All of a sudden you're against 'big gub-ment'? Didn't mind it when Obamacare was being forced down our throats, did ya?

States had a right to opt out of Medicaid expansion.
The stupid ones (like mine) did just that!

 

[saveliberty]

I wonder how California's AG will do in federal prison?

 

[danielpalos]

This issue should be resolved at the federal borders by the federal government, not State interiors.

That horse already left the barn for the people we are talking about.

That doesn't solve the whole problem. It should not be federal policy to create problems and then have to, "throw money at them", for the benefit of capitalists.

We have a Commerce Clause. Tourism is a form of Commerce. Not everyone wants to immigrate and become naturalized.

A police state is merely the wrong economic model since it does not conform to our Commerce Clause.

Some guy picking strawberries or busing tables is not a tourist.

why not? some people merely need to work for awhile and wait for a good exchange rate.

Um, no. when you come on a tourist visa, you come on a tourist visa.

If you cross the border illegally, you cross the border illegally.

Either you are stupid, a troll, or both.

how easy is it to get a tourist visa? we should have no illegals and no foreigners without a federal ID.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In a better day torches and pitchforks would be in use in Sacramento.

‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

I would ask the reader to read the link supplied by Wm2020, something his bias and bigotry prevented from understanding, i.e. the legality and rights of the several states. NOTHING in the AG/s Statement violates Federal Law, it only serves notice that they confirm and comply to the Bill of Rights.

"The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role."
- The American View

See: The American view - Google Search

"The American View" of government is that there is a God, the God of the Bible, our rights come from Him, and the purpose of civil government is to secure our rights. There are many views of government, from equally numerous world views. Americans are blessed that our Founders' ...


We are a nation of laws, the First Amendment states,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
​

This expresses the AMERICAN VIEW for those who have taken this oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"
​

Clearly those who put the bible before COTUS have not taken this oath, nor have their supported the rule of law which protects each element in the First Amendment.

​

 

[martybegan]

That horse already left the barn for the people we are talking about.

That doesn't solve the whole problem. It should not be federal policy to create problems and then have to, "throw money at them", for the benefit of capitalists.

We have a Commerce Clause. Tourism is a form of Commerce. Not everyone wants to immigrate and become naturalized.

A police state is merely the wrong economic model since it does not conform to our Commerce Clause.

Some guy picking strawberries or busing tables is not a tourist.

why not? some people merely need to work for awhile and wait for a good exchange rate.

Um, no. when you come on a tourist visa, you come on a tourist visa.

If you cross the border illegally, you cross the border illegally.

Either you are stupid, a troll, or both.

how easy is it to get a tourist visa? we should have no illegals and no foreigners without a federal ID.

How much of our illegal immigration is due to overstayed tourist visa's?

Remember in these cases the people are not "undocumented", they just have out of date or wrong documents. They usually can be tracked far easier than someone who came here with no paperwork.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

American Citizens have a very legitimate concern about the out of control illegal immigration problem.
We are worried that if we fill America with third world people that our nation will become a third world country.
The Corrupt Democrat Politicians, Pundits, Entertainers and Newsmen only care about their money and power, they don’t care about the American people.

 

[martybegan]

In a better day torches and pitchforks would be in use in Sacramento.

‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

I would ask the reader to read the link supplied by Wm2020, something his bias and bigotry prevented from understanding, i.e. the legality and rights of the several states. NOTHING in the AG/s Statement violates Federal Law, it only serves notice that they confirm and comply to the Bill of Rights.

"The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role."
- The American View

See: The American view - Google Search

"The American View" of government is that there is a God, the God of the Bible, our rights come from Him, and the purpose of civil government is to secure our rights. There are many views of government, from equally numerous world views. Americans are blessed that our Founders' ...


We are a nation of laws, the First Amendment states,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
​

This expresses the AMERICAN VIEW for those who have taken this oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"
​

Clearly those who put the bible before COTUS have not taken this oath, nor have their supported the rule of law which protects each element in the First Amendment.

​

What the frack does your response have to do with what you were responding to?

 

[danielpalos]

I wonder how California's AG will do in federal prison?

Our drug war is illegal, should we take your AG to Court?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Xavier Becerra is an absolute racist bigot

 

[S.J.]

I wonder how California's AG will do in federal prison?

Our drug war is illegal, should we take your AG to Court?

You keep pushing a stupid argument. Why?

 

[jillian]

In a better day torches and pitchforks would be in use in Sacramento.

‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

let Donald pay his own people to do his dirty work. the states have no obligation to help him.

I thought you hacks love states' rights.

 

[jillian]

In a better day torches and pitchforks would be in use in Sacramento.

‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

State using its power to ensure the safety of their voter base. Just the beast protecting itself. I’m thinking I’ll vote Trump again just for the heartburn it would give California’s rulers.

illegals don't vote you brain dead loon

 

[Wry Catcher]

There is no constitutional crisis. If the antagonists interfere with federal enforcement, charge them, pick them up and remove them from the scene.

There is still one I think because if California passed a law making cooperating with the feds illegal, even if the feds have a warrant or order, you now have a person being criminally liable no matter what they do. Until it is resolved it is a crisis.

This issue should be resolved at the federal borders by the federal government, not State interiors.

Why?

because it is not a State problem. It is, a federal problem.

Indeed, and if the state government interferes with federal enforcement, the federal government has the authority to put an end to the interference.

The Federal Government includes three branches. Since the Ryan/McConnell leadership is inept, and unable to write a law to establish comprehensive legislation to resolve the issues of border security, Immigration and how they comport to what has and has not been done by the Executive, we face a Constitutional Crisis.

A careful reading of the Bill of Rights does not predict what direction the Supreme Court might take, but given the road most taken by the Robert's Court, we can expect a partisan 5-4 decision, and the dreamers will experience the nightmare that Callous Conservatism creates.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is still one I think because if California passed a law making cooperating with the feds illegal, even if the feds have a warrant or order, you now have a person being criminally liable no matter what they do. Until it is resolved it is a crisis.

This issue should be resolved at the federal borders by the federal government, not State interiors.

Why?

because it is not a State problem. It is, a federal problem.

Indeed, and if the state government interferes with federal enforcement, the federal government has the authority to put an end to the interference.

We have a Commerce Clause. You have to prove each person wanted to immigrate and not just be a tourist who can work here.

Right.

(Billy pats your head and feeds you a Milk-Bone)

 

[danielpalos]

That doesn't solve the whole problem. It should not be federal policy to create problems and then have to, "throw money at them", for the benefit of capitalists.

We have a Commerce Clause. Tourism is a form of Commerce. Not everyone wants to immigrate and become naturalized.

A police state is merely the wrong economic model since it does not conform to our Commerce Clause.

Some guy picking strawberries or busing tables is not a tourist.

why not? some people merely need to work for awhile and wait for a good exchange rate.

Um, no. when you come on a tourist visa, you come on a tourist visa.

If you cross the border illegally, you cross the border illegally.

Either you are stupid, a troll, or both.

how easy is it to get a tourist visa? we should have no illegals and no foreigners without a federal ID.

How much of our illegal immigration is due to overstayed tourist visa's?

Remember in these cases the people are not "undocumented", they just have out of date or wrong documents. They usually can be tracked far easier than someone who came here with no paperwork.

They are tourists until they actually apply for naturalization.

Fine and fee revenue is what we should be getting. We have a Commerce Clause.

 

[martybegan]

Some guy picking strawberries or busing tables is not a tourist.

why not? some people merely need to work for awhile and wait for a good exchange rate.

Um, no. when you come on a tourist visa, you come on a tourist visa.

If you cross the border illegally, you cross the border illegally.

Either you are stupid, a troll, or both.

how easy is it to get a tourist visa? we should have no illegals and no foreigners without a federal ID.

How much of our illegal immigration is due to overstayed tourist visa's?

Remember in these cases the people are not "undocumented", they just have out of date or wrong documents. They usually can be tracked far easier than someone who came here with no paperwork.

They are tourists until they actually apply for naturalization.

Fine and fee revenue is what we should be getting. We have a Commerce Clause.

That makes zero sense. up your meds.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

In a better day torches and pitchforks would be in use in Sacramento.

‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

I would ask the reader to read the link supplied by Wm2020, something his bias and bigotry prevented from understanding, i.e. the legality and rights of the several states. NOTHING in the AG/s Statement violates Federal Law, it only serves notice that they confirm and comply to the Bill of Rights.

"The word “immigration” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or any of its Amendments. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 does read, “… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. The 14th Amendment, Section 1 addresses the protection of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,…” which extended citizenship through the States to the former slaves. The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility. Congress established the Immigration Service in 1891, which was the first time the Federal government took an active role."
- The American View

See: The American view - Google Search

"The American View" of government is that there is a God, the God of the Bible, our rights come from Him, and the purpose of civil government is to secure our rights. There are many views of government, from equally numerous world views. Americans are blessed that our Founders' ...


We are a nation of laws, the First Amendment states,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
​

This expresses the AMERICAN VIEW for those who have taken this oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"
​

Clearly those who put the bible before COTUS have not taken this oath, nor have their supported the rule of law which protects each element in the First Amendment.

​

Whatever your view of the ties religion has to the Founding, the paragraph I posted is factually correct. If you wish to dispute it, post your contentions.