How can one take a stand against illegal immigration or force local politicians to?

[JoeB131]

You need to study some history and law.

You need to take your meds like the nice doctor said to.

THEY and they alone brought down the constitutionalist / patriot movement that preceded them.

Or they were just a bunch of nuts to start with.

 

[Humorme]

You need to study some history and law.

You need to take your meds like the nice doctor said to.

THEY and they alone brought down the constitutionalist / patriot movement that preceded them.

Or they were just a bunch of nuts to start with.

So, you're projecting. Having never been dependent upon any drug (legal or illegal) - not even coffee or cigarettes I might be able to offer you up some helpful advice.

So, you're saying that the anti-immigrant lobby were dumb asses from the start? I agree, but learned that from working with them. When you keep employing the same strategies over and over thinking you're going to get a different result, it makes one ...... well, I won't be mean to them.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[QUOTE="ShaklesOfBigGov, post: 19581996, member:]

When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration - none

California has no authority over citizenship. In what language do you have to be instructed?

Under our de jure / lawful / Constitution,a state has the Right to invite anyone UNDER THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WITHOUT the judicial activism of the United States Supreme Court (the very thing Trump promised to get rid of) you are legally, historically and constitutionally WRONG.[/QUOTE]

You still have not made a case against the supremacy clause. States can not enact their own immigration policy contrary to laws that are in place under the Federal Government. The purpose of the supremacy clause on this issue is to provide a uniform standard of law regarding immigration among the states. Immigration is a FEDERAL issue under FEDERAL law. The case of Arizona regarding how that state chooses to handle immigration proved that, so even under recent history you are proven wrong. The Civil War was fought on the basis of state rights, another battle on the Federal Government encroaching over the rights and interests of the individual states ... lost. This also changed what you feel is the original intent of our Founders. So, in two cases... one being handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States, historically you are wrong.


Arizona v. United States,
567 U.S. 387 (2012)
Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88 . Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218 . Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 . Pp. 7–8.



This settles the debate regarding California’s legal right as a state when they choose to oppose an immigration policy that has already been signed into law by the Federal Government.

 

[JoeB131]

So, you're projecting. Having never been dependent upon any drug (legal or illegal) - not even coffee or cigarettes I might be able to offer you up some helpful advice.

So, you're saying that the anti-immigrant lobby were dumb asses from the start? I agree, but learned that from working with them. When you keep employing the same strategies over and over thinking you're going to get a different result, it makes one ...... well, I won't be mean to them.

i'm sure you can kind of benefit from drugs.

But to the point, the anti-immigration movement is about bigotry. You didn't need to "work" with them to figure that out.

Of course, they are dumb-asses, because they want to go after the immigrants doing the jobs they don't want to do rather than the rich people who refuse to pay decent wages for them.

 

[Humorme]

[QUOTE="ShaklesOfBigGov, post: 19581996, member:]

When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration - none

California has no authority over citizenship. In what language do you have to be instructed?

Under our de jure / lawful / Constitution,a state has the Right to invite anyone UNDER THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WITHOUT the judicial activism of the United States Supreme Court (the very thing Trump promised to get rid of) you are legally, historically and constitutionally WRONG.

You still have not made a case against the supremacy clause. States can not enact their own immigration policy contrary to laws that are in place under the Federal Government. The purpose of the supremacy clause on this issue is to provide a uniform standard of law regarding immigration among the states. Immigration is a FEDERAL issue under FEDERAL law. The case of Arizona regarding how that state chooses to handle immigration proved that, so even under recent history you are proven wrong. The Civil War was fought on the basis of state rights, another battle on the Federal Government encroaching over the rights and interests of the individual states ... lost. This also changed what you feel is the original intent of our Founders. So, in two cases... one being handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States, historically you are wrong.


Arizona v. United States,
567 U.S. 387 (2012)
Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88 . Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218 . Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 . Pp. 7–8.



This settles the debate regarding California’s legal right as a state when they choose to oppose an immigration policy that has already been signed into law by the Federal Government.

humorme response
I have stated over and over and over and over that the federal Congress and only the federal Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship. What are you arguing about? Why are you quoting me as if I said anything different than that?. What seems to by your major malfunction???

I have not tried to make ANY case against Congress and their exclusive jurisdiction over immigration; I have not stated one damn time that a state can enact a single immigration provision. Do you understand English?

Naturalization = Citizenship Do you get that equation? When a person comes to a country seeking permanent residence, that is the "immigration" over which Congress has exclusive control.

OTOH, Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to tell a state who they may allow into their state to do business. One quick look back into history proves this. If it were any other way, there would have been no Chinese working on the railroad and there for sure would have been no Jews in the U.S. as the federal Constitution limited U.S. citizenship to whites and state constitutions only allowed white Christian males to vote and / or hold public office.

If this is not true, explain to us how it is that non - whites made it here and built entire communities AND a year into the ratification of the Constitution we had a statute that did EXACTLY what was required of Congress. They passed the first immigration statute. It limited federal citizenship to whites. Yet anybody here can pick up a high school history book - from any jurisdiction in America and learn about all the non-whites that came here.

You keep pretending that I made some idiotic case that states could enact their own "immigration" laws. I never have. What is possessing you to make up shit, attribute it to me and then argue against it? Is your own case that weak OR do you hate foreigners that bad?

Naturalization = Citizenship

You don't have to be a citizen in order to do business in America. Under the dejure / lawful / Republic our forefathers intended under the Constitution, NON-CITZENS are free to do business within a state. If it were any different, during the lives of the signatories of the Constitution, at least one of them would have said states cannot have state "immigration" officers to control the flow of people working in their state. Those state "immigration" officers had ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to naturalization. They had no jurisdiction at the federal level. But non-citizens came here and the states regulated them.

The only thing that is complex is the fact that immigration means a person is coming here for permanent residence. Citizenship = Naturalization. Yet the people who control the flow of non-citizens WHO WOULD WOULD ALWAYS BE NON-CITIZENS were regulated by state "immigration" officers. What you're claiming is so ridiculous that I'll give you one more analogy:

You cannot ride a bicycle down public thoroughfares because they don't have a tag and an inspection sticker on them. You would argue that since bicycles are prohibited on Interstates, city officials cannot regulate bicycles within a city. That is the sum total of your argument.

 

[Humorme]

So, you're projecting. Having never been dependent upon any drug (legal or illegal) - not even coffee or cigarettes I might be able to offer you up some helpful advice.

So, you're saying that the anti-immigrant lobby were dumb asses from the start? I agree, but learned that from working with them. When you keep employing the same strategies over and over thinking you're going to get a different result, it makes one ...... well, I won't be mean to them.

i'm sure you can kind of benefit from drugs.

But to the point, the anti-immigration movement is about bigotry. You didn't need to "work" with them to figure that out.

Of course, they are dumb-asses, because they want to go after the immigrants doing the jobs they don't want to do rather than the rich people who refuse to pay decent wages for them.

Perhaps the left fails miserable to make a point because they think drugs are the cure-all for the ills of America.

If not for the left drugging America, those people who were drugged as children at the behest of the government and then, after their mid 20s, got cut off mommy's insurance policy and could not cope would not be on illegal drugs. They might be working and there would be problem with immigration.

At least both sides are equally misguided. I will concede, however, that if Shackles is a representative example of those who have made a few, select immigration cases their religion, they will lose to potheads.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[QUOTE="ShaklesOfBigGov, post: 19581996, member:]

When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration - none

California has no authority over citizenship. In what language do you have to be instructed?

Under our de jure / lawful / Constitution,a state has the Right to invite anyone UNDER THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WITHOUT the judicial activism of the United States Supreme Court (the very thing Trump promised to get rid of) you are legally, historically and constitutionally WRONG.

You still have not made a case against the supremacy clause. States can not enact their own immigration policy contrary to laws that are in place under the Federal Government. The purpose of the supremacy clause on this issue is to provide a uniform standard of law regarding immigration among the states. Immigration is a FEDERAL issue under FEDERAL law. The case of Arizona regarding how that state chooses to handle immigration proved that, so even under recent history you are proven wrong. The Civil War was fought on the basis of state rights, another battle on the Federal Government encroaching over the rights and interests of the individual states ... lost. This also changed what you feel is the original intent of our Founders. So, in two cases... one being handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States, historically you are wrong.


Arizona v. United States,
567 U.S. 387 (2012)
Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88 . Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218 . Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 . Pp. 7–8.



This settles the debate regarding California’s legal right as a state when they choose to oppose an immigration policy that has already been signed into law by the Federal Government.

humorme response
I have stated over and over and over and over that the federal Congress and only the federal Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship. What are you arguing about? Why are you quoting me as if I said anything different than that?. What seems to by your major malfunction???

I have not tried to make ANY case against Congress and their exclusive jurisdiction over immigration; I have not stated one damn time that a state can enact a single immigration provision. Do you understand English?

Naturalization = Citizenship Do you get that equation? When a person comes to a country seeking permanent residence, that is the "immigration" over which Congress has exclusive control.

OTOH, Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to tell a state who they may allow into their state to do business. One quick look back into history proves this. If it were any other way, there would have been no Chinese working on the railroad and there for sure would have been no Jews in the U.S. as the federal Constitution limited U.S. citizenship to whites and state constitutions only allowed white Christian males to vote and / or hold public office.

If this is not true, explain to us how it is that non - whites made it here and built entire communities AND a year into the ratification of the Constitution we had a statute that did EXACTLY what was required of Congress. They passed the first immigration statute. It limited federal citizenship to whites. Yet anybody here can pick up a high school history book - from any jurisdiction in America and learn about all the non-whites that came here.

You keep pretending that I made some idiotic case that states could enact their own "immigration" laws. I never have. What is possessing you to make up shit, attribute it to me and then argue against it? Is your own case that weak OR do you hate foreigners that bad?

Naturalization = Citizenship

You don't have to be a citizen in order to do business in America. Under the dejure / lawful / Republic our forefathers intended under the Constitution, NON-CITZENS are free to do business within a state. If it were any different, during the lives of the signatories of the Constitution, at least one of them would have said states cannot have state "immigration" officers to control the flow of people working in their state. Those state "immigration" officers had ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to naturalization. They had no jurisdiction at the federal level. But non-citizens came here and the states regulated them.

The only thing that is complex is the fact that immigration means a person is coming here for permanent residence. Citizenship = Naturalization. Yet the people who control the flow of non-citizens WHO WOULD WOULD ALWAYS BE NON-CITIZENS were regulated by state "immigration" officers. What you're claiming is so ridiculous that I'll give you one more analogy:

You cannot ride a bicycle down public thoroughfares because they don't have a tag and an inspection sticker on them. You would argue that since bicycles are prohibited on Interstates, city officials cannot regulate bicycles within a city. That is the sum total of your argument.

(1) My argument has CONSISTENTLY surrounded illegal immigration, and it’s enforcement through ICE. (2) California has no authority over the Federal Government regarding immigration and enforcing Federal Immigration laws. I have clearly stated that to include the supremacy clause. (4) I have shown the ruling opinion of the United States Supreme Court backing my point. California does not have authority over Federal Immigration Law — proven, supported by SCOTUS, and history of the civil war also ending states rights over the Federal Government. Our current Federal Immigration law is also very clear who is classified as a citizen, which is PRECISELY WHY President Obama created the executive decision for DACA in the first place - to prevent deportation under current Federal Immigration Law. That process to circumvent Congress is unConstitutional. You can’t prove otherwise - save your integrity and move on

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[QUOTE="ShaklesOfBigGov, post: 19581996, member:]

When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration - none

California has no authority over citizenship. In what language do you have to be instructed?

Under our de jure / lawful / Constitution,a state has the Right to invite anyone UNDER THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WITHOUT the judicial activism of the United States Supreme Court (the very thing Trump promised to get rid of) you are legally, historically and constitutionally WRONG.

You still have not made a case against the supremacy clause. States can not enact their own immigration policy contrary to laws that are in place under the Federal Government. The purpose of the supremacy clause on this issue is to provide a uniform standard of law regarding immigration among the states. Immigration is a FEDERAL issue under FEDERAL law. The case of Arizona regarding how that state chooses to handle immigration proved that, so even under recent history you are proven wrong. The Civil War was fought on the basis of state rights, another battle on the Federal Government encroaching over the rights and interests of the individual states ... lost. This also changed what you feel is the original intent of our Founders. So, in two cases... one being handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States, historically you are wrong.


Arizona v. United States,
567 U.S. 387 (2012)
Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88 . Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218 . Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 . Pp. 7–8.



This settles the debate regarding California’s legal right as a state when they choose to oppose an immigration policy that has already been signed into law by the Federal Government.

humorme response
I have stated over and over and over and over that the federal Congress and only the federal Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship. What are you arguing about? Why are you quoting me as if I said anything different than that?. What seems to by your major malfunction???

I have not tried to make ANY case against Congress and their exclusive jurisdiction over immigration; I have not stated one damn time that a state can enact a single immigration provision. Do you understand English?

Naturalization = Citizenship Do you get that equation? When a person comes to a country seeking permanent residence, that is the "immigration" over which Congress has exclusive control.

OTOH, Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to tell a state who they may allow into their state to do business. One quick look back into history proves this. If it were any other way, there would have been no Chinese working on the railroad and there for sure would have been no Jews in the U.S. as the federal Constitution limited U.S. citizenship to whites and state constitutions only allowed white Christian males to vote and / or hold public office.

If this is not true, explain to us how it is that non - whites made it here and built entire communities AND a year into the ratification of the Constitution we had a statute that did EXACTLY what was required of Congress. They passed the first immigration statute. It limited federal citizenship to whites. Yet anybody here can pick up a high school history book - from any jurisdiction in America and learn about all the non-whites that came here.

You keep pretending that I made some idiotic case that states could enact their own "immigration" laws. I never have. What is possessing you to make up shit, attribute it to me and then argue against it? Is your own case that weak OR do you hate foreigners that bad?

Naturalization = Citizenship

You don't have to be a citizen in order to do business in America. Under the dejure / lawful / Republic our forefathers intended under the Constitution, NON-CITZENS are free to do business within a state. If it were any different, during the lives of the signatories of the Constitution, at least one of them would have said states cannot have state "immigration" officers to control the flow of people working in their state. Those state "immigration" officers had ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to naturalization. They had no jurisdiction at the federal level. But non-citizens came here and the states regulated them.

The only thing that is complex is the fact that immigration means a person is coming here for permanent residence. Citizenship = Naturalization. Yet the people who control the flow of non-citizens WHO WOULD WOULD ALWAYS BE NON-CITIZENS were regulated by state "immigration" officers. What you're claiming is so ridiculous that I'll give you one more analogy:

You cannot ride a bicycle down public thoroughfares because they don't have a tag and an inspection sticker on them. You would argue that since bicycles are prohibited on Interstates, city officials cannot regulate bicycles within a city. That is the sum total of your argument.

(1) My argument has CONSISTENTLY surrounded illegal immigration, and it’s enforcement through ICE. (2) California has no authority over the Federal Government regarding immigration and enforcing Federal Immigration laws. I have clearly stated that to include the supremacy clause. (4) I have shown the ruling opinion of the United States Supreme Court backing my point. California does not have authority over Federal Immigration Law — proven, supported by SCOTUS, and history of the civil war also ending states rights over the Federal Government. Our current Federal Immigration law is also very clear who is classified as a citizen, which is PRECISELY WHY President Obama created the executive decision for DACA in the first place - to prevent deportation under current Federal Immigration Law. That process to circumvent Congress is unConstitutional. You can’t prove otherwise. Regardless of how you feel of what you THINK California can do, SCOTUS is very clear on their interpretation of a state’s rights over the Federal Government through their ruling and view of the supremacy clause. Just save your time and effort ... move on

 

[JoeB131]

If not for the left drugging America, those people who were drugged as children at the behest of the government and then, after their mid 20s, got cut off mommy's insurance policy and could not cope would not be on illegal drugs. They might be working and there would be problem with immigration.

Um... no.

Nobody wants to do the jobs that illegals do... that's the thing.

I think that if you made every nativist bigot do a miserable job that an illegal does for one year, they'd be all for immigration reform.

 

[Humorme]

[QUOTE="ShaklesOfBigGov, post: 19581996, member:]

When it comes to immigration policy the court determined states have no rights over the Federal Government - the supremacy clause. It was proven under the Federal Government vs Arizona, when that state attempted to implement their own state immigration law and the issue is the same when California issues their own immigration laws, it has not changed. None of what you cited has anything to do with the state of California’s legal right to counter federal immigration law. Federal supremacy has not changed no matter how any state chooses to handle immigration over the federal government.

California has no legal basis to implement their own laws surrounding immigration - none

California has no authority over citizenship. In what language do you have to be instructed?

Under our de jure / lawful / Constitution,a state has the Right to invite anyone UNDER THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WITHOUT the judicial activism of the United States Supreme Court (the very thing Trump promised to get rid of) you are legally, historically and constitutionally WRONG.

You still have not made a case against the supremacy clause. States can not enact their own immigration policy contrary to laws that are in place under the Federal Government. The purpose of the supremacy clause on this issue is to provide a uniform standard of law regarding immigration among the states. Immigration is a FEDERAL issue under FEDERAL law. The case of Arizona regarding how that state chooses to handle immigration proved that, so even under recent history you are proven wrong. The Civil War was fought on the basis of state rights, another battle on the Federal Government encroaching over the rights and interests of the individual states ... lost. This also changed what you feel is the original intent of our Founders. So, in two cases... one being handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States, historically you are wrong.


Arizona v. United States,
567 U.S. 387 (2012)
Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88 . Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218 . Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 . Pp. 7–8.



This settles the debate regarding California’s legal right as a state when they choose to oppose an immigration policy that has already been signed into law by the Federal Government.

humorme response
I have stated over and over and over and over that the federal Congress and only the federal Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship. What are you arguing about? Why are you quoting me as if I said anything different than that?. What seems to by your major malfunction???

I have not tried to make ANY case against Congress and their exclusive jurisdiction over immigration; I have not stated one damn time that a state can enact a single immigration provision. Do you understand English?

Naturalization = Citizenship Do you get that equation? When a person comes to a country seeking permanent residence, that is the "immigration" over which Congress has exclusive control.

OTOH, Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to tell a state who they may allow into their state to do business. One quick look back into history proves this. If it were any other way, there would have been no Chinese working on the railroad and there for sure would have been no Jews in the U.S. as the federal Constitution limited U.S. citizenship to whites and state constitutions only allowed white Christian males to vote and / or hold public office.

If this is not true, explain to us how it is that non - whites made it here and built entire communities AND a year into the ratification of the Constitution we had a statute that did EXACTLY what was required of Congress. They passed the first immigration statute. It limited federal citizenship to whites. Yet anybody here can pick up a high school history book - from any jurisdiction in America and learn about all the non-whites that came here.

You keep pretending that I made some idiotic case that states could enact their own "immigration" laws. I never have. What is possessing you to make up shit, attribute it to me and then argue against it? Is your own case that weak OR do you hate foreigners that bad?

Naturalization = Citizenship

You don't have to be a citizen in order to do business in America. Under the dejure / lawful / Republic our forefathers intended under the Constitution, NON-CITZENS are free to do business within a state. If it were any different, during the lives of the signatories of the Constitution, at least one of them would have said states cannot have state "immigration" officers to control the flow of people working in their state. Those state "immigration" officers had ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to naturalization. They had no jurisdiction at the federal level. But non-citizens came here and the states regulated them.

The only thing that is complex is the fact that immigration means a person is coming here for permanent residence. Citizenship = Naturalization. Yet the people who control the flow of non-citizens WHO WOULD WOULD ALWAYS BE NON-CITIZENS were regulated by state "immigration" officers. What you're claiming is so ridiculous that I'll give you one more analogy:

You cannot ride a bicycle down public thoroughfares because they don't have a tag and an inspection sticker on them. You would argue that since bicycles are prohibited on Interstates, city officials cannot regulate bicycles within a city. That is the sum total of your argument.

(1) My argument has CONSISTENTLY surrounded illegal immigration, and it’s enforcement through ICE. (2) California has no authority over the Federal Government regarding immigration and enforcing Federal Immigration laws. I have clearly stated that to include the supremacy clause. (4) I have shown the ruling opinion of the United States Supreme Court backing my point. California does not have authority over Federal Immigration Law — proven, supported by SCOTUS, and history of the civil war also ending states rights over the Federal Government. Our current Federal Immigration law is also very clear who is classified as a citizen, which is PRECISELY WHY President Obama created the executive decision for DACA in the first place - to prevent deportation under current Federal Immigration Law. That process to circumvent Congress is unConstitutional. You can’t prove otherwise - save your integrity and move on

Save my integrity? What are you selling?

You are destroying any credibility you thought you had - and I more than anyone on this board hate to tell someone - you are making a freaking strawman argument.

Look dude, it would take someone very stupid to believe that anywhere in this thread that I have taken any position that any state has a fucking thing to say about "immigration." The states don't have a damn thing to say about "immigration". I've put this stuff in caps, made the letters bigger. And if you want to argue a strawman argument, then dude all you've told the people on this thread is that you're not smart enough to string enough words together to make a coherent argument in English.

 

[Humorme]

If not for the left drugging America, those people who were drugged as children at the behest of the government and then, after their mid 20s, got cut off mommy's insurance policy and could not cope would not be on illegal drugs. They might be working and there would be problem with immigration.

Um... no.

Nobody wants to do the jobs that illegals do... that's the thing.

I think that if you made every nativist bigot do a miserable job that an illegal does for one year, they'd be all for immigration reform.

Yeah, but the dolts that have made a religion out of select immigration laws they don't understand will continue to make bogus arguments - even trying to argue against things that only THEY see as being an argument.

The day I find one that has an IQ higher than their shoe size, I'm going to lie flat of my back, raise my legs, lift my head up, and kiss my ass. I'm going to make a video of it and post it on YouTube... which means that isn't going to happen.

They cannot understand that Naturalization = citizenship. The feds have NO authority under the Constitution to tell a state who may come and go as a guest. The limits of Congress applies to citizens (more specifically those wanting to live here permanently) - NOT non - citizens who are engaged in lawful pursuits. Who gives a rat's ass?

The anti-immigrant lobby wants to force everyone who washes up on our shores to become citizens. Then within the next generation (20 to 25 years) the anti-immigrant lobby will be terribly outnumbered and voted out of office and then voted into oblivion. All I see from them is a commitment to their own demise. I just don't like being forced to march into Hell with them.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

If not for the left drugging America, those people who were drugged as children at the behest of the government and then, after their mid 20s, got cut off mommy's insurance policy and could not cope would not be on illegal drugs. They might be working and there would be problem with immigration.

Um... no.

Nobody wants to do the jobs that illegals do... that's the thing.

I think that if you made every nativist bigot do a miserable job that an illegal does for one year, they'd be all for immigration reform.

In what trade are illegals a majority of the workforce in? I'll answer for you - NONE, not a single one.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

California has no authority over citizenship. In what language do you have to be instructed?

Under our de jure / lawful / Constitution,a state has the Right to invite anyone UNDER THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

WITHOUT the judicial activism of the United States Supreme Court (the very thing Trump promised to get rid of) you are legally, historically and constitutionally WRONG.

You still have not made a case against the supremacy clause. States can not enact their own immigration policy contrary to laws that are in place under the Federal Government. The purpose of the supremacy clause on this issue is to provide a uniform standard of law regarding immigration among the states. Immigration is a FEDERAL issue under FEDERAL law. The case of Arizona regarding how that state chooses to handle immigration proved that, so even under recent history you are proven wrong. The Civil War was fought on the basis of state rights, another battle on the Federal Government encroaching over the rights and interests of the individual states ... lost. This also changed what you feel is the original intent of our Founders. So, in two cases... one being handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States, historically you are wrong.


Arizona v. United States,
567 U.S. 387 (2012)
Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88 . Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218 . Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 . Pp. 7–8.



This settles the debate regarding California’s legal right as a state when they choose to oppose an immigration policy that has already been signed into law by the Federal Government.

humorme response
I have stated over and over and over and over that the federal Congress and only the federal Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship. What are you arguing about? Why are you quoting me as if I said anything different than that?. What seems to by your major malfunction???

I have not tried to make ANY case against Congress and their exclusive jurisdiction over immigration; I have not stated one damn time that a state can enact a single immigration provision. Do you understand English?

Naturalization = Citizenship Do you get that equation? When a person comes to a country seeking permanent residence, that is the "immigration" over which Congress has exclusive control.

OTOH, Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to tell a state who they may allow into their state to do business. One quick look back into history proves this. If it were any other way, there would have been no Chinese working on the railroad and there for sure would have been no Jews in the U.S. as the federal Constitution limited U.S. citizenship to whites and state constitutions only allowed white Christian males to vote and / or hold public office.

If this is not true, explain to us how it is that non - whites made it here and built entire communities AND a year into the ratification of the Constitution we had a statute that did EXACTLY what was required of Congress. They passed the first immigration statute. It limited federal citizenship to whites. Yet anybody here can pick up a high school history book - from any jurisdiction in America and learn about all the non-whites that came here.

You keep pretending that I made some idiotic case that states could enact their own "immigration" laws. I never have. What is possessing you to make up shit, attribute it to me and then argue against it? Is your own case that weak OR do you hate foreigners that bad?

Naturalization = Citizenship

You don't have to be a citizen in order to do business in America. Under the dejure / lawful / Republic our forefathers intended under the Constitution, NON-CITZENS are free to do business within a state. If it were any different, during the lives of the signatories of the Constitution, at least one of them would have said states cannot have state "immigration" officers to control the flow of people working in their state. Those state "immigration" officers had ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to naturalization. They had no jurisdiction at the federal level. But non-citizens came here and the states regulated them.

The only thing that is complex is the fact that immigration means a person is coming here for permanent residence. Citizenship = Naturalization. Yet the people who control the flow of non-citizens WHO WOULD WOULD ALWAYS BE NON-CITIZENS were regulated by state "immigration" officers. What you're claiming is so ridiculous that I'll give you one more analogy:

You cannot ride a bicycle down public thoroughfares because they don't have a tag and an inspection sticker on them. You would argue that since bicycles are prohibited on Interstates, city officials cannot regulate bicycles within a city. That is the sum total of your argument.

(1) My argument has CONSISTENTLY surrounded illegal immigration, and it’s enforcement through ICE. (2) California has no authority over the Federal Government regarding immigration and enforcing Federal Immigration laws. I have clearly stated that to include the supremacy clause. (4) I have shown the ruling opinion of the United States Supreme Court backing my point. California does not have authority over Federal Immigration Law — proven, supported by SCOTUS, and history of the civil war also ending states rights over the Federal Government. Our current Federal Immigration law is also very clear who is classified as a citizen, which is PRECISELY WHY President Obama created the executive decision for DACA in the first place - to prevent deportation under current Federal Immigration Law. That process to circumvent Congress is unConstitutional. You can’t prove otherwise - save your integrity and move on

Save my integrity? What are you selling?

You are destroying any credibility you thought you had - and I more than anyone on this board hate to tell someone - you are making a freaking strawman argument.

Look dude, it would take someone very stupid to believe that anywhere in this thread that I have taken any position that any state has a fucking thing to say about "immigration." The states don't have a damn thing to say about "immigration". I've put this stuff in caps, made the letters bigger. And if you want to argue a strawman argument, then dude all you've told the people on this thread is that you're not smart enough to string enough words together to make a coherent argument in English.

Give it up.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.

 

[JoeB131]

It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.

Their opinion and $5.00 will get you a grande at Starbucks.

Here's the real problem. They can't enforce the laws without local help, and local help knows that they are having a harder time in the community if the community won't work with it.

 

[Humorme]

You still have not made a case against the supremacy clause. States can not enact their own immigration policy contrary to laws that are in place under the Federal Government. The purpose of the supremacy clause on this issue is to provide a uniform standard of law regarding immigration among the states. Immigration is a FEDERAL issue under FEDERAL law. The case of Arizona regarding how that state chooses to handle immigration proved that, so even under recent history you are proven wrong. The Civil War was fought on the basis of state rights, another battle on the Federal Government encroaching over the rights and interests of the individual states ... lost. This also changed what you feel is the original intent of our Founders. So, in two cases... one being handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States, historically you are wrong.


Arizona v. United States,
567 U.S. 387 (2012)
Held:

1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1 . Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88 . Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218 . Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52 . Pp. 7–8.



This settles the debate regarding California’s legal right as a state when they choose to oppose an immigration policy that has already been signed into law by the Federal Government.

humorme response
I have stated over and over and over and over that the federal Congress and only the federal Congress has exclusive jurisdiction over citizenship. What are you arguing about? Why are you quoting me as if I said anything different than that?. What seems to by your major malfunction???

I have not tried to make ANY case against Congress and their exclusive jurisdiction over immigration; I have not stated one damn time that a state can enact a single immigration provision. Do you understand English?

Naturalization = Citizenship Do you get that equation? When a person comes to a country seeking permanent residence, that is the "immigration" over which Congress has exclusive control.

OTOH, Congress has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to tell a state who they may allow into their state to do business. One quick look back into history proves this. If it were any other way, there would have been no Chinese working on the railroad and there for sure would have been no Jews in the U.S. as the federal Constitution limited U.S. citizenship to whites and state constitutions only allowed white Christian males to vote and / or hold public office.

If this is not true, explain to us how it is that non - whites made it here and built entire communities AND a year into the ratification of the Constitution we had a statute that did EXACTLY what was required of Congress. They passed the first immigration statute. It limited federal citizenship to whites. Yet anybody here can pick up a high school history book - from any jurisdiction in America and learn about all the non-whites that came here.

You keep pretending that I made some idiotic case that states could enact their own "immigration" laws. I never have. What is possessing you to make up shit, attribute it to me and then argue against it? Is your own case that weak OR do you hate foreigners that bad?

Naturalization = Citizenship

You don't have to be a citizen in order to do business in America. Under the dejure / lawful / Republic our forefathers intended under the Constitution, NON-CITZENS are free to do business within a state. If it were any different, during the lives of the signatories of the Constitution, at least one of them would have said states cannot have state "immigration" officers to control the flow of people working in their state. Those state "immigration" officers had ZERO, ZILCH, NADA when it came to naturalization. They had no jurisdiction at the federal level. But non-citizens came here and the states regulated them.

The only thing that is complex is the fact that immigration means a person is coming here for permanent residence. Citizenship = Naturalization. Yet the people who control the flow of non-citizens WHO WOULD WOULD ALWAYS BE NON-CITIZENS were regulated by state "immigration" officers. What you're claiming is so ridiculous that I'll give you one more analogy:

You cannot ride a bicycle down public thoroughfares because they don't have a tag and an inspection sticker on them. You would argue that since bicycles are prohibited on Interstates, city officials cannot regulate bicycles within a city. That is the sum total of your argument.

(1) My argument has CONSISTENTLY surrounded illegal immigration, and it’s enforcement through ICE. (2) California has no authority over the Federal Government regarding immigration and enforcing Federal Immigration laws. I have clearly stated that to include the supremacy clause. (4) I have shown the ruling opinion of the United States Supreme Court backing my point. California does not have authority over Federal Immigration Law — proven, supported by SCOTUS, and history of the civil war also ending states rights over the Federal Government. Our current Federal Immigration law is also very clear who is classified as a citizen, which is PRECISELY WHY President Obama created the executive decision for DACA in the first place - to prevent deportation under current Federal Immigration Law. That process to circumvent Congress is unConstitutional. You can’t prove otherwise - save your integrity and move on

Save my integrity? What are you selling?

You are destroying any credibility you thought you had - and I more than anyone on this board hate to tell someone - you are making a freaking strawman argument.

Look dude, it would take someone very stupid to believe that anywhere in this thread that I have taken any position that any state has a fucking thing to say about "immigration." The states don't have a damn thing to say about "immigration". I've put this stuff in caps, made the letters bigger. And if you want to argue a strawman argument, then dude all you've told the people on this thread is that you're not smart enough to string enough words together to make a coherent argument in English.

Give it up.

“state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”
- United States Supreme Court
567 U.S. 387 (2012)

It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.

Another straw man argument. You aren't arguing with me. You're not getting anywhere with your arguments because you are not being honest nor ethical.

I've not said what you claim. And, the United States Supreme Court very recently upheld my positions very clear.

 

[Humorme]

It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.

Their opinion and $5.00 will get you a grande at Starbucks.

Here's the real problem. They can't enforce the laws without local help, and local help knows that they are having a harder time in the community if the community won't work with it.

When the Sanctuary City supporters went to court and won, they relied on a case for their precedent that I was active in supporting both with financial donations and donated legal research. Here is the applicable ruling from the United States Court:

"The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.[10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2. The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to appoint and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known. See The Federalist No. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (statement of James Wilson); see also Calabresi & Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws.
Finally, the Court applied its past jurisprudence.[6] The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6]As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional.[6]

Justices O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, alone, highlighting that the Court's holding left local Chief Law Enforcement Officers free to voluntarily comply with the federal mandate..."

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Add to that:

1) Early in this country's history, state immigration officials decided who came and went to do business - which don't have spit to do with citizenship.

2) The only thing that changed there was that the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of "immigration" to Congress

3) Passing through a state, doing business in a state, or visiting / touring is the state's prerogative no matter what any statute to the contrary says. It's simple reality. Passing through a state or being a guest there is not related to the type of "immigration" that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is referring to

4) There is NO provision for the United States Supreme Court to grant any power to any other branch of government; therefore, not only was the Court's ruling judicial activism, it is totally unenforceable. And the current ruling is the feds cannot force states to enforce federal statutory laws.

In short - the public cannot force states to do anything when the majority have declared their state to be a sanctuary. They don't have to arrest undocumented foreigners as it not a crime to be in the U.S. and the states don't have to enforce improper entry statutes in the USC. You should thank God we have a separation of powers - even when you don't feel like you benefited off it.

The ironic thing is, that guy calls himself shackles of big Government... He's calling for the ultimate POLICE STATE so hes' advocating for bigger government; I'm urging people to support a smaller government.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.

Their opinion and $5.00 will get you a grande at Starbucks.

Here's the real problem. They can't enforce the laws without local help, and local help knows that they are having a harder time in the community if the community won't work with it.

Their opinion and $5.00? Now we can say the same for Obamacare, let’s treat it the same way you all do towards illegal immigration.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

[

It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.

Their opinion and $5.00 will get you a grande at Starbucks.

Here's the real problem. They can't enforce the laws without local help, and local help knows that they are having a harder time in the community if the community won't work with it.

When the Sanctuary City supporters went to court and won, they relied on a case for their precedent that I was active in supporting both with financial donations and donated legal research. Here is the applicable ruling from the United States Court:

"The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.[10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2. The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to appoint and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known. See The Federalist No. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (statement of James Wilson); see also Calabresi & Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws.
Finally, the Court applied its past jurisprudence.[6] The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6]As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional.[6]

Justices O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, alone, highlighting that the Court's holding left local Chief Law Enforcement Officers free to voluntarily comply with the federal mandate..."

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Add to that:

1) Early in this country's history, state immigration officials decided who came and went to do business - which don't have spit to do with citizenship.

2) The only thing that changed there was that the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of "immigration" to Congress

3) Passing through a state, doing business in a state, or visiting / touring is the state's prerogative no matter what any statute to the contrary says. It's simple reality. Passing through a state or being a guest there is not related to the type of "immigration" that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is referring to

4) There is NO provision for the United States Supreme Court to grant any power to any other branch of government; therefore, not only was the Court's ruling judicial activism, it is totally unenforceable. And the current ruling is the feds cannot force states to enforce federal statutory laws.

In short - the public cannot force states to do anything when the majority have declared their state to be a sanctuary. They don't have to arrest undocumented foreigners as it not a crime to be in the U.S. and the states don't have to enforce improper entry statutes in the USC. You should thank God we have a separation of powers - even when you don't feel like you benefited off it.

The ironic thing is, that guy calls himself shackles of big Government... He's calling for the ultimate POLICE STATE so hes' advocating for bigger government; I'm urging people to support a smaller government.

We have immigrants from Europe and Asia that don’t get preferential treatment, they go through the LEGAL process because they RESPECT our nation’s laws. Equal Protection means treating ALL immigrants that come here to aquire citizenship, no matter their nation of origin the same, without preferential treatment just because they happen to be here as a result of crossing the border Illegally.

I don’t need your crying bloviated drama, because you are too thickheaded to undewrestand the view and interpretation of Supreme Courts ruling, or perhaps the fact you can’t comprehend looking at ALL immigrants that come here being treated the same in obtaining citizenship.

 

[Humorme]

[

It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.

Their opinion and $5.00 will get you a grande at Starbucks.

Here's the real problem. They can't enforce the laws without local help, and local help knows that they are having a harder time in the community if the community won't work with it.

When the Sanctuary City supporters went to court and won, they relied on a case for their precedent that I was active in supporting both with financial donations and donated legal research. Here is the applicable ruling from the United States Court:

"The Court expressed a worry that Members of Congress might take credit for "solving" a problem with policies that impose all the financial and administrative burden, as well as the blame, on local officials.[10] The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments “a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same that each will be controlled by itself.”[11] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained

We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2. The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to appoint and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known. See The Federalist No. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (statement of James Wilson); see also Calabresi & Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws.
Finally, the Court applied its past jurisprudence.[6] The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Governments argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6]As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional.[6]

Justices O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, alone, highlighting that the Court's holding left local Chief Law Enforcement Officers free to voluntarily comply with the federal mandate..."

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

Add to that:

1) Early in this country's history, state immigration officials decided who came and went to do business - which don't have spit to do with citizenship.

2) The only thing that changed there was that the United States Supreme Court granted plenary powers over all aspects of "immigration" to Congress

3) Passing through a state, doing business in a state, or visiting / touring is the state's prerogative no matter what any statute to the contrary says. It's simple reality. Passing through a state or being a guest there is not related to the type of "immigration" that Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is referring to

4) There is NO provision for the United States Supreme Court to grant any power to any other branch of government; therefore, not only was the Court's ruling judicial activism, it is totally unenforceable. And the current ruling is the feds cannot force states to enforce federal statutory laws.

In short - the public cannot force states to do anything when the majority have declared their state to be a sanctuary. They don't have to arrest undocumented foreigners as it not a crime to be in the U.S. and the states don't have to enforce improper entry statutes in the USC. You should thank God we have a separation of powers - even when you don't feel like you benefited off it.

The ironic thing is, that guy calls himself shackles of big Government... He's calling for the ultimate POLICE STATE so hes' advocating for bigger government; I'm urging people to support a smaller government.

We have immigrants from Europe and Asia that don’t get preferential treatment, they go through the LEGAL process because they RESPECT our nation’s laws. Equal Protection means treating ALL immigrants that come here to aquire citizenship, no matter their nation of origin the same, without preferential treatment just because they happen to be here as a result of crossing the border Illegally.

I don’t need your crying bloviated drama, because you are too thickheaded to undewrestand the view and interpretation of Supreme Courts ruling, or perhaps the fact you can’t comprehend looking at ALL immigrants that come here being treated the same in obtaining citizenship.

You have the unmitigated gall to call me thickheaded? Why in the Hell can you not understand that NOT EVERYBODY THAT COMES TO THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO BE OR WANTS TO BECOME A CITIZEN?

Is there some reason you don't have enough common sense to figure it out? I don't think that everybody who comes to the United States needs to become a citizen. Everybody who comes here does not want to become a citizen. There is no law on in the United States that demands a person become a citizen just because they enter the United States. How in the Hell is it that you cannot understand that?

You're in a Hell of a bad position to be criticizing me... except, as your board name states, ShacklesofBigGov, you're obsessed with human slavery and bondage.

Dude, when I was younger, I went to Mexico several times. Not one, single, solitary times did they or I think that citizenship was in the cards. How it is that we have an entire generation of people that cannot get it through their pea brains that not everybody who enters the United States does so with the intent to become a United States citizen.

You keep begging for it and and one day, everybody that enters here WILL become a citizen. Then they will outnumber people that think like you and we will all learn how to speak Spanish and you'll be as happy as a pig in slop.

 

[Humorme]

It’s in black and white and I’m sorry I can not make it any more plain and basic than this. I just can not make it any more simpler for you. Judges with a lot more law experience than you have already given their opinion on states rights when it conflicts with Federal Immigration Law. You don’t know more than these judges, and they don’t happen to agree with you. Sorry for your luck, Try another topic, maybe you’ll get somewhere.

Their opinion and $5.00 will get you a grande at Starbucks.

Here's the real problem. They can't enforce the laws without local help, and local help knows that they are having a harder time in the community if the community won't work with it.

The point I made is that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the feds cannot force state and local governments to enforce federal statutory law.

Congress only has de jure authority over naturalization. Naturalization = citizenship.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what that other guy thinks he's trying to convey. I'm referring to a class of people who do not want to become citizens. But, apparently, there is a political faction that thinks if we threaten the people who come here with forced citizenship it will make them run like a scalded dog back across the border. How asinine can you get?

I don't want everybody who comes here to become a citizen. Everybody who sets foot on U.S. soil doesn't want to become a citizen - they plan on going home at some point. The government apparently don't want everybody to become a citizen. Only this vocal minority, who think that ONLY THEIR opinion and THEIR vote counts wants to force every foreigner to become an American.