Originally Posted by wdmso
So, getting back to the topic of this thread, do you approve of California becoming a sanctuary State? Thats for the voters of California to decide I dont see immigration legal or illegal a threat to the USA
That's an interesting and honest answer.
Your answer implies that the States should have the power to decide who resides in their territory. If so, how is it that the Federal Government can override the objection of a State when that State does not want to accept refugees that the Federal Government wants to put there?
And your answer contradicts the Constitution's express grant of the power to accept, or not, any alien who wants to come into this country solely to the Federal Government. American University law professor Stephen I. Vladeck put it this way: "Legally, states have no authority to do anything [to block the Federal Government from placing refugees in a State's territory] because the question of who should be allowed in this country is one that the Constitution commits to the federal government."
If you feel the States have that power, how far do you want to go with the State's having the power to reject any Executive Order or Federal regulation, or constitutional limitation? And it would be interesting to hear if you think the States have the power to decide the definition of marriage. Or whether Christian bakers and photographers have the right to refuse to participate in gay weddings? Or to decide whether abortion is legal. (Which, per the Constitution they actually do, but Judges who like to loosely interpret it, which you said you think is proper, decided states don't have that right or power.)
And if you approve of illegal immigration ("approve of" was the verbal clause of my question) that implies that you approve of open or no borders. If we have no borders, what is the limit to what we call the United States? What would even be the definition of "United States"?
Do you think that either the States, or any of the branches of the Federal Government, overriding the Constitution is "a threat to the USA"? And do you think that judges should be able to loosely, rather than strictly, "interpret" the Constitution so that, in their personal pursuit of social justice, they can decide what they think a "threat" is and which State or branch of government is allowed to disregard the Constitution and replace it with its own law?
If you answer yes to open borders and to loose (open) constitutional interpretation, then you don't believe in a defined country or a defined law (or defined system of law).
And if you answer yes, that probably explains many of your responses.
Or, maybe you're just confused.
Do you approve of almost all the illegal aliens in California having fraudulent, illegal, identification? Are they issued by the state ? Fake papers are a surprise?? is this new That’s what you need to survive, to work... I guess Trump wants it to be a deportable offense ok pass a law
The California Senate President Pro Tempore said "almost entirely everybody [illegal aliens] has secured some sort of false identification." And the article listed the types of fraudulent identifications received by lying, in order to receive permanent residency cards, were Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses under false pretenses – all felonies. And these were used to get falsified work applications.
That's already a deportable offense. It's not new, and it isn't a surprise. No further law needs to be passed.
Do you approve of California corporations and banks "fleecing" California to the tune of a 2.488 GDP? why would my postilion be different on their fleecing Do you have any comments about those things
ok
|