Sanctuary States: A proposal

[TemplarKormac]

If you are a state unwilling to cooperate with Federal immigration laws, you need to withdraw from the union. It's that simple. Negotiations should begin on the release of land and property the federal government bought while you were a member of the union there, thereby letting the feds cut you loose. They should do everything short of expelling you from the Union, since expulsion requires a long drawn out constitutional process. That way you can become your own country and take in as many people from Mexico and abroad as you want without having to follow our pesky immigration laws.

In a nutshell, if you don't want to follow the laws of our land, you need to get out.

What good is it for you to benefit from the fruits of this union when you don't want to abide by the laws it sets forth?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh, joy.

Another "Let's kick California out" thread.

We haven't had enough of those.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Republicans should start writing laws , getting them passed and sending these wild state's and cities in jail

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, joy.

Another "Let's kick California out" thread.

We haven't had enough of those.

Well that's a half-assed response.

Regardless, that's the only solution is it? If you are willfully demanding that your law enforcement officials defy the government, what entitles you to be here? There's an old saying that goes something like this:

"There's the door, don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out."

Let the state secede on its own, and take back the land and property that the feds purchased while it was a member of the union.

Funny, when I was 17 and living with my dad, if I didn't obey his rules, he gave me one of two options: either I could leave on my own or be kicked out. Eventually I broke the rules one too many times and he sent me packing. He was well within his right to do so. California is well within its right to leave if it is unwilling to be cooperative with Federal immigration laws.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Actually, I wouldn't be opposed to any state leaving our corrupt federal govt.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No secessions permitted.

The Democrats tried this before. The results will be the same.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't get it... if we don't want them to secede, but we also demand that they follow the law, what options are there left in order to resolve the situation?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Just start arresting the politicians who refuse to obey the law.

Remember that iconic picture of a federal agent taking Elian Gonzalez? Imagine the same picture only with Bill Deblasio and Eric Garcetti instead of a six year old kid.

 

[Coyote]

If you are a state unwilling to cooperate with Federal immigration laws, you need to withdraw from the union. It's that simple. Negotiations should begin on the release of land and property the federal government bought while you were a member of the union there, thereby letting the feds cut you loose. They should do everything short of expelling you from the Union, since expulsion requires a long drawn out constitutional process. That way you can become your own country and take in as many people from Mexico and abroad as you want without having to follow our pesky immigration laws.

In a nutshell, if you don't want to follow the laws of our land, you need to get out.

What good is it for you to benefit from the fruits of this union when you don't want to abide by the laws it sets forth?

Would this apply to any state that is unwilling to cooperate with Federal laws?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you are a state unwilling to cooperate with Federal immigration laws, you need to withdraw from the union. It's that simple. Negotiations should begin on the release of land and property the federal government bought while you were a member of the union there, thereby letting the feds cut you loose. They should do everything short of expelling you from the Union, since expulsion requires a long drawn out constitutional process. That way you can become your own country and take in as many people from Mexico and abroad as you want without having to follow our pesky immigration laws.

In a nutshell, if you don't want to follow the laws of our land, you need to get out.

What good is it for you to benefit from the fruits of this union when you don't want to abide by the laws it sets forth?

Would this apply to any state that is unwilling to cooperate with Federal laws?

It would have to. By no means am I trying to be selective in my criticism.

 

[Coyote]

If you are a state unwilling to cooperate with Federal immigration laws, you need to withdraw from the union. It's that simple. Negotiations should begin on the release of land and property the federal government bought while you were a member of the union there, thereby letting the feds cut you loose. They should do everything short of expelling you from the Union, since expulsion requires a long drawn out constitutional process. That way you can become your own country and take in as many people from Mexico and abroad as you want without having to follow our pesky immigration laws.

In a nutshell, if you don't want to follow the laws of our land, you need to get out.

What good is it for you to benefit from the fruits of this union when you don't want to abide by the laws it sets forth?

Would this apply to any state that is unwilling to cooperate with Federal laws?

It would have to. By no means am I trying to be selective in my criticism.

Interesting article here:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/researc...federal-government-goes-back-to-us-beginnings

 

[Penelope]

Republicans should start writing laws , getting them passed and sending these wild state's and cities in jail

They can start with Tx and Florida.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh, joy.

Another "Let's kick California out" thread.

We haven't had enough of those.

We wouldn't write them if Eric holder and his stupid resistance wasnt after Trump so bad.



.

 

[Coyote]

Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming might have to secede then (looks like they took the same sort of stand as California in refusing to implement a federal law).....

Most states are tackling at least one of the ACA’s three major components: enforcing its market reforms and consumer protections, establishing a state-run insurance marketplace, and agreeing to its optional Medicaid expansion. Seven states have taken charge of all three. However, the researchers write, “[a]t the other end, five states — Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming — declined to play a role in implementing the law’s three major components. These states will not enforce the market reforms, will have a federally facilitated marketplace where the state will play no formal role, and declined to expand Medicaid.”​

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Its obvious that if

Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming might have to secede then (looks like they took the same sort of stand as California in refusing to implement a federal law).....

Most states are tackling at least one of the ACA’s three major components: enforcing its market reforms and consumer protections, establishing a state-run insurance marketplace, and agreeing to its optional Medicaid expansion. Seven states have taken charge of all three. However, the researchers write, “[a]t the other end, five states — Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming — declined to play a role in implementing the law’s three major components. These states will not enforce the market reforms, will have a federally facilitated marketplace where the state will play no formal role, and declined to expand Medicaid.”​

We can only hope that states would start seceding from our corrupt federal govt.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh, joy.

Another "Let's kick California out" thread.

We haven't had enough of those.

Well that's a half-assed response.

Regardless, that's the only solution is it? If you are willfully demanding that your law enforcement officials defy the government, what entitles you to be here? There's an old saying that goes something like this:

"There's the door, don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out."

Let the state secede on its own, and take back the land and property that the feds purchased while it was a member of the union.

Funny, when I was 17 and living with my dad, if I didn't obey his rules, he gave me one of two options: either I could leave on my own or be kicked out. Eventually I broke the rules one too many times and he sent me packing. He was well within his right to do so. California is well within its right to leave if it is unwilling to be cooperative with Federal immigration laws.

There are two distinct problems with your "solution".

To start off with, enforcing immigration laws isn't California's job, it's the Federal Government's job. California is under no obligation to assist ICE in doing their job, and isn't under any obligation to follow their orders.

This is a basic tenet of Federalism. State governments deal with state issues, and the Federal government deals with federal issues.

Secondly, all of these "kick California out" threads don't actually consider what that would actually mean.

Have you eaten any vegetables recently? They're probably grow in California. Most of the apps on your phone and computer were written in California.

California accounts for 15% of the US GDP, and about the same percentage of Federal Income Tax receipts.

What would the relationship be between the U.S. and this new country of California? I don't imagine California will be happy about being kicked out, so it'll definitely start out pretty rocky. Are you ready to pay $5-10 for a head of lettuce?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming might have to secede then (looks like they took the same sort of stand as California in refusing to implement a federal law).....

Most states are tackling at least one of the ACA’s three major components: enforcing its market reforms and consumer protections, establishing a state-run insurance marketplace, and agreeing to its optional Medicaid expansion. Seven states have taken charge of all three. However, the researchers write, “[a]t the other end, five states — Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming — declined to play a role in implementing the law’s three major components. These states will not enforce the market reforms, will have a federally facilitated marketplace where the state will play no formal role, and declined to expand Medicaid.”​

No. If they willfully impede the implementation of a federal law, then yes. But they didn't stop the Federal government from implementing the ACA by itself.

"These states will not enforce the market reforms, will have a federally facilitated marketplace where the state will play no formal role, and declined to expand Medicaid.”

Which leads me to a question, what do we do to comply with McCulloch v Maryland? It basically says that you can't make laws or issue directives that impede lawful acts of Congress. Last I checked our immigration laws were passed by Congress.

If the states cannot be forced into anything by the government, then it would seem to me that the states cannot force the government to not implement its own laws.

 

[Coyote]

Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming might have to secede then (looks like they took the same sort of stand as California in refusing to implement a federal law).....

Most states are tackling at least one of the ACA’s three major components: enforcing its market reforms and consumer protections, establishing a state-run insurance marketplace, and agreeing to its optional Medicaid expansion. Seven states have taken charge of all three. However, the researchers write, “[a]t the other end, five states — Alabama, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming — declined to play a role in implementing the law’s three major components. These states will not enforce the market reforms, will have a federally facilitated marketplace where the state will play no formal role, and declined to expand Medicaid.”​

No. If they willfully impede the implementation of a federal law, then yes. But they didn't stop the Federal government from implementing the ACA by itself.

"These states will not enforce the market reforms, will have a federally facilitated marketplace where the state will play no formal role, and declined to expand Medicaid.”

Which leads me to a questions, what do we do to comply with McCulloch v Maryland? It basically says that you can't make laws or issue directives that impede lawful acts of congress. Last I checked our immigration laws were passed by Congress.

If the states cannot be forced into anything by the government, then it would seem to me that the states cannot force the government to not implement its own laws.

But so-called sanctuary states and cities are not impeding the feds - they are simply refusing to do their job for them.

 

[TemplarKormac]

To start off with, enforcing immigration laws isn't California's job, it's the Federal Government's job. California is under no obligation to assist ICE in doing their job, and isn't under any obligation to follow their orders.

Then why are they part of the Union? The government cannot protect against enemies or threats, foreign or domestic, if we have members of this union outright prohibiting the federal government from enforcing it's immigration law.

 

[Coyote]

.

To start off with, enforcing immigration laws isn't California's job, it's the Federal Government's job. California is under no obligation to assist ICE in doing their job, and isn't under any obligation to follow their orders.

Then why are they part of the Union? The government cannot protect against enemies or threats, foreign or domestic, if we have members of this union outright prohibiting the federal government from enforcing it's immigration law.

How are they actually prohibiting enforcement?