Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Precisely. The state cannot interfere with federal enforcement of federal law.
Sure. But that's not what's going on.
As for our immigration laws in general, they're very, very low on my list of priorities.
Yeah, I figured as much.
Curious... why have a unified system of government, then, when we have parts of that system actively impeding its function?
Because the whole point of Federalism is that different states have different interests.
Oh, joy.
Another "Let's kick California out" thread.
We haven't had enough of those.
You afraid of losing fed bucks?
California is a donor state. You should be worried, not Californians.
And Doc, passivity in this case is activity. In other words, sitting by and doing nothing to help ICE enforce immigration law is tantamount to willfully impeding the the government from doing its prescribed duty, to protect the citizens.
Curious... why have a unified system of government, then, when we have parts of that system actively impeding its function?
Because the whole point of Federalism is that different states have different interests.
Then why do we call ourselves a union if we don't strive to act in a unified manner?
Hmm, because if a law is just it should be allowed to be enforced. For the security and safety of the citizenry. That's the basis of my argument.As for our immigration laws in general, they're very, very low on my list of priorities.
Yeah, I figured as much.
I assume they're high on yours?
Why?
And Doc, passivity in this case is activity. In other words, sitting by and doing nothing to help ICE enforce immigration law is tantamount to willfully impeding the the government from doing its prescribed duty, to protect the citizens.
No, words don't reverse meanings because you want them to.
Hmm, because if a law is just it should be allowed to be enforced. For the security and safety of the citizenry. That's the basis of my argument.As for our immigration laws in general, they're very, very low on my list of priorities.
Yeah, I figured as much.
I assume they're high on yours?
Why?
And Doc, passivity in this case is activity. In other words, sitting by and doing nothing to help ICE enforce immigration law is tantamount to willfully impeding the the government from doing its prescribed duty, to protect the citizens.
No, words don't reverse meanings because you want them to.
Neither do our immigration laws.
I can't even wrap my head around what you're trying to argue. Usually, you guys are all about state's rights.
Hmm, because if a law is just it should be allowed to be enforced. For the security and safety of the citizenry. That's the basis of my argument.As for our immigration laws in general, they're very, very low on my list of priorities.
Yeah, I figured as much.
I assume they're high on yours?
Why?
I can't even wrap my head around what you're trying to argue. Usually, you guys are all about state's rights.
I beg your pardon?
"you guys"
??
And Doc, passivity in this case is activity. In other words, sitting by and doing nothing to help ICE enforce immigration law is tantamount to willfully impeding the the government from doing its prescribed duty, to protect the citizens.
No, words don't reverse meanings because you want them to.
Neither do our immigration laws.
I don't believe that I said they did. There's no need to be petulant.
And Doc, passivity in this case is activity. In other words, sitting by and doing nothing to help ICE enforce immigration law is tantamount to willfully impeding the the government from doing its prescribed duty, to protect the citizens.
No, words don't reverse meanings because you want them to.
Neither do our immigration laws.
I don't believe that I said they did. There's no need to be petulant.
I'm not being petulant. I am simply going off of what I'm hearing (reading). Why pass laws that won't be enforced by states and municipalities?
Whether it be healthcare or immigration, if its the law and it is a constitutional law, then you should obey that law. I am saying that while putting my personal feelings aside.
Hmm, because if a law is just it should be allowed to be enforced. For the security and safety of the citizenry. That's the basis of my argument.As for our immigration laws in general, they're very, very low on my list of priorities.
Yeah, I figured as much.
I assume they're high on yours?
Why?
Who determines if a law is "just"?
And Doc, passivity in this case is activity. In other words, sitting by and doing nothing to help ICE enforce immigration law is tantamount to willfully impeding the the government from doing its prescribed duty, to protect the citizens.
No, words don't reverse meanings because you want them to.
Neither do our immigration laws.
I don't believe that I said they did. There's no need to be petulant.
I'm not being petulant. I am simply going off of what I'm hearing (reading). Why pass laws that won't be enforced by states and municipalities?
Whether it be healthcare or immigration, if its the law and it is a constitutional law, then you should obey that law. I am saying that while putting my personal feelings aside.
Hmm, because if a law is just it should be allowed to be enforced. For the security and safety of the citizenry. That's the basis of my argument.As for our immigration laws in general, they're very, very low on my list of priorities.
Yeah, I figured as much.
I assume they're high on yours?
Why?
Who determines if a law is "just"?
Who? The Supreme Court.
I can't even wrap my head around what you're trying to argue. Usually, you guys are all about state's rights.
I beg your pardon?
"you guys"
??
Those right-of-center.
