When state laws conflict with federal law, taking the dispute to court is the right thing to do.
Iâm not overly surprised that it took Sessions this long to do it. Heâs been ⌠distracted.
Big fucking deal . . .
Screw that Bigot Beauregard.
.
.
======
~OGD~
The Republican Dixiecrat Party must have totally forgot it was an unwavering champion of Statesâ Rights, and believes that everything, from Abortion, Marriage Equality, Environmental issues, Voting Rights, to Individual State Immigration Laws, should be left to the sacred right of the States to govern themselves. .Remember when the GOP FOX propaganda machine accused President Obama of egregious dictatorial overreach of his Executive Powers, precisely on Immigration?
And here you see the reason Sessions puts up with so much humiliating shit from Trump. Sessions wouldnât give up a position allowing him to act out all his racist fantasies for anything.
Only for the âWar of Northern AggressionââŚ
Methinks the GOP is about to learn what the 10th Amendment actually entailsâŚ
YesâŚ
I had knowledge of that the day it was issued.
She is correct:
âIt is Oaklandâs legal right to be a sanctuary city and we have not broken any laws.â
And the administrationâs AGâs political ICE dog and pony show, along with the Cheetohâs upcoming scheduled border wall show and reported attendance at the Republican National Committee fundraiser in Los Angeles during his visit in mid-March is designed to ramp up the Calif. GOP for the mid-termsâŚ
https://twitter.com/CAGOP/status/971176788553445376
======
~OGD~
This is just a tad disingenuous. The Arizona law was overturned, not because it opposed federal immigration law, but because it tried to usurp it. Basically, the court ruled that it was the federal governmentâs job to create and enforce immigration law and not the Statesâ.
In the other direction, the Courts have regularly held that state and local law enforcement has no obligation to enforce federal law and, further, that the federal government cannot compel states to enforce federal by withholding federal funds. This was the basis on which the compulsory Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act was thrown out by the Supreme Court, making the expansion voluntary for the individual states.
State and local law enforcement do not have to enforce federal laws or assist federal law enforcement officers, but they cannot interfere with federal law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties because thatâs a federal crime. Local law enforcement often, perhaps even usually, cooperate with federal law enforcement, but they are not obligated to.
Whether a State law that prohibits local law enforcement from cooperating with or assisting federal law enforcement offices will pass constitutional muster will be an interesting test, but I suspect it will.
If only California had given its electoral votes to PuPPet and not allowed 3 million illegals to vote for HRC, we wouldnât be in this position.
The Bigot Beauregard and his bullshitâŚ
Blowing smoke up Californiaâs law enforcementâs assesâŚ
Also for: @thunderclapnewman
https://i.imgur.com/LqBkEMH.png
Jeff Sessionsâ misleading claim: California bans police cooperation with ICE
Experts on immigration told us Sessionsâ statement includes some truth, but exaggerates the limits on local law enforcement.
Police and sheriffâs officials are prohibited from cooperating with ICE agents in cases where undocumented immigrants are in jail for minor crimes â unless they are presented with a federal warrant or criminal removal order.
âWhat the attorney general did is leave out important qualifying language,â said Kevin R. Johnson, dean of the UC Davis Law School. âItâs not as if state and local law enforcement never have to cooperate with ICE.â
Senate Bill 54, often referred to as Californiaâs sanctuary state law, says, in part, California law enforcement agencies shall not âtransfer an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination.â
Notably, local law enforcement can cooperate with ICE when undocumented immigrants are convicted of about 800 serious misdemeanors and felonies, said Louis DeSipio, a political science professor at UC Irvine who studies immigration.
âsnipâ
âSessions is wrongâ
One expert took an even stronger stance:
âSessions is wrong,â said Bill Ong Hing, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law and its director the universityâs Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic. âUnder Senate Bill 54, communication between ICE and state and local law enforcement agencies allows passing on information about inmates who have previously been deported for a violent felony, or are serving time on a misdemeanor or felony and have a prior serious or violent felony conviction.â
Gov. Jerry Brown said at a news conference following Sessionsâ speech that he is still willing to cooperate with the U.S. attorney general on immigration enforcement targeted at criminals. Thatâs possible, the governor added, because of the limitations he demanded on SB 54.
When we asked for evidence supporting Sessionsâ claim, a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department cited in an email three âreal examples of declined detainer requests and the release of criminal aliens back onto the streets of California since the implementation of SB 54.â
They include three separate cases of undocumented immigrants arrested in California for a range of alleged crimes, from sexual abuse of a minor to vehicle theft to felony drug possession.
Our ruling
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions claimed California prevents local law enforcement from communicating with and transferring prisoners to federal immigration agents.
There are limits on cooperation under Californiaâs SB 54. Local law enforcement are prohibited from working with immigration agents in cases where undocumented immigrants are charged with minor crimes, unless they are presented with a federal warrant. Notably, the law does not limit cooperation in cases involving 800 serious misdemeanor and felony crimes.
Sessionsâ statement has an element of truth, but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
We rate it Mostly False.
MOSTLY FALSE â The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
======
~OGD~