Sanctuary Cities and Workplaces and Elected Officials Obstructing Justice

[NorseThing]

This was insider info and not public info. Or am I mistaken on how the Mayor learned of the planned raid via a curtsey information by ICE to the city officials. Do you think it needs to be marked secret to be keep off the loud speakers? Law enforcement shares information and this violates such understandings by warning those identified and probably targeted by ICE.

[Elfdude]

I mean, since when are mayors informed that a federal agency is conducting raids in their district? Furthermore there's even more question with regards to planned raid locations versus general warnings.

[Aexodus]

I mean, since when are mayors informed that a federal agency is conducting raids in their district? Furthermore there's even more question with regards to planned raid locations versus general warnings.

The director of ICE would disagree with you https://www.facebook.com/TuckerCarls...2894456712544/

[Elfdude]

Spin news is not real information. I'm not really sure why we should care about the opinion of someone who has a vested interest in one side of the debate.

The illegality is to use government resources to cooperate. California effectively is unwilling to pay directly or indirectly for the attack on a community which it considers valuable to its economy.

That's literally textbook states rights.

[Aexodus]

You've just completely ignored my source, where the Director clearly says the local authorities warned illegal aliens of raids, and forced them to do raids instead of apprehending them in prison in the first place, as California doesn't seem to be able to act like a responsible government. And governments exist to represent the citizens, not foreigners.

Address this please, frankly you're holding back the discussion.

[athanaric]

Can California please secede already? I wanna enlist in the Union army and kick some rebel ass.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Spin news is not real information. I'm not really sure why we should care about the opinion of someone who has a vested interest in one side of the debate.

The illegality is to use government resources to cooperate. California effectively is unwilling to pay directly or indirectly for the attack on a community which it considers valuable to its economy.

That's literally textbook states rights.

HAHAHAH! So now the liberals are for state's rights?

Also you're mis-stating what California is doing. California is directing it's law enforcement to not enforce laws and to 'resist' the federal government. This is a lot different than indifference in enforcing the law. Knowing several law enforcement officers myself, I have somewhat of an idea of the types of people they tend to be. I have a hard time believing CA law enforcement officials (barring those at the very top who end up being more like politicians than law enforcement officers) will actually adhere to such an order if they have enough discretion to avoid it. Because the truth of the matter is that illegal immigration and felon illegal immigrants in particular (a subset of this group that yet somehow falls under the protection of the state of California) contributes a lot to crime rates in that state. No amount of liberal sensitivity spray can change that fact.

[Elfdude]

Actually sanctuary laws prohibit state resources from being used to enforce a federal policy. Many states have these laws and most of these laws have been around since the 1970's or earlier. Actively encouraging folks to resist federal authorities would be illegal, the law does nothing of the sort.

As to whether liberals are for states rights, I think that's pretty plain. Liberals don't really care about whether an issue is state or federal but rather who is right. However it's inescapable that this is a state right as currently designed. It's more interesting to me that these folks are undeserving of state right protections.