California Law trumps Federal Law

[*bfine32*]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-ag-we-will-prosecute-employers-who-violate-sanctuary-laws/ar-AAuSfyV?ocid=ob-tw-enus-610

Quote:California Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned employers Thursday of legal repercussions if they assist federal immigration officials in an impending crackdown in the sanctuary state, The Sacramento Bee reported.

Under a new state law – the Immigration Worker Protection Act – employers and businesses could face fines of up to $10,000 if they provide employee information to U.S. Immigration Customs, Becerra said.

If employers “start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office. We will prosecute those who violate the law,” he said at a news conference.  

So is this dude saying Violate Federal Law or we will punish you?

[SunsetBengal]

(01-19-2018, 10:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/california-ag-we-will-prosecute-employers-who-violate-sanctuary-laws/ar-AAuSfyV?ocid=ob-tw-enus-610


So is this dude saying Violate Federal Law or we will punish you?

It certainly sounds like he's thumbing his nose at Federal authority.

[Au165]

My guess is it's a setup to create a legal challenge.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

I thought that the States' Rights crowd would love this.

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2018, 10:18 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I thought that the States' Rights crowd would love this.

They most likely do; however, I am a proponent of Federal Law supersedes state law. 

[Benton]

(01-19-2018, 10:43 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: It certainly sounds like he's thumbing his nose at Federal authority.

I don't agree or disagree with the law, but I do like this part of it.

Federal authority should not be as bloated as it is. States and local governments can handle a number of issues without federal input. There's a handful of agencies where across the board policies need to be in place — education, interstate commerce, insurance — but states can better judge how to handle some issues. In this instance, one of Kentucky's largest industries is agriculture. Tourism is fairly high, too. Both rely off migrant labor. There needs to be a realistic federal policy in place to manage the number of people seeking jobs, but states should be able to regulate their own number based off industry needs.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-22-2018, 10:18 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: I thought that the States' Rights crowd would love this.

No.  Telling someone to violate federal law or you will prosecute them is not something state's rights people would champion.  

[BmorePat87]

He's gotta make a claim that the federal law is unconstitutional, otherwise he's in the wrong (legally). Supremacy clause is clear and immigration is 100% a federal issue.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(01-22-2018, 12:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No.  Telling someone to violate federal law or you will prosecute them is not something state's rights people would champion.  

They told them to not violate state law or they would prosecute them. The whole idea that states have their own laws that can, and often do, contradict federal laws sets up this exact scenario.

This played out completely differently when Kim Davis broke federal law by denying marriage licenses to same sex couples. In that situation certain people wanted Kentucky to enact a law making same sex marriage illegal.  


I think the outrage would more likely be coming from the fact that this has to do with deportation.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-22-2018, 01:35 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: They told them to not violate state law or they would prosecute them. The whole idea that states have their own laws that can, and often do, contradict federal laws sets up this exact scenario.

This played out completely differently when Kim Davis broke federal law by denying marriage licenses to same sex couples. In that situation certain people wanted Kentucky to enact a law making same sex marriage illegal.  


I think the outrage would more likely be coming from the fact that this has to do with deportation.

Well as a state's rights person  I was not behind Kim Davis.  

[*bfine32*]

(01-22-2018, 02:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well as a state's rights person  I was not behind Kim Davis.  

I really don't know of anyone with Rational thought was behind her refusing to do her job; however, this is not the same as a State saying "Not only disobey Federal Law, but if you follow it, you will be prosecuted by this office". 

Now some respected Ms Davis' right not to personally sign the licenses; however, I was on the side of do your job or step down. It's really no too hard not to be hypocritical. 

[fredtoast]

(01-22-2018, 12:13 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No.  Telling someone to violate federal law or you will prosecute them is not something state's rights people would champion.  

Yet they support people like the Bundy's who violate federal law.

So if I understand correctly they supports sates rights and they support violating federal law but they do not support the states rights to support the violation of federal law.

Is that correct?

[*michaelsean*]

(01-23-2018, 01:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yet they support people like the Bundy's who violate federal law.

So if I understand correctly they supports sates rights and they support violating federal law but they do not support the states rights to support the violation of federal law.

Is that correct?

Some people supported Bundy.  I'm more of a challenge it in court type person due to the supremacy clause. Or if need be make a law that the feds have to challenge, but not threatening people if they don't violate federal law. That's where they lose me.

[*bfine32*]

Seems even district from So. Cal. is starting to figure it out:

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Escondido-Holds-Vote-to-Join-Sanctuary-Lawsuit-Against-State-478829583.html

Quote:The Escondido City Council voted Wednesday to support a lawsuit brought on by President Donald Trump’s administration against the state of California for its so-called "sanctuary laws."

City Council voted 4-1 in favor of the lawsuit in front of a packed house, making it the first city in San Diego County to do so.

Wonder how many will follow.

[Yojimbo]

(04-05-2018, 09:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems even district from So. Cal. is starting to figure it out:

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Escondido-Holds-Vote-to-Join-Sanctuary-Lawsuit-Against-State-478829583.html


Wonder how many will follow.

Won’t matter unless SF, LA or SD do something. Those 3 cities make up more than 55% of the population in California.

[mallorian69]

(04-06-2018, 12:24 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: Won’t matter unless SF, LA or SD do something. Those 3 cities make up more than 55% of the population in California.

I thought I read somewhere that Orange County was also going be a part of it but I'm too tired to look it up.

Ok I had to know
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/trump-immigration-orange-county/index.html

[*bfine32*]

(04-06-2018, 12:24 AM)Yojimbo Wrote: Won’t matter unless SF, LA or SD do something. Those 3 cities make up more than 55% of the population in California.

The link I posted is part of San Diego. 

[mallorian69]

(04-06-2018, 12:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The link I posted is part of San Diego. 

And orange county is the 3rd largest by population in the state according to the 2010 census. 

[StLucieBengal]

(04-06-2018, 12:54 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: And orange county is the 3rd largest by population in the state according to the 2010 census. 

Pretty conservative as well I believe

[Yojimbo]

(04-06-2018, 12:35 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The link I posted is part of San Diego. 

Escondido is not part of San Diego, it’s just in San Diego County which covers the bottom third of the state. I used to live in San Diego (coastal part of the county) and commuted an hour to work in Escondido. It would be like saying Dayton is part of Cincinnati.