'Calexit' organizers can now start collecting signatures to get California secession on the ballot

[Angra Mainyu]

Succession from the union has been illegal since the end of the civil war. Granted, the idea that succession can be 'illegal' when the succeeding power doesn't recognize your authority is pretty laughable.

It's not illegal if we approve it.

And I do.

That depends on the "we". If you (i.e., dismal) approves it, but there is no constitutional amendment, it's still not constitutional. Realistically, I don't expect a majority of Californian voters to support Calexit, but in any event, it would be very unlikely that such an amendment would be passed.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Only applies if they recognize the authority of the US Supreme Court over their actions which, as a secessionist movement, they have no reason to do. Also, that seems like about the most hypocritical ruling I've ever heard and it should be mocked, not respected.

It is actually a pretty silly decision. The gist of it was the Articles of Confederation specifically held a perpetuity clause and (though such was conspicuously omitted from the Constitution) the "more perfect union" reference in the preamble meant this was double-plus in effect.

But you said "It's not illegal if we approve it."; whose approval do you think would be needed for secession not to be illegal? (i.e., who is the "we").

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The whole sanctuary city issue is ridiculous. Why should US cities be allowed to harbor illegals?

As I understand it, the argument is that cities (and counties, states, etc.) have no obligation to take part in the enforcement of immigration laws, which are federal laws. So, they may choose not to cooperate (though think in the cases of counties and cities, that might not be legal if the governor and/or perhaps legislature decides to cooperate; I think that would depend on the state constitution).

 

[Derec]

As I understand it, the argument is that cities (and counties, states, etc.) have no obligation to take part in the enforcement of immigration laws, which are federal laws.

Why not? If federal LEOs were to ask local LEOs to hold a suspect in a different federal case, they'd oblige. Why should immigration cases be an exception?

So, they may choose not to cooperate (though think in the cases of counties and cities, that might not be legal if the governor and/or perhaps legislature decides to cooperate; I think that would depend on the state constitution).

They choose not to cooperate, in effect harboring illegal aliens and by that, they support illegal immigration into the US. That should be unacceptable.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why not? If federal LEOs were to ask local LEOs to hold a suspect in a different federal case, they'd oblige. Why should immigration cases be an exception?

Generally, they'd oblige. I'm not sure whether there are other exceptions. For example, in a case involving pot in a state that legalized it (e.g., Colorado), would they oblige? (okay, arguably that's not a federal case if it involves no interstate trading, so that raises other issues).
But in any case, the issue is not whether they'd oblige, but whether they have an obligation to do so, under the US Constitution. If not, then states (or cities or counties, I think depending on the state constitution) may choose when to cooperate, and when not to.

They choose not to cooperate, in effect harboring illegal aliens and by that, they support illegal immigration into the US. That should be unacceptable.

Are you making a moral claim, or a legal claim?
I was talking about the law, broadly speaking (including the constitution).

 

[Elixir]

Look at the bright side, Derec - you can go rape all the illegal women in those cities. What a deal! All the nookie you ever wished for and you don't have to pay for any of it!

 

[dismal]

It is actually a pretty silly decision. The gist of it was the Articles of Confederation specifically held a perpetuity clause and (though such was conspicuously omitted from the Constitution) the "more perfect union" reference in the preamble meant this was double-plus in effect.

But you said "It's not illegal if we approve it."; whose approval do you think would be needed for secession not to be illegal? (i.e., who is the "we").

The most rational way to look at this would be it would take the same process it took to admit a state. Which i think is just an act of congress signed into law by the president.

 

[credoconsolans]

It was illegal and resulted in a rebellion. Warfare.

Not a petition.

And then a century later, Canada asked nicely and parted ways over a cup of tea. There is nothing about a country splitting up that needs to lead to warfare.

Compare California, one of the largest economies in the WORLD all contained in one state, to Canada and I think you can see why one would be let go without a fuss, but not the other.

 

[Derec]

Look at the bright side, Derec - you can go rape all the illegal women in those cities. What a deal! All the nookie you ever wished for and you don't have to pay for any of it!

What the fuck? I have no desire to rape anybody.

 

[Derec]

Generally, they'd oblige. I'm not sure whether there are other exceptions. For example, in a case involving pot in a state that legalized it (e.g., Colorado), would they oblige? (okay, arguably that's not a federal case if it involves no interstate trading, so that raises other issues).
But in any case, the issue is not whether they'd oblige, but whether they have an obligation to do so, under the US Constitution. If not, then states (or cities or counties, I think depending on the state constitution) may choose when to cooperate, and when not to.

But states like California do not have laws that have legalized illegal immigration so there is no conflict between state and federal law. And thus, local LEOs should accommodate requests by feds for immigration holds.

Are you making a moral claim, or a legal claim?
I was talking about the law, broadly speaking (including the constitution).

Primarily a moral/philosophical claim. We can't have a country without controlling our borders and immigration.
The legal issues are murky at best, especially since different justices can interpret the constitution in diametrically opposing ways on many issues.

 

[Elixir]

Look at the bright side, Derec - you can go rape all the illegal women in those cities. What a deal! All the nookie you ever wished for and you don't have to pay for any of it!

What the fuck? I have no desire to rape anybody.

Well, that's a relief. Never would have guessed. What used to be "American Values" can just take a hike then. Fuck those cities trying to take us back to the post-1776 era!

 

[TV and credit cards]

But states like California do not have laws that have legalized illegal immigration so there is no conflict between state and federal law. And thus, local LEOs should accommodate requests by feds for immigration holds.

Are you making a moral claim, or a legal claim?
I was talking about the law, broadly speaking (including the constitution).

Primarily a moral/philosophical claim. We can't have a country without controlling our borders and immigration.
The legal issues are murky at best, especially since different justices can interpret the constitution in diametrically opposing ways on many issues.

The entry and removal of aliens is solely the responsibility of the federal government. They make and enforce the laws. States and cities are under no obligation to spend their resources enforcing federal law.

 

[Derec]

What used to be "American Values" can just take a hike then.

Illegal immigration is not an "American value".

 

[Derec]

The entry and removal of aliens is solely the responsibility of the federal government. They make and enforce the laws. States and cities are under no obligation to spend their resources enforcing federal law.

When they have an illegal in custory they should honor immigration holds that the feds request. That is not an onerous request and the only reason sanctuary cities refuse is their pro-illegal ideology. And sometimes people die because of their pig-headedness, for example Kate Steinle, who was murdered by an illegal Mexican whom San Francisco refused to hold for immigration.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The entry and removal of aliens is solely the responsibility of the federal government. They make and enforce the laws. States and cities are under no obligation to spend their resources enforcing federal law.

When they have an illegal in custory they should honor immigration holds that the feds request. That is not an onerous request and the only reason sanctuary cities refuse is their pro-illegal ideology. And sometimes people die because of their pig-headedness, for example Kate Steinle, who was murdered by an illegal Mexican whom San Francisco refused to hold for immigration.

No. Federal courts have ruled it is not probable cause to detain a person. We must respect this. And yes, sometimes the worse happens. There are bad people from every walk of life. We can pull an incident to support any issue we want but that's no excuse to disrespect the Constitution.

 

[Derec]

No. Federal courts have ruled it is not probable cause to detain a person. We must respect this. And yes, sometimes the worse happens. There are bad people from every walk of life. We can pull an incident to support any issue we want but that's no excuse to disrespect the Constitution.

Judges can make mistakes. Where in the constitution does it say that law enforcement should not hold illegals for immigration authorities?

 

[laughing dog]

No. Federal courts have ruled it is not probable cause to detain a person. We must respect this. And yes, sometimes the worse happens. There are bad people from every walk of life. We can pull an incident to support any issue we want but that's no excuse to disrespect the Constitution.

Judges can make mistakes. Where in the constitution does it say that law enforcement should not hold illegals for immigration authorities?

The US constitution delineates the powers and responsibilities of the federal government from the states. It is up to you to show that the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to require state and local officials to ascertain the immigration status of suspected criminals and hold them for the federal government.

 

[whichphilosophy]

But states like California do not have laws that have legalized illegal immigration so there is no conflict between state and federal law. And thus, local LEOs should accommodate requests by feds for immigration holds.


Primarily a moral/philosophical claim. We can't have a country without controlling our borders and immigration.
The legal issues are murky at best, especially since different justices can interpret the constitution in diametrically opposing ways on many issues.

The entry and removal of aliens is solely the responsibility of the federal government. They make and enforce the laws. States and cities are under no obligation to spend their resources enforcing federal law.

T

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-daunt/state-vs-federal-law-who-_b_4676579.html
If a state law gives people more rights than a federal law, the state law is legally supposed to prevail. This means state law will always supersede federal law when the person in question stands to gain more from the state law, right?

Wrong. The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what’s known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. Basically, if a federal and state law contradict, then when you’re in the state you can follow the state law, but the feds can decide to stop you. When there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, it is the federal law that prevails. For example, if a federal regulation prohibits the use of medical marijuana, but a state regulation allows it, the federal law prevails.

 

[laughing dog]

The entry and removal of aliens is solely the responsibility of the federal government. They make and enforce the laws. States and cities are under no obligation to spend their resources enforcing federal law.

T

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lesley-daunt/state-vs-federal-law-who-_b_4676579.html
If a state law gives people more rights than a federal law, the state law is legally supposed to prevail. This means state law will always supersede federal law when the person in question stands to gain more from the state law, right?

Wrong. The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what’s known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. Basically, if a federal and state law contradict, then when you’re in the state you can follow the state law, but the feds can decide to stop you. When there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, it is the federal law that prevails. For example, if a federal regulation prohibits the use of medical marijuana, but a state regulation allows it, the federal law prevails.

How do you think rebuts the claim that States and cities are under no obligation to spend their resources enforcing federal law. ?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The most rational way to look at this would be it would take the same process it took to admit a state. Which i think is just an act of congress signed into law by the president.

Plus the agreement of the state in question?

If so, perhaps, though I'm not sure the SCOTUS would agree. Still, the consent of California appears very unlikely. Moreover, even if it happened, I think it's very unlikely that Congress would agree. I have no clue whether Trump would.