Kamala Harris On Immigration: Sessions Wants To Roll Back The Clock, "California

  • Thread starter Thread starter MonteRCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ugh! The “racist card”. She might be a new star for the left, but she’s old hat in her political libels.
 
Sounds like Sessions made an apt comparison, and she’s unwilling to admit it. California is attempting to negate federal law. It’s the same sort of nonsense Washington and Colorado have done regarding marijuana laws…
 
We, here at CAF, should provide maps of California human poop piles … for Kamala to use as campaign literature.

“Cal-i-fornia, Here I Come!” … NOT.
 
MonteRCMS said:
We, here at CAF, should provide maps of California human poop piles … for Kamala to use as campaign literature.

“Cal-i-fornia, Here I Come!” … NOT.
Click to expand...
Isn’t Devin Nunes from California?
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
Sounds like Sessions made an apt comparison, and she’s unwilling to admit it. California is attempting to negate federal law.
Click to expand...
How is California attempting to negate Federal law? Have you read the statutes in question?
 
Last edited:
The Presidential candidate is campaigning in California.

Uhhh … it’s for the presidency of Mexico …

www.washingtonexaminer.com

In US, Mexican presidential candidate calls Trump ‘insulting, revolting’ - Washington Examiner

A leading Mexican presidential candidate has rejected paying for President Trump’s border wall and ripped the administration as “insulting and revolting.” Ricardo Anaya Cortes made his comments during a weekend trip to Los Angeles where he sided with illegal immigrants fighting the...
www.washingtonexaminer.com www.washingtonexaminer.com
 
Last edited:
Many Californian cities are refusing to enforce immigration law, thereby rending those laws effectively nullified in those areas. Prior to the civil war, southern states were similarly trying to ignore / circumvent federal laws / regulations, ultimately leading to secession.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think it said he was campaigning, just visiting. I mean, politicians are always campaigning, but I don’t think that was the specific reason for the visit.

However, it does appear that he, like most of the California liberals, is incapable of distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration.
 
Yeah, you keep saying that, yet you haven’t actually cited a single thing I’ve said that’s wrong.

I can play that game to. You’re wrong about me being wrong, and have no idea what you’re talking about.

See, that was easy. What’s not easy is actually providing evidence or arguments, which is what I’ve done in my other posts. If you’d care to do that then I’d be happy to discuss it with you, but I’m not going to keep responding to somebody simply telling me I’m wrong.
 
Last edited:
ProdglArchitect said:
Yeah, you keep saying that
Click to expand...
You have said nothing specific, just generalities. I asked if you have read the statutes. If you did, here is what you would find:

Although under litigation, the CA laws explicitly require compliance with federal law. They also forbid state and local officials and CA citizens from taking certain actions against immigrants that is not required by federal law. They also require certain types of inspections for immigration related federal facilitates located in the state.

There is no negation of federal law in the statues under litigation. There is a contention that the statutes uniquely, and somehow thus illlicitly, single out federal immigration. I suppose a remedy to that would be to have the same type of limited cooperation and inspection for all federal operations in CA.
 
Last edited:
What happened to the Republican Rebel Yell of:
States Rights, States Rights, States Rights

At least that was the war chant when it comes to other issues…
 
Last edited:
I am not speaking merely about these statutes, I am speaking about multiple Californian cities, specifically Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, which act as sanctuary cities. These cities frequently refuse to comply with or aid in investigations regarding illegal immigrants, and do not allow municipal money to go towards enforcement of immigration laws.

Given that no one will enforce the laws in those areas, they are effectively nullified. It doesn’t matter what the letter of the law says if they will not be enforced.
 
JoshuaIsLord said:
What happened to the Republican Rebel Yell of:
States Rights, States Rights, States Rights

At least that was the war chant when it comes to other issues…
Click to expand...
When the impact of those laws is limited to the state, we’re all for state law supremacy. However, that is not the case here. Federal money goes to these cities to help fund their programs, and that money doesn’t just come from California, or Nevada, or Texas, or the other states with sanctuary cities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top