Constitution/Federal Law V. State of California

The same issue which the Civil War was fought over - state's rights versus federal law - is now coming to a head in the state of California. More recently, as Rush Limbaugh pointed out during his radio show today, it is similar in many ways, to the deep south of the early 1960s with Gov. George Wallace and Bull Conner of Alabama refusing to abide by new federal laws passed in Congress to allow African-Americans to attend all white schools. So, what was happening in the deep south of the '60s, is now reversed for the west coast of 2018. As Dick Morris puts it, John C. Calhoun would be proud.

With A.G. Jeff Sessions speaking in Sacramento, CA yesterday to announce the federal government's lawsuit against the state for Oakland Mayor Libby Schaff alerting the community of illegal aliens about coming ICE raids, Governor Brown has exposed the true sentiments and points of defense liberals are taking about this battle. For liberals, it's not about the issue of rule of law, but about using standard socialist "red flag" labels of "white supremacy" while conveying this image of illegals as tax paying, hard working, law abiding people.

Here's text from an article, which includes a video, making some points about this issue reported on NBC News:

The NBC reporter failed to mention that the reason it was a safety concern for ICE was because they weren’t able to arrest illegal immigrants at local jails and courthouses and had to go to their homes. Almaguer also failed to mention that the 800 illegal immigrants that got away when Schaaf tipped off her community were criminal aliens.

But Almaguer did tout the state’s so-called “sanctuary” status: “A sanctuary state, California limits cooperation between local and federal immigration enforcement.” He followed that up with a clip [of] Brown’s defense of the policy: “They've been part of the economy. Millions of people. Now they treat them like animals and round them up and dump them in cells or on the border.”

Notice how liberals use after the fact circumstances - "millions of people" - and disregard the basic truth that these people came into the country against existing laws, and are therefore illegal, and still are, but speak of them as though they have more rights than legal citizens.

Here's what NumbersUSA's most recent email stated about this:

Yesterday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions laid down the law -- literally -- in person, to law-enforcement officials in California's state capital of Sacramento.

Sessions declared America has had enough of criminals being shielded from federal law enforcement by unconstitutional "sanctuary" laws. No more letting criminals out of the jails directly back into the population, sometimes to kill innocent victims like Kate Steinle.

To make it stick, the Justice Department is taking California to court. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday.

Sessions told law-enforcement officials that the Justice Department is suing California "to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies." He added, "we are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America."

So yes, the Trump administration is acting to protect Americans. But it needs Congress to act. Last week, the White House officials said President Trump remains committed to passing the Goodlatte bill, which would shut down this whole sanctuary city rebellion, as well as greatly reducing unhelpful immigration.

H.R. 4760 would authorize the administration to withhold funds from sanctuary cities and allow individuals to sue local governments when they are harmed by aliens released by sanctuary jurisdictions.

Are we going to defend ourselves against rogue states and cities that let foreign criminals go free on the streets??

Are we going to stop Congress from dithering while all Americans are in peril??

Are we going to build an immigration policy that works in the interest of the American people??

The "sanctuary" laws in California are absurd. One actually penalizes private employers with stiff fines if they cooperate with ICE officials, double-check their employees' immigration status, or decline to inform employees of pending ICE enforcement efforts. Another bars law-enforcement from voluntarily transferring detainees to federal custody, or informing the government of release dates. How radical do you have to be to keep convicted criminals from being deported, as federal law states they should be?

Just last week, the mayor of Oakland tipped off hundreds of criminals that federal agents were coming to apprehend them. Who would ever have thought they'd see the day when government officials actively abetted criminals avoiding arrest?

"Here's my message to Mayor Schaaf: How dare you?" the Attorney General said. "How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement to promote a radical open borders agenda?"

But don't just blame California. These officials commit such brazen acts of lawlessness because they're confident that they will be protected by Washington lawmakers who lust after cheap, exploitable labor. The Washington politicians think you'll accept whatever they do. You need to prove to them that they're wrong.

Curtailing sanctuary city/state policies is only one of several HUGE benefits of Chairman Bob Goodlatte's H.R. 4760. Other key provisions:

●Makes E-Verify mandatory for all employers.

●Cuts legal immigration by ending chain migration.

●Criminalizes visa overstays.

●Tightens the "credible fear" standard to reduce asylum fraud.

●Fixes loopholes in the law regarding unaccompanied alien children.

●Gives a non-citizen amnesty for 690,000 DACA recipients, in exchange for all of the above.

This showdown between state and federal government policies may very well be the springboard for civil war. It could get pretty nasty soon.