California Is Wrong On Immigration
Mar 7, 2018 Immigration, Law Enforcement
And that state might find out how wrong very soon.
The Trump Administration is suing California claiming the state interfered with immigration enforcement. It is about time a sanctuary state has been taken to court and if things go well we will see a change in sanctuary policies because no court can reasonably uphold this kind of nonsense.
First things first. The Governor, Jerry Brown and his Attorney General, Xavier Becerra are claiming that the federal government has no right here and that the Tenth Amendment is involved and as such they have a right to do as they wish. They are mistaken, of course. The Tenth Amendment only applies to things the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government or prohibit from the states.
[note]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. US Constitution[/note]
Immigration is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but the US is granted the power over immigration in Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 10 (Power… To define and punish … offenses against the Law of Nations). There is an excellent article outlining this here. It is important to note that the state of Arizona passed its own immigration reform laws during the Obama regime and those laws nearly mirrored the federal laws. The Court struck those laws down (they were challenged by the Obama regime) because the federal government has supremacy in immigration law (that is the ruling).
Why would Arizona have these laws if they are the same as the feds? Because the federal government was not enforcing the law. The state passed the laws so it could protect itself from the harm federal inaction caused. The Court shot it down. Obama wanted it shot down so that illegals would be able to stay here. This was all swell with liberals because it gave them what they wanted.
Now the feds are challenging California because its laws are opposite federal law and they are preventing the federal government from doing its job. The airhead politicos in CA think they have the right to do this. Funny thing is CA is never concerned with any other state’s right to do things. CA is opposed to states that ban abortion or same sex marriage and will speak out against them. If CA believes it has the right to ignore federal law why can’t other states do so as well?
[note]As an aside, marriage of any kind and abortion are not in any part of the Constitution and would therefore actually be a state’s rights issue.[/note]
The state of California is on shaky ground here BUT it could very well win the suit. Look at how many activist judges have ruled improperly on many issues that have been challenged since Trump became president. These judges base their rulings on their political views and ignore the Constitution for fear of not being invited to the next big liberal cocktail party. Hell, I would not be surprised if the same court that ruled against Arizona ruled in favor of California. This is how out of control the judiciary is.
I think this will eventually make it to the Supreme Court and if those cowards don’t punt the ruling should go in favor of the federal government and against CA. Imagine if CA loses. The cities and states that are sanctuary will start to fall once swept up in the domino effect.
For a very long time liberal policies on immigration have been pushed while the rule of law ignored. Donald Trump is finally enforcing the laws and the liberals do not like it. It is about time we started fighting back against this insanity.
If there is justice in the world we will all see Governor Brown and his AG shown for the fools they are.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: becerra, brown, california, doj, Immigration, lies, sanctuary
Democrats Really Are Vile Creatures
Feb 1, 2017 Commentary, Political
I listened to some of the committee hearing on the confirmation of Senator Sessions to be the Attorney General and I tuned in at the time Senator Al Franken was speaking and he took up the entire time until the vote. He went on and on about whether Sessions was honest or misrepresented something and then attacked Senator Ted Cruz about Cruz’s defense of Sessions in earlier hearings.
Franken spent a lot of his time attacking President Trump and his assertion that millions of people voted illegally. Franken then went on to say Trump was going to look for people who are registered in more than one state. At that time Franken pointed to Trump family members and staff who are registered in two states.
Franken basically called Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump liars because, you know, liberals know lying when they see it.
So let me help out Franken because this unfunny has been comedian is a liberal hack who needs help.
It is unclear if Sessions was untruthful on his questionnaire because the definition of significant is different to different people. Maybe what Sessions did was significant for the work he was doing and maybe it was not. But Franken, who is not a lawyer, was putting his own definition on the case and using that. He also took the word of some other person over the word of Sessions. I expected as much as Democrats are working hard to harm Trump’s cabinet nominations.
Franken’s assertion about being registered in two states is misleading. I believe what the President means is people who are registered in two states and VOTED in BOTH. We see this a lot with liberal snow birds and liberal college students. They vote absentee in one state and then vote in person in the other. They do this intentionally. As far as I know, it is not illegal to be registered to vote in two states. If you are registered in one place and move and then register in the new place your first registration might not get cancelled. One is supposed to update the first registration but a lot of people never think of that. This is why a number of people can be registered in two places. It is not until you vote in both of them that you have broken the law. Nice try Al but as usual, you are wrong.
As for Franken’s claims that there were not millions of people who voted illegally and that this has been debunked he has no real way of knowing. He knows that Democrats think there was fraud but believe it came from the right and they are convinced of that because their fraud was not enough to win. Even cheating they lost so the other side must have cheated too. Funny thing is Franken got elected on fraudulent votes that were miraculously discovered after he was behind in the recount. It was just enough to put him over the top. Yeah Al, tell me again about cheating you lying jackass.
Barack Obama encouraged illegals to vote (a violation of the law) and California has millions of illegals with driver’s licenses who are able to vote. It is not beyond belief that millions of illegals voted and that people voted in two different locations. Franken said that people who commit voter fraud should be found and prosecuted but he asserts that fewer than 100 cases have occurred or been found. Really? Then why did Democrats scream about fraud in 2000? Why did Democrats demand so many recounts after the last election?
Democrats don’t want this looked into so they claim it has been debunked. If it is looked at they are afraid the fraud committed by them will be discovered. The votes from dead people, from snow birds and college kids coupled with the illegals could very well be in the millions. I hope Trump has this investigated and I hope he finds 5 million illegal votes just so we can shove it down Franken’s throat.
Oh yeah, Franken also stated that Trump came up with a 3-5 million number because Hillary won by 2 point something million. Al, Hillary did not win by 2 million something votes because we do not have a national election. She won some states and she lost other states but she lost the electoral vote and that is all that matters. To claim she won the popular vote is moronic and misleading since we do not have a national election we do not have a national popular vote.
Franken also took the time to praise Sally Yates as a hero who stood up to an illegal order. Once again it is Franken who is lying. He couched it with the “I think we can all agree…” but we do not all agree. First of all the order was NOT illegal. It was in accordance with the law and it is a law that Obama signed. It also follows Title 8 of The United States Code, if Franken cares to read it. Yates did not exercise courage or heroism, she was insubordinate. If she had expressed concerns based on the Constitution or the law she would still have a job. Instead, she just took it upon herself to say she disagreed with it and then told her people not to defend it. This is gross insubordination.
General Stanley McChrystal tendered his resignation (was fired by Barack Obama) based on some things he allegedly said (the claim is his words, and those of his soldiers, were taken out of context) in a Rolling Stone interview. Those things were viewed as improper and Obama wasted no time in Accepting his resignation (dismissing him), a true hero by the way.
Yates was grossly insubordinate and a moron like Franken thinks she is a hero.
As expected the Democrats on the committee all voted against Sessions and the Republicans all voted for so he will go for a full vote and is sure to be confirmed. It is a shame that these people who have worked with Sessions for decades would stoop so low as to impugn his character all in the name of politics and all because they are butt hurt that Trump won.
After the last few days I never ever want to hear a Democrat cry about obstruction from Republicans and I never want to hear them complain about any character assassination. Screw every last one of them. They are low life scum sucking ass hats who should all be put out to pasture.
Yes, they are vile and loathsome creatures.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: al franken, confirmation, illegals, Immigration, jerk, liar, loathsome, sessions, yates
Rowdy Yates; Head Her Up, Move Her Out
Jan 31, 2017 Commentary, Political
Sally Yates, an Obama hack, was serving as the Acting Attorney General because the Senate is dragging its feet in the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions to be the new AG. Some have questioned why Trump would leave an Obama hack in the position while he awaited his own nominee and that is a valid argument but the reality is Trump should not have had to have an acting anybody. The Senate should have approved Sessions the day Trump took office.
Instead, President Trump had to wait and after he issued his now famous Executive Order on immigration and refugees his acting AG, Yates, publicly stated she opposed the EO and that the DOJ would not enforce it.
Yes, she was insubordinate. She refused to follow the LEGAL order of the president, the very person from whom she gets her authority.
If Yates had some legal issue with it or wanted to discuss any possible Constitutional concerns then that would be a different issue but she did not take that route. As a liberal Obama crony she did not want to enforce it. How could she when her former boss was out praising protesters and falsely claiming this was a ban on religion?
President Trump was well within his legal right to issue the EO and he was on sound legal footing in doing so:
(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Cornell Law
Yates had two professional choices, follow the order or resign. She chose an unprofessional and blatantly political option instead, to disobey her boss. She chose to be insubordinate.
There are plenty of misguided people out protesting and screaming about this order (and people like B. Hussein Obama are praising them) but the order is legal. There is nothing that says people have to like the order but it is legal nonetheless (not to mention none of you complained when Obama did the same thing).
Plenty of judges are morally opposed to abortion but they uphold challenges to it every day. There are people who are opposed to the ACA (aka Obamacare) but they were forced to buy insurance or pay a tax. None of them protested the IRS or shut down major cities because they were upset about a law they did not like (and that is unconstitutional despite what the tyrants in black robes say).
So people if you don’t like the EO that is your business but please stop claiming it is a religious ban, or a ban on Muslims or that it is unconstitutional because none of that is true.
I know it is tough for you to live in a world where a person elected to office does exactly what he said he was going to do and I know it hurts even more when you hate that guy and did not vote for him but your dislike and hatred do not trump (see what I did there) the facts and the facts are clear.
He is well within his legal authority in what he is doing.
And Sally Yates, your inability to see this and your partisan attitude and blindness earned you the honor of hearing Donald Trump’s catch phrase:
You’re fired.
One gone from the swamp….
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: Immigration, legal, lies, partisan hack, sally yates, trump
Pope Francis; Tear Down Those Walls
Feb 18, 2016 2016 Election, Immigration
Pope Francis, a man whose actions call his devotion into question, has entered the US political fray by attacking Donald Trump. The Pope was in Mexico and was asked about Trump’s positions regarding immigration and particularly his stance on building a wall. The Pope commented that we should be building bridges, not walls, and that anyone who would build such a wall is not a true Christian.
I am sure the Pope is aware that Christians read the Old Testament and follow its doctrine even though it was the Jews involved as Christians were not yet around. In the Old Testament there is some mention, I am sure the Pope can have a Bishop look it up, of at least one walled city.
In fact, if the Pope looks out his bedroom window he can see the very same thing.
You see Vatican City, which is its own small sovereign state, is surrounded by very high walls making it nearly impossible to get in. The Vatican has millions of people who enter it as tourists to visit the place but only about 800 people there are CITIZENS and the rules to gain citizenship are very strict.
Not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry can enter the Vatican and request citizenship. No one can scale the wall (thus entering illegally) and expect to stay and reap the benefits that those who come to America illegally get.
Pope Francis, you need to tear down those walls lest people take you at your word and claim you are not a Christian because you have walls surrounding you.
Why are there walls surrounding Vatican City in the first place? What’s that you say? For safety. Oh, I get it. You want to be able to control who enters YOUR sovereign little slice of the planet.
Well we want the same thing and we don’t need a socialist Pope prancing around telling us we should be doing otherwise.
So either tear down the walls and build a few bridges or sit down and shut up.
As an aside, if you tear down the walls ship the bricks over here. We could use them to lower the cost of our wall.
References:
Washington Times (A lot of pop ups and auto running video)
The American Mirror (great pictures of the WALLED CITY)
The New York Times
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: huge wall, Immigration, politics, pope francis, socialism, vatican city
It Takes Gall
Mar 11, 2015 Immigration
There is the old story (I believe used to make a point) about the boy who murdered his parents and then asked the court for leniency because he was an orphan. Takes quite a bit of gall to commit a crime and then ask for special treatment because of how the crime affected you.
The people of Honduras who are attempting to get to America ILLEGALLY are basically doing the same thing. They are demanding safe passage through Mexico so they can illegally enter the United States. Those making the demands are people who, through their own illegal behavior, have been harmed.
You see, many of these folks are missing limbs because they fell off the huge train that many jump onto in order to travel through Mexico. A number of these folks are killed when the train runs over them but others end up losing a limb or two.
These folks, who cost the Mexican hospitals a lot of money, are fitted with a prosthesis by the Red Cross (another financial burden) and then sent home.
They are not happy with that arrangement. They are upset that they had to take such horrible risks to break the law. They want the Mexican government to make it easier for them to break the law by allowing them safe passage so they can get through Mexico and illegally enter the US.
These people are victims of one thing, their criminal behavior.
If they had stayed where they belong and not broken the law they would not be missing body parts. Now they cry that no one will hire them and they can’t get a job as if someone else is to blame.
I am sure they still want to get to the US so they can apply for disability and live off the backs of the people paying taxes but they should stay home where they belong.
It is terrible they got injured but they did this to themselves. If a guy breaking into my home tripped and shot himself I would not feel sorry for him. If he was not breaking the law he would not have gotten injured.
Same goes for these guys.
But I admit it takes a lot of gall to demand that you be assisted with your lawbreaking…
Related:
LA Times
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: honduras, illegals, Immigration, lawbreakers, missing limbs, trains