ICE Tells Sanctuary Cities FU

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Undocumented immigrants arrested in California courthouse — despite state law


U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents reportedly violated a California state law that prohibits immigration officers from arresting undocumented immigrants without a judicial warrant on Tuesday, according to the Associated Press.

Two people were arrested in the Sonoma County Superior Court in Northern California, one of whom was supposedly awaiting a hearing. This goes directly against Assembly Bill No.668, the law that Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom signed in October 2019.

The bill reiterates California’s power to regulate what occurs on state courthouse grounds, and fundamentally declares that “A person shall not be subject to civil arrest in a courthouse while attending a court proceeding or having legal business in the courthouse.”

Only the presence of a valid judicial warrant would allow officers — either ICE or other law enforcement — to arrest someone awaiting hearings in California.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I guess we will see how this works out for Newsom.
Will he attempt to arrest Federal Officers.?
Is there a State Officer stupid enough to try to interfere with Federal Officers with force of arms under this crazy State law?
 

Monello

I'm a credit to my gender
PREMO Member
Just like some officials ignore current laws pertaining to turning over illegals currently in custody, these 2 were arrested by police ignoring laws.

Good for goose = good for gander.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
I guess we will see how this works out for Newsom.
Will he attempt to arrest Federal Officers.?
Is there a State Officer stupid enough to try to interfere with Federal Officers with force of arms under this crazy State law?
Yes
Yes - some politically motivated wanker will do the job
He will win.... in state court, which is where he will file suit.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Pretty sure he will lose at the Supreme Court.
I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV, but did spend a lot of nights in Marriott hotels.
The path through the judicial system should be interesting, Newsome & Co. would want to sue in California's court system as a violation of California State Law. Given this is highly political, the California Court system would most likely find for California.
To get to the SCOTUS the federal government would have to get it to the federal court system. Unless they counter sue, the best they can do is appeal the decision of the lower court, to the next higher.
See my first line.
I have to think that this would take years to wind it's way through the courts and in the mean time California would get an immediate injunction.
Given that states like CA, NY and a couple of others have tried all sorts of legal maneuvers to either force the release of Trump's tax records, have him barred from ballots, it would not surprise me that some enterprising idiot would decide that if the Feds do violate CA law, they would put out a warrant for the arrest of Trump as he is the chief executive of the US federal government and therefore responsible for the violation.
Could be a lot of fun to watch how much stupid the democrats in Cali can be.
 
Reactions: BOP

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Could be a lot of fun to watch how much stupid the democrats in Cali can be.

Don't we see that every day? It's like SNL,
A bad comedy every week.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV, but did spend a lot of nights in Marriott hotels.
The path through the judicial system should be interesting, Newsome & Co. would want to sue in California's court system as a violation of California State Law. Given this is highly political, the California Court system would most likely find for California.
To get to the SCOTUS the federal government would have to get it to the federal court system. Unless they counter sue, the best they can do is appeal the decision of the lower court, to the next higher.
See my first line.
I have to think that this would take years to wind it's way through the courts and in the mean time California would get an immediate injunction.
Given that states like CA, NY and a couple of others have tried all sorts of legal maneuvers to either force the release of Trump's tax records, have him barred from ballots, it would not surprise me that some enterprising idiot would decide that if the Feds do violate CA law, they would put out a warrant for the arrest of Trump as he is the chief executive of the US federal government and therefore responsible for the violation.
Could be a lot of fun to watch how much stupid the democrats in Cali can be.
Pretty sure the US Constitution, Article VI, clause 2, would make the California law null and void.
Article VI said:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Pretty sure the US Constitution, Article VI, clause 2, would make the California law null and void.
But are laws controlling immigration considered a treaty?
It could be very interesting. It's clear this is just politicians who hate Trump more than they respect the laws of the land.
He didn't write the laws or even sign them, he's just enforcing them.
But these butt clowns are now creating laws that are in direct conflict with federal law.
Who challenges this conflict in court and which Court has jurisdiction?
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
So Maryland is also considering "Sanctuary State" legislation. The question was raised would Hogan veto the law or sign.
Some suspect that since he does not care for the President he may well sign the law.
That would be another sad day for Maryland.

IMHO, if any state issues identification cards to illegal immigrants, they should be declared not in compliance with Real ID and DHS / TSA should declare use of any official state identification for that jurisdiction as not suitable proof of identity for boarding travel.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
But are laws controlling immigration considered a treaty?
Huh?

The Constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions, which is why it is referred to as the Supremacy Clause. Since the late 1800s (somewhere around 1875/6) SCOTUS determined that the issue of immigration was solely a Federal one. As the ICE agents are enforcing Federal law, state laws cannot interfere with the actions of those officers carrying them out regardless of what the state says.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
Huh?

The Constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions, which is why it is referred to as the Supremacy Clause. Since the late 1800s (somewhere around 1875/6) SCOTUS determined that the issue of immigration was solely a Federal one. As the ICE agents are enforcing Federal law, state laws cannot interfere with the actions of those officers carrying them out regardless of what the state says.
The Constitution is not law, it's the framework for our government and laws. In regards to rights, the constitution says it only give very specific and limited rights to the federal government, all other rights revert to the states and the individuals.
I am not in disagreement with you, merely being the Devi;'s advocate in applying today's politics.
For example, if the federal government has the right to to enforce immigration law, and the executive branch has the power to set the rules and guidelines why have several federal courts overruled the executive branch on immigration bans from terrorist nations? Politics.
Back to the topic of California versus Trump. You darn well know the state of California is going to sue in state court to have their law upheld.
I guess the administration could take that suit and go to SCOTUS directly for an emergency hearing on enforcement of federal law.
But typically the courts like to go through the normal process, trial court to the appellate courts. The question would be, how long would it take to have SCOTUS take up the case? If Trump wins in November, it will be 4 more years of Trump hate laws and stupid decisions at the local and state levels.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
The Constitution is not law, it's the framework for our government and laws. In regards to rights, the constitution says it only give very specific and limited rights to the federal government, all other rights revert to the states and the individuals.
The Constitution is (a part of) the supreme law of the land, it even says it is.
I am not in disagreement with you, merely being the Devi;'s advocate in applying today's politics.
For example, if the federal government has the right to to enforce immigration law, and the executive branch has the power to set the rules and guidelines why have several federal courts overruled the executive branch on immigration bans from terrorist nations? Politics.
Because there are activist judges that are throwing monkey wrenches into the process and, by the way, how many of these lower court judicial challenges have stood up at higher levels of the judicial system?
Back to the topic of California versus Trump. You darn well know the state of California is going to sue in state court to have their law upheld.
I guess the administration could take that suit and go to SCOTUS directly for an emergency hearing on enforcement of federal law.
While it may be a court within the state I am pretty sure it will be a Federal Court that holds jurisdiction as what has been raised is a "federal question" involving the United States Government.
But typically the courts like to go through the normal process, trial court to the appellate courts. The question would be, how long would it take to have SCOTUS take up the case? If Trump wins in November, it will be 4 more years of Trump hate laws and stupid decisions at the local and state levels.
And they should go through a normal process, unless irreparable harm could occur due to a delay or halting a reasonable act within the Federal authority.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
The Constitution is (a part of) the supreme law of the land, it even says it is.
Because there are activist judges that are throwing monkey wrenches into the process and, by the way, how many of these lower court judicial challenges have stood up at higher levels of the judicial system?
While it may be a court within the state I am pretty sure it will be a Federal Court that holds jurisdiction as what has been raised is a "federal question" involving the United States Government.
And they should go through a normal process, unless irreparable harm could occur due to a delay or halting a reasonable act within the Federal authority.
The travel bans were upheld, by the full circuit court. Agreed, it's activist judges and this is a political battle. These sanctuary laws have nothing to do with safety or the children, it's pure petty politics because they have TDS.
Again, since it's political, Newsome would want to or have his AG file in California state courts. he's going to count on at least a temporary injunction against DHS and ICE from a friendly court.
He's accusing DHS and ICE of violating California law.
I see one quick way to get it into Federal Court, arrest either Newsome, his AG, or a law enforcement official and put them in a federal prison awaiting trail - but move them to some place like Arizona. Put the federal court case in a place outside the reach of the 9th US Circuit Court.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
The travel bans were upheld, by the full circuit court. Agreed, it's activist judges and this is a political battle. These sanctuary laws have nothing to do with safety or the children, it's pure petty politics because they have TDS.
Again, since it's political, Newsome would want to or have his AG file in California state courts. he's going to count on at least a temporary injunction against DHS and ICE from a friendly court.
He's accusing DHS and ICE of violating California law.
I see one quick way to get it into Federal Court, arrest either Newsome, his AG, or a law enforcement official and put them in a federal prison awaiting trail - but move them to some place like Arizona. Put the federal court case in a place outside the reach of the 9th US Circuit Court.
And this is the crux of the matter, seeking an injunction against Federal agents performing their lawful duty makes it a Federal matter and it would take a Federal court to issue such an injunction. And the complexion of the 9thCA is changing, of the current 49 Justices, 24 have been appointed by Republican Presidents.

And back to the original "offense", why didn't California arrest the Federal agents for violation of the state law?
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
And this is the crux of the matter, seeking an injunction against Federal agents performing their lawful duty makes it a Federal matter and it would take a Federal court to issue such an injunction. And the complexion of the 9thCA is changing, of the current 49 Justices, 24 have been appointed by Republican Presidents.

And back to the original "offense", why didn't California arrest the Federal agents for violation of the state law?
I don't disagree, just stating what tactic the state might use. They would be charging the federal agent with breaking a state law.
Can't answer the second question, "no balls" might be one, or maybe LEO don't want to be in the middle. Going back to my earliest comments, somewhere along the line, some enterprising politicians is going to force the issue, could be LEO or a judge. As I recall wasn't there a judge who barred federal agents from the courthouse?

I hope they do challenge the federal agents. Trump just won a big victory, the administration can withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities.
If Newsome and company don't grow cahones, they are gong to be ripped by their own kind.
Either way, I think they will come out looking like asses. Politically speaking, Newsome & Co. would be better off losing in court.
 
Top