Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 3 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Professor Fate » Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:32 pm

Add Lake Forest, a place near and dear to me to the list of municipalities opposed to the Sanctuary State nonsense. It was unanimous.
On Tuesday, the City of Lake Forest voted against SB 54, known as the California Values Act, on the grounds that it “may be in direct conflict with Federal laws and the United States Constitution.”

In the resolution passed in a 5-0 vote, the Lake Forest City Council declared they side with the Constitution and law enforcement efforts to keep communities safe.

“The City Council hereby expresses its support of… The rule of law, including the United States Constitution and its supremacy over conflicting State and local laws,” reads the resolution.

https://www.infowars.com/revolt-more-ca ... state-law/
Make Them Cry Again In 2020

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 19510
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by John Q. Public » Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:15 pm

“The City Council hereby expresses its support of… The rule of law, including the United States Constitution and its supremacy over conflicting State and local laws,”

Can anyone tell me what federal law or what part of the Constitution SB 54 is in conflict with? I think they're mistaking the "rule of law" with the rule of policy.

Infowars? Really?
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12520
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Vilepagan » Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:26 pm

John Q. Public wrote: Infowars? Really?
Yes really. Who'd have guessed that of someone who supports trump?
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 19510
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by John Q. Public » Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:33 pm

broman wrote: Time for some folks to apply for a nannie or landscaping job in South County.
And cook, busboy, dishwasher, car washer, hotel maid, farm worker, assembler, warehouse worker, care giver, painter, framer, drywaller, day laborer, meat cutter, renter and dozens more. Sorry immigrant haters, but they're a big part of our economy and without sensible immigration policies, the only way those workers are going to get here is illegally.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 3 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Professor Fate » Wed Apr 18, 2018 7:57 pm

Vilepagan wrote:
Yes really. Who'd have guessed that of someone who supports trump?
All that matters is whether the story is true or it isn't. What part of the story isn't true?
Make Them Cry Again In 2020

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 19510
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by John Q. Public » Wed Apr 18, 2018 10:31 pm

Of what you quoted, the last two paragraphs. But I don't know if the blame should go to Infowars or to the city.

And then there's the three-dot ellipsis followed by a capital letter. That's wrong but I have no idea what the story is there.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 8850
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Omar Bongo » Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:16 pm

Tried to find out but all a couple clicks got me was

The resource you are looking for has been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Guessing the missing part was "motherhood, apple pie, and" --:--
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12520
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Vilepagan » Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:43 am

Professor Fate wrote: All that matters is whether the story is true or it isn't.
I'm sorry you believe that's all that matters. I don't agree. There's something called ethics, and Mr. Jones is bereft. He's a con man and a huckster, and you should be ashamed and ridiculed for re-posting his nonsense here.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18139
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Fordama » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:56 am

Vilepagan wrote:Yes really. Who'd have guessed that of someone who supports trump?
Yeah, it's been a long time since anyone was crazy enough to bring Infowars in as a source on this board.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24341
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Wabash » Thu Apr 19, 2018 6:33 am

What does all this mean? What will change in those cities?

I guess things are great in those places if they have the time, energy, and tax dollars to waste on this.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24341
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Wabash » Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:37 am

I have to give him credit for not mincing words about the reproduction of immigrant groups.
Attachments
Breeding.jpg
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

MDDad
Posts: 12123
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2008 1:24 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by MDDad » Thu Apr 19, 2018 7:55 am

John Q. Public wrote:And cook, busboy, dishwasher, car washer, hotel maid, farm worker, assembler, warehouse worker, care giver, painter, framer, drywaller, day laborer, meat cutter, renter and dozens more.
That's kind of a dishonest error in logic. The elimination of sanctuary city or county status, and the resulting cooperation with federal law regarding the holding of illegal alien felons, has no impact on 99.9% of the workers in the labor categories you listed. We don't need these kinds of alarmist yanks on the emotional chain on this issue.
Sorry immigrant haters, but they're a big part of our economy and without sensible immigration policies, the only way those workers are going to get here is illegally.
Those workers are already here, and the implication that we need immigration reform to bring in millions more of the same categories of laborers needs to be proven.

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 19510
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by John Q. Public » Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:25 am

But ya see... the law doesn't prevent cooperation with the feds in cases of serious felonies, which is what all these jurisdictions and all the advocates and fear mongerers are claiming.

Here's the relevant text of the actual law:
7282.5. (a) A law enforcement official shall have discretion to cooperate with immigration authorities only if doing so would not violate any federal, state, or local law, or local policy, and where permitted by the California Values Act (Chapter 17.25 (commencing with Section 7284)). Additionally, the specific activities described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of, and in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of, Section 7284.6 shall only occur under the following circumstances:
(1) The individual has been convicted of a serious or violent felony identified in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 of, or subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of, the Penal Code.
(2) The individual has been convicted of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.
(3) The individual has been convicted within the past five years of a misdemeanor for a crime that is punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony for, or has been convicted within the last 15 years of a felony for, any of the following offenses:
(A) Assault, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 217.1, 220, 240, 241.1, 241.4, 241.7, 244, 244.5, 245, 245.2, 245.3, 245.5, 4500, and 4501 of the Penal Code.
(B) Battery, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 242, 243.1, 243.3, 243.4, 243.6, 243.7, 243.9, 273.5, 347, 4501.1, and 4501.5 of the Penal Code.
(C) Use of threats, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 71, 76, 139, 140, 422, 601, and 11418.5 of the Penal Code.
(D) Sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, or crimes endangering children, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266d, 266f, 266g, 266h, 266i, 266j, 267, 269, 288, 288.5, 311.1, 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11, and 647.6 of the Penal Code.
(E) Child abuse or endangerment, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 270, 271, 271a, 273a, 273ab, 273d, 273.4, and 278 of the Penal Code.
(F) Burglary, robbery, theft, fraud, forgery, or embezzlement, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 211, 215, 459, 463, 470, 476, 487, 496, 503, 518, 530.5, 532, and 550 of the Penal Code.
(G) Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but only for a conviction that is a felony.
(H) Obstruction of justice, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 69, 95, 95.1, 136.1, and 148.10 of the Penal Code.
(I) Bribery, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 67, 67.5, 68, 74, 85, 86, 92, 93, 137, 138, and 165 of the Penal Code.
(J) Escape, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 107, 109, 110, 4530, 4530.5, 4532, 4533, 4534, 4535, and 4536 of the Penal Code.
(K) Unlawful possession or use of a weapon, firearm, explosive device, or weapon of mass destruction, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 171b, 171c, 171d, 246, 246.3, 247, 417, 417.3, 417.6, 417.8, 4574, 11418, 11418.1, 12021.5, 12022, 12022.2, 12022.3, 12022.4, 12022.5, 12022.53, 12022.55, 18745, 18750, and 18755 of, and subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 26100 of, the Penal Code.
(L) Possession of an unlawful deadly weapon, under the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 (Part 6 (commencing with Section 16000) of the Penal Code).
(M) An offense involving the felony possession, sale, distribution, manufacture, or trafficking of controlled substances.
(N) Vandalism with prior convictions, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 594.7 of the Penal Code.
(O) Gang-related offenses, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 186.22, 186.26, and 186.28 of the Penal Code.
(P) An attempt, as defined in Section 664 of, or a conspiracy, as defined in Section 182 of, the Penal Code, to commit an offense specified in this section.
(Q) A crime resulting in death, or involving the personal infliction of great bodily injury, as specified in, but not limited to, subdivision (d) of Section 245.6 of, and Sections 187, 191.5, 192, 192.5, 12022.7, 12022.8, and 12022.9 of, the Penal Code.
(R) Possession or use of a firearm in the commission of an offense.
(S) An offense that would require the individual to register as a sex offender pursuant to Section 290, 290.002, or 290.006 of the Penal Code.
(T) False imprisonment, slavery, and human trafficking, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 181, 210.5, 236, 236.1, and 4503 of the Penal Code.
(U) Criminal profiteering and money laundering, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 186.2, 186.9, and 186.10 of the Penal Code.
(V) Torture and mayhem, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 203 of the Penal Code.
(W) A crime threatening the public safety, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 219, 219.1, 219.2, 247.5, 404, 404.6, 405a, 451, and 11413 of the Penal Code.
(X) Elder and dependent adult abuse, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 368 of the Penal Code.
(Y) A hate crime, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 422.55 of the Penal Code.
(Z) Stalking, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 646.9 of the Penal Code.
(AA) Soliciting the commission of a crime, as specified in, but not limited to, subdivision (c) of Section 286 of, and Sections 653j and 653.23 of, the Penal Code.
(AB) An offense committed while on bail or released on his or her own recognizance, as specified in, but not limited to, Section 12022.1 of the Penal Code.
(AC) Rape, sodomy, oral copulation, or sexual penetration, as specified in, but not limited to, paragraphs (2) and (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 261 of, paragraphs (1) and (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 262 of, Section 264.1 of, subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 286 of, subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 288a of, and subdivisions (a) and (j) of Section 289 of, the Penal Code.
(AD) Kidnapping, as specified in, but not limited to, Sections 207, 209, and 209.5 of the Penal Code.
(AE) A violation of subdivision (c) of Section 20001 of the Vehicle Code.
(4) The individual is a current registrant on the California Sex and Arson Registry.
(5) The individual has been convicted of a federal crime that meets the definition of an aggravated felony as set forth in subparagraphs (A) to (P), inclusive, of paragraph (43) of subsection (a) of Section 101 of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101), or is identified by the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement as the subject of an outstanding federal felony arrest warrant.
(6) In no case shall cooperation occur pursuant to this section for individuals arrested, detained, or convicted of misdemeanors that were previously felonies, or were previously crimes punishable as either misdemeanors or felonies, prior to passage of the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act of 2014 as it amended the Penal Code.
(b) In cases in which the individual is arrested and taken before a magistrate on a charge involving a serious or violent felony, as identified in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 or subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 of the Penal Code, respectively, or a felony that is punishable by imprisonment in state prison, and the magistrate makes a finding of probable cause as to that charge pursuant to Section 872 of the Penal Code, a law enforcement official shall additionally have discretion to cooperate with immigration officials pursuant to subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 7284.6.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 720180SB54
The law requires the release of jaywalkers and shoplifters but not a whole lot else. Nothing like what the anti-sanctuary people are claiming.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 3 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Professor Fate » Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:34 am

Fordama wrote: Yeah, it's been a long time since anyone was crazy enough to bring Infowars in as a source on this board.
Regardless of the source, the purpose of posting it was to show that the City of Lake Forest voted to oppose SB54. Either they did, or they didn't.

And by the way, I found no other source that reported that. What does that say about all the sources you have deemed acceptable to be brought "in as a source on this board?"
Make Them Cry Again In 2020

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12520
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Vilepagan » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:18 pm

Professor Fate wrote: And by the way, I found no other source that reported that. What does that say about all the sources you have deemed acceptable to be brought "in as a source on this board?"
And your bizarre conclusion is that Infowars is the only source that got it right...that's the problem right there. You look for sources that confirm your ideas and you accept them as true even though they're sites like Infowars.

The other problem with visiting sites like that is that by visiting you're giving them validation and making them money. You should be ashamed.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 3 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Professor Fate » Thu Apr 19, 2018 1:41 pm

That's all very lofty sounding, but I say: scoreboard! Show me evidence that they DIDN"T vote to join the anti-sanctuary state movement. Right now I lead 1-0.

And the other problem with you claiming that any site you disagree with, must be an extremist site, should be evident to all. You should be ashamed.
Make Them Cry Again In 2020

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 8850
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Omar Bongo » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:42 pm

Sigh...Trump thrown for yet another loss in court:

Court Sides With Sanctuary Cities in Fight Over Grants

The federal government cannot withhold public safety grants from cities that refuse to cooperate with President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement policies, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, agreeing with a lower court judge who had imposed a temporary injunction last year.

The decision by a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday says the administration exceeded its authority in establishing a new condition for cities to qualify for the grants.


https://whyy.org/articles/court-sides-w ... er-grants/

Note to the Prof: All three judges are Republican appointees...
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12520
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Vilepagan » Thu Apr 19, 2018 4:46 pm

Professor Fate wrote: That's all very lofty sounding, but I say: scoreboard!
I say if it sounds "lofty" perhaps it is.
Show me evidence that they DIDN"T vote to join the anti-sanctuary state movement. Right now I lead 1-0.
Show me evidence you understand the absurdity of that statement.
And the other problem with you claiming that any site you disagree with, must be an extremist site, should be evident to all. You should be ashamed.
Except of course anyone who can read knows I made no such claim. Again you should be ashamed, but this time for putting forth such a lame argument.

I made no claims about "any site i disagree with" only Infowars and the execrable individuals who maintain the site, and those who read and repeat the drivel posted there. Again, for giving them advertising revenue and validation for your visits you should be ashamed.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
Omar Bongo
Posts: 8850
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:59 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Omar Bongo » Thu Apr 19, 2018 5:46 pm

Wabash wrote: What does all this mean? What will change in those cities?
How long until the Professor's carefully compiled list is published and named "The Nostaligic Cracker's Homebuying Guide"...
"Trump is what he is, a floundering, inarticulate jumble of gnawing insecurities and not-at-all compensating vanities, which is pathetic."
George Will

"How stupid is our country?"
Donald Trump

User avatar
Professor Fate
Posts: 4696
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 5:11 pm
Has thanked: 3 times

Re: Orange County Joins Federal Lawsuit against California

Post by Professor Fate » Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:46 pm

Vilepagan wrote:
Show me evidence you understand the absurdity of that statement.
You obviously don't see that my posting of infowars' story was to show that they have stated an objective fact, that you can't dismiss with your usual, haughty smugness. Show me where that objective fact (that Lake Forest voted 5-0 to support the feds over the state against SB54) is wrong. You can't, can you?
Professor Fate wrote: And the other problem with you claiming that any site you disagree with, must be an extremist site, should be evident to all. You should be ashamed.
Except of course anyone who can read knows I made no such claim. Again you should be ashamed, but this time for putting forth such a lame argument.
Actually you have...I was speaking to your constant practice of doing just that. See below
I made no claims about "any site i disagree with" only Infowars and the execrable individuals who maintain the site, and those who read and repeat the drivel posted there. Again, for giving them advertising revenue and validation for your visits you should be ashamed
.
In addition to your dismissal of Infowars:
by Vilepagan » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:59 pm

Professor Fate wrote:
Source of the post You missed this did you? From the Washington Times:

Yes. I don't put much stock in a news organization owned by the Unification Church. Neither should you.
by Vilepagan » Fri May 23, 2014 4:36 am

No, your arguments are supported by opinions that you read in very biased sources like Breitbart.com, Townhall.com, and other even more ridiculous places. You see something you want to believe and repeat it here as "fact". I know I've said this before but it bears repeating...if you continue to rely on terrible sources for information your arguments will not improve.
by Vilepagan » Sat Feb 22, 2014 5:08 pm

Thanks for the response OM, but you needn't have wasted your time and the bandwidth posting three more paragraphs of the kind of garbage anyone can read on Breitbart, The Blaze, Townhall.com...or get from idiots like Ms. Bachmann.
And, this classic example:
by Vilepagan » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:43 pm

You should be ashamed. "America's News"? Are you shilling for Fox now?

Fox has demonstrated time and again they have little or nothing in the way of good journalism to offer. Their "news" articles often read like editorials, and they rely on misleading headlines to get their message out to an audience that often doesn't read anything after that. When facts aren't available or convenient, innuendo and insinuations will do. They claim they're "balanced" yet they obviously have a conservative/Republican slant, and have even hired several prominent Republican politicians on their payroll. The two headlines in the OP clearly show that the NYT is head and shoulders above Fox News, and here you are shouting insults and making up grade-school names for every group or person you disagree with.

...Journalists cite sources...Fox News spreads rumors and gossip and half-truths, and calls it "news". And you defend the purveyors of this garbage. Yeah, you ought to be ashamed. You wouldn't know good journalism if you saw it.
Make Them Cry Again In 2020

Post Reply