« prev   random   next »

7
0

Sessions to make major ‘sanctuary jurisdiction announcement’ in Sacramento tomorrow

By Patrick following x   2018 Mar 6, 6:03pm 8,539 views   143 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


Attorney General Jeff Sessions is scheduled to be in Sacramento on Wednesday to make what his office describes as a “major sanctuary jurisdiction announcement,” just blocks from the state Capitol, where a new law making California a sanctuary state was passed and signed.

Sessions did not provide advance details of his announcement, but his Justice Department has been in an escalating legal battle with California, dozens of cities and counties in the state, including San Francisco, and hundreds nationwide whose laws and policies restrict local police and jailers from taking part in federal immigration enforcement.

His targets have included the local and state sanctuary laws, already the subject of court battles, as well as local officials like Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who publicly warned the immigrant community Feb. 24 of an impending Bay Area raid by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.


https://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/Sessions-to-make-major-sanctuary-jurisdiction-12731976.php

« First    « Previous    Comments 81 - 120 of 143    Next »    Last »

81   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 7, 2:09pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
It's pretty clear cut what ice must do ... This is federal law. If Congress doesn't like it then they should change it, not complain that CA isn't doing their job for them.


I can't keep explaining this if you're not reading my posts.

AB 450 is a CALIFORNIA LAW attempting to make FEDERAL Law demanding that entities served with inspection notices notify their employees and they'll be fined FOR voluntary compliance with Federal Agencies. The Law you're quoting is a Federal procedural law about businesses getting notice so they can get the paperwork in order. It has nothing to do with the current situation.


RafiMaas says
Wouldn't fixing immigration law be a better use of time and resources? Is it not obvious why this is not done?



Yes, we definitely need a Wall and tougher enforcement, so I hope the laws get toughened up to better use our time and resources on the millions of poor native born Americans.

It's not done, indeed current law is seldom enforced, because Big Business allied to AltLeft Bigots, won't let it.
82   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 2:41pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 7285.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:
7285.1. (a) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter any nonpublic areas of a place of labor. This section does not apply if the immigration enforcement agent provides a judicial warrant.
(b) An employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. If a court finds that an immigration enforcement agent was permitted to enter a nonpublic area of a place of labor without the consent of the employer or other person in control of the place of labor, the civil penalty shall not apply. “Violation” means each incident when it is found that subdivision (a) was violated without reference to the number of employees, the number of immigration enforcement agents involved in the incident, or the number of locations affected in a day.
(c) This section shall not preclude an employer or person acting on behalf of an employer from taking the immigration enforcement agent to a nonpublic area, where employees are not present, for the purpose of verifying whether the immigration enforcement agent has a judicial warrant, provided no consent to search nonpublic areas is given in the process.
(d) The exclusive authority to enforce this section is granted to the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General and enforcement shall be through civil action. Any penalty recovered shall be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund.
(e) This section applies to public and private employers.
SEC. 2. Section 7285.2 is added to the Government Code, to read:
7285.2. (a) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, and except as provided in paragraph (2), an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without a subpoena or judicial warrant. This section does not prohibit an employer, or person acting on behalf of an employer, from challenging the validity of a subpoena or judicial warrant in a federal district court.
(2) This subdivision shall not apply to I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms and other documents for which a Notice of Inspection has been provided to the employer.
(b) An employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. If a court finds that an immigration enforcement agent was permitted to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without the consent of the employer or other person in control of the place of labor, the civil penalty shall not apply. “Violation” means each incident when it is found that subdivision (a) was violated without reference to the number of employees, the number of immigration enforcement agents involved in the incident, or the number of employee records accessed, reviewed, or obtained.
(c) The exclusive authority to enforce this section is granted to the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General and enforcement shall be through civil action. Any penalty recovered shall be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund.
(d) This section applies to public and private employers.
SEC. 3. Section 7285.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:
7285.3. In accordance with state and federal law, nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted, construed, or applied to restrict or limit an employer’s compliance with a memorandum of understanding governing the use of the federal E-Verify system.
SEC. 4. Section 90.2 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
90.2. (a) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer shall provide a notice to each current employee, by posting in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information to the employee, of any inspections of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records conducted by an immigration agency within 72 hours of receiving notice of the inspection. Written notice shall also be given within 72 hours to the employee’s authorized representative, if any. The posted notice shall contain the following information:
(A) The name of the immigration agency conducting the inspections of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records.
(B) The date that the employer received notice of the inspection.
(C) The nature of the inspection to the extent known.
(D) A copy of the Notice of Inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms for the inspection to be conducted.
(2) On or before July 1, 2018, the Labor Commissioner shall develop a template posting that employers may use to comply with the requirements of subdivision (a) to inform employees of a notice of inspection to be conducted of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records conducted by an immigration agency. The posting shall be available on the Labor Commissioner’s Internet Web site so that it is accessible to any employer.
(3) An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide an affected employee a copy of the Notice of Inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms.
(b) (1) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer shall provide to each current affected employee, and to the employee’s authorized representative, if any, a copy of the written immigration agency notice that provides the results of the inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records within 72 hours of its receipt of the notice. Within 72 hours of its receipt of this notice, the employer shall also provide to each affected employee, and to the affected employee’s authorized representative, if any, written notice of the obligations of the employer and the affected employee arising from the results of the inspection of I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms or other employment records. The notice shall relate to the affected employee only and shall be delivered by hand at the workplace if possible and, if hand delivery is not possible, by mail and email, if the email address of the employee is known, and to the employee’s authorized representative. The notice shall contain the following information:
(A) A description of any and all deficiencies or other items identified in the written immigration inspection results notice related to the affected employee.
(B) The time period for correcting any potential deficiencies identified by the immigration agency.
(C) The time and date of any meeting with the employer to correct any identified deficiencies.
(D) Notice that the employee has the right to representation during any meeting scheduled with the employer.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, an “affected employee” is an employee identified by the immigration agency inspection results to be an employee who may lack work authorization, or an employee whose work authorization documents have been identified by the immigration agency inspection to have deficiencies.
(c) An employer who fails to provide the notices required by this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of two thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation. This section does not require a penalty to be imposed upon an employer or person who fails to provide notice to an employee at the express and specific direction or request of the federal government. The penalty shall be recoverable by the Labor Commissioner.
(d) For purposes of this section, an “employee’s authorized representative” means an exclusive collective bargaining representative.
(e) This section applies to public and private employers.
(f) In accordance with state and federal law, nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted, construed, or applied to restrict or limit an employer’s compliance with a memorandum of understanding governing the use of the federal E-Verify system.
SEC. 5. Section 1019.2 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
1019.2. (a) Except as otherwise required by federal law, a public or private employer, or a person acting on behalf of a public or private employer, shall not reverify the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by Section 1324a(b) of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), an employer who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to a civil penalty of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000). The penalty shall be recoverable by the Labor Commissioner.
(2) The actions of an employer that violate subdivision (a) and result in a civil penalty under paragraph (1) shall not also form the basis for liability or penalty under Section 1019.1.
(c) In accordance with state and federal law, nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted, construed, or applied to restrict or limit an employer’s compliance with a memorandum of understanding governing the use of the federal E-Verify system.
SEC. 6. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
83   Patrick   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 2:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter any nonpublic areas of a place of labor.


Wow, WTF?
84   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 Mar 7, 2:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
RafiMaas says
It's pretty clear cut what ice must do ... This is federal law. If Congress doesn't like it then they should change it, not complain that CA isn't doing their job for them.


I can't keep explaining this if you're not reading my posts.

AB 450 is a CALIFORNIA LAW attempting to make FEDERAL Law demanding that entities served with inspection notices notify their employees and they'll be fined FOR voluntary compliance with Federal Agencies. The Law you're quoting is a Federal procedural law about businesses getting notice so they can get the paperwork in order. It has nothing to do with the current situation


States have the right to make privacy laws. Period. Other states require anyone including any federal agencies to have a warrant to look at any employment records of anyone, not just immigrants. Even if the employer is willing to do a voluntary hand it over. Is that making federal law? Where is your outrage (crickets chirping again). Feel free to keep on throwing out strawmen and tap dancing around that issue.

It's pretty clear you don't have a clue what AB 450 actually says if you are throwing out bogus arguments about I9's.
85   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 3:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

bob2356 says
It's pretty clear you don't have a clue what AB 450 actually says if you are throwing out bogus arguments about I9's.


As a CA resident and a US citizen I'm glad the state is protecting me. You never know when an ICE agent will screw up. They screwed up 169 times last fiscal year. This way I can at least bring my passport to work to help prove my citizenship if there happened to be any questions.
86   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 7, 3:45pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
Wow, WTF?


Yep, be shocked.

Governor Moonbeam and the California Legislature have really pulled a job on behalf of Big Business and the AltLeft.

You know who else pushed AB 450? The SEIU. Yep, Unions are now anti-American worker.

bob2356 says
It's pretty clear you don't have a clue what AB 450 actually says if you are throwing out bogus arguments about I9's.


Pretty clear you don't have a clue:

bob2356 says
States have the right to make privacy laws. Period. Other states require anyone including any federal agencies to have a warrant to look at any employment records of anyone, not just immigrants. Even if the employer is willing to do a voluntary hand it over. Is that making federal law? Where is your outrage (crickets chirping again). Feel free to keep on throwing out strawmen and tap dancing around that issue.
The I-9 is an immigration document enforced by ICE, not just an "employment record" that may by the various State Government Agencies.

It's a federal document filed under penalty of perjury, is required for employment, and must be provided on demand to Federal Regulators responsible. To argue that it's privacy is nonsense.

Judges are up to their nose in frivolous legal arguments from people who claim because the filling out your 1040 and paying tax is based on "voluntary compliance" , they don't have to fill one out. Or, the IRS can't read their 1040 without a warrant.

Guess what happens to people who make those arguments?
87   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 7, 3:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Hey Bob, maybe this is a great precedence for polluters.

Claim "Privacy" is under attack when the EPA shows up to look at your mandatory federal pollution filings. "Oh, you can't see our federally mandated EPA Filings, EPA. Unless you Agents of the EPA go get yourself a warrant. My State of Mississippi just passed a law that will fine me $10,000 if I voluntarily comply with Federal Agencies on Environment issues."

Like I said, stay tuned. This law is going to be shot down, starting with a preliminary injunction, in record time.
88   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 7, 4:10pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Get your earplugs ready, and prepare to tune out assurances of dire predictions (worse than Brexit, since many countries fund unsustainable levels of economic and social program activity on the backs of dumping exports in the USA).

This is what CHANGE looks like, Obama.
89   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 4:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
It's a federal document filed under penalty of perjury, is required for employment, and must be provided on demand to Federal Regulators responsible.


And what MUST they do to demand it? RafiMaas says
Employers will generally receive a written Notice of Inspection at least 3 days before the inspection. These officials can inform the owner, designee, senior management official or registered agent of the business entity of an inspection in person or by certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested. Officials may also use subpoenas and warrants to obtain the forms without providing 3 days’ notice


https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/retain-store-form-i-9/inspection/inspections

There is the link.

Unfortunately there is nothing saying that a warrant is suggested. There are three ways the federal government can obtain i-9 info. These aren't suggestions it is THE LAW . If the federal government wants the law to be different then they should change the law. They obviously don't.

I mean come on in this day and age they can't come up with a better system. This is what people should be up in arms about.
90   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 4:26pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Claim "Privacy" is under attack when the EPA shows up to look at your mandatory federal pollution filings. "Oh, you can't see our federally mandated EPA Filings, EPA. Unless you Agents of the EPA go get yourself a warrant. My State of Mississippi just passed a law that will fine me $10,000 if I voluntarily comply with Federal Agencies on Environment issues."


Is it written that the EPA needs a warrant to obtain this information if they haven't given a 3 day notice?

I know I wouldn't voluntarily comply with the EPA or any other federal agency if I didn't have to... Would you?
91   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 7, 4:27pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/retain-store-form-i-9/inspection/inspections

There is the link.


And where is it that employers must inform employees when ICE comes around? I don't see it in your link.

Where is it that employers can't voluntarily comply with ICE's requests earlier if they wish? Don't see it.

Where does it say State Governments can fine US Citizens for not informing employees when they've been notified of an incoming inspection? Not there either.

Also:

Employers will generally receive a written Notice of Inspection at least 3 days before the inspection.

Is Generally the same as "Must" or "Will"?

Sorry, that law doesn't say what you think it says. It simply says the ICE will try to give businesses a few days to gather their records as a part of their general process
92   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 4:30pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Where is it that employers can't voluntarily comply with ICE's requests earlier if they wish? Don't see it.


We're does it say they have to voluntarily comply, interesting I didn't see that in there.
93   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 7, 4:30pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Now here's a "must" for you, the same exact page as your link:

When officials arrive to inspect an employer’s Form I-9, the employer must:

Retrieve and reproduce electronically stored Form I-9 and any other documents the officer requests;
Provide the officer with the necessary hardware and software to inspect electronic documents; and
Provide the officer with any existing electronic summary of the information recorded on the employer’s Form I-9.
Employers who refuse or delay an inspection may be in violation of the law.
94   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 4:32pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
And where is it that employers must inform employees when ICE comes around? I don't see it in your link.


Nor is it seen must not want inform employees?

Please feel free to point out where it says they must not inform employees.

Sorry the law doesn't say anything about this being in general.
95   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 7, 4:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
We're does it say they have to voluntarily comply, interesting I didn't see that in there.


Where does it say you can't voluntarily comply?

Can the State forbid you from calling the FBI with a tip that an Arab-speaking man is putting a suitcase you heard go "TICK TOCK" into his car, because that's racial profiling and a violation of his privacy?

The argument is absurd: The State can compel you NOT to cooperate with a Federal Agency exercising it's powers in a domain expressly forbidden to State Governments and reserved to the Federal.
97   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 4:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

All I know is the great state of California is putting pressure on the federal government to make progress in regards to Immigration reform. All these people so concerned over immigration yet don't want to deal with Immigration reform? Why not?
98   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 4:52pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says


What an ironic picture. Will Trump fold to Brown like Andrew Jackson did to John c Calhoun on the Tariff of 1832?
99   socal2   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 5:09pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
All I know is the great state of California is putting pressure on the federal government to make progress in regards to Immigration reform. All these people so concerned over immigration yet don't want to deal with Immigration reform? Why not?


Immigration reform like:

- providing Amnesty to dreamers?
- building a wall?
- ending chain migration and lottery visas?
- enforcing E-Verify?

Isn't it the Democrat party that is holding all this reform up?
100   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 5:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Now here's a "must" for you, the same exact page as your link:


Yes I know I saw. It also says this

Officials may also use subpoenas and warrants to obtain the forms without providing 3 days’ notice.

So ... without providing a 3 days notice officials may use power of subpoena or get a warrant to obtain the forms.

Maybe said that way it makes a bit more sense?
101   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 7, 5:17pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
All I know is the great state of California is putting pressure on the federal government to make progress in regards to Immigration reform. All these people so concerned over immigration yet don't want to deal with Immigration reform? Why not?

I don't want Immigration Reform, I want immigration enforcement. And California is forcing the Federal Government to respond to it's attempt to usurp and/or obstruct this enforcement.

Although I would pop a chubby if Moonbeam or his disciples get arrested on Federal Obstruction Charges.

RafiMaas says
Maybe said that way it makes a bit more sense?



Sure.

But the issue for me is with California telling US Citizens residing in California about how they can or can't cooperate with Federal Agencies.
102   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 5:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
But the issue for me is with California telling US Citizens residing in California about how they can or can't cooperate with Federal Agencies


Unfortunately, CA is looking at it as a privacy issue. One can cry and scream all they want but that doesn't change how this will be fought in court.
103   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 5:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

socal2 says
enforcing E-Verify


This seems like it would be the most effective in helping get people out of the country.

Now I wonder how many have jobs with an I-9 on fill?

Or what about employers who are illegal but don't have I-9s because they are self employed.
104   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 7, 6:20pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Brown wants his unlimited immigration into California - but no housing.

Anything else is a declaration of war against California.

Watch the words. This is an evolution that, worse case and not soon, but could end up with CA breaking away from the US.
105   MisterLefty   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 8, 4:29am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

During any invasion, there is always a side that collaborates.
106   bob2356   ignore (2)   2018 Mar 8, 5:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
bob2356 says
It's pretty clear you don't have a clue what AB 450 actually says if you are throwing out bogus arguments about I9's.


Pretty clear you don't have a clue:

bob2356 says
States have the right to make privacy laws. Period. Other states require anyone including any federal agencies to have a warrant to look at any employment records of anyone, not just immigrants. Even if the employer is willing to do a voluntary hand it over. Is that making federal law? Where is your outrage (crickets chirping again). Feel free to keep on throwing out strawmen and tap dancing around that issue.
The I-9 is an immigration document enforced by ICE, not just an "employment record" that may by the various State Government Agencies.


I don't have a clue?

7285.1. (a) Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter any nonpublic areas of a place of labor. This section does not apply if the immigration enforcement agent provides a judicial warrant.

(2) This subdivision shall not apply to I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms and other documents for which a Notice of Inspection has been provided to the employer.


Except as otherwise required by federal law. Does not apply to I-9. Seems pretty clear to me.

Were is your outrage about states that require a warrant for any employees records? That obstruction. doesn't bother you? Lots of crickets chirping, no answer in sight.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

It's about the State of California illegally demanding via compulsion that US Citizens/Entities warn others that an ICE inspection is about to take place.

California has NO powers over immigration and NO powers to set regulations for ICE which is a Federal, not State, Entity.


You seem very confused on this point. It's not a regulation for ICE, it's a regulation for employers to give notice to employees their records are being examined. ICE is not hindered any more than any other state that requires a warrant. Still no outrage about the other states obstructing? Why is that?
107   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Mar 8, 6:14am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
RafiMaas says
Except as otherwise required by federal law, an employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter any nonpublic areas of a place of labor.


Wow, WTF?


You omitted the last and most important sentence

This section does not apply if the immigration enforcement agent provides a judicial warrant.

So why not just get a warrant?

No Real American wants the federal government doing warrant less anything. If they have probable cause, get a warrant. Otherwise piss straight off
108   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 8, 6:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says

No Real American wants the federal government doing warrant less anything. If they have probable cause, get a warrant. Otherwise piss straight off
.

I know ,right?
People got their panties in a bunch because California doesn't want to have to do the federal governments job. Also they are saying that we should just voluntarily give up our rights. I don't see them voluntarily handing over their right to the 2cd amendment.

Folks you can't make this stuff up.
109   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 8, 7:29am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
Brown wants his unlimited immigration into California - but no housing.

Anything else is a declaration of war against California.

Watch the words. This is an evolution that, worse case and not soon, but could end up with CA breaking away from the US.


What happens to the water CA gets from the Colorado River if they decide to break away from the US? I think succession is a non-starter out the gate because of this. But I admit I don't fully understand the water issues out there. My guess is agriculture dries up without that source of water, literally in SoCal.

I know it gets thrown about that CA is one of the states that needs the least from the federal government. But as a state, it probably can't function at today's levels without an entire regions watershed helping feed the AG business and supply a good chunk of the drinking water. CA is technically a state that is the most dependent on others (other states and feds) if you really think about it.
110   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 8, 7:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
Heraclitusstudent says
Brown wants his unlimited immigration into California - but no housing.

Anything else is a declaration of war against California.

Watch the words. This is an evolution that, worse case and not soon, but could end up with CA breaking away from the US.


What happens to the water CA gets from the Colorado River if they decide to break away from the US? I think succession is a non-starter out the gate because of this. But I admit I don't fully understand the water issues out there. My guess is agriculture dries up without that source of water, literally in SoCal.

I know it gets thrown about that CA is one of the states that needs the least from the federal government. But as a state, it probably can't function at today's levels without an entire regions watershed helping feed the AG business and supply a good chunk of the drinking water. CA is techni...


Actually the northern part of California supplies a lot of water for central California, think Humboldt area the emerald triangle. Also 1/3 of CAs water is stored freely in snow fall. Socals water does come from the Colorado River. But then again a shitload of imports come through long beach, tariffs for water?

What could, maybe should happen in CA is breaking into 2 or 3 states.
111   Goran_K   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 8, 8:46am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Guys, relax with the personal attacks. Thanks.
112   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 8, 9:00am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Bah, can’t even refer to the quality of someone else’s argument? Didn’t attack the user, just their false statements.
113   DASKAA   ignore (3)   2018 Mar 8, 9:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CA is not going anywhere and not breaking into anything.
114   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 8, 9:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

errc says
So why not just get a warrant?


I agree that it's easy enough to do, but CA will just fabricate another reason not to cooperate.
115   zzyzzx   ignore (1)   2018 Mar 8, 9:05am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
What could, maybe should happen in CA is breaking into 2 or 3 states.


I don't think we should let any state break apart until at least 2 New England States get consolidated.
116   RafiMaas   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 8, 9:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
Actually the northern part of California supplies a lot of water for central California,


Although off topic just wanted to share more about CA water. I was under the impression that the tubes Brown wants to build would go down to LA but the Tubes are to take water from the top of the Delta to the bottom of the Delta. From that point the infrastructure is already built and used to take the water down south. The purpose is to rejuvenate the Delta.
117   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Mar 8, 9:28am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says
RafiMaas says
What could, maybe should happen in CA is breaking into 2 or 3 states.


I don't think we should let any state break apart until at least 2 New England States get consolidated.


Why is that?
118   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Mar 8, 10:04am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

zzyzzx says
errc says
So why not just get a warrant?


I agree that it's easy enough to do, but CA will just fabricate another reason not to cooperate.


So if it’s easy enough to simply get a warrant, why all the harping on California?

Shouldn’t the ire be directed at ICE for wasting resources and not doing their job?
119   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Mar 8, 10:21am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
Although off topic just wanted to share more about CA water


It's off topic, but it's going to be an ongoing issue in CA. Everyone needs water. I don't understand all the underlying issues, but unless there's an alternative water source, or more storage, not sure how fresh water can keep up with the population growth in CA. Mainly SoCal as you mentioned, but as one state, everyone is going to have to deal with it.

Even if CA isn't one of the fast growing states, the neighbors that need the same water are. Nevada and Arizona are growing and so is their CO river water usage would be my guess (not sure if UT relies on the Colorado, but they quickly growing too). Somethings got to give. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2018/01/15/fastest-growing-and-shrinking-states-closer-look/1019429001/
120   TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce   ignore (4)   2018 Mar 8, 12:50pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
It's off topic, but it's going to be an ongoing issue in CA. Everyone needs water. I don't understand all the underlying issues, but unless there's an alternative water source, or more storage, not sure how fresh water can keep up with the population growth in CA. Mainly SoCal as you mentioned, but as one state, everyone is going to have to deal with it.


I know little about CA Water Issues, but apparently there are years when man made lakes and water areas are actually overfilled, but I heard the Libbies dump it out to sea instead of holding onto to it for future use.

Also I heard there really hasn't been any new water supply areas created in something like 50 years, even though that 1950's governor's water plan called for double the water management areas CA has now, if/when the population reached today's level of population.

Just shit I heard, not very familiar with the whole thing.

« First    « Previous    Comments 81 - 120 of 143    Next »    Last »





The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions