Thread: Judge tosses out Trump administration's lawsuit against California's sanctuary state

Judge tosses out Trump administration's lawsuit against California's sanctuary state law

By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News
3 hours ago

A federal judge on Monday threw out the Trump administration’s legal effort to overturn California’s immigration laws, marking a major defeat to the administration’s war on sanctuary states.

Judge John Mendez approved California’s motion to dismiss the federal government’s lawsuit related to Senate Bill 54.

The state’s sanctuary law also known as the California Values Act, and Assembly Bill 103 – allows the state attorney general to inspect detention centers, the Sacramento Bee reported.

The sanctuary law, SB 54, which prohibits state and local police agencies from informing federal authorities in cases when illegal immigrants facing deportation are released from detention, sparked rebellion by multiple counties across California seeking to opt out of the measure out fears for safety and argued that the state law is unconstitutional.

Los Alamitos City councilman Warren Kusumoto provides insight on 'Fox & Friends First.'

Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued the state of California earlier this year over the sanctuary state policies, arguing that state lawmakers overreached their authority.

The administration’s lawsuit against a portion of Assembly Bill 450, which mandates companies to inform its staff within 72 hours of any federal requests to inspect employment records, was also rejected by the judge, the Bee reported.

But Mendez ruled that the suit against other parts of the same law – such as fines to employers who don’t reject requests by the federal officials to enter their workplaces without a warrant – is allowed to move forward.

"Today's decision is a victory for our state’s ability to safeguard the privacy, safety, and constitutional rights of all our people."
- California Attorney General Xavier Becerra

"Today's decision is a victory for our state’s ability to safeguard the privacy, safety, and constitutional rights of all our people," California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. "Though the Trump administration may continue to attack a state like California and its ability to make its own laws, we will continue to protect our constitutional authority to protect our residents and the rule of law."

State Sen. Kevin de León, who introduced the sanctuary state law, said the judge’s decision was “a stunning defeat in the president's racist war on immigrants.”

“The federal judge's decision not only affirms the constitutionality of the California Values Act, but our firm belief that our state resources should not be used to torment immigrant communities and tear families apart,” he added in a statement to the Bee.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...state-law.html

We need a Plan B.

Plan B:

Tell these countries, if your citizens don't stop entering the US illegally, then you will have no aid from or trade with the United States.

Originally Posted by Judy

We need a Plan B.

Plan B:

Tell these countries, if your citizens don't stop entering the US illegally, then you will have no aid from or trade with the United States.

Why do you keep repeating this same old talking point over and over again? We heard you the first time. Like I responded the first time you said it, it's a non-starter.

It's the job of our U.S. Congress, President, and DHS to secure our borders, apprehend visa overstays, raid businesses, catch illegals, etc., etc. For example, El Salvador and Peru have no way of stopping one of their citizens from overstaying their visa. It's our responsibility to have a system in place to identify those folks for apprehension and swift deportation when their visa expires. Same goes for illegals, it's our responsibility to stop them from crossing our border and if we fail in that, it's our responsibility to apprehend and deport them from our interior.

If our laws aren't written strong enough to accomplish this or the actual will is lacking, then that is on our Executive and Legislative branches of government!

Plan B applies to those entering our country illegally, it wouldn't apply to visa overstays because they didn't enter illegally.

Visa overstays VIOLATE our immigration laws. Put them in Federal Tent City, serve time, deport them with NO chance to ever come back!

Originally Posted by Judy

Plan B applies to those entering our country illegally, it wouldn't apply to visa overstays because they didn't enter illegally.

Visa overstays did not enter illegally, but they became illegal when their visa expired.

They need to go also---illegal is illegal, and this is just another planned invasion using a different method than crossing the border.

Of course they need to go, but we let them in, so to me their home countries are not responsible for them being here, we are, or for the failure on our part to enforce our visa programs, which is why I limit Plan B to those who enter illegally.

The illegal entries are the ones I think the home countries are responsible for and should be sanctioned about. Plan B could be expanded to include visa overstays at some point, but I would start with Plan B applying to those who enter the US illegally.

Originally Posted by Judy

Of course they need to go, but we let them in, so to me their home countries are not responsible for them being here, we are, or for the failure on our part to enforce our visa programs, which is why I limit Plan B to those who enter illegally.

The illegal entries are the ones I think the home countries are responsible for and should be sanctioned about. Plan B could be expanded to include visa overstays at some point, but I would start with Plan B applying to those who enter the US illegally.

Yes, we let the Visa people in, but we also let the border invaders in. We allow them to walk across that border, often meeting them with water, pizza, and medical care.

Originally Posted by Judy

Of course they need to go, but we let them in, so to me their home countries are not responsible for them being here, we are, or for the failure on our part to enforce our visa programs, which is why I limit Plan B to those who enter illegally.

The illegal entries are the ones I think the home countries are responsible for and should be sanctioned about. Plan B could be expanded to include visa overstays at some point, but I would start with Plan B applying to those who enter the US illegally.

You don't think we're letting the illegals in at the border? Sure we are. We need to provide more funding to border security, build that damn wall Trump promised us, and get more boots on the ground (people authorized to enforce our immigration laws)!

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

Yes, we let the Visa people in, but we also let the border invaders in. We allow them to walk across that border, often meeting them with water, pizza, and medical care.

That's after they entered illegally. It's stupid, I wouldn't feed them. I'd load them on a bus and haul them back over the border or deport them to their home country immediately. Our present system and arrangements don't work, haven't worked for decades, so when you keep doing the same things over and over again expecting a different result, it's stupid. Do something different. Do something that doesn't risk lives or cost taxpayers money.

Do Plan B. It's so simple.