Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Why Waterford, Ripon officials side with feds against California's sanctuary law

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040

    Why Waterford, Ripon officials side with feds against California's sanctuary law

    Why Waterford, Ripon officials side with feds against California's sanctuary state law

    BY KEN CARLSON
    kcarlson@modbee.com
    April 18, 2018 05:58 PM
    Updated April 19, 2018 09:20 AM

    Waterford could join other jurisdictions in opposing California's sanctuary state law, signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in October to resist President Donald Trump's campaign promises to ramp up deportations.

    With the resolution before the City Council on Thursday, Stanislaus County's second smallest city could side with the federal government’s lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 54, also known as the California Values Act.


    The governor signed the legislation in response to Trump’s impassioned campaign promises of immigration enforcement and to ensure state resources and police officers won't assist the effort in a state with large populations of immigrants.


    City Councilman Joshua Whitfield’s proposal coincides with a reaction against SB 54 from cities and counties controlled by conservative elected officials.


    “First and foremost, when I served in the military and when I serve in public office, I take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States,” Whitfield said. “I take that pretty seriously and think (SB 54) is a gross overreach of state authority.”

    Whitfield said his proposed resolution is somewhat different in urging Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform law that, among things, protects “Dreamers” against deportation.


    Aside from a moral obligation to protect Dreamers, he said, the cost of deporting 800,000 people in the DACA program makes no fiscal sense.


    “I think my friends on the left won’t be pleased and some of my friends on the right won’t be pleased,” Whitfield said.


    If approved by the Waterford council, the resolution would allow the city attorney to submit a legal brief in support of the federal lawsuit. The city has not decided whether to do that yet, but Whitfield expects a cost estimate will be presented at Thursday's meeting.


    While opposing the sanctuary law, the resolution calls for Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law that “strengthens border security, combats human trafficking, and provides protections for undocumented immigrants (known as Dreamers) who have been brought into the United States at no fault of their own, who are law abiding members of our communities and have largely only known the U.S. as their home.”


    Tuesday, the Republican leaders of San Diego, the state’s second largest county, voted to back the federal lawsuit against Senate Bill 54, following suit with conservative Orange County’s resolution to side with federal authority.


    Last week, the Ripon City Council unanimously approved a similar stance against the state's sanctuary law. If the city is faced with complying with SB 54 or federal law, Ripon and its police department will comply with federal authority, the resolution said.


    Critics of the defiant cities and counties suggest that Republicans are trying to exploit emotions to expand their weak political base in the deep blue state.


    Rebecca Harrington, vice chairman of the municipal advisory council in heavily Latino south Modesto, said local jurisdictions should not disregard the state law while the legal issues are hashed out in court.


    Harrington said she was glad the governor signed the sanctuary law. “I know what a lot of people are going through and there are situations where people are deported for no reason,” Harrington said.


    She’s in favor of deporting hardcore felons who are here illegally, but the situation is not so simple with undocumented people who came to California because they were threatened by drug-related violence in Mexico, she said.


    Under the sanctuary law, local police departments and state law enforcement cannot ask for a person's immigration status or detain a person at the request of federal authorities unless there's a felony warrant. The law restricts police from making an arrest based on a civil immigration warrant and taking part in Border Patrol activities or joint task forces working on immigration enforcement.


    Whitfield said he has heard people in agribusiness complain about SB 54 requirements to take certain steps if they hear about an immigration raid.


    The councilman suggested the state water board's plan to usurp historic water rights and take river allocations from farmers and cities like Modesto is another example of state government overreaching its authority. “This civil war between the state and Washington, D.C., is not benefiting the people,” he said.
    http://www.modbee.com/news/article209271434.html
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  2. #2
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Moderator Beezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Posts
    31,518
    "Aside from a moral obligation to protect Dreamers, he said, the cost of deporting 800,000 people in the DACA program makes no fiscal sense."

    ------------------------

    We have NO moral obligation to protect criminal trespassing illegal aliens...which is WHAT "dreamers" are!

    They ARE what they are...ILLEGAL ALIENS who do not belong on our soil.

    THEIR President has the MORAL OBLIGATION to make an announcement for them to go home! To take them back, to provide them housing and a path to success. They have TAKEN enough from this country they need to GO HOME!!!

    No cost to deport them if we cut off everything! No school, no medical care, no bank accounts, no jobs, no welfare, no Drivers License, no food stamps and NO US Birth Certificates will be issued to children of ILLEGAL ALIENS!


    LET WORK PERMITS EXPIRE AND THEY GO HOME AND GET IN LINE LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE PLANET!

    FINE EMPLOYERS AND SHUT THEM DOWN!
    ILLEGAL ALIENS HAVE "BROKEN" OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM

    DO NOT REWARD THEM - DEPORT THEM ALL

  4. #4
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,883
    While opposing the sanctuary law, the resolution calls for Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law that “strengthens border security, combats human trafficking, and provides protections for undocumented immigrants (known as Dreamers) who have been brought into the United States at no fault of their own, who are law abiding members of our communities and have largely only known the U.S. as their home.”
    This "through no fault of their own" notion doesn't apply to illegal aliens. It applies to divorces and accident insurance in the US, not to illegal aliens of any age, origin or circumstance. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, who brought them or why they brought them, all that matters is that they're here in violation of US immigration law and the only proper legal response is: swift deportation and removal to their home country where they belong.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  5. #5
    Senior Member MontereySherry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,370
    Most of these little cities were affected by California redistricting. With their pen they divided cities from their surrounding agriculture land. The cities went to a new district while the surrounding agriculture land stayed in another district.
    California produces 80% of all the nuts in the world and this area is nut central (almonds and walnuts, not people). Most of our orchards and dairies are owned by either Dutch or Portuguese. Most of the orchards and dairies are mechanized. Their concerns are more about the stupid restrictions the state puts on them and sending our water south then wanting illegal immigrants working for them.
    Now that these cities find themselves in Jeff Denhams district they are sending him a message. Enough catering to illegal immigrants. We are not Modesto. We do not want the homeless, gangs or crime that is rampant in that city and caused by so many illegal aliens and their offspring.

  6. #6
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    California ranks as the top food production state for a number of crops

    California has been the number one food and agricultural producer in the United States for more than 50 consecutive years.
    Last edited by JohnDoe2; 05-13-2018 at 08:37 PM.
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  7. #7
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Quote Originally Posted by MontereySherry View Post
    . . . sending our water south . . .
    People have been fighting over California water for a long time.

    California Water Wars

    The California Water Wars describes the disputes between Los Angeles and the Owens Valley in California over water rights. The disputes stem from Los Angeles' location in a semi-arid area and the availability of water from Sierra Nevada runoff in the Owens Valley.

    Early views of Owens Valley water diversion

    In 1833 Joseph Reddeford Walker led the first known expedition into the area that would later be called the Owens Valley in central California. Walker saw that the valley's soil conditions were inferior to those on the other side of the Sierra Nevada range and that runoff from the mountains was absorbed into the arid desert ground.

    After the United States gained control of California in 1848 the first public land survey conducted by A.W. Von Schmidt from 1855 to 1856 was an initial step in securing government control of the valley. Von Schmidt reported that the valley's soil was not good for agriculture except for the land near streams, and incorrectly stated that the "Owens Valley [was] worthless to the White Man".

    The potential of the valley, however, was seen in 1859 by Army Captain J.W. Davidson who came in contact with the Paiute Indians and their use of irrigation ditches to divert water from streams. The first settlers downplayed the agriculture achievements of the Paiutes as a validation for forcing them off of their land. Pioneers claimed that the Paiute Indians diverted water to natural vegetation, not crops. Settlers failed to see the significance of the act of diverting water itself, an act that would devastate the Owens Valley in the twentieth century.

    Early settlement: land use, water diversion and speculation

    Many settlers came to the area for the promise of riches from mining. Once pioneers reached the Owens Valley this dream faded and they took up farming and raising livestock instead. The Homestead Act of 1862 gave pioneers five years to claim and take title of their land for a small filing fee and a charge of $1.25 per acre. The Homestead Act limited the land an individual could own to 160 acres (64.7 ha) in order to create small farms. The Swampland Act of 1850 allowed public lands deemed as swamp and overflow land to be turned over to the state.

    In 1873 Josiah Earl, the registrar of the newly created Independence Land District, set out to use the Swampland Act to acquire land for the state. He declared that about one third of the valley to be swamp or overflow land, of which more than 40% was already occupied by settlers. This action by the Land District drew so much protest that Earl abandoned his plan, effectively postponing large-scale land speculation in the Owens Valley.

    The amount of public land settled by the late 1870s and early 1880s was still relatively small. The Desert Land Act of 1877 allowed individuals to acquire more area, up to 640 acres (259.0 ha), in hopes of drawing more settlers by giving them enough land to make their settlement and land expenses worthwhile, but included no residency requirements.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Water_Wars
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  8. #8
    Senior Member MontereySherry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,370
    JohnDoe2 check out Stewart and Lynda Resnick

    How Beverly Hills Billionaires Built A Water Empire in California with Taxpayer Money: Stewart and Lynda Resnick

    http://realitieswatch.com/beverly-hills-billionaires-built-water-empire-california-taxpayer-money/

  9. #9
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    Quote Originally Posted by MontereySherry View Post
    . . . sending our water south . . .
    I meant to get back to you but I got distracted and . . .

    "Our water". Who owns the water?
    The people who own the land on both sides of the river OR all of the people in the county, the people in Northern California OR all of the people in California, the people in the western U.S. OR all of the people in the country?
    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #10
    Senior Member JohnDoe2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    PARADISE (San Diego)
    Posts
    99,040
    “Water belongs to all the people of the state of California,”


    CA. Water wars head upstream as state considers cutbacks for senior Central Valley

    NO AMNESTY

    Don't reward the criminal actions of millions of illegal aliens by giving them citizenship.


    Sign in and post comments here.

    Please support our fight against illegal immigration by joining ALIPAC's email alerts here https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. Criminals cut loose as California sanctuary laws pit police against feds: Border Patr
    By lorrie in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-10-2018, 07:15 AM
  2. Criminals cut loose as California sanctuary laws pit police against feds: Border Patr
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-08-2018, 03:16 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-22-2018, 09:10 AM
  4. Waterford, MI Joins the Tea Parties Against Amnesty movement
    By ALIPAC in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 01:46 PM
  5. U.S. officials concerned about berm on Mexican side of borde
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-04-2006, 04:02 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •