US Sues California Over Immigrants

A lot of people's feelings are about to get hurt on the west coast of America.

Just days after 'Sanctuary City' Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf warned criminal illegal immigrants that an ICE raid was imminent, Bloomberg reports that the US Justice Department plans to sue California in an effort to nullify three state laws it says interfere with federal immigration enforcement and violate the Constitution.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions plans to discuss the lawsuit during a speech he is scheduled to give on Wednesday at a law enforcement conference in Sacramento.

"The Department of Justice and the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed," Sessions wrote in his prepared remarks.

"We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America."

As a reminder, President Trump blasted Sanctuary Cities in his December video address...

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) reacted immediately with horror...

At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America.

Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said during an interview last week with The Washington Post that  the 10th Amendment “doesn’t give the federal government the right to determine or dictate how a state goes about doing public safety.”

“I feel pretty confident that he would have a difficult time proving that there’s a rational basis for the federal government commandeering state funds simply to get the state to accommodate the federal government’s desires on immigration enforcement,” Becerra said.

We don’t get in the way of the federal government in doing immigration enforcement, unless of course they do so in an unconstitutional manner. But they can’t get in the way of state public safety enforcement.

Of course, Federal law trumps State law, unless, of course, California state officials want another civil war over states rights (which we suspect would be a problem given their lack of gun ownership).

In a statement released about the new lawsuit, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen said:

California has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and responsibility of the Congress to protect our homeland. I appreciate the efforts of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law and protect American communities.”

In the new lawsuit, expected to be filed today in federal court in Sacramento, the Justice Department wants to nullify Assembly Bill 450, which prohibits private companies from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration agencies; Senate Bill 54, which restricts state and local law enforcement officials from voluntarily giving federal agents information about criminal aliens who are subject to removal from the U.S.; and Assembly Bill 103, which authorizes state authorities to review and inspect federal detention facilities in California.

And as WaPo notes, the Justice Department will enter court as the plaintiff in a suit, forcing California to appear as the defendant and make the case that its actions are legal.


Cognitive Dissonance shankster Tue, 03/06/2018 - 21:29 Permalink

Of course, Federal law trumps State law, unless, of course, California state officials want another civil war over states rights (which we suspect would be a problem given their lack of gun ownership).

Ummm....not always Tyler.

Where the Constitution specifically gives the Federal Gov power or jurisdiction...yes, Federal Law 'trumps' State law. But where it is silent or the Constitution specifically gives States power, Federal law does NOT 'trump' State law.

Of course, it always comes down to who controls the money and who has the biggest and most guns.

Now that's true power.

Most people don't understand the Constitution became 'just a piece of paper' after State rights were usurped and trampled during/after the civil war.

I suspect the fat lady has sung as well.

In reply to by shankster

Skid Marks lloll Tue, 03/06/2018 - 21:57 Permalink


Sessions: Excuse me, Rod. Do you have a minute?
Rosenstein: OK, Jeff. What is it this time?
Sessions: I was just thinking...
Rosenstein: OOPS!  There you go again, Jeff.  Thinking. Didn’t we decide that was my job?
Sessions: Yea. Yea. I know.
Rosenstein: Go on. What is it?
Sessions: Well, you know that Mayor in Oakland is mouthing off about warning the illegal aliens, I mean the undocumented guests, that there was going to be an ICE raid.
Rosenstein: Yea. Yea.  So what?
Sessions: Well, how about I hold a press conference and say we are going to investigate it. You know, like I did regarding the FISA warrants.  I’ll just say we’re going to investigate. You know. Not like we are actually going to do anything. You know? Then I can at least look like I’m in charge. You know? Would that be OK?
Rosenstein: I don’t know Jeff. You almost blew it during that last press conference. Let me think about it.
Sessions: OK Rod. I’m going to go back to my office and take a nap. See you later.


In reply to by lloll

3LockBox A Sentinel Tue, 03/06/2018 - 21:49 Permalink

It is about time for this.

No need for secession.

How about helping us root out the illegal electorate so we can actually vote out all the wackos?

California isn't as nuts as the media and you all make it.

The politicians sure as hell are but the legal people are not. Sure there are plenty of far left libs here but that is the same everywhere. In fact many of the nuts here have migrated in from your states.

This state used to be conservative but has been taken over by fixing the electorate (i.e. illegal immigration).

Hard to out vote the American lefties AND ALL OF THE ILLEGALS!

In reply to by A Sentinel

Jethro 3LockBox Tue, 03/06/2018 - 21:57 Permalink

Rural California might not be too crazy, but the Central Valley ag industry runs on illegal labor.  The metro areas in California are useless.   The sooner the ag industry gets automated, the better.  But, I sincerely doubt the farmers in California will economically slit thier own throats to stand for a righteous cause.  

Anyway, it doesn't matter if the residents of rural California were all Constitutionalists.  They are outnumbered 10:1 by the metro cesspools.

In reply to by 3LockBox

delmar Jackson Jethro Tue, 03/06/2018 - 22:28 Permalink


jimmy Carter's Secretary of Agriculture Bob Bergland shut down every farm mechanization program the government had in 1979.

"Unfortunately, that government-initiated effort came almost completely to a halt within a decade and half. Marking its demise was the statement made in 1979 by Bob Bergland, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture at that time: “I will not put money into any project that results in saving farm labor.” [8] He later backed a lawsuit against the University of California to stop the use of public money for research into harvest technologies. The immediate reason for his action was pressure from the United Farm Workers Union and other labor groups that saw mechanization as a threat to their members’ jobs. At that time, however, a much greater disincentive to mechanize was on the rise: massive illegal immigration. With so many inexpensive illegal workers available, the need to develop agricultural machinery seemed less pressing. One very unfortunate outcome of projects shutting down was that the expertise they accumulated was lost. [9] Development continued in the private sector, but the lack of public funding for research definitely slowed progress. Today, most research in agricultural technology takes place outside of the United States, often in countries where cheap labor isn’t readily available."

In reply to by Jethro

Demologos delmar Jackson Tue, 03/06/2018 - 23:48 Permalink

Same excuse for maintaining slavery. The illegal immigrant agricultural workforce are just poorly paid slaves. Have you seen the housing they live in? Pre Civil War slave owners housed their slaves in better conditions. At least they were valuable property.

Immigrant farm workers sick of squalid conditions are easily replaced with workers who aren't sick of their living conditions yet. The newcomers probably think. "Well, it's better than where I came from". Cheap replaceable labor is one of the few things both major political parties agree on. Protecting Wall Street criminals is another.

In reply to by delmar Jackson

Nolde Huruska johngaltfla Wed, 03/07/2018 - 01:13 Permalink

They've already lost. I'll share a little secret with you that every 2A advocate in CA knows. If you file in SF, LA or Sacto you lose, period, game over. The CA AG has offices in Fresno and Bakersfield and that's where you file. Every case we win in CA happens there. Of course then the 9th Circuit breaker kicks in but ...

In reply to by johngaltfla

L Cornelius Sulla Nolde Huruska Wed, 03/07/2018 - 12:13 Permalink

The author of this comment is completely correct.  The Department of Justice picked the wrong venue.  Accordingly, this will not merely be an exercise in futility, it will discredit the legitimate legal arguments that California is virtually in a state of insurrection.

Without extensive research I am not certain if venue could have been maintained in the District of Columbia (which, although riddled with Leftist judges, tends to be a more rational federal district).  I certainly would have at least tried to bring it there.  The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, though, was a ludicrous choice.  The Central District of California was a much better choice if the case had to be filed in California.    


In reply to by Nolde Huruska

Max Cynical TahoeBilly2012 Tue, 03/06/2018 - 23:24 Permalink

Until this matter is settled, I think 24/7 heavily fortified border checks on ever road leading out of California should be enforced by the federal government in defense of the public health, safety and welfare of US citizens in the neighboring states. I don't care if this is an inconvenience to US citizens trying to leave the state (imagine the wait trying to get into Nevada)...if this is what it takes to get their attention in Sacramento, so be it.

In reply to by TahoeBilly2012

Buck Johnson TahoeBilly2012 Wed, 03/07/2018 - 10:59 Permalink

Exactly, there is so many ways that the federal govt. can fuck California.  They can withhold road money, tax any and all things coming out of California as not coming from the US (this is the most drastic).  But what they could do is not notify them and just raid the places.  Also they could set up national ads telling people if you report a company or people hiring illegal workers you can get compensated with federal money etc. etc. etc.. 

And we all know that Americans will rat these people out in a heartbeat over this.


In reply to by TahoeBilly2012

Cognitive Dissonance Darkman17 Tue, 03/06/2018 - 22:09 Permalink

Just like the Federal government can declare the 'border' to extend 200 miles from any national and international border, including any airport where international flights land or takeoff.

Yup, I just read that in the Constitution. Under Section "We do whatever the fuck we want. What are you going to do about it."

I am NOT a fan of California. Nor am I a fan of the Fed Gov. I am a fan of limited Fed power and of State's rights.

Just call me a dinosaur.

In reply to by Darkman17

Antifaschistische Cognitive Dissonance Tue, 03/06/2018 - 21:45 Permalink

Mr. Trump,

I hate to give away all my ideas since I'm not on the WH payroll...YET!   But I have one word, "FTA" (okay, so it's an acronym).  Start a personal review of FTA grant dollars and funds being provided to the City of Oakland.  Why not include SF/BART while you're at it since they're transit plans are connected.  I'm betting, there's hundreds of millions or billions if you throw BART into the mix that they would NOT be willing to lose...even for another boat load of immigrants.

In reply to by Cognitive Dissonance

DeathMerchant WAMO556 Tue, 03/06/2018 - 23:02 Permalink

Wrong. The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation.

In reply to by WAMO556

MrAToZ Cognitive Dissonance Tue, 03/06/2018 - 22:51 Permalink

If kalifornia existed in a bubble and didn't allow the illegal aliens to migrate to other states I wouldn't give a shit. Let them choke on their own vomit. But, they don't enforce jack. They want that spigot open and every connecting pipe to infect other states. I think Sessions has a shot if he can find a Judge who isn't corrupt. Wait, did I take the red pill or the blue pill?

In reply to by Cognitive Dissonance

DeathMerchant Cognitive Dissonance Tue, 03/06/2018 - 22:51 Permalink

The rules of immigration were reserved to the States through the 10th Amendment until the first Federal law was enacted in 1875. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the following year that immigration regulation was an exclusive Federal responsibility.  So hopefully this issue with the idiots in California will end up in the SCOTUS where the precedent can be used to once again affirm this power to the feds.

In reply to by Cognitive Dissonance

DisorderlyConduct Cognitive Dissonance Tue, 03/06/2018 - 23:09 Permalink

Ummm. Don't forget the Supremacy Clause or the "necessary" clause. Both establish Federal law supremacy and the power Congress is given to institute laws necessary to uphold the Constitution. And immigration is the Federals domain.

Ummm. Not that they really give a flying fuck about the Constitution usually - but I'd like to think this is a change...

In reply to by Cognitive Dissonance