Once again, we have a state that either thinks it can legislate for the whole nation (or world), or doesn't realize that this law will only apply within its boundaries. If someone from Oklahoma makes the "offending comment", this law will be useless in unmasking them because people in Oklahoma (or anywhere else) don't have to abide by acts of the Texas Legislature.
California receives about 20% of its water from the Colorado River, which comes from out of state. If it secedes, it will no longer have access to that water and its already-extreme drought will suddenly become a national emergency. Losing access to the Colorado River would put a tremendous strain on Southern California municipal and agricultural water districts, not to mention the vast farmland in the Imperial Valley.
Then there's the matter of defense. California would have to start funding it's own national defense by itself. Other than the state national guard, the federal government would remove all of its troops and equipment long before secession would be official, so it would have to hope that its exes in the American government would allow it to contract with the American defense industry to buy replacement equipment and/or that America will continue to defend California the way we do Canada. Either way, it's no small problem to solve.
> Not even sure how you can make such a dumb claim without > realizing how dumb it is. Nobody is fighting against > deporting people who have committed robbery, rape, murder > or other serious crimes. I can't believe that has to be > explained.
You obviously haven't been paying attention, because yes, they are.
Why reach all the way back to the Bush Administration for examples of people who were fine with executive overreach when their guy was in power, but not anymore?
Remember Obama and his pen and phone, who said he would act unilaterally if Congress wouldn't do what he wanted them to? Plenty of Democrats were just fine with that. The same Democrats who are now having kittens over Trump using that same pen and phone.
> The minute you get behind the wheel of your vehicle, your > 4th Amendment protections take a nosedive. Having a > vehicle on a public street makes everything > viewed through the windows a perfectly acceptable > warrantless search.
You say that like it's a bad thing or that it should be otherwise.
Why should the police need a warrant to look through a car window and see the murder weapon on the back seat? If it's publicly visible from a public place, it's fair game, whether it's in your car or sitting on your front lawn.
Put another way, it's absurd to say people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things that the general public can see on a city street.
> Nothing bad at all would happen to the US economy if the US > were to lose direct access to those ports.
Secession would be a lot worse for CA's economy than the other way around. The vast majority of the tax base would up and leave because most people of means will prefer to keep their U.S. citizenship. That means moving elsewhere. Even all those mouthy celebrities who constantly threaten to move to another country if their preferred candidate loses an election wouldn't stay behind. (Ever notice they never actually move when their candidate loses?)
That leaves behind who? The poor and the illegals, all of whom have their hands out demanding government benefits. The rich and middle class have left, leaving no source of revenue to meet the demands of millions who think they're entitled to free stuff. Won't be long until the cities are burning.
In the meantime, the U.S. still has the Port of Seattle to bring in shipping from the Pacific.
> legal non-American immigrants are related to undocumented immigrants, > and breaking up families is messy.
The government is breaking up their families merely by enforcing its laws. *They* are breaking up their own families by placing them in a situation where it could happen. They came here knowing it was against the law and if they were caught, they could be deported, so if that results in a separated family, that's on them.
When a guy robs a bank and gets caught, we don't say it's the government's fault for breaking up his family when it sends him to prison. We say it's the bank robber's fault for committing the crime that put him in that position.
> The other part is implied. By telling the feds to beat > it
Which they didn't do. As I pointed out above, the SFPD was working out of the FBI's offices. They didn't "tell the feds to beat it". At most the mayor's office told the SFPD to beat it and they walked out, probably to a chorus of yawns and "whatevers" from the FBI and the other federal, state, and local agencies on the task force.
> the SFPD is suggesting the FBI isn't doing much to > acutally make San Francisco safer. The Joint Terrorism > Task Force seems to be more about expanding surveillance > and obtaining perpetual funding than preventing terrorist > attacks or uncovering their conspiracies.
Well, they'd have to say that or something similar, wouldn't they? Funny how the city never had a problem with any of that for decades until their precious illegal alien-coddling programs were threatened.
> If you don't understand the distinction between a state > (e.g. Arizona) being prevented from violating the rights > of its people and a state (e.g. Washington) defending > the rights of its people, I don't see the point in even > continuing a discussion with you.
If you don't understand that none of that is relevant with regard to what the Constitution says and the powers it delegates vis-à-vis the state and federal governments, then there's no point in continuing this discussion until you take a remedial Civics class and learn the basic functions of your government.
Oh, and not all the laws that were passed by the border states violated people's rights, unless, of course, you're an open-borders radical who defines anything that controls or hinders illegal immigration as a "violation of rights".
> > I believe that should read "...cities that care more > > about ILLEGAL immigrants than he does".
> Nope, pretty sure it's fine the way it is.
And you'd be wrong about that. My city is fighting against cooperating on the deportation of *criminal* illegal aliens. Not just illegals who came across the border illegally, but who committed other crimes once they got here-- gang crime, robbery, rape, even murder.
Who the hell fights tooth and nail to keep a rapist or a home invasion burglar in the country? What kind of mental illness is that, where you think such people are so desirable that you're going to spend taxpayer money fighting to keep them from deportation?
> San Francisco Police Department Kicks FBI's Joint > Terrorism Task Force To The Curb
Since the JTTFs are run by the FBI out of FBI offices, it would be kind of hard for the local PD to "kick them to the curb". More like they packed up their desks and kicked themselves to the curb.
Of course not being on the JTTF means they won't be in the loop anymore regarding intel sharing. It'll be interesting the next time something significant happens in SF and the mayor starts screaming about why she wasn't informed, etc. etc. And the FBI says, "Well, you picked up your ball and went home in a snit, so you only have yourselves to blame."
> Has nothing to do with states' rights whatsoever.
You're just quibbling over terminology. The principles of federalism are front and center here, as is the bald-faced hypocrisy of those government officials at the local and state level who are now claiming to have some sort of legal authority over the immigration issue.
During the Obama Administration, the southern border states (AZ, NM, TX), frustrated over the complete lack of meaningful federal immigration enforcement, attempted to enact various state laws dealing with the problem. Those laws were immediately challenged by open-borders activists who claimed that immigration is solely a matter of federal jurisdiction, per the Constitution. (A claim which does have legal merit, unfortunately.) And time after time after time, the federal courts agreed and invalidated the state laws which encroached on a power reserved exclusively to federal government.
Fast-forward to 2017, and the "progressives" have lost the White House and Congress, something they thought would never happen when they were making those "federal-only" legal arguments in court during Obama's term. Now they've suddenly done a complete 180-degree reversal in their arguments.
Now "progressives" in the Washington State government claim that immigration isn't solely a matter of federal jurisdiction after all, and the fact that the Constitution says it's so is merely an inconvenient legal speed bump to be "interpreted" around.
Now "progressives" claim that if a state suffers a negative impact on its business climate because of federal immigration action, it has standing to sue to stop that federal action. (Not only do they now claim to have power in the realm of immigration, they're claiming that state power *exceeds* federal power if they can show a negative impact.) Never mind they were shooting down those very arguments from the border states as little as three years ago, calling them absurd and without legal merit.
The blatant hypocrisy on this issue is truly stunning to behold. Politicians have always been hypocrites but they usually don't parade it around quite so nakedly like this.