Patterico's Pontifications

3/20/2018

California City Says No To State’s Sanctuary City Law

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:30 am

[guest post by Dana]

A California city voted to opt out of the state’s sanctuary city law, SB-54, because they believe it puts them at odds with the Constitution:

Orange County’s second-smallest city voted Monday night to exempt itself from California’s so-called sanctuary law, which limits cooperation between local agencies and federal immigration authorities.

The Los Alamitos City Council voted 4-1 following more than two hours of heated testimony from residents on both sides of the issue.

Mayor Troy Edgar said he hoped mayors in other cities consider similar local legislation. And his message was clear: “As the mayor of Los Alamitos, we are not a sanctuary city.”

The council went one step further. The majority also voted to direct the city attorney to write an amicus brief to a federal lawsuit filed earlier this month against California, alleging that three of the state’s laws are unconstitutional. One of those laws was the same one the Los Alamitos council looks to opt-out of: the “California Values Act,” which limits cooperation between law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities.

Councilman Warren Kusumoto accused state legislators of “bullying us into violating our oath of office.” He explained that the ordinance was “…our way of going on record saying we’re going to comply with the U.S. Constitution.”

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

26 Responses to “California City Says No To State’s Sanctuary City Law”

  1. The ACLU is planning to take action against the city as a result of this vote.

    Dana (023079)

  2. califascism is the future according to vogue’s drippy sticky cameltoe profile

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  3. If California declares they don’t need to follow federal law, why does a city need to follow state law?

    NJRob (319119)

  4. I think it takes only a simple majority in the House and Senate to declare a state of war, rebellion or insurrection. I’m looking at you, California.

    But what this is really reminiscent of is “The Untouchables”. Crooked state and municipal politicians protecting their local gangsters and other criminals from the federal authorities. I’m looking at you, Mayor Schaaf.

    nk (dbc370)

  5. failifornia seems to have no knack whatsoever for picking its battles

    if failifornia were a person it would be a fourteen-year-old goth cutter chick with scars all over her arms

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  6. I am absolutely, 100% in favor of federal laws being enforced; the problem (or one problem) is that the administrative “detainers” that the Feds use to request transfer of illegal aliens in police custody for deportation have no legal authority, unlike arrest warrants (and I think this should be changed). By making compliance voluntary, the feds are inviting non-compliance.

    Also, an administration truly committed to law and order would declare the state governments of California, Colorado, Nevada, etc corrupt organizations and arrest/prosecute them under RICO for running protection rackets to profit from illegal drug sales. In principle that should allow seizure of state assets derived from, or engaged in, the criminal activity (e.g. state capitols, governors’ mansions, treasury buildings, etc)

    Dave (445e97)

  7. Constitution Sanctuary.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  8. if failifornia were a person it would be a fourteen-year-old goth cutter chick with scars all over her arms

    But heir to riches and power. Sort of a young Diane Feinstein.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  9. Sort of a young Diane Feinstein.

    But she would look like Kate Upton.

    Dave (445e97)

  10. But she would look like Kate Upton.

    Parts of her would, especially the parts around Lake Tahoe. But plenty of other parts look like Janet Reno after a hatchet fight.

    Chuck Bartowski (7ba363)

  11. Also, an administration truly committed to law and order would declare the state governments of California, Colorado, Nevada, etc corrupt organizations and arrest/prosecute them under RICO for running protection rackets to profit from illegal drug sales.

    [YouTube- sound effect]

    papertiger (c8116c)

  12. Wish it were Santa Ana, but still a baby step for truth and justice AND the American Way.

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  13. Parts of her would, especially the parts around Lake Tahoe. But plenty of other parts look like Janet Reno after a hatchet fight.

    Chuck Bartowski (7ba363) — 3/20/2018 @ 12:01 pm

    I can see you’ve never been to the North Coast… what fantastic coastline!

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  14. Recuerde Te Los Alamitos!

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  15. But she would look like Kate Upton.

    Dave (445e97) — 3/20/2018 @ 11:36 am

    She has large…tracts of land.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  16. I can see you’ve never been to the North Coast… what fantastic coastline!

    I’ve been all along the coast, from San Diego to Crescent City. Been in most parts of the state over the years. Still like Tahoe best of all.

    Chuck Bartowski (7ba363)

  17. BTW, many cities and counties in “Jefferson” have voted to op out.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  18. *opt

    Kevin M (752a26)

  19. The state is sovereign – or the federal government is – but not the city.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  20. I’ve been all along the coast, from San Diego to Crescent City. Been in most parts of the state over the years. Still like Tahoe best of all.

    Chuck Bartowski (7ba363) — 3/20/2018 @ 1:19 pm

    Went to Tahoe with my wife, son, DIL and grandkids for my birthday in late September … first time in years that i’d been there… we got snowed on for a couple of the days and it was wonderful.

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  21. But that coastline from Sea Ranch up to Mendocino is spectacular.

    Colonel Haiku (ed0bb1)

  22. The state is sovereign – or the federal government is – but not the city.

    Well, I’d love to see the state police arresting mayors and sheriffs. It’s great precedent and those fine distinctions about sovereignty won’t play well when the feds arrest the governor.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  23. Meanwhile, the Texas law forbidding counties, cities, and other state sub-units from adopting or enforcing sanctuary city policies has been upheld by a unanimous panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in a 36-page opinion by Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones:

    Texas cities, counties, and local officials challenge Senate Bill 4 (“SB4”), a Texas law that forbids “sanctuary city” policies throughout the state. SB4 prohibits local authorities from limiting their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and it requires local officers to comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detainer requests. In their pre-enforcement lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged a battery of constitutional violations: (I) SB4 is preempted by federal immigration law, (II) SB4’s “endorse” prohibition violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, (III) SB4’s ICE-detainer mandate violates the Fourth Amendment, and (IV) SB4’s phrase “materially limits” is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining several of the law’s provisions. Texas appeals the injunction, and the plaintiffs cross-appeal the district court’s refusal to issue a broader injunction. With one exception, SB4’s provisions do not, on their face, violate the Constitution. For the following reasons, we uphold the statute in its entirety except for the application of the “endorsement” prohibition, Tex. Gov’t Code § 752.053(a)(1), to elected officials.

    The plaintiffs’ one win was on a part of the statute that was extremely troublesome under the First Amendment, inasmuch as it is a direct attempt at prior regulation of political speech — albeit by public officials — based on the contents of the speech. The Texas Solicitor General’s office (still a crackerjack office of up-and-coming lawyers which is becoming a feeder-source for judicial nominees) likely wasn’t surprised or even disappointed by that result; although the plaintiffs will likely seek (and be denied) review in the SCOTUS, I won’t be surprised if the Texas AG foregoes its cross-appellate opportunities to complain about that one nit, in what was otherwise an overwhelmingly complete victory by the State of Texas.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  24. Beldar, without knowing all that much about the case, it sounds to me like they did not have a leg to stand on in state court based on Texas’s home rule and preemption laws, so they tried to pull a Roper v. Evans?

    nk (dbc370)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2326 secs.