California demands details of Trump administration immigration arrests

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

California legislative leaders on Monday demanded detailed information from the Trump administration on immigration arrests and raids in the most populous U.S. state, amid growing concern that agents are targeting non-criminals for deportation.

Citing reports that agents for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, had gone to churches, schools and courthouses to find and arrest illegal immigrants, the legislature used the federal Freedom of Information Act to request all records of enforcement actions taken or planned since Republican Donald Trump was sworn in as president on Jan. 20.

"Despite saying he’d only target dangerous criminals, President Trump’s executive orders target practically every undocumented person in California," said Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, who signed the request along with Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon.

ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-california-idUSKBN1662KA

---

POLITICS | Mon Feb 27, 2017 | 5:51pm EST
By Sharon Bernstein | SACRAMENTO, CALIF.

[BumRushDaShow]

1. Good.

Bring the power of your population of 39,000,000 to bear!

[aggiesal]

2. In Cheetohead's little mind, amongst other things ...

If they're here illegally, they're committing a crime, so they're criminals.
They're not arresting non-criminals.

[SHRED]

3. Can they get this info?

[adigal]

4. Any lawyers here?? Can a state throw federal agents out if they are abusing power?

Cause that is what I would do if I could.

[red dog 1]

5. CA is not Trumpland!

I love the line: "ICE did not respond to a request for comment."

When will that lying, cheating, child-raping, Republican piece of crap be impeached?

[byronius]

6. ICE -- Storm Troopers. ICE -- Death's Head Brigades. ICE -- Gestapo.

Out of my state. We'll deal with it ourselves.

[Lucinda]

7. KNR

[MichMan]

8. I thought that was already decided ?

Didn't the courts rule in Arizona a few years ago, that enforcement of immigration laws was exclusively held by the Federal Government and the states had no role ?

[KingCharlemagne]

9. You thought what was already decided? - nt

[MichMan]

11. That iindividual states had any say over immigration

In 2010, Arizona passed a state law SB1070 concerning immigration law enforcement by the state. It was challenged all the way to SCOTUS which ruled 5-3 that immigration law enforcement is controlled by Federal law only due to the Supremecy Clause and that no state law can usurp that authority. At the time, the SCOTUS decision was praised here overwhelmingly as you would expect.

That would seem to indicate that no state has standing to interfere with Federal immigration enforcement.

[KingCharlemagne]

12. How is an FOIA request "interfering with Federal immigration enforcement"? - nt

[MichMan]

13. By itself it's not, but no actions could be taken based on such information n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

14. So I take it you were opposed to the state of Washington filing suit to

stop the Muslim Ban? Given your blind fealty to the supremacy clause and all.

[MichMan]

15. Just don't like blatant hypocrisy by either side

I hate hypocrisy on both sides, so being opposed to things like state's rights compared to Federal powers, opposing the filibuster along with favoring Executive Orders, most often turns out to have the opposite effect when the opposing party is in power. And for the right wing, the opposite would hold true, so there is a lot of hypocrisy to go around.

Just pointing out how gleeful we were here when the Arizona law was overturned, and how that decision to take away state immigration powers most likely is not what we favor now. I have generally found, you can't have it both ways in life and politics.

In general, I would rather support more local control than from Washington, but I believe I am in the minority here on DU most of the time.

[KingCharlemagne]

16. My you certainly give new meaning to the age-old question "How many

angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Yes or no: do you oppose the state of Wasington's suit to stop the Muslim ban?

[MichMan]

17. Immigration policy should be Federal

Since immigration policies affect the entire nation & not just individual states, it wouldn't make any sense to have 50 different immigration policies, so that would mean I am opposed. No different than if a red state wanted to institute such a policy regarding individual countries when we were in power.

[KingCharlemagne]

18. So continuing in that vein, you support the Trump administration's position (which

essentially argued exactly the same idea, i.e., that the state of Washington lacked standing to sue)?

[mr_lebowski]

10. Wait til all the prices in grocery stores double and triple ...

Because US Citizens aren't really fans of working the fields, picking apples and strawberries and peas ... nor are they fans of working the slaughterhouses and meat packing plants ...

Of course, if the GOP manage to shred all semblance of 'the safety net', finish crushing the unions, maybe stage another economic meltdown ... the populace will have little choice but to grovel for crumbs from the wealthy and their corporations ... go back to working the cotton fields and such, just like back in the good old days when people 'knew their place' ...

And the RW Billionaire-Sponsored propaganda machine will convince the 35% of Americans who are total dumb-asses that it's ALL the fault of the liberals and their 'regulations' ...

I'm thinking it's seriously time to start looking into renewing our passports and making our escape plans at this point ...