Hi. I’ve been checking out the news and quite a few times I’ve seen articles saying that California may refuse to implement President Trump’s immigration executive order. I’ve also seen that they may turn themselves into a Sanctuary State.
I was curious though. What could a Trump administration do in response? Could they send federal agents to take over law enforcement? Or the national guard? Could politicans be at risk of arrest?
Thanks alot for your time.
I’m curious too considering Maricopa County was sued by the Feds for enforcing immigration laws.
Nothing, short of withdrawing federal funds that the state may receive. As the Supreme Court held in Printz v. US (authored by Scalia, ironically), local and state governments cannot be compelled to carry out federal legislation.
The DOJ filed suit over alleged discriminatory practices by the Sherriff. That’s not the same as suing for enforcing immigration laws.
I think the issue at hand is whether a State is required to assist the Feds in enforcing immigration law … if local police pick up and book a crime suspect, and discover the suspect is completely innocent of any local or State crimes … the police turn them loose … without regard to immigration status …
That’s different from a State opening her borders to any and all immigrants who want into the USA … that’s strictly prohibited … only the Feds can determine immigration law …
This Executive Order smells like a post de facto rule … these folks were granted permission to enter, but now suddenly this permission is revoked … phaw … that’s bullshit … make new rules and start enforcing them is fine … but respect those who lawfully gained their permission … they have their visas in hand … we can’t take them away without due process …
Thread moved to IMHO in 10, 9, 8,7…
The problem we have is a President who thinks he’s a dictator (and/or intends to be one).
The Executive Branch has remarkable powers (Nixon gave his famous “Enemies List” to the IRS as a sic ‘em, Buster!’ list).
The problem will be that he will use his “Commander in Chief” of the US Military.
It is not unprecedented for guys with rifles being used to enforce Federal Law - just ask Medgar Evers or “Ol’ Miss”.
I don’t think this is quite right. It is the illegal immigrants that the order targets. A state may (an ordinary citizen may) report to the INS that they believes so and so to be an undocumented immigrant. But they have no obligation to. Even less do they have an obligation to even ask the question, although they may. Trump is attempting to make it obligatory for them to do these things and they are resisting.
Don’t the immigrants have to get past DHS before the state has a say in whether or not they’re welcome?
If you want a one word answer closest to what the law says, “No.”
If the President mobilizes the National Guard they are federal troops with all of the associated legal limits including Posse Commitatus. They cease to be special aside from reduced transportation issues.
If Jerry Brown hits his head and decides to call up the CANG against his own state’s action they are not as constrained as federal troops. They are still not law enforcement with law enforcement powers. They can provide law enforcement support.
It gets difficult to explain from there. Trust me on that difficulty. Some of the harder online classes I had to take during my career were related to DSCA (Defense Support to Civil Authorities) so I could act as a trainer for a major DSCA exercise.
Then how did Eisenhower call up the National Guard in Little Rock?
Going down the rabbit hole a bit. As I understand it the CBP can already stop people within a certain distance from the border (50km ?) and check immigration status. Is there anything stopping Trump expanding that to “anywhere in the US” and then getting CBP agents to enforce immigration law in CA ?
It’s not like you can build a fence along the CA border to keep federal agents out…
He mobilized them making them federal troops. That put them outside of the governor’s control. (The gov had used them initially to enforce segregation in violation of both law and court decisions so Eisenhower took away his toys.) Legally the guard troops became the same as the active duty troops of the 101st Airborne that were sent in.
Then we get into the exception to Posse Comitatus which Eisenhower used in order to employ federal troops. I’ll leave the Insurrection Act of 1807 to you. 
It is also important to note that once the mob was dispersed local civil authorities could handle law enforcement. The mayor had actually been the one to ask for federal assistance and still controlled his police force.
Did I mention it being complicated?
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
What the hell is that? Something that goes a long with a meekus curious brief to a court?
The Feds can bring their own enforcement, i.e. mobilizing the National Guard as a federal force.
This issue of federal enforcement exists in states with legalized marijuana use as well, where it is still a federal crime.
My understanding is that the CBP can operate immigration checkpoints anywhere within 100 miles of the border. This would include around 50% of California by area and at least 80% by population.
Bullshit, but precisely what the US Supreme Court said the federal government is permitted to do. See Chae Chan Ping v. United States
Chae Chan Ping, a Chinese citizen, was living and working in San Francisco. Before traveling to China to visit family he obtained a re-entry certificate, paperwork from the government to guarantee his right to reenter the United States.
He got on a steamship on Sept 7, 1888 in Hong Kong to return to the United States. On October 1, 1888 the law changed, barring Chinese nationals from entering the United States. The steamship landed in San Francisco on October 8, 1888. Ping was refused entry.
A legal case ensued and it went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the federal government is allowed to make a change to immigration law like that and effectively void previously granted permission to enter the country.
You know, I was just recently reading that the so-called Chinese Exclusion cases, such as this one, are among the few SCOTUS cases remaining that are considered wrongly decided by most legal scholars yet have not been overturned.
A law, eh? Not an executive order? I assume executive order exclusion is a case that has not yet been decided?
IANAL but from what I’ve gleaned, the bigger gorilla (orangutang?) wins. So the feds trump (so to speak) the state, they are more powerful. The feds can come into the state jail and haul away their target; but the state can’t walk into a federal facility and take someone. But neither side can make the other side actually do something - the feds can’t force the state to report or deport - but the can walk into a state jail and take away Manuel who’s in for DUI or littering and haul him off to the INS for deportation - following due process. (and the state can’t force the feds to deport someone) However, unless the state or locals tell the federal agencies, they are unlikely to know of many of the illegal residents who may be in the state system.
Since the states have no border controls, “welcome with open arms” is irrelevant. Every illegal resident is a result of the CBP not doing their job.
Not sure what the limits on the CBP within the borders are - but I gather they are not unlimited (just close to that). They are entitled to do these searches as an extension of border controls. As an example, I think the case went like this - a Chinese-American was going to China for a visit. The authorities believed he may be involved in espionage (?) so they copied his laptop before they let him go. They then took the image to a facility 100 miles away and a few days later ran a scan on it. The court ruled the evidence was invalid, they should have gotten a warrant. CBP argued it was part of their authorized warrantless search. The court said they were allowed to search people coming or going - but taking material a long distance away and searching long after the person had left was beyond the definition of “border search”. I sort of assume the same logic would apply if the CBP was stopping people for no logical reason halfway up California and doing the “papers please” routine although they have no reason to believe the people may have just recently crossed the border. Has nothing to do with “border inspections”.
I don’t know if that’s accurate. Federal courts (and law) generally trump state and local courts and statues, but this may not necessarily hold true when it comes to “police powers” that are exclusive to states. From a practical perspective too, federal authorities would have a difficult time trying to enter a state prison or jail and “haul away their target.”
[QUOTE=md2000]
But neither side can make the other side actually do something - the feds can’t force the state to report or deport - but the can walk into a state jail and take away Manuel who’s in for DUI or littering and haul him off to the INS for deportation - following due process. (and the state can’t force the feds to deport someone) However, unless the state or locals tell the federal agencies, they are unlikely to know of many of the illegal residents who may be in the state system.
[/QUOTE]
In Oregon, reports have been coming out that plainclothes federal ICE agents have been loitering in the multnomah county courthouse in Portland and detaining undocumented immigrants. County officials have come out and said that this is occurring without their approval.
Why doesn’t Trump just let California keep all the immigrants and refugees? If they go to another state, then arrest them. If California residents want to take care of 100,000, 500,000, or even millions of refugees, more power to them. But they will get no additional federal aid. And they can do whatever vetting they want.