10 Responses to California Advocating States Rights – To Ignore Immigration Law

1. Power Grab says:

   20 September 2017 at 4:26 am

   Since practically everything the Dim’Rats do has as its goal the disruption/destabilization of our peace and welfare, are they not just setting themselves up for a trouncing whenever people get the chance to vote for a party that will enforce the law rather than ignore it?

   Dims don’t _do_ law and order, do they? Why would anyone vote to give them more control?

   So all this “resistance” could very well end up blowing their chances to take over, once everyone realizes they are the problem, no matter how many free phones they hand out.

   Right?
2. E.M.Smith says:

   20 September 2017 at 11:56 am

   While one would think so, the evidence is that the point of blowing up comes as a Venezuela Moment … i.e. long after the Socialist Collapse has screwed everything…

   For California, we’ve reached the point where you have about 1/2 the folks running for office with Hispanic names & heritage, so about 3/4 of the Democrats… It’s now a political war between the Mexican Invasion and the Anglo Minority. Yes, Minority. In San Jose, hispanics are over 50%. In many central valley farm towns, much higher (in some it helps a lot to speak Spanish like in Gonzales when I swapped to it in the hardware store as the clerk was struggling with English).

   Essentially the “end game” in California will be as a Mexican Dominated State resisting the rest of the USA. I’d not be surprised to see it vote to leave the USA and join Mexico. That’s the stated goal of folks like La Raza et. al. They see this as Alta Mexico and illegally stolen from Mexico.
3. philjourdan says:

   20 September 2017 at 12:13 pm

   Long before California found the joy of “State’s Rights”, the states of New England clamored for them as well. They threatened to secede during the war of 1812 because “it was not their fight”.

   However, while there is ambiguity on the issue of secession, there is no ambiguity on immigration as you note. California can try to secede (and is trying), but the law they passed is clearly unconstitutional. But I do not expect a 9-0 vote against it as liberal SCOTUS justices are not very bright. They rule based upon feelings, and never think about the natural extension of their actions.
4. E.M.Smith says:

   20 September 2017 at 6:42 pm

   @Phil:

   Well, I was about to cite “Texas vs White” as law that settled the issue of secession (as is often done by all sorts of folks) but decided to “Dig A Little” for verification I I sometimes do. Ran into this exposition of the legal case:

   http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/01/on_secssion.html

   which basically says “Not So Fast – it was about bonds, not secession”…

   1. Secession was not the ultimate issue in Texas v. White.

   Texas v. White is often cited as a case which definitively and directly ruled on Texas’ right to secede. That is not the case. Texas v. White was a case about government bonds. It’s all a little boring but it’s important to understand just how far removed the decision is from what it is often presented to be.
   […]
   2. The opinion in Texas v. White is limited to the set of facts set forth in that case.

   The question in Texas v. White was not whether a state can ever cease to be a member of the Union. The Court defines the question as: “Did Texas, in consequence of these acts, cease to be a State? Or, if not, did the State cease to be a member of the Union?”
   […]
   By laying the facts out in such detail, Chase presents myriad opportunities for future jurists and states to distinguish between future secession attempts and that of Texas in 1861. Even if taken as binding precedent, Texas v. White stands only for the proposition that somewhere in the above described events, there was some procedural flaw making Texas’ secession invalid. For instance, Chase could be read as saying that the process of secession taken by Texas failed because it was initiated by “a convention, called without authority” and because it did not receive the ratification of the elected governor and secretary of state.

   Chase makes no statement as to the validity of secession undertaken by a majority vote of a state legislature and enacted by its executive.
   […]
   3. Texas v. White contains little by way of citation to authority.

   Even within the narrow ground covered by the opinion, the opinion is not well supported.

   Admittedly, no legal tradition supplies a common law governing secession — except perhaps that the topic must be off limits with punishments ranging from drawing and quartering in medieval times, to rolled eyes at a present day cocktail party. With such a dearth of case law, Chase was left to do what he could with moral and philosophical arguments.
   […]
   4. Chase’s historical arguments do a poor job of supporting his opinion.

   Chase notes: “The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war . . . .” This of course would fully apply to the relations between Great Britain and its colonies as well as it would describe the Union of the States. Chief Justice Chase makes no attempt to differentiate between the secession of Texas and the Independence of the Thirteen Colonies.

   Chase concludes, “The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States.” Chase makes no explanation as to what would have made the Magna Carta (or any subsequent British constitution) look more destructible.
   […]
   5. Chase’s reference to the Articles of Confederation is confusing.

   Chase next places a clumsy weld between the old Articles of Confederation and the United State Constitution. He notes that the Union “received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.'” He then attempts to tie the Articles to the Constitution but in so doing contradicts himself: “when these Articles were found to be inadequate . . . the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.'”

   Chase is implying that somehow a portion of the Articles survived the ratification of the Constitution. Yet this introduces another contradiction: If the Articles were “perpetual” then how could they have been replaced by the Constitution? Are the Articles still in force? Are they in full force, or did only two words — “be perpetual” — survive?

   These questions take on a new dimension when we consider that Texas was never a party to the Articles; by the time Texas joined the Union the Articles had been replaced by the Constitution. If Texas was somehow bound by the ‘perpetual’ Articles of Confederation, could it then secede from the Union formed by the Constitution but remain bound to the other states by the Articles of Confederation?

   Half of Chase’s argument corresponds to history. The Articles were found to be inadequate. However there is no basis to assume, as Chase has done, that any provision of the Articles was judged adequate and somehow incorporated into the Constitution. The Constitution is not simply an addendum to the Articles; both in a broad sense and in particulars it directly contradicts the Articles. If “the Constitution was ordained for form a” union more perfect than that union formed by the Articles of Confederation, this would suggest that no provision of the Articles would survive. At the very least, our starting assumption should be that any provision in the Articles, which was not included in the “more perfect” Constitution, was deliberately abandoned.

   In summary, Texas v. White, even if given the utmost respect, and considered binding precedent, does not stand for the proposition that no state may ever break its bonds with the Federal Government of the United States. At the same time, if it is considered the final word on the Federal Government’s right to prohibit a state from seceding, then that right is far from established.

   All of which seems to me to be a pretty strong refutation of the idea that it prevents secession…
   
   So also left unclear was the question of can the other 49 States vote to eject California for not adhering to the Union…. Just Sayin’….

   Now my preferred solution to the whole thing would just be to admit Mexico’s States and Canada’s Provinces to The Union and call it all the United States of North America and be done with it. We already have functional open borders with Canada as thousands of SnowBirds flock south each winter for 6 months of retirement in Florida, and every summer hoards of vacationers from the USA flock north for lakes and fishing. More product crosses both ways than I can count. As per Mexico: Sure it’s a border… that just about anything and anyone crosses more or less at will to the tune of $Billions of drugs and 12 Million illegal immigrants (after a few rounds of amnesty has legalized further untold millions) while US tourists and retired folks dominate whole sections of Mexico ( Cabo anyone?…)

   IMHO, the automobile made land borders much less solid and the rise of international air travel on a massive basis made them a minor nuisance at best. I’m sorry, but 1 minute with a customs clerk saying “Yes, I’m a tourist. Yes this is my stuff. No, I’m not a drug dealer” isn’t much of a barrier, and that, only for some folks some times. At the UK airport I just walked a gauntlet between tables and they called out some but not all folks. I looked bland so just walked on into the country. Maybe it’s tighter now, 30 years later… In Japan, I had to answer that “Yes I’m on a business trip and Yes I have Business Shoes!”… I travel in sandals and they wanted to see shoes suitable for a business meeting so I opened my suitcase and their they were.

   So what IS a border these days, really? Right to work? I worked for weeks in both countries as a business trip. Right to vote? Many folks don’t bother to vote anyway. Benefits? I went to a UK Hospital for a minor issues (sty) and it was dealt with, even as a visitor.

   Oh Well…

   We can either make the border a real and enforced thing AND police the untold millions who are here illegally; or admit it’s a failed concept and move on to integration. The middle ground sucks.

   I don’t really care which way it falls, BTW. I’m good with the Old Rules of real borders and meaningful citizenship with enforcement of legal terms of presence. I’m also fine with “Y’all Come!” over the whole continent. Most Canadians are great folks, but they have some lousy actors too. Most Mexicans are fine folks, but they have some lousy actors in slightly larger numbers. Most USA Citizens are decent hard working folks, but we’ve got our own basket of creeps and loony toons (many in government…). Spanish is effectively the 2nd language of the USA as it stands. Making the place trilingual instead isn’t that hard a reach. ( I had both Spanish and French in school so I’m an existence proof of the concept. Spouse had French and Latin. Son had Spanish and Italian. Daughter had Spanish and American Sign Language.) Though I’d have it be voluntary as enforcing multi-lingual causes resentment.

   Oh, just to complete the set: I’d also be fine with French Canadian secession, with Confederate States (again…), with California Alta Mexico, with Alaska British Canada; whatever. All three of the present forms of Government work well enough. All the cultures overlap to a pretty big degree, yet have stressful points of difference. Rearranging the deck chairs doesn’t change that much, relieving some bits and stressing others. Whatever works best for folks in their daily lives is fine with me. I really just don’t care…
5. pouncer says:

   20 September 2017 at 7:01 pm

   Let’s put a toe into that water before we dive in over our heads.

   I’d like to see Congress (and candidates and the “experts” on the news) debate a proposal to accept the entire Baja Penninsula as a new US territory, offered by the nation of Mexico to the nation of the United States as settlement, in full, of old debt and “payment” of costs associated with securing the mutual boder. “Securing the border” to permit, if not mandate, a physical wall.

   The United States as a nation has historically benefitted from having a territorial frontier and arguably things have gotten worse since 1905 when Oklahoma transitioned to a state.

   Adding about 3000 km of beachfront to the U.S. for development seems like a good idea in and of itself. Comparing what the US economic “system” might do, compared to what the Mexican system has done, might be instructive.

   In worst case, I can’t imagine it being any worse than Puerto Rico.
6. E.M.Smith says:

   20 September 2017 at 7:17 pm

   @Pouncer:

   Well… it was done once before, but maybe this time will be different ;-)

   https://www.bajabound.com/bajaadventures/bajafever/annexbaja.php

   The Filibuster of 1890 – Plotting to Annex Baja

   By Greg Niemann
   Annex Baja

   In a clandestine 1890 meeting, the San Diego conspirators reviewed their plot to seize Baja California. Smug in anticipated success to establish their new “Republic of Lower California,” they had already written a draft of the constitution and designed a colorful flag. With resources secured by the Mexican Land and Colonization Company (often referred as the English Company) they felt their chances to wrest the Baja Peninsula away from Mexico were better than earlier attempts.

   Following the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) California was split and the present international border was created. As war spoils were divvied up, Mexico ceded California (Alta) and parts of Texas and New Mexico to the U.S., but managed to keep Lower (Baja) California.

   The expansionist-minded U.S. however, wanted Lower California. It took a firm counterproposal in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo negotiations to save what is now Baja for Mexico.

   Following the war Mexico was forced to sell the southern parts of Arizona and New Mexico to the U.S. in 1853-54 (Gadsden Purchase).

   Lower California, with an 1851 population of only 7,000, was neglected by Mexico yet grew to over 20,000 by 1866, mostly a misfit band of criminals, smugglers and other opportunists.

   There were several attempts to “take over” Lower California. A war veteran named Joseph Moorehead landed with troops in La Paz in 1851. He was defeated. So, eventually, was the infamous William Walker who made a storied takeover attempt in 1853 with his huge band of mercenaries.

   Then there was Henry Crabb, a former California state senator who led 69 men into Sonora in the 1850s. They were defeated, the vast majority executed, including Crabb, whose head was reportedly preserved in a jar of alcohol and displayed as a warning not to invade Mexican territory.
   Annex Baja

   There were official attempts as well. In 1859, U.S. President James Buchanan sent minister McClane to Mexico to negotiate purchasing several Mexican provinces including Lower California. Even after the negotiations were confined to Lower California alone, Mexican President Juarez refused to sell.

   In 1881 President John Garfield, through Secretary James G. Blaine, again approached Mexico on her willingness to sell the Peninsula.

   Also in 1881, trailblazer John C. Fremont, at the time territorial governor of Arizona, proposed to the U.S. Government that Lower California be cordoned off as a reservation or asylum for the warlike Apache Indians.

   Conspirators knew the history

   Those San Diego conspirators finalizing takeover plans were fully aware of the long-standing sentiment that the U.S. should get Baja California. After all – they were mostly journalists who had spent much of the previous decade writing inflammatory editorials and articles pushing for a takeover.

   The journalists wanted to break away from Northern California influence, grab Baja, and include it in a new state of “Southern California.”
   […]

   It goes on from there…

   The simple fact is that Mexico and the USA have shared history in much of the land out west. Might be easier to just negotiate a “mutual occupation” of it all rather than us steal more of theirs or them simply Demographically Invade more of ours…

   Then again, as I noted above, I’m open to just about anything that re-balances a bit and gets us back to more of a Rule Of Law mode of operation.
7. Power Grab says:

   20 September 2017 at 11:13 pm

   @ Pouncer re:

   “The United States as a nation has historically benefitted from having a territorial frontier and arguably things have gotten worse since 1905 when Oklahoma transitioned to a state.”

   Oklahoma became a state in 1907. It was landlocked for a long time before that.

   These states share a border with Oklahoma and achieved statehood before she did:

   Missouri – 1821
   Arkansas – 1836
   Texas – 1845
   Kansas – 1861

   Only 4 states achieved statehood after Oklahoma.

   New Mexico – 1912
   Arizona – 1912
   Alaska – 1959
   Hawaii – 1959

   I don’t understand why you pinpoint Oklahoma’s statehood year as the point in time where border problems began. Oklahoma wasn’t on the territorial border, anyway.
8. Power Grab says:

   20 September 2017 at 11:27 pm

   @ EM

   And not only has California long been heading down the road to takeover by La Raza, but also Texas and everything in between. I’ve been hearing that for decades. At first, it didn’t seem likely, but I have to admit it almost looks like a done deal. My brother was in basic training in San Antonio, I think it was in the 80’s. The whole family drove out there to spend Christmas Day with him since he was not allowed to spend more than a few hours off base. So the family picked him up and tried to find diversions to entertain ourselves. Not much was open on Christmas Day. The zoo was. We were the only white family in view. In fact, everywhere we went that day, we were the only white family in view. It made me wish I had studied Spanish instead of French in high school. ;-)

   Then all at once, Dad looked at his watch with concern and said my brother was about to be AWOL. He took the wheel of one car and put me behind the wheel of the other car and said, “Try to keep up with me.” Then he took off across San Antonio as fast as prudently (or maybe not so prudently?) possible. I did manage to stay right behind him. I will never know why he thought I was the #2 racecar-driver-wannabe in the family!
9. E.M.Smith says:

   20 September 2017 at 11:36 pm

   @PowerGrab:

   In San Jose, Hispanics are the majority at about 52% (Official numbers, not counting “undocumenteds”…) and I’m a small minority. Spanish is ubiquitous though most of the Hispanics make a show of using English when I’m around (and I love to surprise them by shifting to Spanglish… ;-)

   In my home town, that WAS mostly WASP, it is now heavily Hispanic, being a central valley agricultural town.

   You can repeat that for most of the State outside the Core Urban Centers like San Francisco and Los Angeles (that have their own large Hispanic populations… but not dominant).

   Basically, the best way to understand California, IMHO, is as a Hispanic State with a White Face on in the public / political elite … for now… (Nancy, pack your bags… Maria is running for your seat soon…)
10. philjourdan says:

    21 September 2017 at 5:08 pm

    @Pouncer & E.M. – I am glad the US failed to annex Baja, as you can get vision and dental care dirt cheap! (and it is good quality). But what it is not is bound by the malpractice litigation and insurance that drives up US prices to a point of not being affordable.

Comments are closed.