2025 Looking like 2020 - Wonder What They Have In Common

[Gunnar]

Not sure where I read this but I did read that they were screened in advance.

The folks in uniform who will be sitting in bleachers during the parade this weekend will be screened in advance for their loyalty to Trump’s actions and utterances. I believe that the folks in charge wanted to avoid any ‘rolling of eyes’ visible in the background when Cheetolini speaks.

It reminds me of Kim Jong Un's practice of having enforcers whose job is to monitor crowds observing his parades and public appearances looking for people who are not cheering and clapping vigorously or enthusiastically enough and singling them out for arrest and punishment.

[Markk]

Senate Bill 54 (SB 54).... the California Values Act

https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your- ... -act-sb-54

It is enforced, as an example, by not enforcing retainers on an illegal immigrant for federal crimes. The Illegal immigrant could have a nation wide federal hold issued, say for human trafficking, and if that person was arrested or given a citation say for shoplifting, it is against CA law for the local agencies to contact the the Feds.

It is important note that LA enforces this to the letter. As the example I gave, it is a criminal felony charge, not a civil charge, for an illegal immigrant that was deported, after due process, and they come back. They can serve up to 2 years in prison for this charge, and then be deported again.

There’s no ‘get out of jail free’ card here. It only states that certain State law enforcement entities will not enforce Federal law on behalf of Federal jurisdiction. Nothing prevents ICE from interacting with people being held for State enforcement.

If ICE walks in the door and interviews someone that the State is holding, then the State is not going to force that person to cooperate to the satisfaction of ICE. But if apprehended by ICE, this law does not allow release of that person against ICE’s federal charges. As such, the law does not do as you claim inasmuch as there’s not a provision ‘letting’ anyone walk free who is detained by Federal authorities … at least, that’s not apparent in the text you’re linking to.

Per the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution, immigration enforcement is the jurisdiction of the Federal government, and the State is not required to replace Federal actions in that regard. Is that not correct?

This makes sense from both a civil and a budgetary standpoint.

You have no idea what you are talking about period. You are not even trying to understand AB54. Your trying to spin this is sad and weak.

It only states that certain State law enforcement entities will not enforce Federal law on behalf of Federal jurisdiction. Nothing prevents ICE from interacting with people being held for State enforcement.

It states a lot more...did you bother to search for the bill and read it?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 720180SB54

The Bill starts....

Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters.

This bill would repeal those provisions.

Illegals, with federal holds, walk out of state and local facilities every day because of this bill, period.

You asked for the law, I gave it to you.

[Markk]

Lol....then why is it called a sanctuary city, and why are laws passed to let illegal immigrants walk free from their breaking federal immigrations laws?

As an example, it is a felony if a person is deported, and then comes back illegally.....but sanctuary cites do not and will not contact ICE for federal charges....why, because they offer sanctuary.

Here is the president explaining it for you....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IrDrBs13oA

Sanctuary cities and communities don't only benefit undocumented immigrants. Here are some of the best arguments for sanctuary cities:

Democrats have long championed these policies as a way to create safe and welcoming environments for immigrants.

Jill Habig, Founder and President of Public Rights Project—a national nonprofit that works with state and local governments to enforce civil rights—is currently working with Portland to fight back against Trump’s legal and political fight with sanctuary cities. She says sanctuary cities have adopted these laws in order to create trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.

“If immigrants fear that their local police are going to turn them over to ICE, then they may not report a crime that's affecting everyone in their neighborhood,” Habig says. “That’s really the principle that cities have been deploying for decades: to say, ‘We want to make sure everyone in the community feels safe and that they feel comfortable, that they can access city services without fear of deportation.’ That actually makes cities safer.”

In a 2017 study by the Center for American Progress—conducted during Trump’s first term—the center reported that there were, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. A 2020 Cambridge University study also found that when local law enforcement works closely with ICE, undocumented immigrants are less likely to report crimes, which “undermines public safety,” one of the researchers said to the Hill.

A January 2025 statement from the California Police Chiefs Association—which “represents all 334 municipal police chiefs in the State of California”—echoes this desire for cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement.

The association said that local law enforcement should not “shield dangerous individuals or restrict our agencies and officers from investigating and apprehending serious or violent offenders.” However, at the same time, they argue that sanctuary laws in place “to ensure the safeguarding of every undocumented person in need of assistance…must remain in place.”

Quotes taken from https://time.com/7222159/what-are-sanct ... ting-them/

I'm not arguing for blanket, unrestricted protection for undocumented immigrants, but emphasis should be against those who violate serious crimes other than merely being undocumented residents and less on those who are actually contributing to their local communities, holding down productive, essential jobs, paying taxes and supporting beloved family members who would be devastated by their deportation.

And certainly, no action should ever be taken against legal visitors and tourists to this country, such as cancelling their visas, merely because they exercised their constitutionally protected right to publicly express opinions that Trump or anyone in his administration didn't like! The right of free speech, like many other constitutionally established rights, applies to everyone within the jurisdiction of U.S. no matter what their citizenship status or political or religious beliefs.

Lol, you are supporting my assertion about "sanctuary" cities and states. They give sanctuary to people who break federal laws by entering and living in our country illegally.

Coming to this country illegally is both a civil crime, and is some cases criminal and felonies. We have laws against it.

Read the US codes on immigration.

Do you believe in borders?

[Kishkumen]

Realistically, a border is a tool for managing traffic. It is not an impermeable barrier for preventing non-citizens from entering citizen-only space. Borders and citizenship do not have a coterminous relationship. I have some of the benefits of my citizenship when I leave the borders of my country behind, just as citizens of other countries carry their citizenship with them when they leave the citizenship-granting state they come from. Living in a country does not necessarily entail or require citizenship. Each country will decide the terms of its residence and citizenship.

Trump has lied about immigration from the beginning. He would be the first guy to exploit the labor of undocumented immigrants if it were convenient for him, and he did. He is just cynically weaponizing the issue to arrogate to himself more power. Anyone who believes Trump is sincere in anything beyond his own interests is a sucker.

[Gadianton]

Realistically, a border is a tool for managing traffic. It is not an impermeable barrier for preventing non-citizens from entering citizen-only space. Borders and citizenship do not have a coterminous relationship. I have some of the benefits of my citizenship when I leave the borders of my country behind, just as citizens of other countries carry their citizenship with them when they leave the citizenship-granting state they come from. Living in a country does not necessarily entail or require citizenship. Each country will decide the terms of its residence and citizenship.

Trump has lied about immigration from the beginning. He would be the first guy to exploit the labor of undocumented immigrants if it were convenient for him, and he did. He is just cynically weaponizing the issue to arrogate to himself more power. Anyone who believes Trump is sincere in anything beyond his own interests is a sucker.

Very true, a sucker, and a complete idiot.

[canpakes]

You have no idea what you are talking about period. You are not even trying to understand AB54. Your trying to spin this is sad and weak.

Cakes: It only states that certain State law enforcement entities will not enforce Federal law on behalf of Federal jurisdiction. Nothing prevents ICE from interacting with people being held for State enforcement.

It states a lot more...did you bother to search for the bill and read it?

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face ... 720180SB54

The Bill starts....

Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters.

This bill would repeal those provisions.

Illegals, with federal holds, walk out of state and local facilities every day because of this bill, period.

This isn’t helping your claim. This is only stating that the State agencies will no longer invite the Federal Government to do a federal agency’s job. Immigration enforcement is Federal jurisdiction. Nothing in this provision keeps ICE from talking to someone apprehended by the State. The State just isn’t going to do the status verification work for ICE. And the State isn’t ‘letting anyone go’ if valid State charges exist or are applied.

We already know that ICE is approaching folks with protected status walking out of their scheduled immigration hearings and immediately detaining them for ‘being illegal’. The exact same thing can happen under this law above, to anyone ‘walking out of State and local facilities every day’. You know that this is happening now, and can happen regardless of what SB 54 proclaims.

You asked for the law, I gave it to you.

You provided a law, but it’s not doing what you claim. There may be some other part of the law that does what you claim, or another law that might, but this one doesn’t appear to be it.

[Jersey Girl]

Once again, Trump fails. He fails at everything he tries to do. DOJ set to appeal. And this is ALL Trump has ever managed to accomplished in his term...set fires, foment violence and chaos, lawsuits filed, appeals filed and then...he LOSES.

Federal judge says Trump unlawfully federalized members of California’s National Guard

https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/la-pro ... p-06-12-25

[Kishkumen]

Trump is and always has been a weak loser.

[Jersey Girl]

Trump is and always has been a weak loser.

Appeals court paused the ruling. I think this is SOP.

[Jersey Girl]

Trump walks it back. Fail much?

Lawrence: Trump surrenders on the central lie of his deportation campaign promises

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bhil91-uRRk