Obstruction of Justice or Mayoral Privilege?
IMHO, this is obstruction of justice, plain and simple. This mayor should be prosecuted immediately. No city has the "right" to violate Federal immigration law, as per the Constitution this is a responsibility explicitly delegated to Congress (to form immigration policy) and the Executive (ICE, etc. to enforce).
Another thing is for employers to just voluntarily discrimminate against people who were obviously illegal aliens- without getting in legal trouble for doing so.
I would not hire someone who looked like an illegal alien at the prevailing wage that an american would get. If I were to hire them, it would have to be at a steep discount.
Biggest deterrent is to eliminate "catch and release" at the border.
I'm all in favor of this, because economically it actually hurts the uneducated and minorities, but as a deterrent to illegal immigration, I'm questioning its effectiveness. Wouldn't it just provide more opportunities for work AND (with the elimination of a wage floor) make it easier to pay in cash?
Voluntary discrimination just for "looking" like an illegal alien
This one is so problematic its ridiculous. I can claim just about anyone "looks" like an illegal alien with no justification whatsoever. This one has really bad policy written all over it. Besides that, if we're hiring someone based on whether or not they can get the job done, how does what one looks like matter in the first place?
Biggest deterrent is to eliminate "catch and release" at the border
We need to start catching them at the border, and if they are on the list of convicted criminals, execute them on the spot. These are not only the most dangerous illegals coming in, but the ones helping funnel a lot of others.
As to the discrimmination part of it, If the wages paid would be the same for everyone by law, I would rather employ americans who spoke english, didnt need to go back to "mexico" for a month a year at my busiest time ( ! ), didnt have a car to get to work reliably, etc. On the other hand, if I could pay a person I could tell just by looking at them and talking for a few minutes - half of the american worker wage, I might consider hiring them.
All the arguments you are making regarding what you are calling discrimination seem to me to have little to do with being an immigrant and everything to do with job requirements. Being able to speak English seems like a pretty critical aspect of any job, as is the necessity to be there when the job needs to be done. I know many employers who block out certain weeks and say "we will not be approving time off during these times". I know its also been a standard question on every application I've ever filled out that I have to say that I have reliable transportation so that I can get to work on time. And any of these can be done right now regardless of their legal work right status. I think you have ample current status to employ any or all of those policies with your staff right now and be fully justified.
As to the discrimmination aspect, I was really referring to business people here trying to stop illegal immigration by voluntarily NOT hiring people they thought were illegal- and all without everify government threats.
Voluntarily not hiring illegals? You're forgetting that businesses are in it for the money. They are in it for cheap labor. Consumers may "buy American" to feel good, but few employers have that luxury. Without the threat of legal enforcement - or a massive customer backlash (which isn't going to happen) - their behavior will be to hire cheap labor. While this argument may appeal to the feel-good crowd, I fail to see it having any effect whatsoever.
I think there are two phases: stopping MORE illegal immigration, and deporting the ones already here. I think we both agree that we need to turn off the hose before we look at the drains.
I watched a series on TV about the Ken Starr investigation of Bill Clinton- who was definitely caught with his hand in the cookie jar and lied about it. It went on for like 5 years, and in the end the senate was too scared to act
Guiliani would have been a much better choice for AG, but he refused the job as I remember.
If Trump fires sessions we would NEVER get another AG confirmed. We would have to continue as we are now with the Assistant AG in charge. And he is smack dab in the middle of all this crap right now
She said she did not use OFFICIAL Sources, so she feels safe in doing this. (Meaning she did not use her office to find out).
BUT, her Twitter is probably verified. And now she used the COLOR OF LAW to notify people.
See, I believe the SOURCE of the information to HER was IMMATERIAL. If she announced it anonymously via an anonymous Twitter handle.
But the MINUTE anyone who saw that the MAYOR said this... Realized it was REAL, and now THEY are the source of the information, and considered RELIABLE and PART OF GOVERNMENT.
To me, this means she is COMPLETELY culpable. She Aided and Abetted criminals. And THIS is a case we should see her given 6 Months for EACH of the 800 People they felt they missed. For a total of 400 Years in prison, with Parole after 200 years!
Let the mayor decide for Oakland as long as the Governor of CA agrees.
Let the governors of states decide what the states and cities will do on everything including freezing all federal taxes collected and starving DC bureaucrats.
I lean toward states rights, too. But states do not have the right to interfere in the enforcement of federal laws. Immigration is handled under the federal umbrella as states do not have the right to make treaties with foreign nations AND because the Constitution puts immigration squarely within the purview of the Executive branch. Interestingly enough, I don't think that the Constitution gives the Judicial branch the authority to over-ride the President in this power, explicitly assigned to him.
It absolutely shouldn't, but the only remedy is Impeachment, which has only happened to the Judiciary one time in history and certainly wouldn't happen in today's hyper-partisan atmosphere.
I actually had an idea about judicial activism: if a Federal Judge has X (I was thinking three) or more rulings in a given year overturned by the Supreme Court, that Judge's stature of being "in good behavior" is automatically revoked and the Judge must re-apply for approval by the Senate (under the same advise and consent rules). In this way, judges who repeatedly ruled based on partisanship would have to justify their positions before a Senate hearing in order to keep their jobs, and they'd have to persuade the Senate they were right to keep their jobs.
I wish the dumbbells running the cities would just secede and take their statist pals from DC with them.