STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Fight: California Ready to Resist ICE
By The Daily Bell Staff - January 19, 2018

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” [California] state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”

An interesting state’s rights case emerges in California. The state says that their immigration laws trump federal laws. A new California law makes it illegal to detain employees at work, regardless of their immigration status.

But unfortunately, it seems business owners might be caught in the crossfire. What will happen if immigration agents come to a workplace demanding information? That is a scary situation to be caught in.

ICE director Thomas Homan recently told Fox News that the agency will significantly increase enforcement across the state and warned California to “hold on tight.” And a report by the San Francisco Chronicle this week said ICE is planning raids targeting Northern California cities, with the goal of arresting more than 1,500 immigrants.

But California residents claim they won’t stand for the raids.

Advocates say they’re prepared for the crackdowns, with hundreds of volunteers training to act as “first responders” at homes and workplaces where the raids are expected to take place.

Residents say they are simply trying to enforce due process. Without a warrant they say, no one should be detained or arrested.

California continues to insist on independence. These events could even affect the referendum that could be on the 2018 ballot asking citizens if California should secede from the U.S.

With such fundamental differences between how Californians want to run state immigration policy, versus the federal policy, perhaps parting ways would be the most peaceful arrangement.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!

 

Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
 
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
 
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.
 

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Bruce C.

    I’m surprised to learn that California wants to be so independent (from the Federal government) because It gets so much largess from it, or so I understand. When AG Sessions threatened to hold back subsidies because of sanctuary cities California, et al balked.

    A common theme at this site was Lincoln’s alleged abuse of Federal power in trying to keep some states from succeeding – hence the purpose of the Civil War to PRESERVE the union. It’s said that geography determines history and I think that’s a big factor for the “United States”. Had any state seceded back in the 19th century it would have changed everything – probably ruined the American experiment – because Europe /England would have gained a foothold that would have polluted our independence. A similar thing could happen with California because as rich and prosperous as it is it’s progressive, liberal political agendas would impoverish it – and already have to some extent – and make it vulnerable to the occupation of China or Russia, and the rest of the US couldn’t do much about that.

    Therefore, I actually support the Feds on this issue.

    • Col. Edward H. R. Green

      Thank you for revealing that you are a full-fledged, unapologetic statist who denies everyone’s individual right to secede–and for flimsiest, least likely, least rationally and morally defensible reason: foreign invasion.

      You blithely and disingenuously disregard the reality that 100 million Americans, including me, are privately armed–as is their right–and, contrary to your presumption, would put up a very powerful and victorious fight against any foreign aggressor, even that of the size of China’s and Russia’s armed forces, which we could blow out of the sky and water before they reached land. We could confront and kill their domestic supporters, too, and overpower them. Indubitably, you would be among those supporters, especially if those supporters are US government employees–statist sociopaths and psychopaths all.

      In all likelihood, armed civilians using guerrilla warfare and other tactics would put up far more effective and quicker response to an invasion than the Feds ever could, or would. Their bureaucracy, politicized decisions and movements, and consequent ineptitude would slow their responsiveness to a crawl, and render them worthless.

      • Bruce C.

        I’m not a statist just because I recognize CA’s agreements with the Fed government. If CA thinks they are so independent – or want to be – then they should be willing to surrender the subsidies it receives from the Fed gov. Instead it wants to have its cake and eat it too. It can’t have it both ways.

  • Praetor

    Its interesting California passed a law that says immigrant legal or illegal cannot be detained or arrested at work. Is it immigrants the law is about or does it apply to all people living in California? What about the guy who has 13 children chained-up in his house, they cannot arrest him at work, they have to wait till he goes home. California is BS.

    This is about Legal vs illegal. I’ve lived in another country, it took 1 year and 2 months to be able to go and then I went.

    California is not independent, it is a communist state. Sorry, communist not welcome in the United Sates. Sorry we are not going to allow the communist of California have their way. Free/Liberate California.!!!

    • Number 6

      With regards to communism I totally agree but there is a fine line between fighting communism and violating individual sovereignty, but I think I have an abstract solution. Its the people who own the banks and the media, who are trying to coerce people into communist neo feudalist slavery, and trying to destroy the mental well being and the foundations of “Self” of the masses via cultural marxism. Arrest the bankers and media moguls (obviously that includes most of Hollywood) for attempting to violate the rights of all the peoples of the earth. And you will not only free California you will free the peoples of the world, and all without contradicting the basic principles of liberty.

      • Bruce C.

        What about the voters in CA who continue to elect loons like Pelosi, Feinstein, Jerry Brown, etc.? They get what they deserve.

        • Number 6

          Well there a couple of things I would say to that, firstly thats the conman justification ie a con man steals from an old age pensioner or anyone who’s vulnerable and when caught says “well if they were stupid enough to fall for it, they deserve what they got” thats not a justification which would stand up in the eyes of the vast majority or indeed a court of law. and even if they weren’t categorised as vulnerable, fraud is still fraud.

          Secondly the majority of people don’t actually vote in elections, much less vote for more government (as if they were given any other option) so why should the stupidity of a minority be imposed on everyone else, just because they live in the same geographical area as where the con artists and those cheering them on have set up shop ?

          • Bruce C.

            If the worst of the CA politicians were previously unknown “first-timers” I might agree with you, but I’m talking about multi-decade incumbents in which there is no doubt what their agendas are.

            Secondly, if the majority of voters don’t actually vote then indeed they do get what they deserve. How else could it be? By their own negligence or apathy they allow the “stupid minority” to call the shots.

            It just shows how backwards and upside down everything is now. The usual complaint about democracy is “the tyranny of the [stupid] MAJORITY,” not the minority.

          • Number 6

            Sorry but you cant get away with that, if you vote you get what you deserve, if you don’t vote you get what you deserve, if you vote and the other side wins you get what you deserve. yeah it sounds like a con to me ! Using that logic if two muggers came up to you and said vote on which one of us you want to mug you, what would you say ? Here are your options.

            Vote for mugger A You get mugged and deserved it !
            Vote for mugger B You get mugged and deserve it !
            Vote for mugger A but two other people vote for mugger B, You get mugged and deserve it !
            Vote for mugger B but two other people vote for mugger A, You get mugged and deserve it !
            Refuse to vote, you get mugged and deserve it !

            Conclusion you DESERVE to get mugged !
            Why ? Because you do !

          • Bruce C.

            Look at it this way, going back to your original point: What if people had a chance to vote on “arresting the bankers and media moguls.”

            If they voted to keep them would you say they deserve what they get?

            If they voted to arrest them would they also deserve the benefits that might yield?

            If they voted to not vote, would each non-voter also deserve the consequences, whether “good” or “bad.?”

            My point is that arresting the bankers and media moguls IS a more “abstract” solution (your words) and yet simply voting out of office obvious loons with nutty ideas you seem to think is useless or impossible. If people can’t understand that the rhetoric of the politicians is obviously against their interests then how are they going to understand that the subversive methods of the bankers and media moguls are even more fundamental?

          • Number 6

            Vote for mugger A You get mugged and deserved it !
            Vote for mugger B You get mugged and deserve it !
            Vote for mugger A but two other people vote for mugger B, You get mugged and deserve it !
            Vote for mugger B but two other people vote for mugger A, You get mugged and deserve it !
            Refuse to vote, you get mugged and deserve it !

            Conclusion you DESERVE to get mugged !
            Why ? Because you do !

            Where is option 6 ? ie You don’t deserve to get mugged and if there is no option 6 WHY exactly does everyone deserve to get mugged, is it some kind of original sin thing going on, are we all born evil, except politicians and we must submit to their rule because of our innate evil nature ? And if so why are politicians born good that we should submit to them, you can see how stupid that last question is cant you.

            To address your point about voting to jail bankers, realistically speaking what do you suppose is going to happen there ? A large percentage vote (BUT NOT ALL) the vast majority of whom vote to jail them, (lets face facts it would be a landslide) The bankers however have other ideas and rig the vote to say the public didn’t want to jail them. What then ? once the rigged vote is out of the way (or not rigged if you prefer) do the bankers have the right to kill those who didn’t vote, in manufactured wars, do they have the right to steal everyones money ?

            Its not a question as to whether “people” understand the rhetoric of politicians, the politicians don’t have the right to rule over anyone its as simple as that ! Nobody has the RIGHT to rule over anyone else ! I don’t have the right to rule over you or anyone else, and you don’t have the right to rule over me or anyone else. So if we don’t have that right how can we possibly give it to someone else who EQUALLY doesn’t have that right ?

          • Bruce C.

            Each person is somewhat responsible for the society he lives in. You’re kidding yourself if you think you are so independent.

          • Number 6

            So because your part of society that means Im allowed to tell you what to do ? Or do I only have sovereignty over you if I can con enough people into giving me that sovereignty ? (sovereignty over you, which they don’t have to give in the first place)

            This could be a real money maker, a company with a complete monopoly over whatever it wants and the power to jail anyone who doesn’t buy its third rate products and services. I think I’ll run on the pretext of taxing you 95% And I’ll get a friend to run and he’ll run on the pretext of taxing you 96% and whoever wins by your own rational it would be your fault because you deserve it (no reason given) regardless of what you say or do !

          • Bruce C.

            In answer to your first paragraph – in short – yes.

            Think about countries in which their governments are changed by a coup. Such things never happen in a vacuum or as suddenly as advertised. The populace knows what’s going on and they respond accordingly. Some leave right away when they can, some stay and hope to parlay some position or protection, and most stay because they think the new gov will be good for themselves. Venezuela is a good recent example. I told Vens. over 10 years ago that their country was circling the drain and they should bail out. – or get rid of their “leaders.” They thought I was a fool – that they weren’t stupid like Cubans, etc.

          • Number 6

            I fail to see how your comment about governments being changed by a coup and people “choosing’ to be chased off their property by a gang of crooks or alternatively “choosing” to pay a tax for the privilege of staying on THEIR OWN PROPERTY, counters my basic point that government (the gang of crooks) is illegitimate in the first place and is based upon the false choice that you must choose a ruler and tolerate their control over you regardless of the actual choices you do make, because…… well just because YOU think so.

            But since you believe I can tell you what to do (regardless of what you do or say) then I’m telling you to stop trying to impose you’re beliefs on everyone else, via the fictitious authority also know as Government, the people don’t “deserve” your interference in their lives and violation of their rights, regardless of what YOU think !

          • Bruce C.

            Look, you were born into this system (presumably the US). If you don’t like it then you can leave. After all, “it” was here first so it can make the same claim to you to stop criticizing it.

            Believe it or not we actually don’t disagree on much, although I guess I would consider myself a “Constitutionalist” rather than an anarchist, meaning I think government may be a necessary evil (that everyone needs to accept for it to have any chance of working) but should be kept as limited in its powers as possible.

            I think we both agree that government has gotten too big and authoritarian and CORRUPT. Nearly “tyrannical” as Jefferson said.

            Had US citizens been more vigilant in limiting gov. scope over the years then we wouldn’t be in this situation in which at least half the population are being bribed by gov. to maintain and grow its power.

          • Number 6

            Again there you go with the like it or lump it logic. Someone lives in a house which they paid for with their hard work, You come along and attempt to tax them 100% and say either pay up or your free to leave your house, what kind of f*** up logic is that ? apologies for the language but my mind is completely boggled as to how you think you can justify that argument.

            Government is slavery and democracy is mob rule, where people think because they are a majority, they can do whatever they want to the minority including forcing them to work for it for nearly half the year (ie slavery) and even murdering people ie declaring war, bombing other countries and sending our children off to the meat grinder through enforced conscription and call it morally justifiable, sorry but NO IT ISN’T !

            Look its a very basic contradiction you said if you vote you get the government you deserve, and then in complete contradiction you say if you DONT vote you get the government you deserve. That statement is a contradiction simple as that, therefore it cannot stand ! I used to think very much like you but I couldn’t argue with the logic of the principle of liberty so I changed my mind.

          • Bruce C.

            First of all, in your first paragraph, I can’t tell exactly what your issue is: being taxed at “100%”, or being taxed at all by any amount? Or is it that you don’t like thuggery and being bullied? I don’t blame you, but using your example, wouldn’t you have known that you were entering into that system (of property taxes, for example) when you bought the place? I mean, taxes have been around forever. They’re not new. Maybe you’re referring to a situation in which a new tax is invoked because “the majority” voted for it. I don’t blame you, I don’t like that either, but if I don’t try to stop it by voting or getting more involved how can I really complain if I become road kill? Or, maybe you just don’t like the system and resent having to get involved in such things. Don’t blame you there either. Nor do I. In fact, I didn’t have kids precisely because I didn’t like the way the world was going. The last thing I would ever have wanted to hear is my kid asking me, “Why did you bring me into this world?”

            Now, your second paragraph is interesting too, because historically democracy/mob-rule has not been the typical form of government. Oligarchies and monarchies and dictators have been the rule – which are most definitely run by the minority. In fact communistic/socialistic governments are also run by a minority. Ask anyone in the ruling class how things are and they say “hunky dory”. Ask anyone not in that class and they say it sucks but it’s because of …. (something other than their government.) And then they die prematurely in some horrible way.

          • Number 6

            If you cant even understand a basic contradiction and the whole point of this discussion ie when you originally said

            “What about the voters in CA who continue to elect loons like Pelosi, Feinstein, Jerry Brown, etc.? They get what they deserve” (if you vote you get what you deserve)

            and then in complete contradiction you said

            “If the majority of voters don’t actually vote then indeed they do get what they deserve” (if you DONT vote you get what you deserve)

            If you don’t even understand what a contradiction is, a contradiction which is the the whole foundation of your argument, indeed the whole foundation of government, Then theres not much point in discussing Anything with you !

  • r2bzjudge

    “The state says that their immigration laws trump federal laws”

    Not according to Obama. Obama went after Arizona when they tried to enforce federal law that Obama was ignoring. California is trumped by what Obama did to Arizona.

  • r2bzjudge

    “But California residents claim they won’t stand for the raids.”

    No, leftist activists won’t stand for the raids. They do not represent California residents, just their leftist political agenda.

loading