California bill would fund deportation defense for all immigrants, including those with felonies

Cal Matters ^ | MARCH 16, 2023 | BY WENDY FRY

[artichokegrower]

The state already pays some legal bills in immigration court – but not for those with serious or violent felony records. If they can’t afford a lawyer, they face deportation alone. Assembly member Reggie Jones-Sawyer says that’s not due process.

[artichokegrower]

Come to America uninvited, kill a US citizen, no problemo will get you a lawyer.

[PGR88]

California will ONLY be fixed by total bankruptcy and economic collapse.

[jeffersondem]

“The state already pays some legal bills in immigration court – but not for those with serious or violent felony records.”

If it were important I would do an internet search for an article to back up my point, but . . . early in the Obama years when his administration first announced they were going soft on illegal immigration his spokesperson read a prepared statement to the effect that NO ONE with a criminal record would be admitted to the U.S. under their new catch and release system.

That was when I knew they intended to bring in murderers and such.

[adorno]

Funding could end up being very expensive for California, but then, they’ve been running on heavy debt for many years,so, what’s a few hundred billions more added to the debt?

That California bill is very welcome news to law offices everywhere. Heck, it would end up being their number one case, with many thousands of clients. Morgan and Morgan would move their offices to California and give up on chasing auto injury cases.

[DoughtyOne]

I know I know, but it seems damn near time for the U. S.
Government to take California into receivership, or
whatever the term is for taking over a state that has
gone rogue against it’s own citizens as well as the
nation at large.

[Magnatron]

They need people for their budding slave state now that folks are leaving in droves…

[Publius]

If California nullifies a federal law (South Carolina, 1832), defies a Supreme Court decision (Arkansas, 1957) or declares it has unilaterally left the Union (Confederacy, 1860), the president has the authority to declare a rebellion and squash it with military force.

Beyond that, everything else belongs to the 10th Amendment.

It would be nice if there were a constitutional procedure to place a state in receivership, should it become necessary, and revert it to territorial status. The result would be:

• Expulsion of its senators and congressmen;
• Suspension of its right to participate in presidential elections;
• Election of a territorial constitutional convention;
• Creation of a territorial constitution;
• Election of a territorial legislature;
• Appointment of a territorial governor by the president;
• Election of a state constitutional convention;
• Creation of a new state constitution;
• Acceptance of the new state constitution by Congress;
• Readmission of the state to the Union by Congress with all privileges restored.

I'd also black out that state's star on Old Glory until it was readmitted. Regrettably, Texas v. White (1869) declares that the Union is permanent and indivisible, so a constitutional amendment would be required to effect something like this.

[FlingWingFlyer]

So all you freeloading, felon foreign invaders get your asses over to Cauliphonya ASAP. They can save your ass and you can continue partying on the gringos’ dime here.

[usurper]

California will ONLY be fixed by total bankruptcy and economic collapse.

They seem hell bent on doing just that. I suggest we step aside and let them. Sorry California FRpers you have had plenty of warnings and time to escape.

[joma89]

All white people had better leave california else the state will simply steal all your wealth and give it to brown people.

[wetgundog]

Who the Hell (American Citizens) would want to live in this State???