Santa Ana declares itself sanctuary city in defiance of Trump

Posted by | December 7, 2016 11:07 | Filed under: Politics

SANTA ANA, Calif.—Santa Ana City Council members voted Tuesday to declare Orange County’s second-most populous city a sanctuary city — a largely symbolic gesture to protect immigrants who are in the country illegally. The move is in direct defiance of President-elect Donald Trump, who was critical of illegal immigration and sanctuary cities during his campaign. Tuesday’s…

(more…)

By: Alan

Alan Colmes is the publisher of Liberaland.

24 responses to Santa Ana declares itself sanctuary city in defiance of Trump

  1. Buford2k11 December 7th, 2016 at 11:17

    good, the Resistance grows…

  2. trees December 7th, 2016 at 12:19

    SANTA ANA, Calif.—Santa Ana City Council members voted Tuesday to declare Orange County’s second-most populous city a sanctuary city — a largely symbolic gesture to protect immigrants who are in the country illegally.

    They’ve decided to ignore the law.

    The move is in direct defiance of President-elect Donald Trump, who was critical of illegal immigration and sanctuary cities during his campaign.

    The move is in direct defiance of US immigration law.

    The sanctuary city policy is illegal, illegal acts have consequences. Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien. We have illegal aliens breaking laws, and politicians turning a blind eye…

    The American people have had enough of the lawlessness. This lawlessness is a big reason why Republicans have been elected and now hold power.

    You have yourselves, and your disregard for the law, to blame.

    • Hirightnow December 7th, 2016 at 13:01

      It’s not the STATES’ business to enforce FEDERAL immigration laws, nor are they required to investigate the immigration status of anyone.
      Separation of powers is a real big thing for you “patriots”, until it involves brown people.

      • trees December 7th, 2016 at 13:19

        The states are required to comply with, and cooperate with, federal law, and the federal government.

        This means communication and enforcement.

        If law enforcement apprehends someone who’s immigration status is unknown, they have a responsibility to contact the appropriate agency.

        The state of California, one example, has decided to be a law unto itself. If the state wants to ignore federal law, wouldn’t it be appropriate for the federal government to ignore the states fiscal need?

        First step is to cut funding.

        It’s not the STATES’ business to enforce FEDERAL immigration laws, nor are they required to investigate the immigration status of anyone.

        The states have a duty, as members of the Union, to participate and cooperate with the federal government and federal law

        • Hirightnow December 7th, 2016 at 15:31

          Nope. That’s telling the states that they have no self-governance…thought you trumpoons were all for smaller government control?
          Also, cutting funding TO the states as some sort of threat can result in cutting taxes FROM the state, and California pays a shit-ton of taxes that it would suck for the new dictatorship to lose.

          • trees December 7th, 2016 at 17:23

            Economic sanctions can be levied against the state that would absolutely cripple it. You are obviously not aware of the power of the federal government. It can freeze assets and block access to financial accounts. California can be brought to its knees….

            • Hirightnow December 7th, 2016 at 17:34

              Always figured you idiots were for control over everything, and not for a free nation. Now I’m sure of it.
              Look up the history of California…and tell me the Fed can “cripple it”. Too many places it can trade with, and over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts are grown in California…the Fed would end up on the losing end, were they to be as ham-handed as to try and “absolutely cripple” the 6TH LARGEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD.
              You’re a small-minded fool if you equate political power with economic power.
              (Did I mention the technology? Do I even have to?)

              • trees December 7th, 2016 at 19:38

                Sounds like you’re in favor of California seceding from the Union. California is self governing, what the state can’t do is refuse to follow federal immigration law. They can try, but they will be breaking the law. Lawbreakers are penalized.

                • bpollen December 7th, 2016 at 22:26

                  “Sounds like you’re in favor of California seceding from the Union.

                  Rational adults who speak English wouldn’t get that conclusion out of what he posted. Sounds like YOU have reading comprehension problems. Rational people realize he was speaking about the REALITY of your ass-backwards understanding of English AND what real-world economic realities entail.

                  • Hirightnow December 7th, 2016 at 22:57

                    Indeed.
                    In no way, shape, or form am I for any dissolution of the United States.
                    Nor am I for economic blackmail. What happened with the Reagan administration and the 55MPH speed limit is my point.
                    But look who blinked in that instance, and were proven to have been wrong.(HINT: NOT the states)
                    These people only seem to be interested in “state’s rights” when there’s a confederate flag or a fetus involved.(They’re wrong then, as well.)

                    • bpollen December 7th, 2016 at 23:01

                      The only thing considered true in Reichlandia is what benefits the ruling classes at THIS moment.

                    • Hirightnow December 7th, 2016 at 23:14

                      Some folks love pleasing them some supreme leader, because when supreme leader is happy, EVERYONE benefits, right?

                    • bpollen December 7th, 2016 at 23:15

                      Sure, look how well it serves the people of the DPRK.

                      Healthy, happy, living with a wealth of abundance.

                    • Hirightnow December 7th, 2016 at 23:31

                      And, as an added incentive for the pro-Trump minded crowd, meth is easy to come by there!

                    • bpollen December 8th, 2016 at 00:35

                      German Blitzkrieg relied on meth too.

                • Hirightnow December 7th, 2016 at 22:36

                  So are idiots who bite off more than they can chew.

        • Budda December 7th, 2016 at 16:06

          So now you are against states rights?

          • Hirightnow December 7th, 2016 at 17:39

            trees is a Trumpoon; he’s for a dictatorship.

  3. Jimmy Fleck December 7th, 2016 at 12:20

    I think conservatives should start pushing sanctuary states that will protect the rights and lives of the unborn. Obviously federal laws only have to be followed by those that agree with them so who cares what a Federal court rules in regards to abortion access.

  4. Deplorable E Neuman December 7th, 2016 at 15:01

    Santana is now a poor Tijuana slum

    • Budda December 7th, 2016 at 16:07

      Still better than some red states

    • bpollen December 7th, 2016 at 22:20

      Santana is the eponymous band of Carlos Santana.

      This article in no way references him.

  5. bpollen December 7th, 2016 at 22:19

    Well, Saint Anne IS the patron saint of “unmarried women, housewives, women in labor, grandmothers, horseback riders, [and] cabinet-makers.“

Leave a Reply