3 ms·

Not like Florida Republicans are the only offenders there. 59% voted in favor of California's "let's check if people are illegal immigrants" amendment back in 1

Not like Florida Republicans are the only offenders there. 59% voted in favor of California's "let's check if people are illegal immigrants" amendment back in 1994 [0], but then the incoming Democratic governor refused to defend it in court. (Sure, it may have actually been unconstitutional, but considering it's basically the opposite of 'sanctuary cities'...) Denying the public the benefit of politically inconvenient propositions is a long tradition in the US. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_187 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_California_Proposition_18...

ceejayoz 7y ago
> California's "let's check if people are illegal immigrants" amendment That's a really disingenuous description of an amendment intended to "prohibit undocumented immigrants from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services". > Sure, it may have actually been unconstitutional... It's funny that this is waved away as a minor issue, as if it weren't a giant difference between the two situations you're trying to draw a comparison between.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  I mean, that's a better description than calling it "Save Our State"... but yes, the goal of the amendment was to reduce the services provided to illegal immigrants. Perhaps I should have said "let's check if people are illegal immigrants before providing non-emergency services", but too late to edit now. Whether this is a good idea is very much in question, but that's also the case for letting felons vote. The "might have been unconstitutional" was a "no, this genuinely might have passed muster in the courts if it was actually defended". What actually happened was that an injunction was placed against implementation of the proposition, and the state never appealed. Probably worth noting that the logic used in the injunction - that it was unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration - would also (IMO) prevent sanctuary cities from existing, except that inaction is generally (and correctly) privileged above action.
  - sjg007 7y ago
    You should look at how these clinics are funded.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      Clinics?

ceejayoz 7y ago

> California's "let's check if people are illegal immigrants" amendment That's a really disingenuous description of an amendment intended to "prohibit undocumented immigrants from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services". > Sure, it may have actually been unconstitutional... It's funny that this is waved away as a minor issue, as if it weren't a giant difference between the two situations you're trying to draw a comparison between.

DuskStar 7y ago
I mean, that's a better description than calling it "Save Our State"... but yes, the goal of the amendment was to reduce the services provided to illegal immigrants. Perhaps I should have said "let's check if people are illegal immigrants before providing non-emergency services", but too late to edit now. Whether this is a good idea is very much in question, but that's also the case for letting felons vote. The "might have been unconstitutional" was a "no, this genuinely might have passed muster in the courts if it was actually defended". What actually happened was that an injunction was placed against implementation of the proposition, and the state never appealed. Probably worth noting that the logic used in the injunction - that it was unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration - would also (IMO) prevent sanctuary cities from existing, except that inaction is generally (and correctly) privileged above action.
- sjg007 7y ago
  You should look at how these clinics are funded.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Clinics?