Build it and be banned*Snipped

Build it and be banned: Lawmakers move to block state contracts for any builders of Trump's border wall

Well people this is absolutely precious! Hot off the heels of TRO's against travel bans from known terrorists states. Fresh off the heels of Judges ruling about funds being froze to sanctuaries cities getting funded while ignoring federal laws. Fresh off the heels of an epic anti capitalist getting $400,000 to speak.

We have this golden nugget.

California legislators took the first step Tuesday to ban state government contracts for any company that helps build President Trump's promised wall along the Mexico border, with the author of the plan urging colleagues "to be on the right side of history."

The bill by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) would prohibit any company from receiving a new or extended contract with the state of California if it participates in a future effort to build a new wall along the 2,000-mile international border.

So urce

God I love the smell of cognitive dissonance in the afternoon.

Such FREE MARKET lovers in the Peoples Republic of California.

He's going to have to present it to the Undocumented Workers Union (Borderlands Chapter) to have any hope....

a reply to: neo96

I'd like to say I'm surprised, but....

To think these elected officials keep getting reelected by their faithful base, says a lot about their faithful base.

Again, I'd like to say I'm surprised, but...

This really is only good news for competitors. It would seem however, that many do not understand or know that there is already a heft wall that is down there. Making a new 1 or a bigger 1 wont make a difference. They have learned how to fly ( A long time ago ) and also tunnel there way in here.

I will say it again as I like to now.

Politics/Trump is a show-man.

Well this is good for contractors from other states. Our Federal government might need to send army forces to guard the construction company though, and take it out of future california grants. Or maybe not put the wall there because California won't allow it, then Bring charges against California if someone comes across there with Drugs and the drugs kill people. Or if a criminal comes across there, California would be liable for repaying insurance companies or people for the thefts they cause. I see this as a good thing for the rest of the country, I am sure the Lawyers around the country will be very happy, so will the people in the other states.

a reply to: neo96
No way in hell is this legal in any way. A state cannot ban people from winning contract bids because they participate in the building of a legal structure.

All laws must be equally applied in the U.S., to include contract bids.

But, that isn't always true--here in Cincinnati (a claimed Sanctuary City), the city basically bans small businesses from bidding on contracts because they necessitate that the businesses bidding have some sort of apprenticeship program and have had such a program for X number of years prior to bidding...amongst a few other things that generally only support union-backed companies.

So who knows--this BS will probably fly in California, but I would argue very hard that it's not only illegal, but absolutely not in the spirit of free market and the capitalist system under which America is supposed to function. This is cronyism as its finest.

originally posted by: SR1TX
They have learned how to fly ( A long time ago ) ...

And boy are their arms tired!

Amirite?

I'm here all week.

California always shooting themselves in the foot.
good idea, ban all the big construction companies in California that build the wall and then have a 5 year backlog on road repairs, building construction ,etc because you banned all the big contractors who could do the work.

originally posted by: Tardacus
California always shooting themselves in the foot.

But usually only in gun-free zones, like the state capitol building.

Oh the irony...

It will be a loss for Californian companies but a big boost for the out-of-state independent contractors wanting to break into the federal market. Of course, Democrats are going to fight this tooth, claw and nail. Those are future Democrat voters being blocked from immigrating.

The irony will be when this gets struck down in court.

Yes they are people.

Trump haters are actually trying to keep their residents UNEMPLOYED.

a reply to: neo96

It sure seems like we have entered into a cold civil war.

a reply to: neo96

Lawmakers move to block state contracts for any builders of Trump's border wall

Don't lawmakers generally try to do what their constituents want?

Or are you for more federal government intrusion (instead of states' rights)?

Screw what the people or the border states want, Go Trump and Federal Government!

Americans who live near border say Trump’s wall is unwelcome

Trump's Wall Request Lacks Support from Border Lawmakers

Texas Doesn’t Want Trump’s Wall Either

A Border Wall Isn’t Very Popular Among The People Who Actually Live There

The Border Wall Is Not a Good Idea, Texans Insist in New Poll

Most Texans do not want Trump's border wall

a reply to: SirHardHarry

Or are you for more federal government intrusion (instead of states' rights)?

A fundamental RIGHT is to do business without political interference.

I can not believe anyone is even trying to defend that crap those California lawmakers are trying to pull.

originally posted by: Tardacus
California always shooting themselves in the foot.
good idea, ban all the big construction companies in California that build the wall and then have a 5 year backlog on road repairs, building construction ,etc because you banned all the big contractors who could do the work.

we don't repair roads in Ca. That's so 1990's. Our transportation funds go directly into the general fund for "pet" projects of our retarded legislature.

a reply to: neo96

When government uses overt fiscal blackmail to push their political agenda on the private sector, it's time to jail the lawmakers, they are domestic terrorists whose regard for public safety is right up there with ISIS's regard for public safety.

a reply to: neo96

I wonder how California would respond were they to extend the wall up the eastern border of that state? Then demand troops be allowed in to protect American citizens stuck on the wrong side?

a reply to: neo96

States rights, yo.

I thought conservatives were all about 'states rights' and keeping the big, overbearing, evil "feds" out of their business?

a reply to: neo96

News flash: THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A "WALL."

That's all there is to it, neo. No big wall. Trump threatened to blackmail the 'budget' proposal - and allow a government shutdown - if it didn't provide funds for the wall that he promised you (and himself).

The lawmakers and purse-holders have averted the shutdown, and the govt will keep going through September. And there will be no funding for "the wall." Maybe the Koch brothers or someone else can build it on their own dime. Or hell, Trump can pay for it his own self. Personally. Or maybe you can crowdsource the funds.

Congressional negotiators reach deal on government funding through September

Aides in each party disputed some characterizations from the other side as to what made into the final proposal but one of the key aspects they agreed on:

The bill has $1.5 billion for border security, including for technology and fixing existing infrastructure but it doesn't allow the money to spent on building Trump's wall.

There is no money provided for a deportation force and

there are no cuts of federal monies to so-called sanctuary cities.

Trump's demand for the border wall down payment was rejected by Democrats. They decried the controversial project -- and key Trump campaign promise -- as immoral and premature since Trump has not detailed plans for building the multibillion dollar wall he had vowed Mexico would pay for anyway.

Get it?

No wall. No rounding up of every brown person with an accent. No shut-out of sanctuary cities. Now, let's move on. Go buy some produce and be glad you can get an apple for a less than fifty cents.