Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Like any Federal law the locals are 99% of the time the ones that run into the violation first. So it's reasonable they would notify ICE of an illegal so they can go pick them up. Same applies to your gun example. A local cop arrests a person with an illegal weapon and they refer it up the line. They certainly don't just let them go saying oh well not my problem.In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.
Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.
Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.
My question for you is did you support Arizona enforcing immigration law more vigorously when they tried that? Does states rights go both ways?
Yes. I always support states rights. The only thing I default to higher than that is civil rights. My default is always the constitution. States rights do not trump civil rights, but short of that, I'm always in favor of states rights.
As an example if you like. Let's say you refuse to answer questions of the police. Your rights under the fifth are clear. The Right of the state does not trump your individual right to remain silent. I would object to the state trying to compel you.
I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.
That's pretty much their choice now. But if they don't want to help, the feds should be allowed to cutoff their federal funds. It would already be the law of the land if not for leftist activist judges.
Some money you could cut without problems. Money that is entitlement would be a problem.
Entitlement for whom?
I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.
All good, except that immigration policies are not set by the individual states.
It's ok if state doesn't want to help ICE, however, in that case they shouldn't expect funding from federal government, since by making a choice of not helping, they're also making a choice to forfeit federal funding.
You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you? How big a problem is crime committed by immigrants?
Hell, police commit more crimes per capita than illegal immigrants.
Tell me, does that justifies their stay here? What, we should let more of them in to lower our crime rate?
No, they have no right to be here, even if they commit no other crime.
You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you? How big a problem is crime committed by immigrants?
Hell, police commit more crimes per capita than illegal immigrants.
Tell me, does that justifies their stay here? What, we should let more of them in to lower our crime rate?
No, they have no right to be here, even if they commit no other crime.
Taking it out of context shows you are a dishonest debater. The comment was in reply to another poster who said that we must have the police round them up to stop the massive numbers of rapes, robberies, and murders that the illegal immigrants were committing.
Try reading in context. It might help you reach comprehension.
Like any Federal law the locals are 99% of the time the ones that run into the violation first. So it's reasonable they would notify ICE of an illegal so they can go pick them up. Same applies to your gun example. A local cop arrests a person with an illegal weapon and they refer it up the line. They certainly don't just let them go saying oh well not my problem.
My question for you is did you support Arizona enforcing immigration law more vigorously when they tried that? Does states rights go both ways?
Yes. I always support states rights. The only thing I default to higher than that is civil rights. My default is always the constitution. States rights do not trump civil rights, but short of that, I'm always in favor of states rights.
As an example if you like. Let's say you refuse to answer questions of the police. Your rights under the fifth are clear. The Right of the state does not trump your individual right to remain silent. I would object to the state trying to compel you.
I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.
That's pretty much their choice now. But if they don't want to help, the feds should be allowed to cutoff their federal funds. It would already be the law of the land if not for leftist activist judges.
Some money you could cut without problems. Money that is entitlement would be a problem.
Entitlement for whom?
If ther is a law on the books that says you have to pay Modesto California ten thousand dollars for the purchase of school books, you have to pay it. That is an entitlement. When the payment of money is mandated. Now, grants are very different. You can cut grants, because grants are discretionary money.
Got it yet?
I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.
All good, except that immigration policies are not set by the individual states.
It's ok if state doesn't want to help ICE, however, in that case they shouldn't expect funding from federal government, since by making a choice of not helping, they're also making a choice to forfeit federal funding.
You can't cut all federal funding. You can cut discretionary funding. Let's say that the Library is mandated a certain amount of money. There is a law on the books, it's in the budget, and they get the money no matter how mad you are at them.
But, when their police department submits a request for three MRAP's and a dozen M-16 rifles, you can deny that. That is a request, and granting it is purely at the discretion of the government. They can say no for any reason, or no reason. The guy who gets the form can say no just because his wife was in a bad mood the night before.
That you can cut no sweat. When the Emergency Management Agency for the city requests ten thousand blankets from FEMA to replenish their stocks, stamp the request denied and mail it back. Discretionary items are perfectly legal to deny.
But mandated expenditures, money for federal highways for example, you can't cut.
But mandated expenditures, money for federal highways for example, you can't cut.
But mandated expenditures, money for federal highways for example, you can't cut.
I seem to remember Democrats threatening that all the time in our past.
thats kind of like the way guns are in a state that has a firearms freedom act...as long as the firearm is made wholly in state, and sold onnly in-state, the feds have zero authority/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia
We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.
Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.
Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.
It's completely reasonable for local LE to notify Feds for crimes uncovered that fall under Federal jurisdiction.
If a County Law Enforcement officer finds a counterfeit money ring, they notify the Secret Service because that's their jurisdiction.
The county cop doesn't let the counterfeiters go and say, "Not my job!"
Is it? Take a look at the states where Marijuana was made legal. Are the cops notifying the DEA that a pot smoker is here? Are the cops arresting the pot suppliers? The locals just ignore that, and leave it to the Feds. Colorado has seen a nearly 80% drop in cultivation arrests, and the locals now only assist if the Marijuana growers are shipping it out of the state. As long as the Marijuana is sold only through registered state outlets, then the Locals are hands off. Federal law is a Federal problem.
