CDZ How Quickly will Sanctuary Collapse from Sequester?

[william the wie]

It will also be hard to make sequester look non-partisan given the finances of the Blue wall. I favor civil rights violation criminal charges because the first governor or mayor that gets life without parole will get the attention of the moonbats.

 

[FA_Q2]

What the courts have decided (and I think rightfully so) is that the federal government cannot compel the states to uphold federal law in lieu of federal agencies doing so.

So, the popular question is this:

What's the point of having federal immigration law if you're going to allow states and municipalities to ignore it? That doesn't seem fair.

The point is separation of powers and the states having powers of their own.

I would respond to this with a question of my own: How do you square the idea of states rights and the ability for the feds to directly control state assets? I think that the two ideas are mutually exclusive. The states should not be allowed to violate federal law but they should also not be the subjects of the whims of the federal government. If the feds want to enforce a particular law, they are not only free to do so but obligated. Such should not be true for the states themselves.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think this issue should be revisited at the Supreme Court. A State should not have the constitutional power to circumvent the government's power to enforce its borders.

I do not believe that they do.

What the courts have decided (and I think rightfully so) is that the federal government cannot compel the states to uphold federal law in lew of federal agencies doing so. The states cannot actively block the feds but they do not have to actively help them either. That is as I understand it at least unless you have something that shows otherwise.

I believe that is a proper balance between federal and state powers. I do not think that the federal government should be able to force the states to go along with something that they disagree with.

Lets say Texas decides that the federal government is wrong and that slavery should be allowed.
does the federal government have the right to step in and stop Texas citizens from owning slaves.

Considering that slavery is against the constitution, the federal government would be obligated to do so. This is also not a valid comparison - we are not talking about a state allowing something that is illegal - we are talking about a state not enforcing that law and, instead, leaving it up to the feds to enforce a law that is under federal jurisdiction. Do you have an example that is not an appeal to extremes and more applicable to my point?

 

[FA_Q2]

It's going to be an interesting issue. It's going to spill over to the issue of states legalizing pot as well.

In the meantime the borders will be shut down and illegal aliens caught at the border will be detained and deported.

So much for the dems illegal votes.

pot will be a different type of argument.
Pot is not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Immigration is in the constitution. The federal government does have the power or authority from the constitution to create laws on immigration and naturalization. The federal government however was not granted the right to give non citizens the rights of citizens.
So if it was not specifically given to the federal government, it could be interpreted that the states have the right to do so. So basically the federal government can enforce the border of states. The states at the same time would appear to have the authority to grant rights (within that state). And, although the federal government would not basically have the right to force a state to comply with the no sanctuary law, the government would have the right to withhold federal funding that might be used for aiding the illegals.
It could be interesting.

True pot isn't mentioned in the constitution, but it is another example of states ignoring federal law. If the courts decide that the states can't supersede their authority on immigration because it is federal law, then that does set a precedent to use against them for selling pot... right... or not?

I think that there is a fundamental difference that you have not mentioned as well (beside the fact that the constitution does not give the feds such a power). With pot the states are not simply ignoring the federal law - they are directly supporting the illegal activity. Here in WA, pot is heavily regulated, taxed and licensed. This is not forcing the feds to enforce a federal law - it is legalizing something that is illegal on a federal level.

The states should be taking this to the SCOTUS as a states rights issue to cement, constitutionally, where this particular power lies.

 

[oldsoul]

I dont agree with sanctuary cities at all, however It does make me wonder what is going to happen when 20 thousand or so illegals living in a city suddenly find themselves back in the shadows. Will this cause more thefts and violence or will they end up leaving for the next city that has not yet dropped its sanctuary status.
Although I totally agree with the plan, I think it has a fairly high chance of backfiring when it comes to public safety.

That is an excellent point. In the short term there may be an increase in criminal activity by these folks, might even be likely. In the long term, it sends a message to those thinking about coming here illegally.

 

[TemplarKormac]

How do you square the idea of states rights and the ability for the feds to directly control state assets? I think that the two ideas are mutually exclusive. The states should not be allowed to violate federal law but they should also not be the subjects of the whims of the federal government.

Thing is, enforcement of immigration law isn't a whim. It's a constitutionally mandated duty of our government. The government should not be overruled by states wanting to ignore the law because they want to serve as sanctuaries for people who broke the law themselves.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If the feds want to enforce a particular law, they are not only free to do so but obligated. Such should not be true for the states themselves.

I'm thinking we're taking state sovereignty too far. If the government is obligated to enforce a particular law, in this case immigration, then the states should not be allowed to stand in the way of it enforcing that law.

It's contradictory to say that states must follow every other law except this one, or that one. We render the law meaningless as a result.

 

[oldsoul]

If the feds want to enforce a particular law, they are not only free to do so but obligated. Such should not be true for the states themselves.

I'm thinking we're taking state sovereignty too far. If the government is obligated to enforce a particular law, in this case immigration, then the states should not be allowed to stand in the way of it enforcing that law.

It's contradictory to say that states must follow every other law except this one, or that one. We render the law meaningless as a result.

I can see both sides of this argument. I'm not sure which one I would agree more with. On one side, the argument is that states should be obligated to enforce immigration law. Isn't our state and local LOEs already asked to do a lot, and expected to be quite familiar with a very wide range of laws already? On the other side you have the argument that states should not be obligated to enforce immigration law. Don't we expect our state and local LEOs to enforce federal drug laws?
Now, granted the local LEOs have better first hand knowledge of local crime and crime patterns, and they are "out there on the front lines" every day. However, on immigration, why do we have ICE? Aren't they charged with enforcing immigration law on a federal level? Likewise, for the DEA, are they not federally mandated to enforce federal drug law?
Where is the line between what federal laws the federal LEOs must enforce alone, and where the local LEOs are obligated to at least assist? Also, where does one draw the line as to what the federal government can force states to do on their behalf? Does it go both ways? What about state sovereignty? Where is the line?
Maybe a good way to do it would be for state and local agencies to be obligated to inform the proper federal agency of potential violations. I don't know, I'm just throwing out the suggestion for discussion....

 

[FA_Q2]

If the feds want to enforce a particular law, they are not only free to do so but obligated. Such should not be true for the states themselves.

I'm thinking we're taking state sovereignty too far. If the government is obligated to enforce a particular law, in this case immigration, then the states should not be allowed to stand in the way of it enforcing that law.

I don't think that they should be able to stand in the way either. What I am saying is that they should not be forced to be the federal governments enforcement agency. The states hire and control those agencies to enforce the laws and rules of the state. The feds do the same with the enforcement agencies that they control.

At what point do the states regain their sovereignty then if they can be treated as a federal enforcement agency? We might as well do away with the idea of states altogether then.

It's contradictory to say that states must follow every other law except this one, or that one. We render the law meaningless as a result.

This is not about 'following' a law - they have to follow all applicable laws. This is about enforcing the law on the people. The states are not arms of the federal government and were never supposed to be. They should not be turned into it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

All of this is making my head spin...

 

[TemplarKormac]

At what point do the states regain their sovereignty then if they can be treated as a federal enforcement agency? We might as well do away with the idea of states altogether then.

So, we come full circle, if states aren't required to cooperate with the government in enforcing immigration law, we don't need borders. If states are required to cooperate with government enforcement of immigration law, there needn't be states either.

At what point does the government regain the plenary right to enforce its sovereign borders, if it can't enforce its own laws in the way the Constitution requires it to? We might as well do away with the idea of national sovereignty altogether as well, and allow the states to get away with obstruction of justice.

If the country can't enforce its borders, there needn't be a country. What good are states if the nation they are apart of can't enforce its sovereignty? Borders mean nothing, thus the borders between states are rendered meaningless as well. No sovereign border, no state borders, no nothing. All of it goes away.

The fact that states shouldn't be forced to cooperate with the Government in enforcing immigration law essentially renders the government helpless to do its constitutionally mandated duty.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is about enforcing the law on the people.

To me, the states and the people are one in the same. Of the people, by the people, and for the people. As such, if the states are required to follow all applicable immigration law, the people residing therein should be required to also, even if that means forcing them to cooperate.

What I am saying is that they should not be forced to be the federal governments enforcement agency.

Then what are they there for?

 

[FA_Q2]

This is about enforcing the law on the people.

To me, the states and the people are one in the same. Of the people, by the people, and for the people. As such, if the states are required to follow all applicable immigration law, the people residing therein should be required to also, even if that means forcing them to cooperate.

What I am saying is that they should not be forced to be the federal governments enforcement agency.

Then what are they there for?

They are separate entities that have their own obligations and powers. They create local law that is enforced by them. You will never see the FBI come down and investigate a local break in - that is the responsibility of the state and local police.

This is part of the separation of powers. Most laws are local and not the jurisdiction of the federal government.

At what point do the states regain their sovereignty then if they can be treated as a federal enforcement agency? We might as well do away with the idea of states altogether then.

So, we come full circle, if states aren't required to cooperate with the government in enforcing immigration law, we don't need borders. If states are required to cooperate with government enforcement of immigration law, there needn't be states either.

At what point does the government regain the plenary right to enforce its sovereign borders, if it can't enforce its own laws in the way the Constitution requires it to? We might as well do away with the idea of national sovereignty altogether as well, and allow the states to get away with obstruction of justice.

If the country can't enforce its borders, there needn't be a country. What good are states if the nation they are apart of can't enforce its sovereignty? Borders mean nothing, thus the borders between states are rendered meaningless as well. No sovereign border, no state borders, no nothing. All of it goes away.

The fact that states shouldn't be forced to cooperate with the Government in enforcing immigration law essentially renders the government helpless to do its constitutionally mandated duty.

?

I have never stated that the government does not have the power to enforce its own border. What I have stated is that it is the government(federal) that has to actually do it rather than demanding someone else does it.

You seem to think that me stating states should not be forced to enforce a law means that law ceases to be effective or enforceable. That is not the case. There are entire agencies devoted to enforcing federal law and it is their job to do so.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have never stated that the government does not have the power to enforce its own border. What I have stated is that it is the government(federal) that has to actually do it rather than demanding someone else does it.

Let me clarify. What I gleaned from your argument is that if we can't make the states cooperate in enforcing immigration law, we are essentially rendering the government powerless to do its job. I'm not trying to misquote you.

If we allow cities to remain sanctuary cities because of states rights, fine. There's nothing I can do about it. However, the precedent is set. Now California is expounding on that precedent by passing legislation to become a sanctuary state. For me, I'm following this to its natural conclusion. And the conclusion is that the government will no longer have the power to enforce the law on immigration if this precedent continues, seemingly because the states seemingly have more power than the government does on enforcing immigration law.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Cities and states depend on federal funds passed by congress. The president is not required to disburse those funds. That's tool one.

If States or cities do not protect their citizens that is a violation of their civil rights if they are a protected class as with the women killed or kidnapped in CA by felonious illegal aliens. that's tool two.

this goes for colleges as well

no federal funding for schools that wish to break the law

imagine no federal loans to students to drive that crazy train

--LOL

 

[TemplarKormac]

You seem to think that me stating states should not be forced to enforce a law means that law ceases to be effective or enforceable.

I can't see it any other way. If you can't enforce or follow rules or laws, they become ineffective and unenforceable. All of that may be my potential inability to comprehend the complexities and nuances of constitutional law, or it could simply be my own stubbornness. But allowing a city or state to say "You can't make me!" regarding enforcement is not right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is part of the separation of powers. Most laws are local and not the jurisdiction of the federal government.

So, I see it not as a separation of power, but a complete dismissal of power. The government has the power to regulate immigration anywhere within its borders.

 

[william the wie]

Cities and states depend on federal funds passed by congress. The president is not required to disburse those funds. That's tool one.

If States or cities do not protect their citizens that is a violation of their civil rights if they are a protected class as with the women killed or kidnapped in CA by felonious illegal aliens. that's tool two.

this goes for colleges as well

no federal funding for schools that wish to break the law

imagine no federal loans to students to drive that crazy train

--LOL

Money hole too.

 

[william the wie]

This is part of the separation of powers. Most laws are local and not the jurisdiction of the federal government.

So, I see it not as a separation of power, but a complete dismissal of power. The government has the power to regulate immigration anywhere within its borders.

That is why I mentioned that the second tool was the more effective but Trump wants to go with the less effective tool of presidential power.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Cities and states depend on federal funds passed by congress. The president is not required to disburse those funds. That's tool one.

If States or cities do not protect their citizens that is a violation of their civil rights if they are a protected class as with the women killed or kidnapped in CA by felonious illegal aliens. that's tool two.

this goes for colleges as well

no federal funding for schools that wish to break the law

imagine no federal loans to students to drive that crazy train

--LOL

Money hole too.

exactly

then they promote the kiddies to be irresponsible for the debt

wanting others to pay for it

--LOL