Sanctuary States: A proposal

[TemplarKormac]

But so-called sanctuary states and cities are not impeding the feds - they are simply refusing to do their job for them.

No it goes further than that. They are outright stopping the feds from doing their job. Hence thus,

‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

 

[theDoctorisIn]

To start off with, enforcing immigration laws isn't California's job, it's the Federal Government's job. California is under no obligation to assist ICE in doing their job, and isn't under any obligation to follow their orders.

Then why are they part of the Union? The government cannot protect against enemies or threats, foreign or domestic, if we have members of this union outright prohibiting the federal government from enforcing it's immigration law.

Sanctuary city and state policies don't "prohibit" the Federal government from doing anything at all.

 

[TemplarKormac]

.

To start off with, enforcing immigration laws isn't California's job, it's the Federal Government's job. California is under no obligation to assist ICE in doing their job, and isn't under any obligation to follow their orders.

Then why are they part of the Union? The government cannot protect against enemies or threats, foreign or domestic, if we have members of this union outright prohibiting the federal government from enforcing it's immigration law.

How are they actually prohibiting enforcement?

See post #21

 

[TemplarKormac]

To start off with, enforcing immigration laws isn't California's job, it's the Federal Government's job. California is under no obligation to assist ICE in doing their job, and isn't under any obligation to follow their orders.

Then why are they part of the Union? The government cannot protect against enemies or threats, foreign or domestic, if we have members of this union outright prohibiting the federal government from enforcing it's immigration law.

Sanctuary city and state policies don't "prohibit" the Federal government from doing anything at all.

Once again, see post #21

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I don't get it... if we don't want them to secede, but we also demand that they follow the law, what options are there left in order to resolve the situation?

When reason fails, force remains.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But so-called sanctuary states and cities are not impeding the feds - they are simply refusing to do their job for them.

No it goes further than that. They are outright stopping the feds from doing their job. Hence thus,

‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

How does prosecuting businesses for violating California law stop the Federal government from enforcing immigration laws?

 

[danielpalos]

If you are a state unwilling to cooperate with Federal immigration laws, you need to withdraw from the union. It's that simple. Negotiations should begin on the release of land and property the federal government bought while you were a member of the union there, thereby letting the feds cut you loose. They should do everything short of expelling you from the Union, since expulsion requires a long drawn out constitutional process. That way you can become your own country and take in as many people from Mexico and abroad as you want without having to follow our pesky immigration laws.

In a nutshell, if you don't want to follow the laws of our land, you need to get out.

What good is it for you to benefit from the fruits of this union when you don't want to abide by the laws it sets forth?

Every foreigner in the US should have a federal ID.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Oh, joy.

Another "Let's kick California out" thread.

We haven't had enough of those.

Well that's a half-assed response.

Regardless, that's the only solution is it? If you are willfully demanding that your law enforcement officials defy the government, what entitles you to be here? There's an old saying that goes something like this:

"There's the door, don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out."

Let the state secede on its own, and take back the land and property that the feds purchased while it was a member of the union.

Funny, when I was 17 and living with my dad, if I didn't obey his rules, he gave me one of two options: either I could leave on my own or be kicked out. Eventually I broke the rules one too many times and he sent me packing. He was well within his right to do so. California is well within its right to leave if it is unwilling to be cooperative with Federal immigration laws.

There are two distinct problems with your "solution".

To start off with, enforcing immigration laws isn't California's job, it's the Federal Government's job. California is under no obligation to assist ICE in doing their job, and isn't under any obligation to follow their orders.

This is a basic tenet of Federalism. State governments deal with state issues, and the Federal government deals with federal issues.

Precisely. The state cannot interfere with federal enforcement of federal law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But so-called sanctuary states and cities are not impeding the feds - they are simply refusing to do their job for them.

No it goes further than that. They are outright stopping the feds from doing their job. Hence thus,

‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

How does prosecuting businesses for violating California law stop the Federal government from enforcing immigration laws?

Don't dodge. When you are ordering people not to assist with the enforcement of federal law, are you not stopping the federal government from doing its job?

Let me ask you a simple question, do you want our immigration laws to be enforced or not?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Republicans should have Sanctuary cities for Taxpayers

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But so-called sanctuary states and cities are not impeding the feds - they are simply refusing to do their job for them.

No it goes further than that. They are outright stopping the feds from doing their job. Hence thus,

‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

How does prosecuting businesses for violating California law stop the Federal government from enforcing immigration laws?

Don't dodge. When you are ordering people not to assist with the enforcement of federal law, are you not stopping the federal government from doing its job?

Let me ask you a simple question, do you want our immigration laws to be enforced or not?

I'm not "dodging" anything.

You seem to be conflating "not assisting" with preventing. Neither California, nor employers in California are under any obligation to help ICE - but that's not the same thing as "stopping" them.

As for our immigration laws in general, they're very, very low on my list of priorities.

 

[danielpalos]

But so-called sanctuary states and cities are not impeding the feds - they are simply refusing to do their job for them.

No it goes further than that. They are outright stopping the feds from doing their job. Hence thus,

‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

How does prosecuting businesses for violating California law stop the Federal government from enforcing immigration laws?

Don't dodge. When you are ordering people not to assist with the enforcement of federal law, are you not stopping the federal government from doing its job?

Let me ask you a simple question, do you want our immigration laws to be enforced or not?

Every foreign national should have a federal ID, in the United States.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Curious... why have a unified system of government, then, when we have parts of that system actively impeding its function?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh, joy.

Another "Let's kick California out" thread.

We haven't had enough of those.

Well that's a half-assed response.

Regardless, that's the only solution is it? If you are willfully demanding that your law enforcement officials defy the government, what entitles you to be here? There's an old saying that goes something like this:

"There's the door, don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out."

Let the state secede on its own, and take back the land and property that the feds purchased while it was a member of the union.

Funny, when I was 17 and living with my dad, if I didn't obey his rules, he gave me one of two options: either I could leave on my own or be kicked out. Eventually I broke the rules one too many times and he sent me packing. He was well within his right to do so. California is well within its right to leave if it is unwilling to be cooperative with Federal immigration laws.

There are two distinct problems with your "solution".

To start off with, enforcing immigration laws isn't California's job, it's the Federal Government's job. California is under no obligation to assist ICE in doing their job, and isn't under any obligation to follow their orders.

This is a basic tenet of Federalism. State governments deal with state issues, and the Federal government deals with federal issues.

Precisely. The state cannot interfere with federal enforcement of federal law.

Sure. But that's not what's going on.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As for our immigration laws in general, they're very, very low on my list of priorities.

Yeah, I figured as much.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Oh, joy.

Another "Let's kick California out" thread.

We haven't had enough of those.

You afraid of losing fed bucks?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Curious... why have a unified system of government, then, when we have parts of that system actively impeding its function?

Because the whole point of Federalism is that different states have different interests.

 

[my2¢]

In a nutshell, if you don't want to follow the laws of our land, you need to get out.

What good is it for you to benefit from the fruits of this union when you don't want to abide by the laws it sets forth?

I have no strong opinion about your stance, a lot of my uncertainty has to do my lack of trust in Washington.

Also, would you apply that to all laws and not just regarding illegal immigration? A number of states are in violation in regards to federal drug laws and so I wonder how many states currently qualify for being expelled if we went your route?

 

[Nosmo King]

If you are a state unwilling to cooperate with Federal immigration laws, you need to withdraw from the union. It's that simple. Negotiations should begin on the release of land and property the federal government bought while you were a member of the union there, thereby letting the feds cut you loose. They should do everything short of expelling you from the Union, since expulsion requires a long drawn out constitutional process. That way you can become your own country and take in as many people from Mexico and abroad as you want without having to follow our pesky immigration laws.

In a nutshell, if you don't want to follow the laws of our land, you need to get out.

What good is it for you to benefit from the fruits of this union when you don't want to abide by the laws it sets forth?

Imagine, only a scant few years ago, a Comservative arguing against state's rights! Back when I was a youth, the Conservatives used the state's rights argument to forbid segregation. Today they are arguing against state's rights in order to oppress all over again. Who knew state's rights could be so flexible so long as it's in service to screw minorities?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh, joy.

Another "Let's kick California out" thread.

We haven't had enough of those.

You afraid of losing fed bucks?

California is a donor state. You should be worried, not Californians.