CDZ How Quickly will Sanctuary Collapse from Sequester?

[FA_Q2]

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.

That is not my position. Are you stating yours?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Not true.
You understand that we have state agencies that enforce the law and we have federal agencies that enforce the law.
Highway patrol is a state agency.
ICE, the FBI and CIA are all federal agencies.

Not allowing the federal government to force the highway patrol to enforce immigration law does not stop ICE from doing so - the agency that is charged with enforcing immigration law in the first place.

 

[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.

That is not my position. Are you stating yours?

Yes I'm stating my position, as established by points made in your argument.

 

[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.

Not true.
You understand that we have state agencies that enforce the law and we have federal agencies that enforce the law.
Highway patrol is a state agency.
ICE, the FBI and CIA are all federal agencies.

Not allowing the federal government to force the highway patrol to enforce immigration law does not stop ICE from doing so - the agency that is charged with enforcing immigration law in the first place.

What good is ICE without help from the individual states?

ICE issues detainer, state/municipality ignores detainer. Illegal goes free. That is how Kate Steinle's killer got free.

That can get people killed. What are states rights to the safety and welfare of the American people?

 

[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.

That is not my position. Are you stating yours?

Yes I'm stating my position, as established by points made in your argument.

I don't debate much in the CDZ, and my inexperience is showing I guess.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

Not true.
You understand that we have state agencies that enforce the law and we have federal agencies that enforce the law.
Highway patrol is a state agency.
ICE, the FBI and CIA are all federal agencies.

Not allowing the federal government to force the highway patrol to enforce immigration law does not stop ICE from doing so - the agency that is charged with enforcing immigration law in the first place.

What good is ICE without help from the individual states?

ICE issues detainer, state/municipality ignores detainer. Illegal goes free. That is how Kate Steinle's killer got free.

That can get people killed. What are states rights to the safety and welfare of the American people?

As I see it, and correct me if I am wrong FA_Q2, the point being made is, what gives the federal government the right to force state agencies to enforce laws that are federal? Now, I don't think that that necessarily means that local agencies cannot, only that they are under no obligation to. This is why we have ICE, to enforce immigration law. If it is the obligation of the states to enforce this law, then why do we have ICE? What is the point in the redundancy?
As to the "detainer" order, that is an entirely different matter. That would be ICE using what powers they have, through the courts and due process, to "force" a state/local agency to "detain" a person(s). It is not, however, an order to enforce any other order or law, merely detain said person(s) until such time as ICE can arrange for taking custody of the "detained", or suspect. I have no problem with this, what I question is whether ICE, or any other federal agency, has the power to "force" state/local agencies to "find and detain" those that ICE sees as suspects in an immigration investigation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

As I see it, and correct me if I am wrong FA_Q2, the point being made is, what gives the federal government the right to force state agencies to enforce laws that are federal?

In the context of this argument, it is because the government has a vested interest in maintaining its borders and protecting its people. What the states and municipalities are being allowed to do is trample on the rights of the government. When you can't get state and local law enforcement to cooperate with the government on federal law enforcement, you're allowing states and municipalities to aid and abet felons.

You're leaving the government alone to enforce the law, without help from the states and municipalities. And when those states and municipalities aren't obligated to cooperate, justice isn't guaranteed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is why we have ICE, to enforce immigration law. If it is the obligation of the states to enforce this law, then why do we have ICE?

If it is the obligation of ICE to enforce immigration law, what good is ICE by itself if they don't have the full cooperation of the states?

 

[oldsoul]

As I see it, and correct me if I am wrong FA_Q2, the point being made is, what gives the federal government the right to force state agencies to enforce laws that are federal?

In the context of this argument, it is because the government has a vested interest in maintaining its borders and protecting its people. What the states and municipalities are being allowed to do is trample on the rights of the government. When you can't get state and local law enforcement to cooperate with the government on federal law enforcement, you're allowing states and municipalities to aid and abet felons.

You're leaving the government alone to enforce the law, without help from the states and municipalities. And when those states and municipalities aren't obligated to cooperate, justice isn't guaranteed.

That is inaccurate. I am saying, why do the states have to take on the brunt of the work for the feds? What are the feds doing? Cooperation is abiding by any orders lawfully issued. When the feds say, do it for us, then you have a police state, and little, if any, state sovereignty.
Also, yes the feds do have a vested interest in maintaining our borders, but they do not have the power to force states to do the work for them. All they can do is issue "orders of detainment"(or what ever they are called officially), they cannot tell the states, "go arrest this guy, because we say so." That is the feds job, and they have both the means and authority to do just that.

 

[oldsoul]

This is why we have ICE, to enforce immigration law. If it is the obligation of the states to enforce this law, then why do we have ICE?

If it is the obligation of ICE to enforce immigration law, what good is ICE by itself if they don't have the full cooperation of the states?

They don't need it. If they find that a person of interest is being held by a state, they can get an order to ensure the sate does not release that person until either they remove the order, or take custody.
What you are arguing is that the states must work in concert with ICE without an order to do so. Now, I am not against this happening, but it is not within the powers of ICE, to FORCE them to.

 

[yiostheoy]

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.

Those cities will need to redirect funds from their own sources such as earmarked for education or welfare.

With Trump as POTUS the money for it is surely going to dry up soon.

And the bleating/bleeding hearts in the cities won't relent either.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am saying, why do the states have to take on the brunt of the work for the feds?

I'm not saying they have to, they simply need to work in conjunction. The Feds maintain the brunt of the work. I'm saying the states should not be allowed to harbor illegal aliens. In any other circumstance under criminal law, aiding and abetting a criminal would be a crime in and of itself.

That's it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What you are arguing is that the states must work in concert with ICE without an order to do so. Now, I am not against this happening, but it is not within the powers of ICE, to FORCE them to.

What good is a unified government when you can't the members of the union to cooperate with the government? Or with each other?

 

[oldsoul]

I am saying, why do the states have to take on the brunt of the work for the feds?

I'm not saying they have to, they simply need to work in conjunction. The Feds maintain the brunt of the work. I'm saying the states should not be allowed to harbor illegal aliens. In any other circumstance under criminal law, aiding and abetting a criminal would be a crime in and of itself.

That's it.

Then we agree on that point.

 

[oldsoul]

What you are arguing is that the states must work in concert with ICE without an order to do so. Now, I am not against this happening, but it is not within the powers of ICE, to FORCE them to.

What good is a unified government when you can't the members of the union to cooperate with the government? Or with each other?

They can, but ICE, DEA, and FBI cannot, on their own, compel such cooperation. That is up to the courts, or voluntary cooperation on the part of the state(s).

 

[FA_Q2]

I am saying, why do the states have to take on the brunt of the work for the feds?

I'm not saying they have to, they simply need to work in conjunction. The Feds maintain the brunt of the work. I'm saying the states should not be allowed to harbor illegal aliens. In any other circumstance under criminal law, aiding and abetting a criminal would be a crime in and of itself.

That's it.

Then we agree on that point.

I think we all agree on that point.

Aiding and abetting or hiding is not the same as not actively enforcing.

 

[Picaro]

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.

The same argument can be made that states can't use Federal funds to support illegals nor allow them to vote for Federal offices in elections. Also illegal immigration is a violation of Federal law and the Feds have the right to enforce them, whether or not a state approves of it or not. I'll also add that includes counting illegals for Federal election redistricting, and if operating a 'sanctuary' for criminal illegal aliens isn't prosecutible under RICO statutes ans an ongoing criminal enterprise nothing is.

 

[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.

The same argument can be made that states can't use Federal funds to support illegals nor allow them to vote for Federal offices in elections. Also illegal immigration is a violation of Federal law and the Feds have the right to enforce them, whether or not a state approves of it or not. I'll also add that includes counting illegals for Federal election redistricting, and if operating a 'sanctuary' for criminal illegal aliens isn't prosecutible under RICO statutes ans an ongoing criminal enterprise nothing is.

We agree that the states cannot and should not get in the way of the feds enforcing immigration law. Sanctuary cities actually do not do that by the way. The term sanctuary is rather badly used in that context. The only thing that a sanctuary city does is not authorize city police to check citizen status when coming into contact with the public. They have the power to direct their personnel.

 

[TemplarKormac]

or voluntary cooperation on the part of the state(s).

Voluntary.

The law ceases to be effective when compliance becomes voluntary instead of mandatory, in the context of this discussion.

 

[william the wie]

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.

The same argument can be made that states can't use Federal funds to support illegals nor allow them to vote for Federal offices in elections. Also illegal immigration is a violation of Federal law and the Feds have the right to enforce them, whether or not a state approves of it or not. I'll also add that includes counting illegals for Federal election redistricting, and if operating a 'sanctuary' for criminal illegal aliens isn't prosecutible under RICO statutes ans an ongoing criminal enterprise nothing is.

We agree that the states cannot and should not get in the way of the feds enforcing immigration law. Sanctuary cities actually do not do that by the way. The term sanctuary is rather badly used in that context. The only thing that a sanctuary city does is not authorize city police to check citizen status when coming into contact with the public. They have the power to direct their personnel.

The president is required to execute the laws of the land but the president or the courts decide what gives when two or more laws conflict with the president getting the first bite of the apple.

 

[Picaro]

I think some people have forgotten that Lincoln and the Civil War pretty much ended the whole 'states rights' thing as it exists in some minds. Police officers can and do arrest suspects in Federal crimes all the time. It's the DA's and Federal prosecutors and judges who decide on who has jurisdiction for trying them. Police officers don't get to decide not to arrest people for crimes based on whether or not they are Federal violations or not, and neither do local, county, or state officials. If that were the case, then we would have to have as many Federal police patrolling the streets as we do civilian police, which is ridiculous.