Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Murder is rarely a federal crime. But no, when and if it is deemed a federal crime it is tried in federal court.Oh, Jesus...FoxNews.
A state doesn't have the jurisdiction to arrest people that are breaking federal law. They also don't have the jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence them.
They MAY assist the Feds but they cannot write laws that give them the power to implement Federal laws in this manner.
So only the federal government can try murder cases, because there are federal murder laws. Also, only federal marshalls can issue a speeding ticket on a US interstate? Are you retarded?
So why doesn't Brewer declare a state of emergency and deploy her NG along the border if her citizens need protection from drug dealers?States aren't required to enforce Federal immigration policy. States aren't free to enact laws that allow them to arrest people for violating federal immigration policy.
Not sure where the confusion lies...but obviously many of you are confused.
I have to agree with Conhog, you're retard! States are required to protect their citizens. States have police forces and national guards. They are FULLY responsible to protect the well being of its citizens.
Yes, I think felons should be deported after they serve their time. And they are.Ravi seems to think what people want is for the government to round up every illegal alien in the country and deport them. Yet only a small minority even want that. Most just want Illegals with Criminal Records deported as they are caught on other crimes, and would be willing to accept the ones who have never committed a crime other than border jumping getting citizenship. I know I would. Provided that we take real serious steps to STOP the flow of new illegals.
Ravi let me ask you a serious question, No insults here just a question. Do you really agree with the FACT that on a daily bases people that are here illegally are picked up by Police for non related felonies and then Re released back into the country. Can you not at least agree that any illegal caught on a separate crime, should be deported as soon as their sentence is up? Is that not logical? were not talking about people getting a speeding ticket. I mean Felons, Rapists, Murders, Child Abusers, Drug Runners. People like this have been and are routinely picked up and end up Released back into the population. How can you be for that? Can you not at least agree to that idea? or do you actually believe the US does not have the right to Deport Illegals who commit felonies? Or is it that you just can't bring yourself to admit Obama might have made a mistake here, or simply stuck to his ideology despite of the facts? Not trying to say you are dumb, But you clearly have shown ignorance about the Arizona law itself even though I provided a link. You claimed the Law allows Arizona to "jail them indefinitely" when it clearly says they will be held until turned over to Federal Authorities.
Do you really think People in Arizona are just racists? Have you even been there. I have many times as a trucker, and let me tell you Whites and Hispanics live side by side there, and get along very well. And in fact they share the same view of this law for the most part. A Majority of Hispanics in Arizona Support the law. See they do that because they actually live there, and know first hand of the problems with an uncontrolled border and lax enforcement.
Obama has made 4 Big Political Gaffs since being in office IMO (there are more but only 4 Huge ones that are really going to hurt him.) One was pushing a health care bill that did not satisfy his base and was opposed by more than half the country. two was and is the appallingly bad response to the oil spill, the other 2 are both involving this law. First painting Arizonians and anyone who supports this Bill as a racist and second by starting this ridicules law suit that is going to blow up in his face and severely damage him.
Normally it is 3 strikes and you are out, and that is 4 IMO
No, I don't think the majority of people in Arizona are racist...I think they are frothing at the mouth because politicians have whipped up their fears and now they are looking on people with suspicion simply because they are not anglos.
I was under the impression we were discussing sanctuary cities...that is where you are all arguing against states rights.Actually, it turns out that though they are called federal roads...or interstate highways, and the fed gives money to the states to maintain them, the roads are actually owned by the states.
Pretty much why the 55 mph federal speed limit law was repealed.
It's pretty amusing to see you all arguing against states rights.
Wait now we are the ones arguing against states rights. Reality check Girl, You are the one opposed to Arizona's right to Pass laws about immigration. Not us
you are the worst spin doctor ever. Every time you post more BS, you look even more ignorant.
But I do believe that the states cannot pass laws that are the jurisdiction of the federal government. The can chose to round people up and turn them over to ICE but they cannot bring charges against people for violating a federal law.
Ravi is my drum
Where did Ravi go?
Where did Ravi go?
Did the first smart thing she has done on this thread. Gave up.
To bad she could not do the right thing, and Admit she is wrong.
What do you expect from people who think one line in the preamble of the constitution about the General Welfare of the nation. Is a blank check for the government to provide any type of direct welfare they want, and indeed one of them even said. "the government can do what ever it wants to protect the welfare of the Nation"
lol
Indeed. Now how does that apply to cities?It's not the same thing.
"That's different. Somehow. It just is. Neener neener!!"
States can't limit constitutionally granted rights...see the recent 2nd amendment case.
Indeed. Now how does that apply to cities?"That's different. Somehow. It just is. Neener neener!!"
States can't limit constitutionally granted rights...see the recent 2nd amendment case.
State's aren't impeding the Fed by allowing sanctuary cities. They are merely not helping them...a big difference.I was under the impression we were discussing sanctuary cities...that is where you are all arguing against states rights.Wait now we are the ones arguing against states rights. Reality check Girl, You are the one opposed to Arizona's right to Pass laws about immigration. Not us
you are the worst spin doctor ever. Every time you post more BS, you look even more ignorant.
But I do believe that the states cannot pass laws that are the jurisdiction of the federal government. The can chose to round people up and turn them over to ICE but they cannot bring charges against people for violating a federal law.
how is arguing against sanctuary cities being against state rights. You do know they are cities right. NOT STATES.
If a state were to pass sanctuary laws it would be challenged on the grounds that Obama is using to challenge Arizona right now as it would be a state impeding the Feds ability to do its job. See that is what you call an originalist view of the constitution. You support States rights up until those rights conflict with the supremacy clause. Which of course Arizona's law does not, but a Sanctuary state? Now that would.
States rights are not unlimited. They for example can not make war, if one were to claim they could. It would not be hypocritical for a states rights advocated to say they can't, Because States rights are limited by constitution in that case..
By the same token a state can not make laws that impede the Feds ability to do its duty. See Article VI, Clause 2. Of the constitution. A state can pass laws that enforce Federal law, they can not make laws that conflict with it. So it would not be hypocritical for a States rights advocate to be against a states right to pass sanctuary laws, let alone a cities, as said law would be a clear violation of the constitution.
See being for states rights goes hand in hand with being for a strict originalist interpretation of the constitution.
However don't let that stop you from making more ridicules comparisons like this one trying to say if you are against a CITY who made sanctuary laws you must be against states rights. Pretty funny logic their hun.
Ravi is my drum
And I'd say you have beaten the ever lovin' SHIT out of it today! Nicely done I might add.
Doubt she'll be back on this thread.
Actually I went out to dinner. How enjoyable to know that cornjob spent the night obsessing over me.Where did Ravi go?
Did the first smart thing she has done on this thread. Gave up.
To bad she could not do the right thing, and Admit she is wrong.
Cities are part of the States...so unless the State compels the city to act in a certain manner that is constitutional the city is free to do as it pleases.Indeed. Now how does that apply to cities?"That's different. Somehow. It just is. Neener neener!!"
States can't limit constitutionally granted rights...see the recent 2nd amendment case.
Wrong.Indeed. Now how does that apply to cities?
States can't limit constitutionally granted rights...see the recent 2nd amendment case.
Doesn't matter anyway Dave, she's wrong, states CAN limit your constitutionally protected rights. IF they have good cause.
Well, that's interesting.Cities are part of the States...so unless the State compels the city to act in a certain manner that is constitutional the city is free to do as it pleases.Indeed. Now how does that apply to cities?
States can't limit constitutionally granted rights...see the recent 2nd amendment case.
