CDZ How Quickly will Sanctuary Collapse from Sequester?

[oldsoul]

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.

You talk as if it is law that states must enforce immigration law. Show me where that is, I am not aware of such laws. I am talking about cooperation, there are no laws that compel states to cooperate (in terms of enforcement) with federal investigations, outside of court orders. We appear to be having two separate discussions here.

 

[oldsoul]

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.

You are correct, partially. States have no mandate to actively seek out federal violations to investigate. When they see (literally or figuratively) such violations, or reason to suspect them, then they do have a mandate. That is the difference. Local LEOs have no mandate to seek out illegal immigrants, unless they have reason to suspect a person, or persons, in their jurisdiction are have violated such laws. Seeking out those investigations is under the mandate of ICE. That is why they exist.

 

[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.

You are correct, partially. States have no mandate to actively seek out federal violations to investigate. When they see (literally or figuratively) such violations, or reason to suspect them, then they do have a mandate. That is the difference. Local LEOs have no mandate to seek out illegal immigrants, unless they have reason to suspect a person, or persons, in their jurisdiction are have violated such laws. Seeking out those investigations is under the mandate of ICE. That is why they exist.

Well, kidnapping is a Federal crime, so according to the 'reasoning' of some here local and state police don't have to interfere in stopping or enforcing that either, which is the main point. If they run across violations of immigration law, they are to enforce it and arrest the illegals, regardless; if they don't want to be part of the U.S. they should secede. Too bad they all supported the aftermath of the Civil War and can't; they'll just have to cry and whine and lose Federal funding if they want to pick and choose which Federal laws they want to abide by. When a city declares itself a 'Sanctuary City' it intends to violate the law, and its police aren't bound by the declaration in any way, even a little bit, and any public office holder or official who tries to punish them or in any way interfere they are criminals and engaging in racketeering.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

You are correct, partially. States have no mandate to actively seek out federal violations to investigate. When they see (literally or figuratively) such violations, or reason to suspect them, then they do have a mandate. That is the difference. Local LEOs have no mandate to seek out illegal immigrants, unless they have reason to suspect a person, or persons, in their jurisdiction are have violated such laws. Seeking out those investigations is under the mandate of ICE. That is why they exist.

Well, kidnapping is a Federal crime, so according to the 'reasoning' of some here local and state police don't have to interfere in stopping or enforcing that either, which is the main point. If they run across violations of immigration law, they are to enforce it and arrest the illegals, regardless; if they don't want to be part of the U.S. they should secede. Too bad they all supported the aftermath of the Civil War and can't; they'll just have to cry and whine and lose Federal funding if they want to pick and choose which Federal laws they want to abide by. When a city declares itself a 'Sanctuary City' it intends to violate the law, and its police aren't bound by the declaration in any way, even a little bit, and any public office holder or official who tries to punish them or in any way interfere they are criminals and engaging in racketeering.

Actually, no. For the most part kidnapping is a state crime. It only extends to a federal crime in specific circumstances such as crossing state borders.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You talk as if it is law that states must enforce immigration law.

They are members of a Federal union that itself is tasked with enforcing immigration within its borders. It's like telling all the kids in a classroom what the rules are and then adding "you don't have to if you don't want to."

That makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Fine. Just how do you propose we eliminate this problem? Cutting Federal funding to a sanctuary city itself seems pretty ineffectual. Are there other, more direct means to ensure compliance with immigration law?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am talking about cooperation, there are no laws that compel states to cooperate (in terms of enforcement) with federal investigations, outside of court orders.

I never said there were.

I'm saying that it's this lack of requisite cooperation and enforcement which leads to cases such as Kate Steinle and others. This is why we will never solve the immigration issue.

 

[Polk]

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.

1. The President is required to disburse the funds appropriated. Nixon tried that tactic and was rebuked by a unanimous SCOTUS decision (see Train v. City of New York).
2. The problem with your second theory is that it requires showing an injury.

 

[Polk]

I do not think that the federal government should be able to force the states to go along with something that they disagree with.

Then as I see it, you might as well remove our national borders. The government no longer has the power to enforce the law or its sovereign borders from illegal aliens who trespass here.

The federal government could still enforce the statute, it would just need to deploy its own resources.

 

[Polk]

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.

The federal government having the power to regulate immigration does not mean the federal government can dragoon local officials into enforcing those regulations.

 

[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.

1. The President is required to disburse the funds appropriated. Nixon tried that tactic and was rebuked by a unanimous SCOTUS decision (see Train v. City of New York).
2. The problem with your second theory is that it requires showing an injury.

I agree but injuries due to illegal aliens is pretty much a daily occurance with the worst offenders.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

1. The President is required to disburse the funds appropriated. Nixon tried that tactic and was rebuked by a unanimous SCOTUS decision (see Train v. City of New York).
2. The problem with your second theory is that it requires showing an injury.

That is only half the story though - the feds can withhold funds from states for rather vapid reasons IMHO.

South Dakota v. Dole (1987) - Bill of Rights Institute

The president cannot withhold funds alone but can do it with congress under the guise of the general welfare clause. I vehemently disagree with this particular ruling but it is current law.

 

[OldLady]

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.

Contrary to popular opinion, those 20 thousand illegals are not all on welfare, so they will keep working in the shadows. They have no additional reason to steal.

 

[OldLady]

Fine. Just how do you propose we eliminate this problem? Cutting Federal funding to a sanctuary city itself seems pretty ineffectual. Are there other, more direct means to ensure compliance with immigration law?

Arrest the Chief of Police?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Actually there is one precedent for States being forced to toe the federal line or face losing funding. The 21 year old drinking age is a perfect example, that somehow passed SC review as constitutional.

States are "free" to have a drinking age under 21, but they lose federal highway funds. Using that logic, the feds can easily deny any funds to a locality that plays the sanctuary city card.

 

[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.

Actually there is one precedent for States being forced to toe the federal line or face losing funding. The 21 year old drinking age is a perfect example, that somehow passed SC review as constitutional.

States are "free" to have a drinking age under 21, but they lose federal highway funds. Using that logic, the feds can easily deny any funds to a locality that plays the sanctuary city card.

See post 72 - that is the court case cited.

This is an avenue open to the feds though I do not think it should be. The very idea obliterates one of the basic check in our government - separation of powers.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The federal government having the power to regulate immigration does not mean the federal government can dragoon local officials into enforcing those regulations.

Well, I guess Aristotle would be astounded at the idea that the sum of the parts are greater than the whole. That's all I'm hearing now.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I think this illustrates my point:

 

[FA_Q2]

Not really. The issue was never one about effectiveness. No one is arguing that enforcement is not as effective if everyone is not on board.

The issue is state and federal power.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Actually there is one precedent for States being forced to toe the federal line or face losing funding. The 21 year old drinking age is a perfect example, that somehow passed SC review as constitutional.

States are "free" to have a drinking age under 21, but they lose federal highway funds. Using that logic, the feds can easily deny any funds to a locality that plays the sanctuary city card.

See post 72 - that is the court case cited.

This is an avenue open to the feds though I do not think it should be. The very idea obliterates one of the basic check in our government - separation of powers.

I agree 100%. To me the only way the feds can start implementing policy in uncooperative areas is to send federal agents in with warrants. They may not be able to force locals to help them, but they can sure as hell force them to provide any records.