You are totally Full Of Shit and Liar, just like your Obama Cock Sucking Immigration Lawyer's website.
States and Local Law Enforcement Are Authorized to Enforce Federal Law Asswipe. This is the case in most states, unless a state like California has taken measures to circumvent Federal Law, and trying to justify their felony violations of federal law through Illegal and Unlawful Legislation directing their own LE not to enforce Federal Law.
Are you even an American Citizen?
I am not going to go state by state to tear apart your lying argument. Here is a statement from The State of Connecticut on this.
FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
Criminal violations of the INA include such offenses as:
1. bringing in and harboring of certain undocumented aliens; (8 USC § 1324),
2. illegal entry of aliens; (8 USC § 1325(a)),
3. document fraud; (8 USC § 1324c),
4. reentry of aliens previously excluded or deported; (8 USC § 1326)
5. aiding or assisting aliens to enter illegally; (8 USC § 1327)
6. disobeying a removal order; (8 USC § 1253(a)),
7. registration of aliens; (8 USC § 1306),
8. importing aliens for immoral purposes; (8 USC § 1328), and
9. pattern or practice of hiring illegal aliens; (8 USC § 1324a(f)).
Express Authorization for State and Local Law Enforcement Officers to Enforce Immigration Law
The INA contains three provisions that explicitly authorize state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws (8 USC §§ 1357(g), 1103(a)(8), and 1253c. The following is taken directly from the March 11, 2004 CRS report on the ability of state and local police to enforce the INA (copy enclosed).
8 USC § 1357(g)
USC § 1357(g) authorizes the U.S. attorney general to enter into a written agreement with a state or municipality pursuant to which a state or municipal officer or employee, who the attorney general determines to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States may carry out such function at the state's or municipality's expense as long as it is consistent with state and local law.
Section 1357(g) permits state and local entities to tailor an agreement with the attorney general to meet local needs. The written agreement must specify the powers and duties that may or must be performed, and the duration of the authority. The entities must know and follow federal law governing immigration officers and must receive adequate training regarding the enforcement of immigration laws. The U.S. attorney general must direct and supervise the officers performing immigration functions under this law. Such officers are not federal employees except for certain tort claims and compensation matters, but they do enjoy federal immunity.
8 USC § 1103(a)(8)
Under 8 USC § 1103(a)(8), state and local officers may exercise the civil or criminal arrest powers of federal immigration officers (1) when expressly authorized by the U.S. attorney general; (2) when given consent by the head of the state or local law enforcement agency; and (3) the attorney general determination of an emergency exists because of a mass influx of aliens. This authority can be exercised only during the emergency situation. The attorney general can shorten or waive the otherwise normally required training requirements when necessary to protect public safety, public health, or national security.
8 USC §1252c
8 USC § 1252c authorizes state and local officers to arrest aliens who have presumably violated § 276 of the INA (Reentry of Removed Alien). Under § 1252c, state and local law enforcement officials can arrest and detain anyone who:
1. is an alien illegally present in the United States and
2. has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction, but only after the state or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from INS of his status and only for as long as may be required for INS to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing him from the United States.
Implied Authorization to Enforce INA
According to a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress, federal law does not preclude state and local officers from enforcing the criminal provisions of the INA. Thus, they may engage in such enforcement if state law permits them to do so, apart from the three provisions summarized above (Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law Enforcement, March 11, 2004). This view has been supported by court cases in other jurisdictions, opinions of the U.S. (DOJ) and the attorney generals of New York and California.
Court Cases
Gonzales v. City of Peoria. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions of the INA (722 F.2d 468, 475 (9th Cir. 1983)). The Gonzalez case examined the city's policies, which authorized its police officers to arrest illegal immigrants for violating the criminal entry provisions of the INA (8 USC § 1324). The defendants argued that federal law prohibited state and local police officers from making such arrests. The court held that local police officers may, subject to state law, constitutionally stop or detain people when there is reasonable suspicion or, in the case of arrests, probable cause that they have violated, or are violating, the criminal provisions of the INA.
People v. Barajas. Likewise, in People v. Barajas, the California Court of Appeal upheld the authority of California local police officers to make arrests for violations of two provisions of the INA, 8 USC § 1325 (the illegal entry misdemeanor) and § 1326 (felony for alien to re-enter United States after deportation) (81 Cal. App.3d 999, (1978)). The court rejected the defendant's argument that the arrest was illegal under INA warrant requirements, (8 USC § 1357).
United States v. Salinas-Calderon. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations and to make arrests for violation of federal law (United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F. 2d 1298 (10th Cir. 1984)). In this case, a state trooper pulled over the defendant for driving erratically. He found six people in the back of the defendant's truck. After questing the passenger he learned that the driver and the others were in the country illegally. The court determined that the trooper had probable cause to detain and arrest all the individuals.
United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez. In a subsequent case, the Tenth Circuit considered the arrest by an Oklahoma police officer of a person suspected of drug dealing because he was an “illegal alien” (United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999)). The arresting officer did not know when he made the arrest whether the defendant had committed a civil or criminal violation of INA. A specific provision in the INA (8 USC § 1252c) authorizes state officers to pick up and hold for deportation a previously deported alien who had been convicted of a crime in the United States and reentered illegally. The law requires state officers to obtain confirmation from the INS before making such an arrest. It was only after the arrest that it was discovered that the alien had a history of prior criminal convictions and deportations.
The defendant argued that the state police could only arrest him in compliance with the restrictions detailed in 8 USC § 1252c. Since his arrest did not meet the requirements of that provision, the defendant argued the arrest was unauthorized. The court held that § 1252c does not limit or displace the preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of the INA.
United States v. Santana-Garcia. The Tenth Circuit again considered the role of local law enforcement of immigration laws in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2001)). A Utah police officer stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation. The driver didn't speak English or have a driver's license. The officer learned that the driver and his passenger were traveling from Mexico to Colorado and that they were not legally in the country. The court held that the officer had probable cause to arrest both defendants for suspected violation of federal immigration law and concluded that state and local police officers have implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions to investigate and make arrests for violations of immigration law.
State Police Arrests of People Who Break Federal Law
IN SHORT
PHUCK YOU
YOU ARE A LIAR
GO BACK TO MEXICO!
Each state determines what laws the cops can enforce. The Federal Government can't require it. Which is exactly what I said. It is what the Supreme Court said in the Pintz case.
Go back to Mexico? I was born in Michigan you blithering idiot. I did nine years in the Army. I know I've earned the right to say any damn thing I please. While you were living in your mothers basement bitching about brown people.
You can't force the cops to enforce any federal law. The state can and is within its rights to prohibit that under the tenth amendment you moron. This does not prevent ICE agents from arresting a thousand illegals a day.
You are so full of shit it is unbelievable. If Hillary had been elected and tried to order the local police to enforce gun laws you would be screaming about States Rights. But give you a cause and you shot on States Rights in a second and demand that everyone enforce the laws you want them to.
If California doesn't want their cops enforcing immigration laws they are within their rights to do so. The same way that Colorado is within their rights to legalize marijuana. Yes the DEA can and do arrest people. But the local cops don't. Jackass.
too funny. just too funny. So why do states get federal money?
Oh for ***** sake. Didn't you take Civics before you dropped out of high school?
did you say something? i asked you a question, why are you avoiding an answer?
If the Federal Government requires something, like Medicare. They have to pay for it. Otherwise it is an unfunded mandate which is a violation of the tenth amendment. Then there are federal projects which curiously enough the Feds have to pay for. Like Interstate highways.
Let's put this in terms you can understand. Let's say I work for you. You require that I wear a uniform. You pay for the uniform, or pay me more to cover my costs. If you don't want to pay for the uniform then you really have no grounds to ***** about the clothes I wear.
If my school must meet your standards, then you have to pay. That is why people object to voucher programs that go to private schools.
Some money is given in the form of Grants. These are gifts from your fairy god Senator. Things like bridges to nowhere and interstate exits that go to his neighborhood.
Half the state of West Virginia is named after Robert Byrd for all the Grants he got for them.
Then there are silly programs that the law and order types love. Programs where cops can get surplus military gear. I mean what cops can't find a use for a tank or grenade launcher?
Now I may think that a Greyhound Bus Museum is a waste of my tax dollars. You might agree. But I think a lot of that crap is a waste of my tax dollars. Starting with the F-35 and going down the line to the war on drugs, poverty, and let's not forget privacy.
This should have been covered in your Civics class in school. That is why I laughed off your question. Because I don't feel responsible for educating you when you passed up the opportunity to learn it the first time.
An unfunded mandate is wrong IMO. Reagan thought so too.
Unfunded mandate - Wikipedia
The Federal Government, as one example, required States to lower the Blood Alcohol Content or face loss of federal funds for their highways. A better example of an unfunded mandate is drivers licenses. The Real ID act mandated that the States had to create a database and include documents that proved the identity of the card holder. The card also had to have the information imprinted in computer readable format. That is the magnetic strip or dots on the back of licenses.
States that did not comply would have their citizens barred from Federal Courthouses, airplanes, or other activity that required an ID check to pass.
