Using Obama's successful lawsuit against Arizona enforce Federal laws will support ICE enforcement

[healthmyths]

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

It went to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS found Arizona could not usurp Federal government's authority.

So Calif. refusal to obey Federal ICE activities are taken to SCOTUS and the case will NOT be heard as the
above decision upheld the right of the Federal Government over the State regarding immigration enforcement.

 

[Slade3200]

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

It went to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS found Arizona could not usurp Federal government's authority.

So Calif. refusal to obey Federal ICE activities are taken to SCOTUS and the case will NOT be heard as the
above decision upheld the right of the Federal Government over the State regarding immigration enforcement.

Do you see any difference between the sanctuary city situation and the legal pot situation?

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Sessions should arrest the Oakland mayor for obstruction and reckless endangerment. She knowingly and willfully issued advance warnings of law enforcement plans to felons, thus aiding in their escape and placing the lives of law enforcement at greater risk.

 

[koshergrl]

The states cannot *usurp* federal authority when it comes to national security and border protection.

Aside from that primary control should remain at the local level. It should be the state to decide the bulk of their laws.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

It went to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS found Arizona could not usurp Federal government's authority.

So Calif. refusal to obey Federal ICE activities are taken to SCOTUS and the case will NOT be heard as the
above decision upheld the right of the Federal Government over the State regarding immigration enforcement.

Do you see any difference between the sanctuary city situation and the legal pot situation?

From a legal perspective, no. Both cases rest upon federal law being the supreme law of the land.

 

[BluesLegend]

There are heavy federal laws and restrictions on fully automatic weapons, states cannot just ignore them.

 

[BluesLegend]

If lawless puke liberal states don't like our immigration laws there is a legal process to change them. If they can't muster the votes and support of the American people to change immigration laws then they can't just ignore them. What the hell kind of country would that be, disagree with a law just ignore it?

 

[bodecea]

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

It went to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS found Arizona could not usurp Federal government's authority.

So Calif. refusal to obey Federal ICE activities are taken to SCOTUS and the case will NOT be heard as the
above decision upheld the right of the Federal Government over the State regarding immigration enforcement.

Yes...the same applies. (Not a fan of sanctuary cities)

 

[Slade3200]

The states cannot *usurp* federal authority when it comes to national security and border protection.

Aside from that primary control should remain at the local level. It should be the state to decide the bulk of their laws.

What’s the difference between the mayor warning against an ICE raid versus the mayor warning, now legal pot growers, against a federal raid on pot farms?

 

[Geaux4it]

Thank goodness for all this as it puts Moonbeam Brown out in front. This can only help the normal folks in America when they watch that freak take to the airways

-Geaux

 

[BrokeLoser]

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

It went to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS found Arizona could not usurp Federal government's authority.

So Calif. refusal to obey Federal ICE activities are taken to SCOTUS and the case will NOT be heard as the
above decision upheld the right of the Federal Government over the State regarding immigration enforcement.

Do you see any difference between the sanctuary city situation and the legal pot situation?

The states cannot *usurp* federal authority when it comes to national security and border protection.

Aside from that primary control should remain at the local level. It should be the state to decide the bulk of their laws.

What’s the difference between the mayor warning against an ICE raid versus the mayor warning, now legal pot growers, against a federal raid on pot farms?

That’s soooo weird...look everybody....in a feeble attempt to blur the issue, Slade3200 is working his ass off to inject semantics.
Look, the GOP is doing what the good people of this nation have asked them to do...aggressively enforce immigration and deportation laws. That’s number one to good people right now...we want to see ALL energy exhausted there...THEN we’ll move on to lowlife stoners. TA-DA!

 

[jc456]

Sessions should arrest the Oakland mayor for obstruction and reckless endangerment. She knowingly and willfully issued advance warnings of law enforcement plans to felons, thus aiding in their escape and placing the lives of law enforcement at greater risk.

she knowingly put law enforcement in harms way.

 

[Slade3200]

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

It went to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS found Arizona could not usurp Federal government's authority.

So Calif. refusal to obey Federal ICE activities are taken to SCOTUS and the case will NOT be heard as the
above decision upheld the right of the Federal Government over the State regarding immigration enforcement.

Do you see any difference between the sanctuary city situation and the legal pot situation?

The states cannot *usurp* federal authority when it comes to national security and border protection.

Aside from that primary control should remain at the local level. It should be the state to decide the bulk of their laws.

What’s the difference between the mayor warning against an ICE raid versus the mayor warning, now legal pot growers, against a federal raid on pot farms?

That’s soooo weird...look everybody....in a feeble attempt to blur the issue, Slade3200 is working his ass off to inject semantics.
Look, the GOP is doing what the good people of this nation have asked them to do...aggressively enforce immigration and deportation laws. That’s number one to good people right now...we want to see ALL energy exhausted there...THEN we’ll move on to lowlife stoners. TA-DA!

I’m not working my ass off at all, I haven’t even stayed a position on the matter. I’m asking a very simple and relevant question that you don’t seem to want to address. If there is a difference between the two then just simply state what it is. Try staying on subject for a change and stop injecting your partisan hate bullshit into every conversation.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

It went to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS found Arizona could not usurp Federal government's authority.

So Calif. refusal to obey Federal ICE activities are taken to SCOTUS and the case will NOT be heard as the
above decision upheld the right of the Federal Government over the State regarding immigration enforcement.

Do you see any difference between the sanctuary city situation and the legal pot situation?

The states cannot *usurp* federal authority when it comes to national security and border protection.

Aside from that primary control should remain at the local level. It should be the state to decide the bulk of their laws.

What’s the difference between the mayor warning against an ICE raid versus the mayor warning, now legal pot growers, against a federal raid on pot farms?

That’s soooo weird...look everybody....in a feeble attempt to blur the issue, Slade3200 is working his ass off to inject semantics.
Look, the GOP is doing what the good people of this nation have asked them to do...aggressively enforce immigration and deportation laws. That’s number one to good people right now...we want to see ALL energy exhausted there...THEN we’ll move on to lowlife stoners. TA-DA!

I’m not working my ass off at all, I haven’t even stayed a position on the matter. I’m asking a very simple and relevant question that you don’t seem to want to address. If there is a difference between the two then just simply state what it is. Try staying on subject for a change and stop injecting your partisan hate bullshit into every conversation.

I’ll play your game of riddles.
There is no difference, one is of greater priority right now. Only stoners, lowlifes and criminals want weed legalized. Sane people can see beyond the tip of their nose.

 

[The Original Tree]

The states cannot *usurp* federal authority when it comes to national security and border protection.

Aside from that primary control should remain at the local level. It should be the state to decide the bulk of their laws.

What’s the difference between the mayor warning against an ICE raid versus the mayor warning, now legal pot growers, against a federal raid on pot farms?

NONE,

Also, Ignoring Federal Law means a State Like Texas could have Fully Automatic Weapons in every household.

A public official warning Texans that ATF raids were about to begin would be committing a Felony.

 

[Slade3200]

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

It went to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS found Arizona could not usurp Federal government's authority.

So Calif. refusal to obey Federal ICE activities are taken to SCOTUS and the case will NOT be heard as the
above decision upheld the right of the Federal Government over the State regarding immigration enforcement.

Do you see any difference between the sanctuary city situation and the legal pot situation?

The states cannot *usurp* federal authority when it comes to national security and border protection.

Aside from that primary control should remain at the local level. It should be the state to decide the bulk of their laws.

What’s the difference between the mayor warning against an ICE raid versus the mayor warning, now legal pot growers, against a federal raid on pot farms?

That’s soooo weird...look everybody....in a feeble attempt to blur the issue, Slade3200 is working his ass off to inject semantics.
Look, the GOP is doing what the good people of this nation have asked them to do...aggressively enforce immigration and deportation laws. That’s number one to good people right now...we want to see ALL energy exhausted there...THEN we’ll move on to lowlife stoners. TA-DA!

I’m not working my ass off at all, I haven’t even stayed a position on the matter. I’m asking a very simple and relevant question that you don’t seem to want to address. If there is a difference between the two then just simply state what it is. Try staying on subject for a change and stop injecting your partisan hate bullshit into every conversation.

I’ll play your game of riddles.
There is no difference, one is of greater priority right now. Only stoners, lowlifes and criminals want weed legalized. Sane people can see beyond the tip of their nose.

I’d argue that people who value personal liberty and freedom also support legalization of pot... also anybody with a sense of sanity. It is the most common sense thing to do to save our economy and defund criminals

 

[IsaacNewton]

Red states passed more than 200 laws from 2009 until 2017 instructing their city and state employees to ignore federal gun regulations.

Oh cons you want your cake and to eat it too. The level of whining now is really getting out of hand though.

 

[oreo]

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

It went to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS found Arizona could not usurp Federal government's authority.

So Calif. refusal to obey Federal ICE activities are taken to SCOTUS and the case will NOT be heard as the
above decision upheld the right of the Federal Government over the State regarding immigration enforcement.

Congress has yet to write a bill and sign into law what is a Sanctuary City. Without a legal approved definition there is no legal way to determine which cities are Sanctuary and which ones aren't. It's arbitrary. Then they would have to write laws and sign them into law regarding what to do with Sanctuary cities. Until then it's just another Republican dog & pony show.

You can't be cited for speeding ticket if there is no written law regarding speeding. Nor would you be forced to pay a fine or penalized without that law.

Now if California did actually interfere into ICE deportations by writing state laws that would inhibit ICE agents from doing their jobs, there may be an issue for them. But Governor Brown is denying those accusations. We'll see?

“This is basically going to war against the state of California."Governor Brown says Jeff Sessions’ claim that California’s laws are endangering the public is a lie. “Simply, not true. And I call upon him to apologize to the people of California, to bringing the mendacity of Washington to California and trying to insert discord and division.” Sessions announced a lawsuit filed against the state for laws passed last year that he says prevents federal immigration agents from doing their job. A claim the governor denies.

Governor Responds To Sessions Immigration Lawsuit: "Basically Going To War"

Jeff Sessions has been known to LIE before. Several times under oath.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions may be facing perjury charges.

 

[healthmyths]

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
Arizona v. United States - Wikipedia

It went to the Supreme Court and SCOTUS found Arizona could not usurp Federal government's authority.

So Calif. refusal to obey Federal ICE activities are taken to SCOTUS and the case will NOT be heard as the
above decision upheld the right of the Federal Government over the State regarding immigration enforcement.

Congress has yet to write a bill and sign into law what is a Sanctuary City. Without a legal approved definition there is no legal way to determine which cities are Sanctuary and which ones aren't. It's arbitrary. Then they would have to write laws and sign them into law regarding what to do with Sanctuary cities. Until then it's just another Republican dog & pony show.

You can't be cited for speeding ticket if there is no written law regarding speeding. Nor would you be forced to pay a fine or penalized without that law.

Now if California did actually interfere into ICE deportations by writing state laws that would inhibit ICE agents from doing their jobs, there may be an issue for them. But Governor Brown is denying those accusations. We'll see?

“This is basically going to war against the state of California."Governor Brown says Jeff Sessions’ claim that California’s laws are endangering the public is a lie. “Simply, not true. And I call upon him to apologize to the people of California, to bringing the mendacity of Washington to California and trying to insert discord and division.” Sessions announced a lawsuit filed against the state for laws passed last year that he says prevents federal immigration agents from doing their job. A claim the governor denies.

Governor Responds To Sessions Immigration Lawsuit: "Basically Going To War"

Jeff Sessions has been known to LIE before. Several times under oath.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions may be facing perjury charges.

So what was the distinction between Obama suing Arizona for actually creating legal actions that mirrored exactly what Federal Law is regarding illegal aliens?

The Trump administration’s lawsuit against California over state laws aimed at protecting immigrants makes the same argument the Obama administration made when it went after an Arizona law that sought to crack down on people in the country illegally: The power to regulate immigration


The U.S. Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the law in 2012. Justice Anthony Kennedy said Arizona may have "understandable frustrations" with immigrants who are in the country illegally, but it can't pursue policies that "undermine federal law."

The Obama administration argued that the law would divert resources away from its priority to go after dangerous immigrants, disrupt the U.S. relationship with Mexico and ignore federal protections afforded to immigrants.
Eric Holder, attorney general under President Barack Obama, said during a conference call with reporters Wednesday that unlike Arizona, California is not regulating immigration and leaving "federal immigration enforcement to federal authorities."
So you're really comparing apples and oranges here," he said.
Legal experts agreed.
Gulasekaram said Arizona created a "parallel immigration enforcement system" with its own laws, while California is setting standards for cooperation with federal immigration officials.
Lawsuit against California echoes Arizona immigration fig

In practical terms Calif is being cooperative with ICE....up to a point.
AZ on the other hand law that was overturned by SCOTUS said AZ would mirror Federal Law/ICE and that was found illegal.

 

[healthmyths]

Red states passed more than 200 laws from 2009 until 2017 instructing their city and state employees to ignore federal gun regulations.

Oh cons you want your cake and to eat it too. The level of whining now is really getting out of hand though.