Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
46 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Sanctuary Cities, when is it ok not to follow federal law? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So sanctuary cities are thumbing their nose at Trump who is saying he wants them to enforce federal immigration law.
What repercussions should their be for a city refusing to abide by the law.
Why can they get away with it?
I hope Trump DOES PULL ALL FEDERAL FUNDING from those cities.

Can I pick a federal law I dont want to follow?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
Can I pick a federal law I dont want to follow?


Yes you can.

On one hand, I want the feds to stay out of state matters. On the other hand, when you allow the democrats to setup Jim crow type laws, it presents a real challenge.

I guess you do it the same way you do motorcycle helmet laws and withhold revenue to those states that wont comply.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Dignam
United States
Lithia
FL
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think Pot is still a Federal issue, yet 28 states are toking it up everywhere.

DOMA I think was also in flux until the Supreme Court settled it.

I think the law should be the law unless changed. I realize there is a Federalist tact on all of this but this needs to be resolved.

The Men in Black rule our lives in truth.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
So sanctuary cities are thumbing their nose at Trump who is saying he wants them to enforce federal immigration law.
What repercussions should their be for a city refusing to abide by the law.
Why can they get away with it?
I hope Trump DOES PULL ALL FEDERAL FUNDING from those cities.

Can I pick a federal law I dont want to follow?


I agree...they should pull all federal funding completely, and then ratchet down a bit as they find other things that can be cut out.

You can have immigration or not, but that's an Executive function -- Obama made that quite clear. And things are a changing.



Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not really in favor of cities violating federal law, however I'm not certain if they're violating federal law or just refusing to use state resources to enforce federal law.

Basically to the extent that sanctuary city ordinances are a violation of federal law I'm against them, but I'm not sufficiently aware of the interaction between federal and local laws to know if this is the case.

As a general rule I am certainly against "papers please" law enforcement which would allow cops to stop people solely to check immigration status. Way, way too much opportunities to stop and frisk any "brown person" pretextually.

As far as reporting immigration status by the state to the feds of persons convicted of felonies, I am in favor of that kind of mandatory reporting.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You do the crime, you do the time. Any President, including Obama, should enforce the law and if they don't agree with the law, or it is unpopular , they should blame it on Congress every chance they get. Specifically too, name names and votes.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"Don't be humble... you're not that great."
Avatar
mbmbmb
Well "sanctuary" cities is kind of a misnomer. For instance, in Austin, considered a "sanctuary" city, the head of the Sheriff's department and Police department will not turn over immigrants to federal authorities unless there is a warrant in place. It's not the responsibility of the local authorities to enforce "federal" law for convenience. They have their own enforcement authority. So in this case it's not about enforcing federal law, it's just placing enforcement responsibilities of federal law to federal agents.

Which of course, since Republicans want less money to go to Federal agencies, there is less coverage. Less coverage means less deportations.

See how that works?
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
What repercussions should their be for a city refusing to abide by the law.

What law are they refusing to abide by?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know the law they're supposed to be violating but assuming they are violating a law, my understanding is that they believe that law to be unjust. The people involved will then presumably get their day in court to make their case. If they do, it is a successful protest. If the court does not agree, then assuming the trial was fair, then their voice was heard but they lost. In either case, democracy works. Only if they don't get a fair hearing would democracy not be served by the process such a protest starts.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chengkai Yang
United States
Cupertino
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
So sanctuary cities are thumbing their nose at Trump who is saying he wants them to enforce federal immigration law.
What repercussions should their be for a city refusing to abide by the law.
Why can they get away with it?
I hope Trump DOES PULL ALL FEDERAL FUNDING from those cities.

Can I pick a federal law I dont want to follow?


I mean the states do the same shit with weed. Some states also have the bulk of their population or political will derived from a few cities/regions. As for whether it's correct, hard to say. I think most residents approach it on a case by case basis. In terms of say SF I think it's more harm than good these days. We've had several incidents of repeat offenders that should have been deported, resulting in people adversely affected by this policy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:


Can I pick a federal law I dont want to follow?


Sure why not? Obama does it all the time.

Well.. did it all the time.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
It's ok not to follow federal law when the law is something conservatives want but not liberals.

So states can pass pot laws it's A-OK. But if a state tries to go against ACA or passes an anti-gay marriage law all of a sudden federal law beats state law. My one liberal (ex) friend said that so fucking much in the most annoying way I actually wanted to punch him, which is why we are not friends anymore.

I lean more towards states rights and them passing their own laws. I'm not really down with anti-gay marriage laws but I just want to see some fucking consistency. Either Federal law trumps state law or it doesn't, not this it does when I want it to shit.


Of course federal law trumps state law. The courts are there to decide whether such laws are both a valid exercise of federal reach. Until they do, the states are "legally" bound to comply.

In practice, the states are still sovereign and may challenge federal overreach. This may be a simple as filing a suit or as radical as forceful resistance. There are a couple of key factors in considering what tools to use.

Clearly, the federal government has the authority to regulate it's national borders. Harboring undocumented immigrants intentionally is a flagrant challenge to that authority and legitimately draws some form of sanction. On the other hand, being compliant doesn't necessarily include assistance. If a state merely doesn't devote law enforcement resources, it's not the same thing as obstructing.

You gave an example of marijuana laws. This is more properly arguable as a states rights issue. Besides invoking the Commerce Clause, what interest does the Federal Government have in prohibiting marijuana either as a medical treatment or even as recreational? Many states balance federal prohibition by simply refusing to lend aid through apprehension or prosecution leaving the enforcement burden entirely to federal agencies.

IMO it's overly simplistic to conflate all such disputes. However, if the new administration were to decide to suspend Habeas Corpus or some similar draconian measure, I would hope my state would employ vigorous opposition. Just imagine if Trump did use the dubious mechanism of the terrorist "watch list" to start taking away guns. Would you want your state to help them?

4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rico mcflico
United States
Mill Valley
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
So sanctuary cities are thumbing their nose at Trump who is saying he wants them to enforce federal immigration law.
What repercussions should their be for a city refusing to abide by the law.
Why can they get away with it?
I hope Trump DOES PULL ALL FEDERAL FUNDING from those cities.

Can I pick a federal law I dont want to follow?


I agree...they should pull all federal funding completely, and then ratchet down a bit as they find other things that can be cut out.

You can have immigration or not, but that's an Executive function -- Obama made that quite clear. And things are a changing.

Whoa there, cowboy! You want to throw veterans on the street? Because veteran housing programs are paid for with federal money...

Thanks New Obama!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
spoon wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
So sanctuary cities are thumbing their nose at Trump who is saying he wants them to enforce federal immigration law.
What repercussions should their be for a city refusing to abide by the law.
Why can they get away with it?
I hope Trump DOES PULL ALL FEDERAL FUNDING from those cities.

Can I pick a federal law I dont want to follow?


I agree...they should pull all federal funding completely, and then ratchet down a bit as they find other things that can be cut out.

You can have immigration or not, but that's an Executive function -- Obama made that quite clear. And things are a changing.

Whoa there, cowboy! You want to throw veterans on the street? Because veteran housing programs are paid for with federal money...

Thanks New Obama!


Literally nothing relevant to illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.



Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rico mcflico
United States
Mill Valley
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
spoon wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
TheDashi wrote:
So sanctuary cities are thumbing their nose at Trump who is saying he wants them to enforce federal immigration law.
What repercussions should their be for a city refusing to abide by the law.
Why can they get away with it?
I hope Trump DOES PULL ALL FEDERAL FUNDING from those cities.

Can I pick a federal law I dont want to follow?


I agree...they should pull all federal funding completely, and then ratchet down a bit as they find other things that can be cut out.

You can have immigration or not, but that's an Executive function -- Obama made that quite clear. And things are a changing.

Whoa there, cowboy! You want to throw veterans on the street? Because veteran housing programs are paid for with federal money...

Thanks New Obama!


Literally nothing relevant to illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.
What nonsense is this? You said this:

you wrote:
they should pull all federal funding completely


Veteran housing is paid for with federal funding. So when you say "all federal funding" you mean "some federal funding"?

If you just mean the funding a sanctuary city gets to deport people, that's fine. I think it equals out to about zero dollars.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
TheDashi wrote:
So sanctuary cities are thumbing their nose at Trump who is saying he wants them to enforce federal immigration law.
What repercussions should their be for a city refusing to abide by the law.
Why can they get away with it?
I hope Trump DOES PULL ALL FEDERAL FUNDING from those cities.

Can I pick a federal law I dont want to follow?


I agree federal, state, and local laws should be enforced and enforced equally without regard to race, gender, wealth, or attractiveness.

If we don't like the law it should be civilly resisted and/or repealed.. not selectively enforced or ignored.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
It's ok not to follow federal law when the law is something conservatives want but not liberals.

So states can pass pot laws it's A-OK. But if a state tries to go against ACA or passes an anti-gay marriage law all of a sudden federal law beats state law. My one liberal (ex) friend said that so fucking much in the most annoying way I actually wanted to punch him, which is why we are not friends anymore.

I lean more towards states rights and them passing their own laws. I'm not really down with anti-gay marriage laws but I just want to see some fucking consistency. Either Federal law trumps state law or it doesn't, not this it does when I want it to shit.


How about, "More individual rights trumps less individual rights?" That certainly takes care of both the pot laws and the anti-gay marriage laws.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walking on eggshells is not my style
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Oooooo.

While people are thinking about it, allow me to suggest that it would be great if the federal government only took in enough money to run itself, and left the rest of the tax revenue to cities and states to tax as they saw fit? Instead of taking almost all the money and doling it back with strings attached, and then taking its own cut off the top?
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Oooooo.

While people are thinking about it, allow me to suggest that it would be great if the federal government only took in enough money to run itself, and left the rest of the tax revenue to cities and states to tax as they saw fit? Instead of taking almost all the money and doling it back with strings attached, and then taking its own cut off the top?


Well then most of the Red states would go bankrupt, wouldn't they?
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walking on eggshells is not my style
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
jasonwocky wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Oooooo.

While people are thinking about it, allow me to suggest that it would be great if the federal government only took in enough money to run itself, and left the rest of the tax revenue to cities and states to tax as they saw fit? Instead of taking almost all the money and doling it back with strings attached, and then taking its own cut off the top?


Well then most of the Red states would go bankrupt, wouldn't they?


Is that a bad thing? As opposed, to say, the red states that are bankrupt now?

Edit: and yes, wouldn't it be great if politicians couldn't confiscate money from the big states and send it back to their state to build a glorious airport with their name on it?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Reid
United States
Brooklyn
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
jasonwocky wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Oooooo.

While people are thinking about it, allow me to suggest that it would be great if the federal government only took in enough money to run itself, and left the rest of the tax revenue to cities and states to tax as they saw fit? Instead of taking almost all the money and doling it back with strings attached, and then taking its own cut off the top?


Well then most of the Red states would go bankrupt, wouldn't they?


Is that a bad thing? As opposed, to say, the red states that are bankrupt now?


Generally speaking, yes. I'm not a fan of letting voters bankrupt themselves. Because they'll just find a way to vote themselves more money after they piss theirs away.

It's why I'm opposed to all of the Social Security privatization plans I've ever heard.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Walking on eggshells is not my style
United States
North Pole
Alaska
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
rylfrazier wrote:
I'm not really in favor of cities violating federal law, however I'm not certain if they're violating federal law or just refusing to use state resources to enforce federal law.

Basically to the extent that sanctuary city ordinances are a violation of federal law I'm against them, but I'm not sufficiently aware of the interaction between federal and local laws to know if this is the case.

As a general rule I am certainly against "papers please" law enforcement which would allow cops to stop people solely to check immigration status. Way, way too much opportunities to stop and frisk any "brown person" pretextually.

As far as reporting immigration status by the state to the feds of persons convicted of felonies, I am in favor of that kind of mandatory reporting.


Good, but you are on the wrong track. This issue is not about enforcing federal law.

That govt money has always come with strings attached. You accept the money with those strings, or reject it.

These are just different strings.

This isn't an issue of violating federal law in the least. It's an issue of accepting the strings to get the money.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
jasonwocky wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Oooooo.

While people are thinking about it, allow me to suggest that it would be great if the federal government only took in enough money to run itself, and left the rest of the tax revenue to cities and states to tax as they saw fit? Instead of taking almost all the money and doling it back with strings attached, and then taking its own cut off the top?


Well then most of the Red states would go bankrupt, wouldn't they?


Hardly. We have all the food.

My guess is both blue and red states would be a lot better off and the residents for fucking sure would have some local say in things that are now in the hands of those shitbirds in DC.

Do you realize that all that has to happen is for one more state to have republican control, just one more, and the R's could get a constitutional amendment through with no chance of it being stopped by blue states? Look it up - that's how red America actually is, one more major democrat loss and those fuckers will be, well, fucked. Only I imagine they'll be more like toddlers who get punished and when they get more mature they'll see the spankings were for the best.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rico mcflico
United States
Mill Valley
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
jasonwocky wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Oooooo.

While people are thinking about it, allow me to suggest that it would be great if the federal government only took in enough money to run itself, and left the rest of the tax revenue to cities and states to tax as they saw fit? Instead of taking almost all the money and doling it back with strings attached, and then taking its own cut off the top?


Well then most of the Red states would go bankrupt, wouldn't they?


Hardly. We have all the food.

My guess is both blue and red states would be a lot better off and the residents for fucking sure would have some local say in things that are now in the hands of those shitbirds in DC.

Do you realize that all that has to happen is for one more state to have republican control, just one more, and the R's could get a constitutional amendment through with no chance of it being stopped by blue states? Look it up - that's how red America actually is, one more major democrat loss and those fuckers will be, well, fucked. Only I imagine they'll be more like toddlers who get punished and when they get more mature they'll see the spankings were for the best.

Food? You mean corn? Real food comes from California, bitch!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
rico mcflico
United States
Mill Valley
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
spoon wrote:
DWTripp wrote:
jasonwocky wrote:
Koldfoot wrote:
Oooooo.

While people are thinking about it, allow me to suggest that it would be great if the federal government only took in enough money to run itself, and left the rest of the tax revenue to cities and states to tax as they saw fit? Instead of taking almost all the money and doling it back with strings attached, and then taking its own cut off the top?


Well then most of the Red states would go bankrupt, wouldn't they?


Hardly. We have all the food.

My guess is both blue and red states would be a lot better off and the residents for fucking sure would have some local say in things that are now in the hands of those shitbirds in DC.

Do you realize that all that has to happen is for one more state to have republican control, just one more, and the R's could get a constitutional amendment through with no chance of it being stopped by blue states? Look it up - that's how red America actually is, one more major democrat loss and those fuckers will be, well, fucked. Only I imagine they'll be more like toddlers who get punished and when they get more mature they'll see the spankings were for the best.

Food? You mean corn? Real food comes from California, bitch!

I might just be talking about avocados.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.