Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
"Captain, although your abilities intrigue me, you are quite honestly inferior"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In related news, I've been wondering how the Trump Administration is going to handle drug legalization in the States as far as DEA enforcement goes.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Most ICE activities are completely unconstitutional. The Federal government is given authority to set the rules for naturalization, but there's nothing in there about federal immigration police (or any federal immigration authority really).

Is this another mysterious ingredient of the "general welfare" that the Federal government is allowed to promote? Are the people in these cities just confused, because it's actually part of their "welfare" for these Feds to come in over the heads of the local authorities?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
"Captain, although your abilities intrigue me, you are quite honestly inferior"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kiraboshi wrote:
Most ICE activities are completely unconstitutional. The Federal government is given authority to set the rules for naturalization, but there's nothing in there about federal immigration police (or any federal immigration authority really).

Is this another mysterious ingredient of the "general welfare" that the Federal government is allowed to promote? Are the people in these cities just confused, because it's actually part of their "welfare" for these Feds to come in over the heads of the local authorities?
I think that they make the case under "National Security" in that they claim illegal immigrants are an external threat to the lives and livelihoods of existing citizens.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
TheChin! wrote:
Kiraboshi wrote:
Most ICE activities are completely unconstitutional. The Federal government is given authority to set the rules for naturalization, but there's nothing in there about federal immigration police (or any federal immigration authority really).

Is this another mysterious ingredient of the "general welfare" that the Federal government is allowed to promote? Are the people in these cities just confused, because it's actually part of their "welfare" for these Feds to come in over the heads of the local authorities?
I think that they make the case under "National Security" in that they claim illegal immigrants are an external threat to the lives and livelihoods of existing citizens.

That justification could probably work for border control (stopping unauthorized people from entering the country to begin with), but how are illegal immigrants who are already resident in the United States a "threat" to people in states where the don't even reside, hence to National security? I mean, criminals of all kinds are possibly a threat to people's security, does that mean local and state police have to cede their authority to pursue intra-state criminals? The argument just doesn't hold water.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Very legal & very cool
United States
Lincoln
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
TheChin! wrote:
In related news, I've been wondering how the Trump Administration is going to handle drug legalization in the States as far as DEA enforcement goes.


We have rather a large development today on that front actually

Quote:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions will roll back an Obama-era policy that gave states leeway to allow marijuana for recreational purposes.

Two sources with knowledge of the decision confirmed to The Hill that Sessions will rescind the so-called Cole memo, which ordered U.S. attorneys in states where marijuana has been legalized to deprioritize prosecution of marijuana-related cases.


http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/367384-sessions-w...

One would expect some rather showy mass arrests in the near future. Odds on favorite for location would be somewhere in the Golden State of California


The GOP probably doesn't need many of those 14 House seats they hold in California anyway.
6 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kiraboshi wrote:
Most ICE activities are completely unconstitutional. The Federal government is given authority to set the rules for naturalization, but there's nothing in there about federal immigration police (or any federal immigration authority really).

Is this another mysterious ingredient of the "general welfare" that the Federal government is allowed to promote? Are the people in these cities just confused, because it's actually part of their "welfare" for these Feds to come in over the heads of the local authorities?


If you are using this rationale, then just about any department that sets regulations and enforces them as if they are law without getting them voted on by the legislature and signed by the president are just as unconstitutional.

Think of it like regulation, just aimed at people instead of companies.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bill Cook
United States
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
I bet over 70% of the population believes, "The federal government should respect state laws on medical marijuana." Medical marijuana itself is pretty popular, and when you add in those that actually care about federalism...

So why the heck isn't there a bipartisan movement in Congress to change to law. I'm dumbfounded. This one is a no brainer.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Kearns
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
flag msg tools
Silence is golden.
badge
Your sea is so great and my boat is so small.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EMBison wrote:
I bet over 70% of the population believes, "The federal government should respect state laws on medical marijuana." Medical marijuana itself is pretty popular, and when you add in those that actually care about federalism...

So why the heck isn't there a bipartisan movement in Congress to change to law. I'm dumbfounded. This one is a no brainer.


Sadly, marijuana laws are primarily used to incarcerate black men in high numbers.

We need to lock them up and we need a reason.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seriously how did ICE end up like this? Every action and comment from them you see is jackbooted madness.

8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Bitter acerbic harridan
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Does this guy understand that the politicians would have to violate the law for him to arrest them? Being mayor of a sanctuary city isn't a violation of immigration law. The local authorities are not required to enforce immigration law for the feds. At most, it simply prohibits the states from having policies that limit communication of citizenship information to ICE. It doesn't require them to collect it; and it doesn't require them to release criminal case information, custody status, or release dates of individuals in custody.
10 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree that ICE is hyper-aggressive, but the idea that places can go "We are going to disregard this federal policy" with no pushback at all is unrealistic. Yes, ICE needs to tone it down a great deal and stop viewing people as the enemy, but expecting them to just throw up their hands and say "Well, it's a sanctuary city. Well played," is also unrealistic. There has to be a middle ground.

Look at it like this: If Pittsburgh and Cleveland, manufacturing cities, declared themselves "Environmental Amnesty cities" and said that since federal regulations aren't actually laws, but policies and fines levied by regulatory agencies and they would not allow or encourage the enforcement of environmental regulations in order to protect business.... UP IN ARMS! But that is essentially what's going on here, except you like the side of the underdog. States rights... when it suits.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
I agree that ICE is hyper-aggressive, but the idea that places can go "We are going to disregard this federal policy" with no pushback at all is unrealistic. Yes, ICE needs to tone it down a great deal and stop viewing people as the enemy, but expecting them to just throw up their hands and say "Well, it's a sanctuary city. Well played," is also unrealistic. There has to be a middle ground.

Look at it like this: If Pittsburgh and Cleveland, manufacturing cities, declared themselves "Environmental Amnesty cities" and said that since federal regulations aren't actually laws, but policies and fines levied by regulatory agencies and they would not allow or encourage the enforcement of environmental regulations in order to protect business.... UP IN ARMS! But that is essentially what's going on here, except you like the side of the underdog. States rights... when it suits.

Did you know that California basically controls pollution standards for cars for the entire nation?
7 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
I agree that ICE is hyper-aggressive, but the idea that places can go "We are going to disregard this federal policy" with no pushback at all is unrealistic. Yes, ICE needs to tone it down a great deal and stop viewing people as the enemy, but expecting them to just throw up their hands and say "Well, it's a sanctuary city. Well played," is also unrealistic. There has to be a middle ground.

Look at it like this: If Pittsburgh and Cleveland, manufacturing cities, declared themselves "Environmental Amnesty cities" and said that since federal regulations aren't actually laws, but policies and fines levied by regulatory agencies and they would not allow or encourage the enforcement of environmental regulations in order to protect business.... UP IN ARMS! But that is essentially what's going on here, except you like the side of the underdog. States rights... when it suits.


Anyways, we wouldn't arrest the mayor of Pittsburgh for it.

He's not just talking about enforcing the laws despite the city, he's talking about arresting politicians for their cities voting a position he doesn't like
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
I agree that ICE is hyper-aggressive, but the idea that places can go "We are going to disregard this federal policy" with no pushback at all is unrealistic. Yes, ICE needs to tone it down a great deal and stop viewing people as the enemy, but expecting them to just throw up their hands and say "Well, it's a sanctuary city. Well played," is also unrealistic. There has to be a middle ground.

Look at it like this: If Pittsburgh and Cleveland, manufacturing cities, declared themselves "Environmental Amnesty cities" and said that since federal regulations aren't actually laws, but policies and fines levied by regulatory agencies and they would not allow or encourage the enforcement of environmental regulations in order to protect business.... UP IN ARMS! But that is essentially what's going on here, except you like the side of the underdog. States rights... when it suits.


Can you cite examples of this? Largely I've understood it as 'local agencies won't do your work for you.' with the very obvious balancing weight of 'it is hard to police more serious crime locally when folks are afraid you'll bust them for small potatoes.'
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
I agree that ICE is hyper-aggressive, but the idea that places can go "We are going to disregard this federal policy" with no pushback at all is unrealistic. Yes, ICE needs to tone it down a great deal and stop viewing people as the enemy, but expecting them to just throw up their hands and say "Well, it's a sanctuary city. Well played," is also unrealistic. There has to be a middle ground.

Look at it like this: If Pittsburgh and Cleveland, manufacturing cities, declared themselves "Environmental Amnesty cities" and said that since federal regulations aren't actually laws, but policies and fines levied by regulatory agencies and they would not allow or encourage the enforcement of environmental regulations in order to protect business.... UP IN ARMS! But that is essentially what's going on here, except you like the side of the underdog. States rights... when it suits.


You have just compared people, the vast majority of which are law abiding folks making a positive contribution to society, to companies spewing toxic waste. Don't know what point you were trying to make with this, but this is not really a good look. Especially since folks actually do like to be on the side of the underdog. Has less to do with state's rights and more to do with basic humanity






No, I compared one federal agency to another. Both work off policy and regulation more than actual law. But, as I said, you like one agency and don't like the other, so your opinion of whether agency policy should be supported varies based on what you like and what you don't. Then when you see that there's no consistent way to address that, you cower behind "YOU SAID MEXICANS ARE POLLUION, YOU MOMSTER!!!"

I am not that straw man. I simply point out that those who applaud active non-support in one instance would loathe it in another and base their tolerance of such upon their own whim.

Should school districts be allowed to not funnel money to D.C. because they disagree with a national Common Core curriculum, and should cities be able to actively block city agencies from collecting data for the DEA? Common Core isn't a law, just a policy. But based on that policy, not voted on, districts can lose funding based on non-compliance. So should cities that disagree with that policy enable districts from sending their funding to D.C. for redistribution? Not do you think it's smart or in the best interest of the kids. Do you think they should be able to? Because if that is a viable solution for one federal agency, it should be a viable alternative for all.
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"that's a smith and wesson, and you've had your six"
Avatar
mbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:


Look at it like this: If Pittsburgh and Cleveland, manufacturing cities, declared themselves "Environmental Amnesty cities" and said that since federal regulations aren't actually laws, but policies and fines levied by regulatory agencies and they would not allow or encourage the enforcement of environmental regulations in order to protect business.... UP IN ARMS! But that is essentially what's going on here, except you like the side of the underdog. States rights... when it suits.


I'm pretty sure the federal environmental enforcement is still pretty much up to the feds to enforce.

Sanctuary cities are "preventing" the feds from arresting and enforcing federal immigration laws, they just aren't going to spend resources to help them in doing the feds job.

Why should I be spending more state and city taxes to pay for Federal enforcement...I already pay federal taxes.

Federal laws, federal enforcement.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damian
United States
Enfield
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
No, I compared one federal agency to another. Both work off policy and regulation more than actual law. But, as I said, you like one agency and don't like the other, so your opinion of whether agency policy should be supported varies based on what you like and what you don't.

Well, yes. People are going to have different opinions on which laws and regulations should exist and be enforced. That's not hypocritical. What would be hypocritical would be also suggesting that the governor of Ohio (the state that produces the most air pollution) should be imprisoned for not reducing pollution in his state.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
"Captain, although your abilities intrigue me, you are quite honestly inferior"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
windsagio wrote:
Anyways, we wouldn't arrest the mayor of Pittsburgh for it.
Let's not be so hasty, there has to be something we've got on him that will stick.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
damiangerous wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
No, I compared one federal agency to another. Both work off policy and regulation more than actual law. But, as I said, you like one agency and don't like the other, so your opinion of whether agency policy should be supported varies based on what you like and what you don't.

Well, yes. People are going to have different opinions on which laws and regulations should exist and be enforced. That's not hypocritical. What would be hypocritical would be also suggesting that the governor of Ohio (the state that produces the most air pollution) should be imprisoned for not reducing pollution in his state.


And again, I said that ICE is way too aggressive, both in tactics as well as mindless rhetoric. None of what I am saying here is an attempt to defend ICE in how far they go with their tactics. I am simply voicing, once again, that disregarding federal law and intentionally placing obstacles to its enforcement is a really bad precedent to set. And as we've seen this past year, setting precedents isn't always a good thing when you don't know who is going to come along next to make use of them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
Kumitedad wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
I agree that ICE is hyper-aggressive, but the idea that places can go "We are going to disregard this federal policy" with no pushback at all is unrealistic. Yes, ICE needs to tone it down a great deal and stop viewing people as the enemy, but expecting them to just throw up their hands and say "Well, it's a sanctuary city. Well played," is also unrealistic. There has to be a middle ground.

Look at it like this: If Pittsburgh and Cleveland, manufacturing cities, declared themselves "Environmental Amnesty cities" and said that since federal regulations aren't actually laws, but policies and fines levied by regulatory agencies and they would not allow or encourage the enforcement of environmental regulations in order to protect business.... UP IN ARMS! But that is essentially what's going on here, except you like the side of the underdog. States rights... when it suits.


You have just compared people, the vast majority of which are law abiding folks making a positive contribution to society, to companies spewing toxic waste. Don't know what point you were trying to make with this, but this is not really a good look. Especially since folks actually do like to be on the side of the underdog. Has less to do with state's rights and more to do with basic humanity






No, I compared one federal agency to another. Both work off policy and regulation more than actual law. But, as I said, you like one agency and don't like the other, so your opinion of whether agency policy should be supported varies based on what you like and what you don't. Then when you see that there's no consistent way to address that, you cower behind "YOU SAID MEXICANS ARE POLLUION, YOU MOMSTER!!!"


You're the one who came up with the comparison. Again, we are talking about equating people who are in the vast majority a positive for society with companies polluting which are not a positive. That is definitely a consistent way. Not "cowering" at all. Just pointing out the flaws in your argument.



GameCrossing wrote:
am not that straw man. I simply point out that those who applaud active non-support in one instance would loathe it in another and base their tolerance of such upon their own whim.


Taking into account the positive contribution to society of the former group is not a "whim". Taking the basic inhumanity of ICE's actions in account too is also not a "whim" as well. Being this dismissive is also, not a good look as well


GameCrossing wrote:
school districts be allowed to not funnel money to D.C. because they disagree with a national Common Core curriculum, and should cities be able to actively block city agencies from collecting data for the DEA? Common Core isn't a law, just a policy. But based on that policy, not voted on, districts can lose funding based on non-compliance. So should cities that disagree with that policy enable districts from sending their funding to D.C. for redistribution? Not do you think it's smart or in the best interest of the kids. Do you think they should be able to? Because if that is a viable solution for one federal agency, it should be a viable alternative for all.


Do any of these actions have the effect of the ones under discussion by ICE? Do any of them have the potential for creating a humanitarian nightmare as those? If not then you seem to be the one indulging in construction of straw men. And ignoring the part that basic human decency plays in this entire tableau



That is a lot of parsing to avoid justifying why intentionally obstructing the enforcement of federal policy is fine or not fine based on your feelsies.

But by all means, get lost in the details of why X is good and Y is bad (which I wouldn't disagree with you about) without addressing that the method of dealing with it is dangerous and counterproductive, which is the point I am making.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:


Look at it like this: If Pittsburgh and Cleveland, manufacturing cities, declared themselves "Environmental Amnesty cities" and said that since federal regulations aren't actually laws, but policies and fines levied by regulatory agencies and they would not allow or encourage the enforcement of environmental regulations in order to protect business.... UP IN ARMS! But that is essentially what's going on here, except you like the side of the underdog. States rights... when it suits.


I'm pretty sure the federal environmental enforcement is still pretty much up to the feds to enforce.

Sanctuary cities are "preventing" the feds from arresting and enforcing federal immigration laws, they just aren't going to spend resources to help them in doing the feds job.

Why should I be spending more state and city taxes to pay for Federal enforcement...I already pay federal taxes.

Federal laws, federal enforcement.


But we have cities that are directing departments to intentionally not cooperate. Something that would be no skin off their nose, not going out of their way, they are instructed to not even do that much.

And I get why. But if the law or the procedure is wrong, then fix it. The moment we as a society get lost in hand-picking which laws we follow and which we don't, we set ourselves up to fail.

Fix the system. In my opinion, the first step is a realistic reworking of quotas that reflect our modern economy and that not all the immigrants we take in need to be doctors and engineers. Fix it. But nobody talks about that. They either want to enforce to an unreasonable extent or act like border security and controlling who we allow into our country shouldn't exist at all. And as is most often the case, both extremes are wrong and unworkable.

But have you heard anyone talking about just reforming the system to make it more workable for a modern society? No. It's all either one extreme or the other. I just want actual issues actually addressed. This legal loophole workaround sets a horrible precedent.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
damiangerous wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
No, I compared one federal agency to another. Both work off policy and regulation more than actual law. But, as I said, you like one agency and don't like the other, so your opinion of whether agency policy should be supported varies based on what you like and what you don't.

Well, yes. People are going to have different opinions on which laws and regulations should exist and be enforced. That's not hypocritical. What would be hypocritical would be also suggesting that the governor of Ohio (the state that produces the most air pollution) should be imprisoned for not reducing pollution in his state.


And again, I said that ICE is way too aggressive, both in tactics as well as mindless rhetoric. None of what I am saying here is an attempt to defend ICE in how far they go with their tactics. I am simply voicing, once again, that disregarding federal law and intentionally placing obstacles to its enforcement is a really bad precedent to set. And as we've seen this past year, setting precedents isn't always a good thing when you don't know who is going to come along next to make use of them.


In thinking about this, I may have just stumbled onto one of the few benefits of a Trump presidency. It may just bring an end to Godwin's Law. No longer do we have to evoke Hitler in an argument in order to pose something as the worst possible thing imaginable.

Adolf, you may just be able to finally rest in peace.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mike Stiles
United States
California
flag msg tools
badge
Shaman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's an interesting nuance I think is often missed that (AS KumiteDad and many others in this thread have mentioned) sanctuary statutes aren't illegal, and no law is being broken.

The question is do you think the Fascist head of ICE knows that and just calls for jailing people anyways, or is too ignorant to know the law?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Bitter acerbic harridan
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
GameCrossing wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:


Look at it like this: If Pittsburgh and Cleveland, manufacturing cities, declared themselves "Environmental Amnesty cities" and said that since federal regulations aren't actually laws, but policies and fines levied by regulatory agencies and they would not allow or encourage the enforcement of environmental regulations in order to protect business.... UP IN ARMS! But that is essentially what's going on here, except you like the side of the underdog. States rights... when it suits.


I'm pretty sure the federal environmental enforcement is still pretty much up to the feds to enforce.

Sanctuary cities are "preventing" the feds from arresting and enforcing federal immigration laws, they just aren't going to spend resources to help them in doing the feds job.

Why should I be spending more state and city taxes to pay for Federal enforcement...I already pay federal taxes.

Federal laws, federal enforcement.


But we have cities that are directing departments to intentionally not cooperate. Something that would be no skin off their nose, not going out of their way, they are instructed to not even do that much.

And I get why. But if the law or the procedure is wrong, then fix it. The moment we as a society get lost in hand-picking which laws we follow and which we don't, we set ourselves up to fail.

Fix the system. In my opinion, the first step is a realistic reworking of quotas that reflect our modern economy and that not all the immigrants we take in need to be doctors and engineers. Fix it. But nobody talks about that. They either want to enforce to an unreasonable extent or act like border security and controlling who we allow into our country shouldn't exist at all. And as is most often the case, both extremes are wrong and unworkable.

But have you heard anyone talking about just reforming the system to make it more workable for a modern society? No. It's all either one extreme or the other. I just want actual issues actually addressed. This legal loophole workaround sets a horrible precedent.


The system has always worked this way, Junior. I don't know why you think it hasn't. The feds have always had responsibility for enforcing their laws. The solution isn't hijacking local law enforcement to do their jobs for them. If Trump wants more enforcement, then go appropriate the funds to have more local ICE agents or offer incentives to states to enforce. Instead, the administration is looking at sticks, not carrots. Unsurprisingly, that isn't working thus far. I don't think adding criminal consequences for state and local leaders is going to fix anything. Do you?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Kumitedad wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:
MWChapel wrote:
GameCrossing wrote:


Look at it like this: If Pittsburgh and Cleveland, manufacturing cities, declared themselves "Environmental Amnesty cities" and said that since federal regulations aren't actually laws, but policies and fines levied by regulatory agencies and they would not allow or encourage the enforcement of environmental regulations in order to protect business.... UP IN ARMS! But that is essentially what's going on here, except you like the side of the underdog. States rights... when it suits.


I'm pretty sure the federal environmental enforcement is still pretty much up to the feds to enforce.

Sanctuary cities are "preventing" the feds from arresting and enforcing federal immigration laws, they just aren't going to spend resources to help them in doing the feds job.

Why should I be spending more state and city taxes to pay for Federal enforcement...I already pay federal taxes.

Federal laws, federal enforcement.


But we have cities that are directing departments to intentionally not cooperate. Something that would be no skin off their nose, not going out of their way, they are instructed to not even do that much.

And I get why. But if the law or the procedure is wrong, then fix it. The moment we as a society get lost in hand-picking which laws we follow and which we don't, we set ourselves up to fail.

Fix the system. In my opinion, the first step is a realistic reworking of quotas that reflect our modern economy and that not all the immigrants we take in need to be doctors and engineers. Fix it. But nobody talks about that. They either want to enforce to an unreasonable extent or act like border security and controlling who we allow into our country shouldn't exist at all. And as is most often the case, both extremes are wrong and unworkable.

But have you heard anyone talking about just reforming the system to make it more workable for a modern society? No. It's all either one extreme or the other. I just want actual issues actually addressed. This legal loophole workaround sets a horrible precedent.


Unfortunately for that bolded part of yours, no one is breaking any law. Without a warrant, there is no legal precedent for the states or municipalities to comply with the Federal Government in their request. Complying with an unjust law is a matter of conscience, but this does not even rise to that. Its complying with a policy based on hatred, and counter productive to society on and economic and security basis. To blindly follow this just because its "policy" is to just be today's version of Inspector Javert. Even worse actually since there is no law here being broken. Some states/cities not in the mood to grovel before bigoted idiocy one opines


Holy fuck.

The issue is that they are actively working to impede its enforcement. Like it, don't like it, feel indifferent, do you really not see that this is a dangerous precedent to set?

Codify something into law. Or repeal a law. Work within the system to make it far less susceptible to the whims of whomever is in office, because the next guy in may be worse then the guy before.

When the only argument you have to fall back on is "My morality is right," you run into the danger of anyone using that argument, regardless of who is correct in doing so or not.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  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.