Sanctuary State Question (Orange, Nice: codes, vs., office)

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

It doesn't sound like you understand the Supremacy Clause which dictates that federal law is the "supreme law of the land." This means that judges in every state must follow the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the federal government in matters which are directly or indirectly within the government's control. (please note that "follow" does not mean enforce"

It is the 10th amendment that limits the federal government’s ability to mandate particular action by states and localities, including in the area of federal immigration law enforcement and investigations. The federal government cannot “compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program,or compel state employees to participate in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme. Importantly, these Tenth Amendment protections extend not only to states but to localities and their employees.
Voluntary cooperation with a federal scheme does not present Tenth Amendment issues. (I have listed numerous SCOTUS cases upholding the right of a state to refuse to enforce federal law, if interested I'm sure you can find them)

Ok we all agree that the government can't force a state to enforce federal law. It's an option. Why do you agree with intentionally blocking states and fed.gov for ICE only?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Kaphawoman

They ought to work with whoever is necessary to solve crime, uphold the law, and protect the populace.
Does it matter that some are unprofessional? The same can be said for some police officers and anyone in a position of power really, so should we dismantle all law enforcement? This is a problem for training and recruitment; it doesn't mean you hamstring an entire agency for doing its job.
I'm not sure where this hero worship for illegal aliens came from but it's misguided.

You clearly do not understand the day to day demands on law enforcement, or how staffing works..or even where the money comes from to hire enough additional cops to babysit ICE agents. I can't see anything to be gained by trying to explain it to you. Have a good day

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by max210

Ok we all agree that the government can't force a state to enforce federal law. It's an option. Why do you agree with intentionally blocking states and fed.gov for ICE only?

You don't know whether I agree with it or not, and that's why I have repeatedly ignored your question. When you persist in asking the same rhetorical question over and over again in order to bait a poster into making some statement that you twist into an argument it could well be inferred as trolling.

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You don't know whether I agree with it or not, and that's why I have repeatedly ignored your question. When you persist in asking the same rhetorical question over and over again in order to bait a poster into making some statement that you twist into an argument it could well be inferred as trolling.

I'm certainly not trolling you. What could be perceived as trolling is you defending these sanctuary laws with fallacious arguments e.g. ICE is hard to work with.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Correct as the examples listed have nothing to do with immigration laws. States can make laws tighter, such as CA emission laws, but they can't make them looser.

And California has not attempted to change immigration law. This is from the Governor's signing statement:

"In enshrining these new protections, it is important to note what the bill does not do. It does not prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their work in any way. They are free to use their own considerable resources to enforce federal immigration law in California. Moreover, the bill does not prohibit sheriffs from granting immigration authorities access toe jails to conduct routine interviews, nor does it prevent cooperation in deportation proceedings in state prison or for those in local jails for any of the hundreds of serious offenses listed in the TRUST act"


The only state that I know of that tried to rewrite immigration law was Arizona and they got a big smack down from SCOTUS for that.

So it seems we are talking about an imaginary scenario in which a state tries to rewrite federal immigration law, which as far as I know wasn't even part of this discussion. These threads sure get weird at times...

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by max210

I'm certainly not trolling you. What could be perceived as trolling is you defending these sanctuary laws with fallacious arguments e.g. ICE is hard to work with.

I will continue to defend the right of law enforcement to determine when/where and how they deploy what are frequently scarce resources in mutual aid or outside agency assistance requests. And what I said about ICE agents being hard to work with is not fallacious, I've worked with ICE agents and for the most part they are disorganized and poorly trained. But why take my word for it, here are some excerpts from the DHS IG report

Inspectors also found the agency often failed to issue up-to-date, comprehensive procedures for supervising the more than 2.3 million immigrants on its non-detained docket, close to 2 million of which are non-criminal, Elzea said. ICE staff told inspectors they received insufficient training, and about 2,900 immigration enforcement agents were transferred to deportation officer positions without proper instruction, the IG report added. ICE training materials, including those on deportation priorities, were not clearly communicated to deportation officers, the investigation revealed. Often, the materials had gone years without being updated.
Though the agency concurred with all five of the IG’s recommendations, which, among other things, called for a standardized training curriculum and increased cooperation with the State Department, the agency’s problems could get worse as immigration enforcement amps up under the Trump administration.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eneral-n749101

You repeated question "Why do you agree with intentionally blocking states and fed.gov for ICE only?" reminds me of an argument I had with a neighbor once when I said that the local school districts should only impose the 15 mph speed limit within 200 feet of schools when school is actually in session to which she said "why do you hate small children" lol

[BB_210]

^Nope.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You clearly do not understand the day to day demands on law enforcement, or how staffing works..or even where the money comes from to hire enough additional cops to babysit ICE agents. I can't see anything to be gained by trying to explain it to you. Have a good day

This just shows how little you know about the criminal justice system. Federal, state and local agencies are linked via computer. ICR puts a hold on someone who is in custody they are then notified via computer if release date. Then in release date they are released to ice. That is it.

[Kaphawoman]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You clearly do not understand the day to day demands on law enforcement, or how staffing works..or even where the money comes from to hire enough additional cops to babysit ICE agents. I can't see anything to be gained by trying to explain it to you. Have a good day

You have no explanations, only excuses that are laughably far-fetched in an attempt to justify illegal alien lawbreaking at all costs. This is a STATE bill...you're telling me you know the staffing demands of every municipality in a state as large as ours? And regardless of what type of work we're talking about, there is a solution to being understaffed: it's called hiring more people! And what makes you think ICE needs to be babysat? You're telling me not only do you know the ins and outs of local police but you also know that ICE is riddled with competencies and unable to function? Yeah, sure.

[Kaphawoman]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

local politicians are the legislature? Maybe I didn't make myself clear, when I say local politician I am talking about mayors, board of supervisor members and city council members.

Notice the thread title is sanctuary state bill. We are discussing SB54 and other pro-illegal alien laws passed by the Assembly and signed into law by Brown.