Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
See you in court Mr. Trump. There is nothing in the Constitution or statutes requiring states and local jurisdictions to enforce immigration laws. Detainers are NOT warrants. Why cut valuable funding to cities because they are complying with the law? Trump will get another kick in his face with this upcoming loss.
Please show me in the constitution where it says states are entitled to federal money. They act like its automatically owed to them.
See you in court Mr. Trump. There is nothing in the Constitution or statutes requiring states and local jurisdictions to enforce immigration laws. Detainers are NOT warrants. Why cut valuable funding to cities because they are complying with the law? Trump will get another kick in his face with this upcoming loss.
Aiding and abetting criminals is "complying with the law"? Wow! That's a new excuse for not cooperating with authorities
This is what we call backwards reasoning. You and many others here are claiming that states are required to enforce IMMIGRATION LAW (notice I didn't use the catchall "federal law"?) but there is no law requiring this and I'm challenging you and others to prove otherwise.
If states don't have to enforce various laws on immigration why are they, and their sub-jurisdictions, hauled into Federal Court for not enforcing the federal IDEA? They lose on that one. Every single time. It deals with education.
The Federal government, through the Justice department can, at its choosing, [not required by law] give a grant [with strings] to a local law enforcement agency to perform a specific function or purchase specific equipment. If the function is not done or the equipment is not purchased, the Justice department can cancel the grant or stop giving grants. It is Federal tax payer money being given as a gift. They can stop giving gifts whenever they choose for any reason at any time.
The Federal justice department is not required to give money to a city that harbors and gives protection to criminal illegal aliens.
Please show me in the constitution where it says states are entitled to federal money. They act like its automatically owed to them.
I didn't make that claim, so probably you should answer that question .
Quote:
Originally Posted by BOS2IAD
Aiding and abetting criminals is "complying with the law"? Wow! That's a new excuse for not cooperating with authorities
How is a place like NYC aiding and abetting illegal aliens? Listen, all ICE needs to do is get a federal warrant and then the city would be legally responsible to detain whomever they want. Federal judges have warned local jurisdictions that they cannot indefinitely hold an illegal alien and unequivocally stated that a DETAINER is NOT a WARRANT. I'm not making this up, neither are these mayors - it was the Supreme Court (and other federal courts) who made this ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person
If states don't have to enforce various laws on immigration why are they, and their sub-jurisdictions, hauled into Federal Court for not enforcing the federal IDEA? They lose on that one. Every single time. It deals with education.
You are conflating two separate issues. I recommend that you become fully informed with federal rulings on the issue. Remember when Arizona tried to usurp federal power on immigration? Please read rulings like those.
You are conflating two separate issues. I recommend that you become fully informed with federal rulings on the issue. Remember when Arizona tried to usurp federal power on immigration? Please read rulings like those.
I'm not conflating anything, you're refusing to answer why the federal government can compel local compliance with one set of legislation but (your claim) is unable to for another.
There is nothing in the Constitution or statutes requiring states and local jurisdictions to enforce immigration laws. Please disprove this statement and stop posting links.
You may need to post some links to prove your statement. And, use the right term. You are stating immigration....The subject is "illegal immigration".
Here is a link that will clearly help you understand that you are wrong.
"An Arizona law providing authority for local law enforcement to enforce immigration law violated the enumerated powers of Congress and is pre-empted by federal statute."
Again, I didn't make this up, that was the ruling of our highest court.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
