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.
If they are, then they are wrong. Just like states that do the same are wrong.
Besides, they are ignoring the enforcement of one federal law, and not saying they have the legal authority to completely nullify all federal laws. That's a big, big difference.
No difference, if you can ignore 1 you can ignore ALL.
Maybe the Federal law that states that being here illegally is in fact ILLEGAL! What kind of dumb question was that?
I'll say it again - what federal law prohibits sanctuary cities?
You appear to think that it is illegal for cities to decline to enforce federal immigration laws. But it's not. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1995 the federal government may enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement whereby those entities agree to perform immigration law enforcement functions. However, that same act only compels the federal government to enforce such laws. While many cities do so voluntarily, there is no such legal requirement.
And getting angry, calling names, and using lots of capital letters doesn't change that reality.
I'll say it again - what federal law prohibits sanctuary cities?
You appear to think that it is illegal for cities to decline to enforce federal immigration laws. But it's not. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1995 the federal government may enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement whereby those entities agree to perform immigration law enforcement functions. However, that same act only compels the federal government to enforce such laws. While many cities do so voluntarily, there is no such legal requirement.
And getting angry, calling names, and using lots of capital letters doesn't change that reality.
Where was the name calling? If a city allows people to break federal law that is in fact, ignoring federal law. The same thing with the pot laws in California. It is illegal Federally, but they are making it legal in their state. Now tell us, how does that work under you neat little definition?
No difference, if you can ignore 1 you can ignore ALL.
You can ignore them, but you can't nullify them.
Just curious, but will you also be refusing to use interstate highways, flying only on planes not overseen by the FAA, eating food not inspected by the FDA, and returning your Social Security check? I assume that since you believe you can ignore federal laws, you will be consistent and ignore federal benefits.
Just curious, but will you also be refusing to use interstate highways, flying only on planes not overseen by the FAA, eating food not inspected by the FDA, and returning your Social Security check?
Are those laws? Nope, they are not. Try and stay on track.
Are those laws? Nope, they are not. Try and stay on track.
Sure they are. They are either based on federal laws or regulated by federal laws through federal regulations and federal agencies. Every one of those agencies finds it's origins in a federal law somewhere. I'm just trying to make sure you are consistent with this.
Or are you saying that it's OK to ignore federal rules when you don't like them, but take advantage of them when you do like them?
Sure they are. They are either based on federal laws or regulated by federal laws through federal regulations and federal agencies. Every one of those agencies finds it's origins in a federal law somewhere. I'm just trying to make sure you are consistent with this.
Or are you saying that it's OK to ignore federal rules when you don't like them, but take advantage of them when you do like them?
Yep, that's what California and other states are doing with sanctuary cities and California is doing with their state pot laws. If it's not ok, then why is Cali doing this?
Yep, that's what California and other states are doing with sanctuary cities and California is doing with their state pot laws. If it's not ok, then why is Cali doing this?
Well, I think you are the one who has gotten off track. I was responding to the post about nullification, which says that states can void federal laws they don't agree with. You brought up ignoring them, which is a whole different matter than nullification.
Some federal laws are set up where states can pick and choose what part of the law they will enforce. But that is not nullification. It is authorized under the statute.
And some states exceed their authority in ignoring federal laws. But that doesn't make it right.
As to the rest, it just goes with my usual theme that people who hate the federal government and taxes have no problem accepting the benefits of the federal government and taxes. Or they want to pick and choose among them. It's the inconsistency that bothers me.
Where was the name calling? If a city allows people to break federal law that is in fact, ignoring federal law. The same thing with the pot laws in California. It is illegal Federally, but they are making it legal in their state. Now tell us, how does that work under you neat little definition?
Once again, marijuana possession is illegal per federal statute. However, local law enforcement does not have to prosecute marijuana possession. For example, in Alaska possession of an ounce of less of marijuana for private use is not a local crime. Federal law enforcement - such as ATF or the FBI - can prosecute such possession, as it violates federal law. But local law enforcement - such the Alaska State Police or Anchorage PD - are not legally bound to enforce the federal law. They need only follow state law, which permits possession of an ounce or less. This is not new in Alaska, as the law has been in effect since 1975. Also legal in Alaska is possession of up to 25 marijuana plants in ones home. Again, this is against federal law, but local law enforcement is not bound to enforce federal marijuana laws.
So, once again, I'll ask what you call a "dumb question" - where in a federal statute is a city mandated to enforce federal immigration laws?
Sure they are. They are either based on federal laws or regulated by federal laws through federal regulations and federal agencies. Every one of those agencies finds it's origins in a federal law somewhere. I'm just trying to make sure you are consistent with this.
Or are you saying that it's OK to ignore federal rules when you don't like them, but take advantage of them when you do like them?
Do note that places like California and Alaska aren't ignoring federal marijuana laws. There is nothing in those laws that compels local law enforcement to prosecute crimes described therein. Those states still must accomodate federal law enforcement, and they do so as required.
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.
