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.
They can not afford to and the complaints started when the feds simply wanted the states to hold these people indefinitely. States can not hold someone indefinitely or really at all over civil matters.
The sanctuary cities are refusing to hold them at all. Furthermore complaints about funding is a cop out, these are people that have been arrested for criminal activity. It would seem to me ridding yourself of criminals by deporting them is far cheaper than ultimately putting them in a state prison.
Quote:
These kinds of actions will stop at best an extremely small number
That's not true at all, one of the reasons we have so many illegals to begin is because they know they can enter this country illegally with impunity. Once you start enforcing laws that dynamic changes.
Quote:
Going after employers would have a large immediate impact and on top of that the fines would at least partially pay for the enforcement.
For some reason, you refuse to condemn those who will not do this.
Do not try and put words into my mouth. I'm very much in favor of going after employers that employ illegal immigrants. None of this fine BS either, prison terms.
I covered this once. States can enact and enforce speed limits. They can NOT enforce immigration laws.
I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong. They must comply with and enforce all Federal laws. They cannot pick and choose, or flat out refuse. Any law that is Constitutional must be enforced by all States, or we are nothing more than a banana republic. We cannot allow any State governments to be despotic, or we no longer have a republic. We become nothing more than colonies. The reason the Federal Government was formed (by the States, I should remind you) was to create uniform rules for such things as immigration, etc. Uniformity is an important aspect of belonging to the Union.
Gonzales v City of Peoria states "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statues".
The tenth circuit states there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws".. US vs Vasquez-Alvarez, "state and local police officers have implicit authority within their respective jurisdiction to "investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws""
its up to the states to decide if they want to help the feds, they are not forbid from doing so..
If a state arrests someone for actually breaking a law (not a civil matter) they can hold someone for that crime and make sure who they are holding. They can contact the Feds to try and help determine who some one is. They have an interest in doing that.
They can't hold people over a civil matter. If they arrest someone for a legit offense and determine through the feds that the person is here illegally (which they only can do through federal courts) and the feds decide to come get the person, the feds can.
The feds have NO interest in holding all of these people because for one, they have no where to do that. The costs would be enormous. They want the states to take on these costs and some states are saying no.
If a state does not want to undergo the costs of incarcerating someone for who knows how long over a minor offense, they do not have to.
If a state arrests someone for actually breaking a law (not a civil matter) they can hold someone for that crime and make sure who they are holding. They can contact the Feds to try and help determine who some one is. They have an interest in doing that.
They can't hold people over a civil matter. If they arrest someone for a legit offense and determine through the feds that the person is here illegally (which they only can do through federal courts) and the feds decide to come get the person, the feds can.
The feds have NO interest in holding all of these people because for one, they have no where to do that. The costs would be enormous. They want the states to take on these costs and some states are saying no.
If a state does not want to undergo the costs of incarcerating someone for who knows how long over a minor offense, they do not have to.
Is breaking our immigration laws an offense that allows legal detainment?
If a state arrests someone for actually breaking a law (not a civil matter) they can hold someone for that crime and make sure who they are holding. They can contact the Feds to try and help determine who some one is. They have an interest in doing that.
They can't hold people over a civil matter. If they arrest someone for a legit offense and determine through the feds that the person is here illegally (which they only can do through federal courts) and the feds decide to come get the person, the feds can.
The feds have NO interest in holding all of these people because for one, they have no where to do that. The costs would be enormous. They want the states to take on these costs and some states are saying no.
If a state does not want to undergo the costs of incarcerating someone for who knows how long over a minor offense, they do not have to.
But the feds not having the resources to hold someone, doesnt mean the states can not arrest them and turn them over to the feds for being an illegal. They can, legally..
But the states ARE permitted to do it.. There is nothing limited states from arresting individuals for violating federal laws.. it happens all the time..
child porn cases, is an example where this occurs..
Child porn is illegal on the state level. As the Supreme Court ruling notes, this is a federal civil matter.
So yes, a state can charge someone for child porn as that is illegal in the state. If the feds wish to charge the person also, they can.
I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong. They must comply with and enforce all Federal laws. They cannot pick and choose, or flat out refuse. Any law that is Constitutional must be enforced by all States, or we are nothing more than a banana republic. We cannot allow any State governments to be despotic, or we no longer have a republic. We become nothing more than colonies. The reason the Federal Government was formed (by the States, I should remind you) was to create uniform rules for such things as immigration, etc. Uniformity is an important aspect of belonging to the Union.
Thats not entirely true either.. states are not required to enforce federal laws. They can if they wish, but thats up to the individual states to decide.
The word I'm disagreeing with is the "MUST" comply.. thats entirely false.. CAN would be far more accurate.
The sanctuary cities are refusing to hold them at all. Furthermore complaints about funding is a cop out, these are people that have been arrested for criminal activity. It would seem to me ridding yourself of criminals by deporting them is far cheaper than ultimately putting them in a state prison.
So you believe the best answer is to deport someone over murder? Nobody is refusing to hold someone over actual violations of their law like this.
Quote:
That's not true at all, one of the reasons we have so many illegals to begin is because they know they can enter this country illegally with impunity. Once you start enforcing laws that dynamic changes.
I am the one that has been pushing for that. When will the federal government start enforcing federal employment laws? It's noted in the ruling I posted that this is a job for the federal government and they can indeed do that.
Quote:
Do not try and put words into my mouth. I'm very much in favor of going after employers that employ illegal immigrants. None of this fine BS either, prison terms.
You say this but you refuse to condemn those who can do that.
Child porn is illegal on the state level. As the Supreme Court ruling notes, this is a federal civil matter.
So yes, a state can charge someone for child porn as that is illegal in the state. If the feds wish to charge the person also, they can.
Some states have child porn laws, but since the type of material often occurs across state lines, and more often than not, across national borders, if a state police officer discovers child porn, its often turned over to the feds to prosecute because the national laws are far more severe and the ability to seek out others who obtained the images from the same source, would fall within federal jurisdiction.
Someone from Florida for example, might download images from Canada, so Florida, would turn the case over to the feds to help with the canadian authorities to nab the source in Canada and then seek out the others who also downloaded from that source all around the world.. in other states outside Floridas boundaries.
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.
