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.
Illegal or not, I like them a whole lot more than most of the people on this thread.
Well good for you/sarcasm.
So can we all assume that you've moved several illegals into your own home and are feeding, clothing, sheltering and paying for their medical care and immigration lawyers? Maybe since you like them so much you've given them your SSN so that they can find work. Be sure to remind them to not use your name with said SSN. Let them know that you won't mind cleaning up the mess they will make of your credit rating.
Children being brought across borders by their parents, many of them still infants, aren't "people that knowingly broke the law". DACA-thread title. Duh?
Yet when they turn 18 1/2 they are officially considered to be here illegally. They had a chance to correct their status but so very, very few bothered to do so. Instead, they do what their parents taught them to do and that is if you want something and don't want to do the work to get it legally, then just take it anyway. In other words, they were raised without a moral compass.
We are talking about whether failure to actively enforce a federal law by a state law enforcement agency is a crime. You have an opinion about that. But it is not a cut and dried, settled legal issue, no matter how many times you imply it is.
Shes nothing but a troll who thinks she knows the law - she can spout the same few statues or clauses in the Constitution or cases again and again, but she ignores others that are presented to her again and again. Literally ignores them! And keeps repeating the same thing like a broken record.
In some cases there CAN be a fine line between commandeering and preemption (the principle from the Supremacy Clause that states that federal law trumps state law where there’s a conflict).
But states are not required to enforce federal law. That would be called commandeering and would violate the 10th Amendment. This is clearly established precedent. She will cite the Supremacy Clause or something again. The problem is she doesn’t understand what it means.
What could be done is cutting some federal funding for California. However, even that has been held to be unconstitutional commandeering when it was found to be too coercive.
There is no reason whatsoever the federal government, if it was serious about deporting all illegal immigrants in CA, could not hire tens of thousands of extra ICE agents in California. California couldn’t do a thing about it, because California cannot exempt itself from federal law. But that’s not what it’s doing by simply not helping the federal government with enforcement. There’s no federal law that requires CA to assist the feds with immigration enforcement. And if there was, it would be unconstitutional commandeering.
IC, if you want to learn more about commandeering vs. preemption, at least I’ve told you the correct terms. There’s a case before the Supreme Court right now that might interest you - Christie v. NCAA. I’d also read New York v. United States if I were you.
Children being brought across borders by their parents, many of them still infants, aren't "people that knowingly broke the law". DACA-thread title. Duh?
Yeah..those "poor little bables" was a line of crap fed to us by the government.
Now that they have numbers the majority of them are adults and less than 1/2 have a HS diploma.
The cutoff to apply was 31 years old and lived in the US since 2007. And when they couldn't supply proof our government "took their word".
The numbers don't lie but our government officials have no problem with it when it furthers their agenda.
Yet when they turn 18 1/2 they are officially considered to be here illegally. They had a chance to correct their status but so very, very few bothered to do so. Instead, they do what their parents taught them to do and that is if you want something and don't want to do the work to get it legally, then just take it anyway. In other words, they were raised without a moral compass.
Shes nothing but a troll who thinks she knows the law - she can spout the same few statues or clauses in the Constitution or cases again and again, but she ignores others that are presented to her again and again. Literally ignores them! And keeps repeating the same thing like a broken record.
In some cases there CAN be a fine line between commandeering and preemption (the principle from the Supremacy Clause that states that federal law trumps state law where there’s a conflict).
But states are not required to enforce federal law.
The Federal law being violated has NOTHING to do with enforcement, as already explicitly clarified numerous times.
So you are backtracking on the "knowingly" adjective?
You don't believe a child knows he's doing something bad when they're being coached how to answer at the border patrol agent, being hid in a trunk of a car and told not to make any noise or being dragged across the hot desert and hiding from la migra? Children aren't stupid, they know they're breaking the law.
Is it to much to expect that DACA people should want to support the country they claim to want to be a part off ? No, no it isn't to much to expect. Once a supporter of DACA this changed my opinion.
daca is not a law. It's an eo that can be voided at any time.
bingo
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.
