Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel
I'm going to re-post this also. Needs to be repeated for those on this thread saying "you don't get to choose the laws to follow or ignore."
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axxlrod
Ha! Tell that to every politician in CA and all the sanctuary cities.
|
It's funny that conserves argue against government (especially federal government) except when it comes to their pet issues, like immigration. States are under no obligation to enforce federal immigration law. They are under no obligation to expend resources helping the feds enforce federal immigration law. Trump would need Congress to withhold funds from cities and States that refuse to enforce immigration law if that's the route he wants to take. It would be a dramatic step in the relationship between the federal government and the states, and one that I suspect conservatives would regret when a future Democratic Congress withholds funds from states that don't have LGBT anti-discrimination laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Most of the posts by the right here are shockingly head in the sand. This one at least asks a valid question, and the answer is...
Sure. Once a court rules, and hands down its orders. The argument is that the law is unconstitutional. I think that argument is nonsense, and once a court rules that it is constitutional, and orders those mayors to comply, then absolutely.
BUT keep in mind, courts have a wide amount of latitude in how they force compliance. From daily fines, to arrest of those involved. So I would expect it to start with steadily increasing fines, followed by arrests if needed.
We need to be a nation of laws, failing to do so is a invitation to anarchy and failure.
|
There is no law that requires states to enforce federal immigration law. Sanctuary cities (and we may see sanctuary states this year) are exercising their right not to expend resources assisting the federal government's enforcement of federal immigration law.
The Republican Congress could try to pass one that the courts would uphold (their model would be the highway funding law that was contingent on states having a minimum drinking age of 21). They would have to do it without "hijacking" the State legislature or State Executive.