Illegal Alien/criminal sues San Francisco for not giving him sanctuary

[PokerGuy]

States are required to enforce the Constitution, they are not required to enforce federal statutes. States cannot VIOLATE federal statutes in the same way they can't violate the Constitution, but violating and not enforcing are two totally different things.

So you'd be fine with simply not enforcing any of the federal laws, as long as the state itself isn't actively violating them? I'm sure you'd be fine with that... but only for laws you don't agree with.

 

[fskimospy]

As I already pointed out, that's simply not true. They are not just not enforcing the law, they are advertising that they won't help enforce the law and that anyone in violation of that law is welcome and will be supported (harbored) in those cities.

So your problem with them isn't that they aren't enforcing the law but that they're telling people about it? lol.

Are you as OK with local and state jurisdictions ignoring other federal laws and advertising that? If some state decided that spending resources elsewhere instead of on equal opportunity, discrimination in employment, equal housing etc was good, would you be in favor of that, or would you want to make sure federal resources are used to make sure those federal laws are applied?

State and local jurisdictions already do that. Most employment/housing/etc law is enforced based on state and local statutes, not federal ones. Did you not know this?

So in order to have a good mix you need to have illegals? Only illegals can provide a good mix, not legal residents from different backgrounds?

... which has nothing to do with it. Those cities don't need those illegals to provide that money. The economic output of those cities is a contributing factor to the economy to be sure, but they don't need to harbor and encourage illegals to do so.

These cities become the incredibly desirable locations they are by welcoming everyone.

Again, look in the mirror. You want federal control and laws enforced for things you agree with, but other things you don't agree with should just be under local control (ie, not enforced). Like you said, the total hypocrisy and lack of principles is sad.

I've always been very clear that I don't (generally) consider state and local autonomy to be an inherently good thing. (One exception would be education) Conservatives believe that, not liberals. Your hypocrisy and failure to adhere to your own principles is your problem, not mine because I don't share your ideals. Apparently you don't share your ideals either though as you cast them aside the first time they don't get you what you want.

 

[fskimospy]

So you'd be fine with simply not enforcing any of the federal laws, as long as the state itself isn't actively violating them? I'm sure you'd be fine with that... but only for laws you don't agree with.

States rarely enforce federal laws as it is and it's perfectly within their rights to decline to do so if they want. If you want a more conservative friendly issue do you think states should be required to enforce federal gun laws?

Remember, not everyone is as unprincipled and hypocritical as you are.

 

[OutHouse]

I hope you never try to argue for state's rights again as you clearly don't believe in them.

San Francisco is a state?

 

[OutHouse]

fskimospy said: ↑
States are required to enforce the Constitution, they are not required to enforce federal statutes. States cannot VIOLATE federal statutes in the same way they can't violate the Constitution, but violating and not enforcing are two totally different things.

then you would be ok with san fran or california making the min wage at 25 cents per hour and not enforcing the federal min wage. you know states rights and all.

 

[fskimospy]

San Francisco is a state?

San Francisco is a city, which is a governing entity created by the state of California. Unlike with the federal/state relationship where both the federal government and state government have sovereignty over different areas of governance, cities are a creature of the state and enjoy no separate status. So yes, San Francisco is a part of California state government for these purposes.

 

[fskimospy]

then you would be ok with san fran or california making the min wage at 25 cents per hour and not enforcing the federal min wage. you know states rights and all.

Why aren't you reading the things you're quoting? San Francisco would be violating a federal statute there instead of declining to enforce one. This isn't complicated.

 

[interchange]

That's not what a "sanctuary city's" intent is.

Per Wikipedia (fantastic source btw, the best source, not like those other fake encyclopedias), "In the United States or Canada, a sanctuary city is a city that has adopted a policy of protecting undocumented immigrants by not prosecuting them for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally."

If I am missing something, please help me understand it.

 

[OutHouse]

NM

 

[fskimospy]

make up your mind.

Both of those quotes are 100% consistent with each other.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Lock her up !

Why not both?

 

[Starbuck1975]

States are required to enforce the Constitution, they are not required to enforce federal statutes. States cannot VIOLATE federal statutes in the same way they can't violate the Constitution, but violating and not enforcing are two totally different things.

It never stops being funny how many things you don't know that kids literally learn in high school. Here, Chuckie, can I suggest some reading for you? lol.

That's a lovely budget you have there. Would hate to cut federal subsidies and funding to it.

 

[fskimospy]

That's a lovely budget you have there. Would hate to cut federal subsidies and funding to it.

They could certainly do that! It's probably a stupid idea and again you're trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, but it could be done.

The whole hostility to immigration and promotion of trade protectionism pretty much takes economics as we know it and throws it in the trash can for feel good policies. I hope people aren't dumb enough to be fooled by this nonsense.

 

[PokerGuy]

So your problem with them isn't that they aren't enforcing the law but that they're telling people about it? lol.

I already said, both are bad. They are actively encouraging breaking federal law, and by creating comfy zones where law breakers know they are safe from consequences they are undermining the sovereignty of the country.

State and local jurisdictions already do that. Most employment/housing/etc law is enforced based on state and local statutes, not federal ones. Did you not know this?

You didn't answer the question. I know most are state/local, but not all. What you are effectively saying is you'd be fine with the state/local jurisdiction simply deciding that they don't want to enforce certain laws they don't like, to pick and choose. They are well within their rights to not spend resources on enforcing some federal laws, but then they should be comfortable with also not getting any federal assistance for law enforcement.

I'm guessing that's going to be the stick that Trump will use, as he should. Freedom to act a certain way doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

In fact, the mayors of other cities should just implement a policy of giving every illegal they catch a free one-way ticket to one of the sanctuary cities, let them deal with the problem they help create.

These cities become the incredibly desirable locations they are by welcoming everyone.

Baloney, if that were true places like Little Haiti would be incredibly desirable. Cities like NY, Chicago, SF etc are desired cities and grew to be what they are because of jobs, industries and geography. Any city would be just as welcoming without illegals. An illegal resident doesn't contribute anything more than a legal resident with the same cultural background.

I've always been very clear that I don't (generally) consider state and local autonomy to be an inherently good thing. (One exception would be education)

Of course, any kind of autonomy from the great government provider is a bad thing, unless it's something you disagree with, then you're good with it. You don't have a principled stance, you just pick and choose. Typical lefty hypocrite!

 

[PokerGuy]

They could certainly do that! It's probably a stupid idea and again you're trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, but it could be done.

Again, that's the same tripe, it wouldn't kill any geese, golden or otherwise. The same thing is done with education, with federal highway/road funds etc. You don't play by the federal rules, you don't get federal dollars allocated. No different here.

The whole hostility to immigration

Very telling that you left out the important part: illegal. Wanting to stop illegal immigration is not being hostile to immigration. It's the opposite. Allowing illegal immigration is a slap in the face to all immigrants that do things the right way.

 

[fskimospy]

I already said, both are bad. They are actively encouraging breaking federal law, and by creating comfy zones where law breakers know they are safe from consequences they are undermining the sovereignty of the country.

You didn't answer the question. I know most are state/local, but not all. What you are effectively saying is you'd be fine with the state/local jurisdiction simply deciding that they don't want to enforce certain laws they don't like, to pick and choose. They are well within their rights to not spend resources on enforcing some federal laws, but then they should be comfortable with also not getting any federal assistance for law enforcement.

I'm guessing that's going to be the stick that Trump will use, as he should. Freedom to act a certain way doesn't mean freedom from consequences.

Sure he can do that, it's just a stupid idea. I doubt cities will change their policies based on that, at least not the large ones.

In fact, the mayors of other cities should just implement a policy of giving every illegal they catch a free one-way ticket to one of the sanctuary cities, let them deal with the problem they help create.

Mayors of other cities don't generally make their policies based on spiting other people for disagreeing with them.

Baloney, if that were true places like Little Haiti would be incredibly desirable. Cities like NY, Chicago, SF etc are desired cities and grew to be what they are because of jobs, industries and geography. Any city would be just as welcoming without illegals. An illegal resident doesn't contribute anything more than a legal resident with the same cultural background.

Again, spoken like someone who doesn't live in these cities, haha. You should get out more.

Of course, any kind of autonomy from the great government provider is a bad thing, unless it's something you disagree with, then you're good with it. You don't have a principled stance, you just pick and choose. Typical lefty hypocrite!

You're just lashing out now because I've caught you in yet another act of blatant hypocrisy. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

 

[Starbuck1975]

They could certainly do that! It's probably a stupid idea and again you're trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, but it could be done.

The whole hostility to immigration and promotion of trade protectionism pretty much takes economics as we know it and throws it in the trash can for feel good policies. I hope people aren't dumb enough to be fooled by this nonsense.

Defending national sovereignty isn't nonsense. You've convinced yourself that porous borders and outsourcing are normative and net positive.

The whole notion of sanctuary cities is absurd. If urban coastal dwellers wish to solve the world's problems and ignore the rule of law, they are welcome to their utopia without federal funding or support.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How is Texas issuing immigration warrants?

They didn't.

Homeland Security told the paper that police ran the background check and learned that he had a 10-year-old, outstanding warrant for deportation after failing to appear at an immigration hearing in Texas in 2005, and a 2012 conviction for drunken driving, authorities told the paper.

The accused isn't being extradited because of being an illegal, rather for failing to appear for a lawful hearing. Failure to appear is a recognized offense all on it's own. Note that is not TX saying this, but Homeland Security about an incident which occurred IN Texas. Further this is not just a matter of uncomplicated illegal entry but there is a crime involved and yes a DUI is a serious crime which can lead all on its own to deportation or denied entry. Someone recognized this in SF and that is why this is happening.

 

[fskimospy]

Defending national sovereignty isn't nonsense. You've convinced yourself that porous borders and outsourcing are normative and net positive.

I haven't 'convinced' myself of anything, I've simply looked at the evidence that free trade is a net positive and it is overwhelming. Immigration makes the US stronger, not weaker, and our move towards nativism has hurt us as well. I hope we wake up and realize that blaming our problems on trade and immigrants is just fooling ourselves.

The whole notion of sanctuary cities is absurd. If urban coastal dwellers wish to solve the world's problems and ignore the rule of law, they are welcome to their utopia without federal funding or support.

No, they are exactly following the rule of law. I'm not sure how you don't understand this basic facet of how our country works. States are not required to enforce federal laws. Period. That is what the rule of law says. I have no idea why you have such hate and anger for people in these cities when these cities contribute large sums of tax dollars that make your standard of living in the rest of the country better. Maybe you should look to them for tips on how to make things better.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

States are not required to enforce federal laws

Are they allowed to violate international treaties that the US has signed on to?

 

[fskimospy]

Are they allowed to violate international treaties that the US has signed on to?

Such as?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Such as?

It's a general question. If the US signs on to a treaty and creates federal laws about it does that exempt states from compliance? It's really a yes or no thing, but

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Kind of looks like a yes.

 

[fskimospy]

It's a general question. If the US signs on to a treaty and creates federal laws about it does that exempt states from compliance? It's really a yes or no thing, but

Kind of looks like a yes.

Yes, treaties have the same authority as federal law and so states can't violate them. What does that have to do with this discussion though?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes, treaties have the same authority as federal law and so states can't violate them. What does that have to do with this discussion though?

Well it has to do with authority. Note that states are in violation of international treaty for MJ for example. As far as what states can and cannot allow, can they refuse and protect someone from the federal immigration process even though the person in question has committed a violation of law which deserved a lawful hearing?

 

[Starbuck1975]

I haven't 'convinced' myself of anything, I've simply looked at the evidence that free trade is a net positive and it is overwhelming. Immigration makes the US stronger, not weaker, and our move towards nativism has hurt us as well. I hope we wake up and realize that blaming our problems on trade and immigrants is just fooling ourselves.



No, they are exactly following the rule of law. I'm not sure how you don't understand this basic facet of how our country works. States are not required to enforce federal laws. Period. That is what the rule of law says. I have no idea why you have such hate and anger for people in these cities when these cities contribute large sums of tax dollars that make your standard of living in the rest of the country better. Maybe you should look to them for tips on how to make things better.

I've lived in large coastal cities most of my life and continue to today. What I see is a decline in standard of living and an in increase in government dependency due to the further aggregation of wealth at the top of the pyramid. I see, due to the insanity of our inmigration policies, an underclass of people who live in a shadow society, unable to join the American experience and exploited by both the left and right with different political objectives in mind.

Can a state or city grant American citizenship?