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

[fskimospy]

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?

States are not in violation of any international treaty when it comes to marijuana that I am aware of, what treaty and what provision are you referring to?

States cannot prevent federal prosecution of someone on immigration charges but they have no responsibility to incarcerate that individual or turn them over to federal authorities.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm just lashing out now because I showed myself to be a big hypocrite again. Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings.

I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

Are you claiming that immigration is a driver of income/wealth inequality? If so, what empirical evidence is this based on? In terms of prosperity or a 'shadow society' while the initial immigrants themselves often fare poorly, their children and grandchildren often fare much better. Just like with other policies we have discussed (trade!) there is an initial investment where life is tough, followed by dramatic improvements for future generations.

Can a state or city grant American citizenship?

Of course not.

 

[fskimospy]

I fixed it for you. You're welcome.

Haha, you truly are impenetrable as always.

Even when confronted with the obvious hypocrisy of local-rule conservatives getting angry about local rule you have somehow decided in your head that it's the liberals who are the true hypocrites. I would say never change, Pokerguy, but I think we both realize at this point that you couldn't change even if you wanted to.

 

[PokerGuy]

Even when confronted with the obvious hypocrisy of local-rule conservatives getting angry about local rule

See, there you go again, standard eski-m.o, misstating what was said. I'm not opposed to local rule, nor am I angry at local rule. These idiots create safe harbor for criminals and screwing over the country in the process. They have no obligation to help enforce federal laws, but their choices should go along with their federal funding getting taken away as well. Thankfully we now have a potus (as of tomorrow!) that will start putting the screws to the scum doing these things.

you have somehow decided in your head that it's the liberals who are the true hypocrites.

I'm simply a mirror, reflecting you. Always wanting federal rule, unless you don't like the law, and then supporting local rule instead.

 

[master_shake_]

Lock her up !

Correct the Record!


am i doing it right?

 

[michal1980]

That's a lie. They are saying they won't devote resources to the enforcement of federal law, which is one of the key components of federalism.

Thanks for so clearly showing your own hypocrisy. I hope you never try to argue for state's rights again as you clearly don't believe in them.

arguing points I never made. But please continue, please keep telling us how advertising that you dont care about federal laws does not attract more law breaking.

If a city said they wouldnt enforce speeding laws would speeding increase?

 

[interchange]

If a city said they wouldnt enforce speeding laws would speeding increase?

You might want to look into Montana...

But, the claim that being a sanctuary city does not increase the amount of illegal immigrants seeking to live in the city lacks obvious face validity. Hell, were I an illegal immigrant, I would move to one.

This is, of course, separate from the question of whether this is inherently a bad thing.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Are you claiming that immigration is a driver of income/wealth inequality? If so, what empirical evidence is this based on? In terms of prosperity or a 'shadow society' while the initial immigrants themselves often fare poorly, their children and grandchildren often fare much better. Just like with other policies we have discussed (trade!) there is an initial investment where life is tough, followed by dramatic improvements for future generations.



Of course not.

I am saying that the vehicle of wealth and social progression is broken. Immigrants today face supressed wages and no path to citizenship. Similarly, the irresponsible outsourcing of commodity manufacturing with no plan to transition displaced workers to new fields or industries is a source of much economic anxiety.

The society you describe is the one I wish to live in. The American dream was broken long ago, and I blame trickle down Reaganomics and Clinton neo-liberal globalization as the culprits.

 

[PokerGuy]

arguing points I never made.

That, in a nutshell, is standard eski-m.o. . Misrepresent and misstate someone's position, then argue against his made up position. Rinse, repeat

 

[alcoholbob]

Theres a law called supply and demand. The price of labor is simply a commodity like any other. Immigration absolutely has a suppressive effect on wages. For example the men with only a high school education saw their wages plummet in the Miami area after the Cuba refugee exodus in 1980, and took years for the prevailing wage to recover.

 

[fskimospy]

That, in a nutshell, is standard eski-m.o. . Misrepresent and misstate someone's position, then argue against his made up position. Rinse, repeat

You poor guys are always having your points misunderstood! It never ceases to amaze how every time it looks like you said something dumb you magically turn out to be misunderstood in a way you won't specify.

 

[fskimospy]

Theres a law called supply and demand. The price of labor is simply a commodity like any other. Immigration absolutely has a suppressive effect on wages. For example the men with only a high school education saw their wages plummet in the Miami area after the Cuba refugee exodus in 1980, and took years for the prevailing wage to recover.

You sure about that?

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12497

This paper asks the following question: what was the effect of surging immigration on average and individual wages of U.S.-born workers during the period 1990-2004? We emphasize the need for a general equilibrium approach to analyze this problem. The impact of immigrants on wages of U.S.-born workers can be evaluated only by accounting carefully for labor market and capital market interactions in production. Using such a general equilibrium approach we estimate that immigrants are imperfect substitutes for U.S.- born workers within the same education-experience-gender group (because they choose different occupations and have different skills). Moreover, accounting for a reasonable speed of adjustment of physical capital we show that most of the wage effects of immigration accrue to native workers within a decade. These two facts imply a positive and significant effect of the 1990-2004 immigration on the average wage of U.S.-born workers overall, both in the short run and in the long run. This positive effect results from averaging a positive effect on wages of U.S.-born workers with at least a high school degree and a small negative effect on wages of U.S.-born workers with no high school degree.

People tend to think of supply and demand in one dimensional ways. The real world doesn't work that way.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

States are not in violation of any international treaty when it comes to marijuana that I am aware of, what treaty and what provision are you referring to?

States cannot prevent federal prosecution of someone on immigration charges but they have no responsibility to incarcerate that individual or turn them over to federal authorities.

Were signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which if I am not mistaken you once mentioned as being the reason why Obama could not legalize MJ, although Administrations have the power to unilaterally change schedules at the bare minimum without Congressional approval as explicitly stated in the convention and the CSA. Perhaps I am mistaken about you making that point.

But legalization? No. States do not have the right to supercede federal law promulgated because of international agreements.


As far as states not having to cooperate I don't know how absolute that is. At some point aiding and abetting might come into play but I am not certain about that. I do wonder why one should consider law binding at all except from a punishment perspective. If a state can obstruct justice then I'm not sure why an individual has any moral obligation either. But law is law and has no morality or "right or wrong". It's the rules, no more no less.

 

[fskimospy]

Were signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which if I am not mistaken you once mentioned as being the reason why Obama could not legalize MJ, although Administrations have the power to unilaterally change schedules at the bare minimum without Congressional approval as explicitly stated in the convention and the CSA. Perhaps I am mistaken about you making that point.

But legalization? No. States do not have the right to supercede federal law promulgated because of international agreements.


As far as states not having to cooperate I don't know how absolute that is. At some point aiding and abetting might come into play but I am not certain about that. I do wonder why one should consider law binding at all except from a punishment perspective. If a state can obstruct justice then I'm not sure why an individual has any moral obligation either. But law is law and has no morality or "right or wrong". It's the rules, no more no less.

Without reading the treaty my strong bet is that each country is required to ban marijuana in some way, not that each subdivision must enact its own separate ban across all levels of government. (That would seem to be an almost impossible provision to enforce)

I think the crucial difference there is between not banning something and obstructing someone else who has banned it. States would not be able to thwart federal law enforcement that wanted to arrest someone for possessing/selling marijuana but they do not have to participate in that effort.

More importantly though, if the treaty DID say that such a provision would be unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to force states to pass laws and it does not have the power to force them to enforce federal laws. That's why the Feds often tie compliance to funding as a carrot to get states to play along.

 

[ElFenix]

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.

there isn't federal funding, that's exactly the problem. when someone is picked up and all it shows is an immigration violation, who's supposed to pay for an alien to be processed and held? the local jurisdiction or the feds? this isn't like federal highways where there's LOTS of funding so the states mostly jump through all the federal hoops to get it.

you get picked up by local PD and it's only a federal crime? there's no obligation on the part of local PD to process and hold. that's the whole point of having different states. if you want it so that it's just one large integrated justice system you need to abolish the states.

 

[Starbuck1975]

there isn't federal funding, that's exactly the problem. when someone is picked up and all it shows is an immigration violation, who's supposed to pay for an alien to be processed and held? the local jurisdiction or the feds? this isn't like federal highways where there's LOTS of funding so the states mostly jump through all the federal hoops to get it.

you get picked up by local PD and it's only a federal crime? there's no obligation on the part of local PD to process and hold. that's the whole point of having different states. if you want it so that it's just one large integrated justice system you need to abolish the states.

The system breaks because the federal government's role is to prevent them from getting in to begin with. Hard problem to solve when you have dumb sh!t cities playing the role of enabler because reasons.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Without reading the treaty my strong bet is that each country is required to ban marijuana in some way, not that each subdivision must enact its own separate ban across all levels of government. (That would seem to be an almost impossible provision to enforce)

I think the crucial difference there is between not banning something and obstructing someone else who has banned it. States would not be able to thwart federal law enforcement that wanted to arrest someone for possessing/selling marijuana but they do not have to participate in that effort.

More importantly though, if the treaty DID say that such a provision would be unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to force states to pass laws and it does not have the power to force them to enforce federal laws. That's why the Feds often tie compliance to funding as a carrot to get states to play along.

The Constitution binds states in the section I posted. Now they may ignore it and the feds can allow violation by non enforcement, but they are in violation. It would have been nice of Obama had instituted the mechanism to decriminalize by lowering the schedule to the lowest possible, but he didn't. I doubt Trump will either. More fodder for jail. Too bad.

 

[werepossum]

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.

Freakin' hilarious from the guy who spins literally everything to mean exactly what he needs at the moment.

 

[ivwshane]

The system breaks because the federal government's role is to prevent them from getting in to begin with. Hard problem to solve when you have dumb sh!t cities playing the role of enabler because reasons.

As with a lot of things, you seem to be missing the point. As you just stated, the federal governments role is to prevent people from coming in illegally in the first place. Once someone is in here illegally its still their job to get them out, it's not the state's job. You seem unable to grasp that last part.

 

[ElFenix]

The system breaks because the federal government's role is to prevent them from getting in to begin with. Hard problem to solve when you have dumb sh!t cities playing the role of enabler because reasons.

Phrase. because reasons. (Internet slang) Used to avoid specifying the reasons for something, perhaps because specifying them would be tangential to the point at hand, or perhaps because they are not sound or are not known to the speaker

Because strain on local resources and encouraging people to report violent and property crime are tangential, unsound, and unknown. Right.

 

[Starbuck1975]

As with a lot of things, you seem to be missing the point. As you just stated, the federal governments role is to prevent people from coming in illegally in the first place. Once someone is in here illegally its still their job to get them out, it's not the state's job. You seem unable to grasp that last part.

I am able to grasp that it complicates the federal government's job when the states shift from neutral bystander to enabler.

 

[ElFenix]

The Constitution binds states in the section I posted. Now they may ignore it and the feds can allow violation by non enforcement, but they are in violation. It would have been nice of Obama had instituted the mechanism to decriminalize by lowering the schedule to the lowest possible, but he didn't. I doubt Trump will either. More fodder for jail. Too bad.

The supremacy clause doesn't bind states to act or enforce. The only part of the Constitution that acts as a general binder is the 14th amendment in the incorporation doctrine.. If the supremacy clause acted as a binder we wouldn't need the incorporation doctrine at all.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Why do folks blame the illegal alien instead of the lawyers who took the case?

 

[nixium]

Wow if you're a legal immigrant a DUI can lead to cancellation of your visa and deportation.

Nice to know they don't really mean it. Yet another example of being illegal > legal. Thanks idiot liberals!!