3 ms·

International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, but I'll play this game... So, you support states

by fixxer 10y ago

International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, but I'll play this game... So, you support states rights? Tell me why abortion is a federal issue then?

lazyasciiart 10y ago
> International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, Sanctuary cities don't change anything about international borders or who can enter the country, because international borders are federal issues with federal staff. Sanctuary cities refuse to make their local staff spend time and money reporting on immigration status every time they issue a parking ticket. It's not even a states rights question - nobody even suggests that city officials should check if you have paid your federal taxes every time you take to them, but that's not because (normal) people are objecting to a federally run tax system.
- fixxer 10y ago
  I think you have a valid point. I do, however, think sanctuary cities (which are so fuzzily defined legally...) create an incentive for illegal immigration. It sends a message that one need only get through the border to make it permanent. My family immigrated legally. They should too. If states choose not to enforce federal law, I think they need to clearly establish a legal position as to why.
  - lazyasciiart 10y ago
    There is one, it's called the anti-commandeering doctrine (no idea what this site is but it covers the background) http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/ http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-...
    - fixxer 10y ago
      That also applies to abortion. Careful...
      - lazyasciiart 10y ago
        Are you saying I should stop knowing things because it might lead somewhere you don't like?
        fixxer 10y ago
        Ha, not at all! I'm pointing out that there are caveats and potential feedback effects. Has any state cited the 10th?

by fixxer 10y ago

lazyasciiart 10y ago

> International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, Sanctuary cities don't change anything about international borders or who can enter the country, because international borders are federal issues with federal staff. Sanctuary cities refuse to make their local staff spend time and money reporting on immigration status every time they issue a parking ticket. It's not even a states rights question - nobody even suggests that city officials should check if you have paid your federal taxes every time you take to them, but that's not because (normal) people are objecting to a federally run tax system.

fixxer 10y ago
I think you have a valid point. I do, however, think sanctuary cities (which are so fuzzily defined legally...) create an incentive for illegal immigration. It sends a message that one need only get through the border to make it permanent. My family immigrated legally. They should too. If states choose not to enforce federal law, I think they need to clearly establish a legal position as to why.
- lazyasciiart 10y ago
  There is one, it's called the anti-commandeering doctrine (no idea what this site is but it covers the background) http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-to-comply-the-anti-comandeering-doctrine/ http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/12/28/states-dont-have-...
  - fixxer 10y ago
    That also applies to abortion. Careful...
    - lazyasciiart 10y ago
      Are you saying I should stop knowing things because it might lead somewhere you don't like?
      - fixxer 10y ago
        Ha, not at all! I'm pointing out that there are caveats and potential feedback effects. Has any state cited the 10th?