3 ms·

> The Federal government has little power inside the country The Fed has the final say on every matter. Read the supremacy clause (article 6, clause 2, in the

> The Federal government has little power inside the country The Fed has the final say on every matter. Read the supremacy clause (article 6, clause 2, in the constitution). States that say "weed is legal" are only "getting away" with that because enforcement of the federal law on that matter is unpopular and probably a waste of time. It's a similar case with "sanctuary cities", although ICE is starting to operate in those. Beyond just technical authority granted by the constitution, you have to remember that the Fed controls around a third of state budgets through various forms of federal aid, meaning they can withhold funding... See Kate's Law for an example of that.

pandaman 9y ago
>The Fed has the final say on every matter. Not on every matter but the matter which is purview of the Fed. I.e. on the matters, which the Constitution gives to the Fed. It's been stretched quite far through the commerce clause but at the end the Fed's interior power is limited by design. Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law. So even with the immigration, which is in purview of Fed, we have 10s of millions of illegals (the exact number is not even known, think about it for a second) still in the country because states prevent the enforcement. >Beyond just technical authority granted by the constitution, you have to remember that the Fed controls around a third of state budgets through various forms of federal aid, meaning they can withhold funding... See Kate's Law for an example of that. Exactly. See if it will ever pass. And if it passed - see a multi-decade legal battle waged by states to kill it in courts. The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level. Then the states will become interested not only in the quantity but also the quality of their population. Though the states are going to fight it even harder than the direct immigration enforcement IMHO.
- slang800 9y ago
  > It's been stretched quite far through the commerce clause... Yeah, and there's no limit on how far it can be stretched. States only have control over what the Fed isn't already in charge of. > Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law. What? ICE and Homeland Security are federal programs. Cooperation with local authorities is great, but state authorities aren't the ones removing people from the country. > Exactly. See if it will ever pass. I don't know enough to say what states can do to demand funding through the court system, but it passed in the House. > The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level. I'm sure that would be a good start, since those costs would be reflected in, and limited by, state-level taxes. However, that alone doesn't deal with people hiring illegals and the impact that has on the wages of citizens, or crime by illegals. At some point, enforcement is required.
  - pandaman 9y ago
    >What? ICE and Homeland Security are federal programs. I am quite aware of this. >Cooperation with local authorities is great, but state authorities aren't the ones removing people from the country. Sure. Imagine you are an officer of ICE. You sit in the nice office in the federal building in LA. How does your day go by? You deport people? Which people? They are not exactly lining up to your doors to get deported, are they? So you need to find them somehow, bring them to court, get a judgment and then find them again and remove them from the country. This is the police work and you are not equipped to do it. You don't have beat cops, you don't get information from various agencies illegals use (from schools to social services, all under state control despite spending federal money). You were supposed to get referrals from the local law enforcement. You are not getting any. You act on tips and bust 1000 people a quarter in a city, which likely has several million illegals. >I don't know enough to say what states can do to demand funding through the court system, but it passed in the House. If only passing the House had been enough to make a law... > At some point, enforcement is required. Sure, but then states would actually help enforcement instead of impeding it as they are doing now.

pandaman 9y ago

>The Fed has the final say on every matter. Not on every matter but the matter which is purview of the Fed. I.e. on the matters, which the Constitution gives to the Fed. It's been stretched quite far through the commerce clause but at the end the Fed's interior power is limited by design. Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law. So even with the immigration, which is in purview of Fed, we have 10s of millions of illegals (the exact number is not even known, think about it for a second) still in the country because states prevent the enforcement. >Beyond just technical authority granted by the constitution, you have to remember that the Fed controls around a third of state budgets through various forms of federal aid, meaning they can withhold funding... See Kate's Law for an example of that. Exactly. See if it will ever pass. And if it passed - see a multi-decade legal battle waged by states to kill it in courts. The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level. Then the states will become interested not only in the quantity but also the quality of their population. Though the states are going to fight it even harder than the direct immigration enforcement IMHO.

slang800 9y ago
> It's been stretched quite far through the commerce clause... Yeah, and there's no limit on how far it can be stretched. States only have control over what the Fed isn't already in charge of. > Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law. What? ICE and Homeland Security are federal programs. Cooperation with local authorities is great, but state authorities aren't the ones removing people from the country. > Exactly. See if it will ever pass. I don't know enough to say what states can do to demand funding through the court system, but it passed in the House. > The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level. I'm sure that would be a good start, since those costs would be reflected in, and limited by, state-level taxes. However, that alone doesn't deal with people hiring illegals and the impact that has on the wages of citizens, or crime by illegals. At some point, enforcement is required.
- pandaman 9y ago
  >What? ICE and Homeland Security are federal programs. I am quite aware of this. >Cooperation with local authorities is great, but state authorities aren't the ones removing people from the country. Sure. Imagine you are an officer of ICE. You sit in the nice office in the federal building in LA. How does your day go by? You deport people? Which people? They are not exactly lining up to your doors to get deported, are they? So you need to find them somehow, bring them to court, get a judgment and then find them again and remove them from the country. This is the police work and you are not equipped to do it. You don't have beat cops, you don't get information from various agencies illegals use (from schools to social services, all under state control despite spending federal money). You were supposed to get referrals from the local law enforcement. You are not getting any. You act on tips and bust 1000 people a quarter in a city, which likely has several million illegals. >I don't know enough to say what states can do to demand funding through the court system, but it passed in the House. If only passing the House had been enough to make a law... > At some point, enforcement is required. Sure, but then states would actually help enforcement instead of impeding it as they are doing now.