4 ms·

This is a bigger issue than immigration, and the EFF isn't taking a position on immigration. The EFF identified abuse of the CLETS system before immigration be

This is a bigger issue than immigration, and the EFF isn't taking a position on immigration. The EFF identified abuse of the CLETS system before immigration became relevant. It's now relevant since a new California law prohibits use of state resources for federal immigration enforcement (except for prosecuting property crimes and violent crimes). So using CLETS to support mass deportations of people who aren't wanted for property crimes or violent crimes is unlawful. Are we a nation of laws, or is it just ideology all the way down? Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity?

tomatotomato37 7y ago
>Are we a nation of laws, or is it just ideology all the way down? Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity? In this context there's a conflict between state and federal law, so any law enforcement would be simultaneously following and breaking the law. Personally I'm more for state sovereignty than federal control (for issues on both side of the spectrum, none of that hypocritical bullshit here), but proponents of a more centralized form of government would argue differently.
- panarky 7y ago
  There's no conflict between state and federal law. Immigration law a federal responsibility. States don't maintain national borders. California isn't contravening federal law, they've made it unlawful to use California-funded networks to enforce federal law. Federal law enforcement officers are violating California law, currently with impunity. Seems to me if you believe in the rule of law, then you shouldn't support law enforcement breaking the law.
deogeo 7y ago
> Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity? I think DoofusOfDeath was criticizing that law itself - that it shouldn't exist, not that it shouldn't be followed. But it's a very odd argument, calling for strict adherence to the law as a means of allowing illegal immigrants to stay. Isn't law enforcement willfully turning a blind eye to the breaking of immigration law just as injurious to the 'nation of laws'?

tomatotomato37 7y ago

>Are we a nation of laws, or is it just ideology all the way down? Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity? In this context there's a conflict between state and federal law, so any law enforcement would be simultaneously following and breaking the law. Personally I'm more for state sovereignty than federal control (for issues on both side of the spectrum, none of that hypocritical bullshit here), but proponents of a more centralized form of government would argue differently.

panarky 7y ago
There's no conflict between state and federal law. Immigration law a federal responsibility. States don't maintain national borders. California isn't contravening federal law, they've made it unlawful to use California-funded networks to enforce federal law. Federal law enforcement officers are violating California law, currently with impunity. Seems to me if you believe in the rule of law, then you shouldn't support law enforcement breaking the law.

deogeo 7y ago

> Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity? I think DoofusOfDeath was criticizing that law itself - that it shouldn't exist, not that it shouldn't be followed. But it's a very odd argument, calling for strict adherence to the law as a means of allowing illegal immigrants to stay. Isn't law enforcement willfully turning a blind eye to the breaking of immigration law just as injurious to the 'nation of laws'?