4 ms·

What is the purpose of laws if they are willfully ignored? Where do you draw the line? If the police don't care about someone's immigration status, why should

What is the purpose of laws if they are willfully ignored? Where do you draw the line? If the police don't care about someone's immigration status, why should they care about who broke into your car?

dbspin 1y ago
The line is prosecution policy. There are thousands of laws on the books that are never enforced, particularly in the United States. Given the inhuman and grossly illegal deportation without due process of thousands of people by the Trump administration - to an extrajudicial torture prison no less - many means of resisting the kidnap of people (citizens or non) are reasonable).
- petre 1y ago
  I hope Trump ends up in prison, that's all I can say. Arguably South Korea has better democracy, because Yoon Suk Yeol is probably going to prison for insurrection.
gortok 1y ago
This over-simplifies our federal system to the point of uselessness. The Federal Government is responsible for immigration. It's their job to set policies and adjudicate immigration issues. Local and State Law Enforcement are not responsible for -- and indeed it is outside of their powers to enforce immigration laws. Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (see: Printz v. United States). So, what you have in this situation are the fact that States and the Federal Government have opposing interests: The States need to be able to enforce their laws without their people feeling like they can't tell the police when there's a crime, and the current federal policy is to deport all undocumented immigrants, no matter why they're here or whether they are allowed to be here while their status is adjudicated.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Gabriel54 1y ago
  > Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (see: Printz v. United States). So the supreme court struck a reasonable compromise between federal and state interests. I am not a lawyer, but I am certain that this precedent does not give states the right to actively obstruct federal agents from doing their job, that is, to enforce federal immigration law.
  - hypeatei 1y ago
    > does not give states the right to actively obstruct federal agents Who said they had that right and when did this happen?
    - Gabriel54 1y ago
      The warrant of the judge's arrest strongly suggests that she did not think it was appropriate for ICE to arrest Ruiz and took actions to prevent it from happening.
      - sarlalian 1y ago
        She probably didn't think it was appropriate for ICE to arrest Ruiz at the courthouse. If going to court for a case against you becomes a good way to get deported, guess what people aren't going to do. We don't have the resources to keep everyone who has a case against them in jail, so we release people on the promise that they will show up for court. If it's dangerous to their freedom and living status to show up to court, they won't.
  - rolph 1y ago
    the feds also have no right to arbitrarily obstruct court in session, they have to seek administrative recess, they cant just barge in and start belching commands, they dont have that authority.
    - Gabriel54 1y ago
      The agents in this case did no such thing. As far as I am aware this has not happened anywhere.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law Not just immigration law but federal law generally. It's funny that this never reached the point of beign a decision rule in a case and thus binding precedent until the 1990s, as you see it in dicta in Supreme Court cases decided on other bases back to shortly before the Civil War (specifically, in cases around the Fugitive Slave Laws.)
  - Gabriel54 1y ago
    Might it be because the federal government simply did not need to exercise much authority over the states? As a non-expert I am curious. I am continually amazed by how much authority is delegated to the states and local jurisdictions in the United States (e.g. matters of marriage, property, voting, etc.). As I understand even citizenship was handled by local courts up until very recently.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > Might it be because the federal government simply did not need to exercise much authority over the states? Yeah, it is absolutely because the federal government was simply not trying to commandeer state authorities to enforce federal law; the interesting part (to me) is that the courts were anticipating the problem well before it materialized.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
mmanfrin 1y ago
> What is the purpose of laws if they are willfully ignored? Nearly every liberty we take for granted was at one point against the law or gained through willful lawbreaking. A healthy society should be tolerant of some bending of the rules.
- Gabriel54 1y ago
  I agree with you. A quick search suggests that there are 11 million undocumented people in the United States, or about 3% of the population. A healthy society does not harbor 11 million people without documentation so they can be exploited by employers for cheap labor, not given proper health care and labor rights.
  - nemomarx 1y ago
    Right - more risk of deportations pushes them under ground and allows easier exploitation, like employers who can hold this status over their head. People who have productively worked in the country and either paid taxes or contribute to the economy for some years should be offered pathways to naturalization or at least work visas and real legal protection.
  - Me1000 1y ago
    Yet it's interesting how we put the blame and punishment on the people being taken advantage of, and not the employers who are exploiting them. If both parties are breaking the law shouldn't we at the very least ensure that the business owner who is exploiting any number of workers is held to the same standard as an undocumented person whose only crime was not having the proper paperwork?
    - Gabriel54 1y ago
      I don't blame them. If I were them, I would do the same thing. However, as someone with the ability to vote and influence (to a very small degree) public policy, I would prefer we move toward a system in which strong labor rights exist in this country, and this is simply impossible in an environment in which employers are free to hire labor off the books for "pennies". To be clear, I think both political parties in the US are terrible, and all of this debate serves the interests of the employers that benefit from this situation.
ClumsyPilot 1y ago
I am still waiting for a “corporations are people” to get death penalty
crote 1y ago
Should a serial killer go unpunished because its sole witness would face lifetime imprisonment for jaywalking if they were to testify? Do you believe gangs should roam free due to a lack of evidence, or would it be better if they could be rolled up by offering a too-sweet-to-ignore plea deal to a snitch? Laws are are already routinely being ignored. There's a massive amount of discretionary choice space for law enforcement and prosecution. It's not as black-and-white as you're making it sound.

What is the purpose of laws if they are willfully ignored? Where do you draw the line? If the police don't care about someone's immigration status, why should they care about who broke into your car?

dbspin 1y ago

The line is prosecution policy. There are thousands of laws on the books that are never enforced, particularly in the United States. Given the inhuman and grossly illegal deportation without due process of thousands of people by the Trump administration - to an extrajudicial torture prison no less - many means of resisting the kidnap of people (citizens or non) are reasonable).

petre 1y ago
I hope Trump ends up in prison, that's all I can say. Arguably South Korea has better democracy, because Yoon Suk Yeol is probably going to prison for insurrection.

gortok 1y ago

This over-simplifies our federal system to the point of uselessness. The Federal Government is responsible for immigration. It's their job to set policies and adjudicate immigration issues. Local and State Law Enforcement are not responsible for -- and indeed it is outside of their powers to enforce immigration laws. Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (see: Printz v. United States). So, what you have in this situation are the fact that States and the Federal Government have opposing interests: The States need to be able to enforce their laws without their people feeling like they can't tell the police when there's a crime, and the current federal policy is to deport all undocumented immigrants, no matter why they're here or whether they are allowed to be here while their status is adjudicated.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
Gabriel54 1y ago
> Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (see: Printz v. United States). So the supreme court struck a reasonable compromise between federal and state interests. I am not a lawyer, but I am certain that this precedent does not give states the right to actively obstruct federal agents from doing their job, that is, to enforce federal immigration law.
- hypeatei 1y ago
  > does not give states the right to actively obstruct federal agents Who said they had that right and when did this happen?
  - Gabriel54 1y ago
    The warrant of the judge's arrest strongly suggests that she did not think it was appropriate for ICE to arrest Ruiz and took actions to prevent it from happening.
    - sarlalian 1y ago
      She probably didn't think it was appropriate for ICE to arrest Ruiz at the courthouse. If going to court for a case against you becomes a good way to get deported, guess what people aren't going to do. We don't have the resources to keep everyone who has a case against them in jail, so we release people on the promise that they will show up for court. If it's dangerous to their freedom and living status to show up to court, they won't.
- rolph 1y ago
  the feds also have no right to arbitrarily obstruct court in session, they have to seek administrative recess, they cant just barge in and start belching commands, they dont have that authority.
  - Gabriel54 1y ago
    The agents in this case did no such thing. As far as I am aware this has not happened anywhere.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law Not just immigration law but federal law generally. It's funny that this never reached the point of beign a decision rule in a case and thus binding precedent until the 1990s, as you see it in dicta in Supreme Court cases decided on other bases back to shortly before the Civil War (specifically, in cases around the Fugitive Slave Laws.)
- Gabriel54 1y ago
  Might it be because the federal government simply did not need to exercise much authority over the states? As a non-expert I am curious. I am continually amazed by how much authority is delegated to the states and local jurisdictions in the United States (e.g. matters of marriage, property, voting, etc.). As I understand even citizenship was handled by local courts up until very recently.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > Might it be because the federal government simply did not need to exercise much authority over the states? Yeah, it is absolutely because the federal government was simply not trying to commandeer state authorities to enforce federal law; the interesting part (to me) is that the courts were anticipating the problem well before it materialized.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

mmanfrin 1y ago

> What is the purpose of laws if they are willfully ignored? Nearly every liberty we take for granted was at one point against the law or gained through willful lawbreaking. A healthy society should be tolerant of some bending of the rules.

Gabriel54 1y ago
I agree with you. A quick search suggests that there are 11 million undocumented people in the United States, or about 3% of the population. A healthy society does not harbor 11 million people without documentation so they can be exploited by employers for cheap labor, not given proper health care and labor rights.
- nemomarx 1y ago
  Right - more risk of deportations pushes them under ground and allows easier exploitation, like employers who can hold this status over their head. People who have productively worked in the country and either paid taxes or contribute to the economy for some years should be offered pathways to naturalization or at least work visas and real legal protection.
- Me1000 1y ago
  Yet it's interesting how we put the blame and punishment on the people being taken advantage of, and not the employers who are exploiting them. If both parties are breaking the law shouldn't we at the very least ensure that the business owner who is exploiting any number of workers is held to the same standard as an undocumented person whose only crime was not having the proper paperwork?
  - Gabriel54 1y ago
    I don't blame them. If I were them, I would do the same thing. However, as someone with the ability to vote and influence (to a very small degree) public policy, I would prefer we move toward a system in which strong labor rights exist in this country, and this is simply impossible in an environment in which employers are free to hire labor off the books for "pennies". To be clear, I think both political parties in the US are terrible, and all of this debate serves the interests of the employers that benefit from this situation.

ClumsyPilot 1y ago

I am still waiting for a “corporations are people” to get death penalty

crote 1y ago

Should a serial killer go unpunished because its sole witness would face lifetime imprisonment for jaywalking if they were to testify? Do you believe gangs should roam free due to a lack of evidence, or would it be better if they could be rolled up by offering a too-sweet-to-ignore plea deal to a snitch? Laws are are already routinely being ignored. There's a massive amount of discretionary choice space for law enforcement and prosecution. It's not as black-and-white as you're making it sound.