4 ms·
>I thought it was so states could knowingly house illegal aliens or illegal drug businesses without doing anything. > Normally states wouldn't have that right,
by lovich 9mo ago
>I thought it was so states could knowingly house illegal aliens or illegal drug businesses without doing anything.
> Normally states wouldn't have that right, but I see many who think they should have it.
The states are not compelled to enforce federal law. Doing nothing about people violating federal law has always been a right of the states. You are trying to, or already have in your head, conflate non enforcing federal law, with actively violating state law.
Where marijuana is legalized, it means the State made it legal in terms of State law, not that it superseded federal law.
Zero States have made illegal immigrants legal. Some states stop going after them and assisting the federal government in their immigration duties.
You are talking about state's rights and have no idea what the boundaries of those rights even are.
- remarkEon 9mo agoMany states have made it such that there is no functional distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Identical drivers licenses, access to the same services, and indeed protection from federal enforcement of immigration law.
- lovich 9mo agoNot helping arrest them != protecting them. All of those things you’re mentioning are state services that they can offer to anyone because it’s not a federal issue. This is what states rights look like and why the right is mocked for referencing it when they foam at the mouth once it’s used for things they don’t like. It’s similar to people who claim the civil war was over states rights when southern states were pushing to have other state sovereignty ignored over their own laws when it came to returning slaves.
- remarkEon 9mo agoStates cannot send their police officers to enforce immigration law, correct (see Arizona v. United States), but many states have gone further to make it illegal for their police forces to honor immigration detainers that federal agencies request when an illegal immigrant is arrested for a crime. That sure looks and sounds like a protection to me.
- lovich 9mo agoThat sure looks and sounds like the state is electing to not spend its resources helping the feds do their job. Protection would be actively circumventing the feds instead of saying “neat”, when presented with a request. Unless you are operating under the mistaken belief that a “request” from the feds means mandatory compliance by the states.
- remarkEon 9mo agoThese people are released, which does make the job of federal agencies more difficult, requiring immigration enforcement action in the streets as opposed to the jailhouse. You prefer it in the street, apparently, but I can certainly understand how others may see how these types of actions start to look like States actively frustrating legal immigration enforcement action. Or that it is de facto circumvention if not de jure.
- lovich 9mo agoThe states in question have zero obligation to help make the feds jobs easier. The people complaining about this situation feel entitled to other states using their resources to help the federal government enact policies that they want enforced nationwide. This is why everyone rolls their eyes when conservatives crow about states rights. They don’t actually want state rights, they want their views enforced on the other states. I’m actually for less of states independence from the feds on a bunch of areas, and immigration is probably one of them, but as long as this is a tool in the toolbox that conservatives are eager to use, I’m going to call them out for bitching about someone else doing the same thing.
- remarkEon 9mo agoSure sure, the street raids shall continue for as long as it makes people feel better to point out some sort of implied hypocrisy by conservatives.
- 9mo ago