3 ms·

States cannot send their police officers to enforce immigration law, correct (see Arizona v. United States), but many states have gone further to make it illega

States 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 ago
That 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 ago
  These 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      Sure 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.
      - lovich 9mo ago
        No, the street raids will continue while this admin continues their authoritarian streak. Whether or not the states help them be authoritarian is orthogonal to the chaos in the streets. If you just want blue states to bend the knee and capitulate, you should say so.
        remarkEon 9mo ago
        Look, I’m not the one who supports street raids, that’s you. I’m not understanding your point anymore. Do you not want immigration law enforced at all?
        lovich 9mo ago
        The states that are lenient to immigrants don’t like the federal policy and so are choosing to not help them. Not helping them is not hindering the feds, unless you feel entitled to the help. Actively getting in the way is something like when Texas started trying to implement their own national border policy. Tell me you at least recognize the difference between actively doing something against some group, and merely not helping them? > Look, I’m not the one who supports street raids, that’s you. lol, you sound like a wife beater “look you just gotta do what I say or I _have_ to hurt you. There’s no other alternatives babe”
        remarkEon 9mo ago
        An illegal immigrant commits a crime, say vehicular homicide. ICE lodges a detainer against this person, and the local PD refuses and instead releases the offender. As a result, ICE runs a tactical team out to go pick him up. This is the outcome that you appear to believe is optimal, and you are intentionally using emotionally loaded words like "lenient" to attempt to guilt me into retreating from my position that this is, in fact, not an optimal outcome. In many cases like this additional crimes are committed before the offender is apprehended, crimes which are of course 100% preventable, without you and your "leniency". >Tell me you at least recognize the difference between actively doing something against some group, and merely not helping them? Technically speaking, you are right. These states are actively working against their own citizens, not the Federal government.

lovich 9mo ago

That 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 ago
These 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Sure 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.
    - lovich 9mo ago
      No, the street raids will continue while this admin continues their authoritarian streak. Whether or not the states help them be authoritarian is orthogonal to the chaos in the streets. If you just want blue states to bend the knee and capitulate, you should say so.
      - remarkEon 9mo ago
        Look, I’m not the one who supports street raids, that’s you. I’m not understanding your point anymore. Do you not want immigration law enforced at all?
        lovich 9mo ago
        The states that are lenient to immigrants don’t like the federal policy and so are choosing to not help them. Not helping them is not hindering the feds, unless you feel entitled to the help. Actively getting in the way is something like when Texas started trying to implement their own national border policy. Tell me you at least recognize the difference between actively doing something against some group, and merely not helping them? > Look, I’m not the one who supports street raids, that’s you. lol, you sound like a wife beater “look you just gotta do what I say or I _have_ to hurt you. There’s no other alternatives babe”
        remarkEon 9mo ago
        An illegal immigrant commits a crime, say vehicular homicide. ICE lodges a detainer against this person, and the local PD refuses and instead releases the offender. As a result, ICE runs a tactical team out to go pick him up. This is the outcome that you appear to believe is optimal, and you are intentionally using emotionally loaded words like "lenient" to attempt to guilt me into retreating from my position that this is, in fact, not an optimal outcome. In many cases like this additional crimes are committed before the offender is apprehended, crimes which are of course 100% preventable, without you and your "leniency". >Tell me you at least recognize the difference between actively doing something against some group, and merely not helping them? Technically speaking, you are right. These states are actively working against their own citizens, not the Federal government.