• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawmaker pushes Holder on 'sanctuary cities

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I find it amusing in the first place that the federal government can claim Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law interferes with federal law. How does it interfere in something the federal government refuses to do? Isn't that like saying someone is interfering with a blind man looking at a porn video? Shouldn't the government actually prove that Arizona's law interferes with the federal government doing its job?


Lawmaker pushes Holder on 'sanctuary cities'
Double standard charged in Justice's Arizona lawsuit

Lawmaker pushes Holder on 'sanctuary cities' - Washington Times

MugshotAssociated Press Frustrated at the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law, Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, introduced a bill demanding action against "sanctuary cities."
Frustrated at the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration law, a Republican congressman introduced a bill demanding that the attorney general also take action against so-called "sanctuary cities," which discourage immigration enforcement.

Rep. Duncan Hunter's bill is the latest step as lawmakers seek to inject themselves into the debate and force their colleagues to take a stand on the contentious Arizona law. One of those moves failed Wednesday when Republicans tried, but failed, to have the Senate vote on blocking the government's lawsuit against Arizona.

Mr. Hunter's bill, for which he started soliciting co-sponsors Wednesday, would stop the Justice Department from pursuing its lawsuit against Arizona until Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. submits a plan to Congress outlining how he would bring sanctuary cities into compliance with federal law.

A majority of voters tell pollsters they back Arizona's law, and Mr. Hunter said the government overstepped its bounds by singling out a state he says is only trying to help federal authorities meet their responsibility to enforce the country's borders.

"The federal government is being inconsistent," said the lawmaker, whose district includes San Diego and other areas just north of the California-Mexico border. "They're saying we don't want a patchwork of laws, and that's why they're suing Arizona, but at the same time they allow sanctuary cities ... to passively impede federal la
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I find it amusing in the first place that the federal government can claim Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law interferes with federal law. How does it interfere in something the federal government refuses to do?
Because the federal government is handling the immigration issue, regardless of your rather meaningless value judgement of their performance. States dont handle issues that the federal government does and vice versa to avoid overlapping laws and enforcement
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Because the federal government is handling the immigration issue, regardless of your rather meaningless value judgement of their performance. States dont handle issues that the federal government does and vice versa to avoid overlapping laws and enforcement
Baloney. #1, the Federal government is not enforcing its own immigration laws. Many Federal and state laws overlap. And last time I looked, local law enforcement would arrest one of the FBI's most wanted in a heartbeat. And if he happened to be Latino, they wouldn't call it profiling either.

What is it I read on here? FAIL.

I applaud Rep. Hunter's actions, though I don't think they'll get very far. Maybe the position to take is that every little bit helps.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Baloney. #1, the Federal government is not enforcing its own immigration laws.
Again, you may not be satisfied with us NOT planting land-mines at the border but enforcement is in effect.

Many Federal and state laws overlap.
Such as?

And last time I looked, local law enforcement would arrest one of the FBI's most wanted in a heartbeat. And if he happened to be Latino, they wouldn't call it profiling either.
Enforcing federal law is a responsibility of the states. making laws that conflict with the federal laws is not.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Again, you may not be satisfied with us NOT planting land-mines at the border but enforcement is in effect. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. The Federal government cannot effective enforce the 2,000-mile border. Even if we built a wall, they'd still come. Even if we did have landmines, they'd still come.


Such as? Federal gun laws, drug laws, yada yada yada.

Enforcing federal law is a responsibility of the states. making laws that conflict with the federal laws is not.Not what you said in your original post. You said, "States dont handle issues that the federal government does and vice versa to avoid overlapping laws and enforcement" And anyway, that's what this is all about, isn't it?
Guess we'll have to wait and see what the courts say.
 
Last edited:

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Just because you say it doesn't make it so. The Federal government cannot effective enforce the 2,000-mile border. Even if we built a wall, they'd still come. Even if we did have landmines, they'd still come.
So....the federal government is failing in it's enforcement....which you basically admit is impossible....and you're not seeing a problem with this?

Federal gun laws, drug laws, yada yada yada.
States are required to enforce federal laws. They may not create laws that contradict federal ones. Hence why you can still be arrested by a federal officer for medical marijuana possession in California.

Well, that's what this is all about, isn't it?
Which is why I'm confused about the outrage against the federal government opposing this law

Guess we'll have to wait and see what the courts say.
True
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
So....the federal government is failing in it's enforcement....which you basically admit is impossible....and you're not seeing a problem with this?
You're not? You're just overtired.

States are required to enforce federal laws. They may not create laws that contradict federal ones. Hence why you can still be arrested by a federal officer for medical marijuana possession in California.
And which is why the federal government is not enforcing it's own law in California.

Which is why I'm confused about the outrage against the federal government opposing this law.
The outrage is that the government isn't doing it's job and doesn't want any help.
 

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You're not? You're just overtired.
Im not seeing a problem with the government not succeeding at a job you basically called impossible.

And which is why the federal government is not enforcing it's own law in California.
Because that's the state's job. The federal government does not have the resources to do the state's job for them. Which is why you should be angry at the states, not the federal government, for a failure to enforce immigration laws.

The outrage is that the government isn't doing it's job and doesn't want any help.
Because it's the STATE'S job to enforce federal law, not countermand it.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,910
Reaction score
7,996
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because the federal government is handling the immigration issue, regardless of your rather meaningless value judgement of their performance. States dont handle issues that the federal government does and vice versa to avoid overlapping laws and enforcement
Not true. State/local LE are involved in many actions that the Feds have the lead (kidnapping, bank robbery, drugs).

but if it was, then as a citizen shouldn't we demand the Feds do their job? Should the Feds have the right to ignore the law?
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Im not seeing a problem with the government not succeeding at a job you basically called impossible.


Because that's the state's job. The federal government does not have the resources to do the state's job for them. Which is why you should be angry at the states, not the federal government, for a failure to enforce immigration laws.


Because it's the STATE'S job to enforce federal law, not countermand it.
Hoplite, your arguments are absurd. Even YOU must be snickering at your keyboard. Done with you here.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Because the federal government is handling the immigration issue, regardless of your rather meaningless value judgement of their performance. States dont handle issues that the federal government does and vice versa to avoid overlapping laws and enforcement

I think the 12-20 plus million illegals in this country testifies to the fact the fact the federal government is not doing its job. So it is not meaningless value judgment of their performance. The federal government is the equivalent to a security company that intentionally lets in trespassers onto their clients' property. Saying The Arizona law interferes with the feds doing its job is comepletely laughable. They would have to actually be doing their job first not just the little token enforcement here and there before they can actually accuse a state like Arizona of interfering with federal law. The pro-illegals in office whose tongues are in so deep in the asses of pro-illegals and illegals from all that salad tossing simply do not want states handling the issue because it will be that much harder to push for amnesty. Can't really push for amnesty/so-called immigration reform if states prove that simply enforcing the laws causes illegals to leave.
 
Last edited:

Hoplite

Technomancer
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
1,077
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think the 12-20 plus million illegals in this country testifies to the fact the fact the federal government is not doing its job. So it is not meaningless value judgment of their performance
Again, rant all you like, enforcement is occurring.

The federal government is the equivalent to a security company that intentionally lets in trespassers onto their clients' property.
Can you demonstrate that it's intentional?

Saying The Arizona law interferes with the feds doing its job is comepletely laughable. They would have to actually be doing their job first not just the little token enforcement here and there before they can actually accuse a state like Arizona of interfering with federal law. The pro-illegals in office whose tongues are in so deep in the asses of pro-illegals and illegals from all that salad tossing simply do not want states handling the issue because it will be that much harder to push for amnesty. Can't really push for amnesty/so-called immigration reform if states prove that simply enforcing the laws causes illegals to leave.


Yeah, not interested in ranting :)

Not true. State/local LE are involved in many actions that the Feds have the lead (kidnapping, bank robbery, drugs).
For the thousandth time, states are required to enforce federal law.

but if it was, then as a citizen shouldn't we demand the Feds do their job? Should the Feds have the right to ignore the law?
The federal government is not ignoring the law, just not fulfilling your wishes for celerity.
 
Last edited:

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Again, rant all you like, enforcement is occurring.
Token raids,slaps on the wrist for anti-American traitorous scum who hire illegals,sending the national guard on the border to not do **** except act as spotters and inadequately securing the border is not enforcement. Its show to make it look like something is being done.


Can you demonstrate that it's intentional?
The 12-20 plus million illegals in this country. You do not get that many trespassers into this country unless you want them in.

Yeah, not interested in ranting
How is it a rant? How does the new Arizona law interfere with the feds?
 
Last edited:

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,193
Reaction score
30,800
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because the federal government is handling the immigration issue, regardless of your rather meaningless value judgement of their performance. States dont handle issues that the federal government does and vice versa to avoid overlapping laws and enforcement
Really? All those states with federally ICE trained state and local might disagree. Partners

"Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g)
Immigration and Nationality Act
A Law Enforcement Partnership

ICE ACCESS (Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security) provides local law enforcement agencies an opportunity to team with ICE to combat specific challenges in their communities.

The 287(g) program is only one component under the ICE ACCESS umbrella of services and programs offered for assistance to local law enforcement officers.

ICE developed the ACCESS program in response to the widespread interest from local law enforcement agencies who have requested ICE assistance through the 287(g) program, which trains local officers to enforce immigration law as authorized through section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Terrorism and criminal activity are most effectively combated through a multi-agency/multi-authority approach that encompasses federal, state and local resources, skills and expertise. State and local law enforcement play a critical role in protecting our homeland because they are often the first responders on the scene when there is an incident or attack against the United States. During the course of daily duties, they will often encounter foreign-born criminals and immigration violators who pose a threat to national security or public safety."

Interesting no? Points out just how bull**** the fed argument is. And yours.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,910
Reaction score
7,996
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hoplite:
"For the thousandth time, states are required to enforce federal law.


So then its ok for Az to enforce the illegal entry into the US without federal approval? The question remains then why is Holder and company going after AZ? We just want to enforce the fedal law. Obama is saying we can't.
 

Rogue

Conspiratist
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
608
Reaction score
53
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The actual reason that the marxist/socialist amnesty obama regime is sueing Arizona has more to do with blatantly hispandering to tribally ethnocentric hispanics to keep them riled up and voting democratic than anything else. To marxist/socialist amnesty democrats "buying hispanic votes" by various forms of blatant hispandering to the tribally ethnocentric hispanics has long been a way of life for marxist/socialist amnesty democratic politicians.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,113
Reaction score
21,519
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
The actual reason that the marxist/socialist amnesty obama regime is sueing Arizona has more to do with blatantly hispandering to tribally ethnocentric hispanics to keep them riled up and voting democratic than anything else. To marxist/socialist amnesty democrats "buying hispanic votes" by various forms of blatant hispandering to the tribally ethnocentric hispanics has long been a way of life for marxist/socialist amnesty democratic politicians.
tribally ethnocentric? just what seperate tribes and ethnicities are the hispanics divided into?

and is obama a marxist or a sociallist? you really need to make up your mind.
 

Rogue

Conspiratist
Joined
Jun 27, 2006
Messages
608
Reaction score
53
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
tribally ethnocentric? just what seperate tribes and ethnicities are the hispanics divided into?

and is obama a marxist or a sociallist? you really need to make up your mind.
Try to get out more often from now on. Hispanics are indeed tribal and very ethnocentric. Everything is for the raza. That's why hispanics are so susceptible to marxist amnesty democratic hispandering. Hispanics vote for whoever lies and promises them the best deal for themselves. Now I'm sure someone like you could better tell us if obama is a marxist or a socialist. Like there is a whole lot of difference.
 

Republicanideal

New member
Joined
Jul 13, 2010
Messages
32
Reaction score
3
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I find it amusing in the first place that the federal government can claim Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law interferes with federal law. How does it interfere in something the federal government refuses to do? Isn't that like saying someone is interfering with a blind man looking at a porn video? Shouldn't the government actually prove that Arizona's law interferes with the federal government doing its job?


Lawmaker pushes Holder on 'sanctuary cities'
Double standard charged in Justice's Arizona lawsuit

Lawmaker pushes Holder on 'sanctuary cities' - Washington Times

MugshotAssociated Press Frustrated at the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law, Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, introduced a bill demanding action against "sanctuary cities."
Frustrated at the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration law, a Republican congressman introduced a bill demanding that the attorney general also take action against so-called "sanctuary cities," which discourage immigration enforcement.

Rep. Duncan Hunter's bill is the latest step as lawmakers seek to inject themselves into the debate and force their colleagues to take a stand on the contentious Arizona law. One of those moves failed Wednesday when Republicans tried, but failed, to have the Senate vote on blocking the government's lawsuit against Arizona.

Mr. Hunter's bill, for which he started soliciting co-sponsors Wednesday, would stop the Justice Department from pursuing its lawsuit against Arizona until Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. submits a plan to Congress outlining how he would bring sanctuary cities into compliance with federal law.

A majority of voters tell pollsters they back Arizona's law, and Mr. Hunter said the government overstepped its bounds by singling out a state he says is only trying to help federal authorities meet their responsibility to enforce the country's borders.

"The federal government is being inconsistent," said the lawmaker, whose district includes San Diego and other areas just north of the California-Mexico border. "They're saying we don't want a patchwork of laws, and that's why they're suing Arizona, but at the same time they allow sanctuary cities ... to passively impede federal la
Good this kind of double standard should be addressed and pressure should be made on the Obamanation administration to address the hypocrisy.
 

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Baloney. #1, the Federal government is not enforcing its own immigration laws. Many Federal and state laws overlap. And last time I looked, local law enforcement would arrest one of the FBI's most wanted in a heartbeat. And if he happened to be Latino, they wouldn't call it profiling either.

What is it I read on here? FAIL.

I applaud Rep. Hunter's actions, though I don't think they'll get very far. Maybe the position to take is that every little bit helps.
The feds have been stepping up enforcement for some time now, this is a fact. Also, there are significant differences between enforcing criminal and civil law.
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,910
Reaction score
7,996
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because it's the STATE'S job to enforce federal law, not countermand it.
What!. Show me where 1070 countermands federal law? If it is the States job as you stated, then why the fuss by Obama over 1070. IMO, AZ would be more than happy to arrest illegals.
 
Top Bottom