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 enforcementI 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?
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.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
Again, you may not be satisfied with us NOT planting land-mines at the border but enforcement is in effect.Baloney. #1, the Federal government is not enforcing its own immigration laws.
Such as?Many Federal and state laws overlap.
Enforcing federal law is a responsibility of the states. making laws that conflict with the federal laws is not.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.
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?
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?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.
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.Federal gun laws, drug laws, yada yada yada.
Which is why I'm confused about the outrage against the federal government opposing this lawWell, that's what this is all about, isn't it?
TrueGuess we'll have to wait and see what the courts say.
You're not? You're just overtired.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?
And which is why the federal government is not enforcing it's own law in California.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.
The outrage is that the government isn't doing it's job and doesn't want any help.Which is why I'm confused about the outrage against the federal government opposing this law.
Im not seeing a problem with the government not succeeding at a job you basically called impossible.You're not? You're just overtired.
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.And which is why the federal government is not enforcing it's own law in California.
Because it's the STATE'S job to enforce federal law, not countermand it.The outrage is that the government isn't doing it's job and doesn't want any help.
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
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.
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
Again, rant all you like, enforcement is occurring.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
Can you demonstrate that it's intentional?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.
For the thousandth time, states are required to enforce federal law.Not true. State/local LE are involved in many actions that the Feds have the lead (kidnapping, bank robbery, drugs).
The federal government is not ignoring the law, just not fulfilling your wishes for celerity.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?
Again, rant all you like, enforcement is occurring.
Can you demonstrate that it's intentional?
Yeah, not interested in ranting
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
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.
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
Enforcing federal law is a responsibility of the states. making laws that conflict with the federal laws is not.
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.
Because it's the STATE'S job to enforce federal law, not countermand it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?