One word answers to complex questions are not the good thing you seem to think they are.

Look, I don't agree that these cities should be deliberately refusing to enforce the laws on illegal immigration. I'm very much in favour of a robust immigration system, as you'd expect me to be given the job that I do. However, I can't help noticing the words "as required by law" in that description of the San Francisco ordinances. It strikes me that the federal government could resolve this problem quite easily by simply legislating to require San Francisco to uphold the existing immigration laws. The fact that they seemingly haven't ever done this in the last 26 years suggests that you may be directing your anger at the wrong target.

bbauska wrote:Do states and localities have an obligation to follow the laws of the Federal Government?

Discuss...

Of course they have to follow the laws of the Federal Government, but they don't have to enforce them. Local govt's have very limited resources compared to the federal gov't. If the Feds want to pass a law, go ahead, but when they pass a law they've got to pay for it and enforce it themselves. That's why we have the FBI, ATF, Homeland security and immigration. To expect local govts to spend their scarce resources on the priorities of the Federal gov't, well that's just stupid, unless they have clear mutual benefits, and even then it only works if the Feds are slacking off and not doing their job.

The Constitution is the topmost Federal Law. And its main purpose is to impose restriction on government.

Wrong The purpose of the Constitution was to create the new federal government, not to put limits on it. You cannot put limits on a government which you haven't created yet. OK, you could say---but only in a roundabout way---that it was intended to do both, but that's because the Bill of Rights is, technically, part of the Constitution, and it is those particular additions to the constitution that put limits on the government created in Articles I through VII. (the original document).

The constitution is pretty specific that it's the supreme law of the land. Even after Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court was still interpreting the constitution that the limits placed on it, and its sphere of authority, was typically the bailiwick of the national (federal) government. When a plaintiff in Barron v. Baltimore argued that the State of Maryland owed him money because his business was ruined by the actions of the city government of Baltimore---the V Amendment includes a clause that prohibits the government from seizing private property without compensation---the USSC's response was essentially: yes, that was a violation of the V Amendment and the State of Maryland WOULD owe you some cash....however, the V Amendment to the UNITED STATES constitution contains that, and it only applies to the Federal Government, not the government of Maryland (or Baltimore). The only way Charm City would have to pay you is if there were something in the state constitution similar to that in the US V Amendment. Since there isn't, we're afraid you're screwed. (It somehow slipped the minds of the conventions which wrote our Constitution of 1776 to put that in there...oops)

Essentially, Barron v. Baltimore ruled that the bill of rights and other limitations on the federal government within the US Constitution, are limits on the authority of the FEDERAL government, not the States. Only rights enumerated within the state constitutions (the first 10 pp of the Maryland constitution is entitled "Declaration of Rights", and it's more extensive than the US bill of rights) protect their respective residents against acts of the state governments. It was not until just before the second world war, if I remember correctly, that this view was abandoned in favor of the present view of federalism in the US, that the federal courts and government have the nearly unlimited authority to interpret not only the federal constitution, but state and local constitutions and laws as well.

So, where the state & local governments were once protected from the intrusion of the feds, they are no longer (since the principle works both ways). The answer, Brad, is yes, the states and localities must follow federal law.

And why shouldn't they? As much as I believe that diffusion of power is a good thing, too much of any good thing is a bad thing. In the 21st century, to have a constitution like our first (the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States of....) where the states retain such sovereignty as to be able to literally ignore the Congress of the United States would be an unmitigated disaster.

bbauska

We need less laws for sure, but follow the laws equally if they are in place

You are opposed to police, prosecutors or judges having any discretion?
Why? Is everything about the application of a law the same or is there not context that must be considered?
The "Three strikes law " is a perfect example of what happens when discretion and contextual judgement is taken away from the process. It has been a disaster.

The original law was approved by ballot initiative in 1994, not long after a parolee kidnapped and murdered a 12-year-old girl. It was sold to voters as a way of getting killers, rapists and child molesters off the streets for good.
As it turned out, three strikes created a cruel, Kafkaesque criminal justice system that lost all sense of proportion, doling out life sentences disproportionately to black defendants. Under the statute, the third offense that could result in a life sentence could be any number of low-level felony convictions, like stealing a jack from the back of a tow truck, shoplifting a pair of work gloves from a department store, pilfering small change from a parked car or passing a bad check. In addition to being unfairly punitive, the law drove up prison costs.
Mentally ill inmates are nearly always jailed for behaviors related to their illness. Nationally, they account for about one-sixth of the prison population. The ratio appears to be higher among three-strike lifers in California. According to a 2011 analysis of state data by Stanford Law School’s Three Strikes Project, nearly 40 percent of these inmates qualify as mentally ill and are receiving psychiatric services behind bars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opini ... .html?_r=0

bbauska

You'll notice I answered your question with a single word. I even bolded it for you. You should try it.

When a simple response provides an adequate reply I do.
This is a complex issue. A simple response is easy when one doesn't give thought to the complexities.
So is the application of laws .
Try answering this ...
Black People in the United States currently complain that police do not conduct their encounters with black people in the same way that they conduct their encounters with white people. They are expressing this in the movement "Black Lives Matter".
Does your zeal for equal treatment allow you to also encompass sympathy or even support for this movement?
Are you prepared to rein in the behaviours of police departments that cannot conduct themselves exactly the same no matter whom they encounter in the course of their duties? If so, what remediation do you think is required to make this happen?

I answered with one word. Then I explained why that one word answer with more verbage. RickyP has an issue of not answering.

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/07/420913842/san-franciscos-position-on-immigration-law-questioned-after-fatal-shooting

[url]ICE sent him to the San Francisco sheriff because of a 20-year-old drug case. When the DA declined to prosecute that charge, ICE wanted him back, but San Francisco set him free.[/url]

What law was SF officials upholding by releasing Mr. Sanchez for a drug case? What law was SF officials upholding by NOT returning Mr. Sanchez to ICE?

My "anger" is not misdirected. When a State or Locality does NOT follow the law, it is an issue with me.

@Geo: What other laws should State/Localities be allowed to "not enforce" in your opinion? Do you think that immigration should be up to Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

@RickyP: Police and Prosecutors? No. Judges? Yes. You perception of the Three strikes law is not the same as mine.

IRT "Black Lives Matter", I am all for police officers who misuse their positional authority to be held accountable to the HIGHEST extent of the law. If an officer kills a person and is found culpable, the I am willing to hold him higher than you, as I support the death penalty. If a station does not meet the standards set forth in the law, then bring them up on charges, try them and send them to prison for the full term of the judgement w/o parole. (Another forum, I know. Why have sentencing, if the criminal can get out on parole.)

I forgot... Did that charges come from the Justice Department regarding the shooting in Missouri? No, they did not charge the officer or police dept.

Were the Black Lives Matter protesters acting properly and within the law while rioting? Should they have been arrested?

Brad, my point is just that there's clearly no will at federal level to enforce their own laws. If there was then they'd make use of the legal powers available to them and force San Francisco to comply.

Sassenach wrote:Brad, my point is just that there's clearly no will at federal level to enforce their own laws. If there was then they'd make use of the legal powers available to them and force San Francisco to comply.

That I entirely agree with you on.

The Federal Government needs to tighten it's laws or get rid of them as well. Entirely too much law and regulation. My point is: If the law is on the books, then it should be enforced. If not enforced, then get rid of it.

bbauska wrote:

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Is class now dismissed? Good.

Yes, but it seems you did not understand the lesson, so please stay after and do some make-up work.

Perhaps it was the teacher who did not understand the student's question.

I understand it, but I get the impression you don't fully grasp what "law" actually encompasses.

The speeding analogy is a good one. If I were to break the law by speeding/running a red light, I would gladly accept punishment for the violation (and I have...).

However, the sanctuary city does not do that. It refuses to acknowledge the right of the Federal government to place jurisdiction over them. That would be akin to my telling the officer that he does not have jurisdiction over my vehicle after I was going 70 mph in a 60 zone. Imagine the officer's reaction if told that!

Not quite.

Texas wants to enforce the border as it sees fit IRT to immigration. Should they be allowed to?

Within the bounds of the law, sure. But the national border does not belong to them.

San Francisco wants to enforce it's border as it sees fit IRT immigration. Should they be allowed to?

Within the bounds of the law, sure. But the national border does not belong to them.

Why or why not?

First, tell me what laws these are, and what rights/responsibilities/limits/funding/costs/etc they confer or impose upon States or localities.

Then perhaps we can see if the situations really are equal.

bbauska wrote:@Geo: What other laws should State/Localities be allowed to "not enforce" in your opinion? Do you think that immigration should be up to Sheriff Joe Arpaio?

All of them. Localities don't have jurisdiction to enforce the laws of another state or government. That's not a radical concept.

You have not cleared the initial hurdle here Brad of showing that states are required to assist the federal government in enforcing immigration laws. If it is elective, and it appears that it is, then there can be no complaint that states or "sanctuary" cities are refusing to enforce the law.

http://cis.org/StateEnforcement-LocalEnforcement

What law? Illegal entry into the United States.

http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration-is-a-crime

Each year the Border Patrol apprehends hundreds of thousands of aliens who flagrantly violate our nation's laws by unlawfully crossing U.S. borders. Such illegal entry is a misdemeanor, and, if repeated after being deported, becomes punishable as a felony.

Does the Supremacy clause of the Constitution say that:
The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

So far we have learned that is is a crime to enter the US unauthorized, and that Federal law supersedes lesser level courts and laws. Does the City of SF have the obligation to assist the Federal Gov't? I don't think the obligation is there, especially as the Federal Gov't is not pressing them to do so.

I find that sad.

I also wonder how those who support the city of SF in this instance feel about the city of Little Rock not wanting to enact the ruling of the Supreme Court decision Brown v Board of Education? Both are laws of the land.

I am not sure I understand your point, Brad. Under the law there is leeway for a local city or state entity to either assist or not assist the federal government in enforcing immigration laws. Arizona opts to aggressively cooperate with the federal government and San Francisco opts to be less cooperative in assisting immigration enforcement. Both are permissible. It was not permissible for the state to not integrate schools. Your comparison does not work.

Frankly you need to show that a state is violating some federal law when it does not appropriate scarce law enforcement resources to immigration enforcement. Otherwise, it is not question of obeying the law but a policy choice that is made by individual states.

Yes, illegal immigration is a crime. But it is a Federal one, so a matter for the Federal government. Unless specifically directed (and Constitutionally so), states and/or cities/counties/etc do not have to enforce Federal laws.

No more than Federal agencies have to enforce local or state laws.

There is a difference between "obeying" a law, which all should do, and "enforcing" a law, which is based on jurisdiction and explicit mandate.

Why is Sheriff Arpaio railed against if it is a local jurisdiction's prerogative to employ Federal law as they see fit?

bbauska

Why is Sheriff Arpaio railed against if it is a local jurisdiction's prerogative to employ Federal law as they see fit?

Why should anyone care about his opinion?

http://nobama.com/2012/03/01/sheriff-jo ... -look-bad/

The good sheriff has lost credibility with even the far right....