But there is no federal law that requires San Francisco to assist the federal government in its enforcement of immigration law. There is federal law regarding the federal government trying to reach written agreements with local agencies regarding cooperation. Conservatives want to rail against San Francisco flouting federal law, but you cannot come up with any argument in favor of that position. Hint: just because there are federal immigration laws that does not mean a state or city breaks that law by not contributing law enforcement resources to enforce the law of a different sovereignty. So, again, can you specify which federal law is being violated by San Francisco?

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:And still no reference to the federal law being violated by San Francisco...

You already know it.

SF is refusing to obey Federal immigration law. Of course, the President refuses to enforce it.

Could you cite the title in the US Code this relates to? Just telling us it is "Federal Law" does not help me understand whether SF is not "obeying" it or is just not enforcing it.

No immigration law = no border; No border = no country.

We're getting there. Keep going Anarchists!

What immigration laws applied for the first 100 years of the USA? I bet they were a lot weaker than today's.

freeman3 wrote:But there is no federal law that requires San Francisco to assist the federal government in its enforcement of immigration law.

Are they permitted to actively resist? That is what they are doing.

There is federal law regarding the federal government trying to reach written agreements with local agencies regarding cooperation. Conservatives want to rail against San Francisco flouting federal law, but you cannot come up with any argument in favor of that position. Hint: just because there are federal immigration laws that does not mean a state or city breaks that law by not contributing law enforcement resources to enforce the law of a different sovereignty. So, again, can you specify which federal law is being violated by San Francisco?

I don't know and I don't care. Democrats have made it plain they will fight for anarchy.

I'm all for dissolving the union. The Democrats can have all the ne'er-do-wells and socialists. We'll see who comes out ahead.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

freeman3 wrote:And still no reference to the federal law being violated by San Francisco...

You already know it.

SF is refusing to obey Federal immigration law. Of course, the President refuses to enforce it.

Could you cite the title in the US Code this relates to? Just telling us it is "Federal Law" does not help me understand whether SF is not "obeying" it or is just not enforcing it.

http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docVi ... 10948.html

There.

No immigration law = no border; No border = no country.

We're getting there. Keep going Anarchists!

What immigration laws applied for the first 100 years of the USA? I bet they were a lot weaker than today's.

Right, and there was no welfare state to lure them either.