Because in US v. Arizona the Supreme Court ruled that immigration policy is controlled by the federal government. Deciding who gets deported is immigration policy.
Regards,
Shodan
While there is a lot of hypocrisy involved, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I don’t know anyone (on either side) who makes the claim that states have ALL the rights. How many people advocate for states to be able to declare war on other countries? State’s Rights is about the 9th and 10th amendments. Where the constitution clearly and explicitly gives authority to the federal government, then it’s hard to make a case for State’s Rights, unless one is advocating a change in the constitution.
Where the constitution clearly and explicitly gives authority to the federal government the states are not compelled to do their job, particularly without compensation.
If a state has a serious problem with property crime, or traffic deaths they should be able to prioritize those law enforcement needs vs following every xenophobic federal law as a top priority.
Slightly off-topic, and not a direct answer, but one problem with undocumented immigrants driving is that they won’t be insured (unless they live in a state where they can obtain a driver’s license). So if they do hit someone, there is generally nobody for the injured party to recover from unless they have UM coverage. It’s a billions-of-dollars-per-year problem.
And the supreme court also ruled that the states are not required to ignore their own law enforcement priorities to enforce federal laws.
It sounds like they can do that, but they risk losing out on that sweet, sweet federal cheddar. Or did I miss something?
Isn’t it optional for the cities, but a pre-condition for receiving (some) federal funding?
IIRC That wasn’t California, that was just San Francisco.
Is a revisionist rule a pre-condition or is it punitive and manipulative?
If the Feds said you have a right to free speech but if you exercise it we are going to levy a tax would they be infringing on that right?
What is the difference between withdrawing money for roads/education and law enforcement to compel one to not exercise their rights and infringing on a right?
Note my cite above, should the Feds be able to use money to force Cities and States to violate core rights of individuals too?
Correct.
Agreed, except for the underlined part. Every country controls its borders, and it’s ludicrous to call that “xenophobic”.
I once represented a nice woman, early 20s, charged with selling cocaine to some high profile people.
She was born in South America, and left at age 2.
She was willing to take a plea deal, but it would have resulted in deportation. This woman didn’t need to be deported to an area she had no memory of and where she couldn’t speak the language (IMO).
Her parents should be ashamed for having placed her in such peril.
As I recall (it’s been 20 years) she was a legal resident of the US, but not a citizen. Her parents didn’t do anything wrong.
Yes, it absolutely is the responsibility of the Federal Government to set immigration policy. It’s also the responsibility of the Feds to carry out immigration policy.
If a local school enrolls a child, does that school have an obligation to determine the immigration status of that child, and inform La Migra if the child can’t provide documentation that they have the legal right to live in this country? Should doctors demand to see papers before they treat people? How about banks? Stores? Taxi drivers?
Or more directly on point, local cops. Tmmigration status is not a matter of state or local law, it’s a matter of federal law. If the Feds need more resources to enforce immigration, then let’s raise taxes and hire more government bureaucrats to do the job.
If she was here legally, is there some reason she did not become a citizen?
At any rate, I can’t see overlooking completely her own agency in this. Why commit a felony when you’re at risk of deportation if you don’t want to get deported?
I’m confused. The issue is that the states and cities are not enforcing immigration laws? Didn’t Joe Arpaio get in trouble FOR enforcing immigration laws because that is not a state/county/city issue. Only Congress makes immigration law … Supremacy Clause … etc.
To the best of my knowledge, only certain crimes generally led to deportation, particularly violent crimes and drug distribution offenses. I am not sure if there is a case of a sanctuary city not turning over this sort of criminal, particularly a violent one.
A super-common reason people end up in deportation proceedings is for such serious crimes as driving without a license or insurance. Chicago, for example, and generally speaking the rest of Cook County do not turn over people to immigration authorities if they are arrested for driving without a license, absent aggravating factors like other outstanding arrest warrants for more serious crimes.
I’m not a fan of people driving without licenses, but should it be a deportable offense? Nah. I’d rather have people not be terrified of the police, especially when in many places people are only pulled over in the first place for “driving while Mexican.” I’ve literally had Mexican clients tell me that they bleached their lovely jet-black hair blonde to reduce the probability of such an event (though it typically happens to young men, not so much to women IME).
Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal
P.S. I’m stating right now that I am not going to participate in this thread as much as I might like - for somewhat obvious reasons, work is more than a little bonkers right now.
In Canada, it is the health care is the responsibility of the provinces. But the federal government wanted to ensure a national standard so has the Canada Health Act that provinces must meet to get federal funds. If a province decides to do something different then the feds can withhold funds. That can do this in other areas as well.
So, my question is, is it illegal for local authorities to enforce federal law? And if it isn’t, are there any federal laws they currently do enforce or cooperate on, but have chosen not to enforce this one? Because if it is the latter, then the federal government can use the stick/carrot of funds transfers to get the local authority to cooperate.
So, in a way, they are using their (your) resources to do the job. If it is legal and you have the capability and the authority to enforce their rules, then they can contract you to do so. You can choose not to do so and choose not to receive funds. Easy peasy.