Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Why must states required to follow federal law on marriage but not immigration?
Topic Started: Jan 3 2018, 09:13 PM (648 Views)
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Leftists cherry pick what they want to enforce. As soon as some conservative does the same, leftists are out for blood.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Tsalagi
Jan 4 2018, 10:25 AM
Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 10:07 AM
It's not hard really.

CA is impeding data sharing. The state is under obligations to fulfill federal request to exchange data on the detainee and comply with federal request.

The state simply cannot order its law enforcement agencies to refuse to provide data on illegal immigrants. That's the same as the governor of Mississippi ordering all city clerks to refuse to issue marriage licences for gay couples.
Actually, it's a bad analogy...and there are 4th Amendment issues, as well, but let's go with your premise, what Law does this "obligation" fall under...and besides, are you all bout State's Rights?
So you are saying the government representing the citizens have no obligations to keep the citizens safe knowing that releasing a criminal into society can cause harm others. Seems like you have a morality issue.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 12:32 PM
Tsalagi
Jan 4 2018, 10:25 AM
Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 10:07 AM
It's not hard really.

CA is impeding data sharing. The state is under obligations to fulfill federal request to exchange data on the detainee and comply with federal request.

The state simply cannot order its law enforcement agencies to refuse to provide data on illegal immigrants. That's the same as the governor of Mississippi ordering all city clerks to refuse to issue marriage licences for gay couples.
Actually, it's a bad analogy...and there are 4th Amendment issues, as well, but let's go with your premise, what Law does this "obligation" fall under...and besides, are you all bout State's Rights?
So you are saying the government representing the citizens have no obligations to keep the citizens safe knowing that releasing a criminal into society can cause harm others. Seems like you have a morality issue.
So you are saying the foundation of Trump's election of "draining the swamp", of "starving the beast" of the federal government is false and that what you really are after is a strong centralized government that can trod roughshod over the sovereign State governments...is that what you're saying. Sounds like you're a Democrat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 10:07 AM
It's not hard really.

CA is impeding data sharing. The state is under obligations to fulfill federal request to exchange data on the detainee and comply with federal request.

The state simply cannot order its law enforcement agencies to refuse to provide data on illegal immigrants. That's the same as the governor of Mississippi ordering all city clerks to refuse to issue marriage licences for gay couples.
Do you have a link on this? I've tried several searches and have found no references to California not sharing data with the feds.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 12:32 PM
Tsalagi
Jan 4 2018, 10:25 AM
Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 10:07 AM
It's not hard really.

CA is impeding data sharing. The state is under obligations to fulfill federal request to exchange data on the detainee and comply with federal request.

The state simply cannot order its law enforcement agencies to refuse to provide data on illegal immigrants. That's the same as the governor of Mississippi ordering all city clerks to refuse to issue marriage licences for gay couples.
Actually, it's a bad analogy...and there are 4th Amendment issues, as well, but let's go with your premise, what Law does this "obligation" fall under...and besides, are you all bout State's Rights?
So you are saying the government representing the citizens have no obligations to keep the citizens safe knowing that releasing a criminal into society can cause harm others. Seems like you have a morality issue.
On that logic, no criminal should ever be released. All sentences for all crimes should be life in prison without parole. That would violate our Constitution.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

BuckFan
Jan 4 2018, 01:51 PM
Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 10:07 AM
It's not hard really.

CA is impeding data sharing. The state is under obligations to fulfill federal request to exchange data on the detainee and comply with federal request.

The state simply cannot order its law enforcement agencies to refuse to provide data on illegal immigrants. That's the same as the governor of Mississippi ordering all city clerks to refuse to issue marriage licences for gay couples.
Do you have a link on this? I've tried several searches and have found no references to California not sharing data with the feds.
Search for Jerry Brown.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

BuckFan
Jan 4 2018, 01:53 PM
Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 12:32 PM
Tsalagi
Jan 4 2018, 10:25 AM
Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 10:07 AM
It's not hard really.<br /><br />CA is impeding data sharing. The state is under obligations to fulfill federal request to exchange data on the detainee and comply with federal request.<br /><br />The state simply cannot order its law enforcement agencies to refuse to provide data on illegal immigrants. That's the same as the governor of Mississippi ordering all city clerks to refuse to issue marriage licences for gay couples.
Actually, it's a bad analogy...and there are 4th Amendment issues, as well, but let's go with your premise, what Law does this "obligation" fall under...and besides, are you all bout State's Rights?
So you are saying the government representing the citizens have no obligations to keep the citizens safe knowing that releasing a criminal into society can cause harm others. Seems like you have a morality issue.
On that logic, no criminal should ever be released. All sentences for all crimes should be life in prison without parole. That would violate our Constitution.
Illegal immigrants
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Opinionated
Member Avatar

Drudge X
Jan 3 2018, 09:13 PM
Can an honest leftist answer this?

If say, Mississippi refused to honor gay marriage license, leftists demand to lock up that person and withhold federal aid.
But if states refused to comply with immigration law, leftists claim states' right.
Do you understand the concepts of civil rights, equal treatment under the law, reciprocity, and the 14 amendment? If you did, you would understand why marriage licenses are required to be honored across state lines.

But very little of that applies to immigration law. Immigration is, as per the U.S. Constitution, a federal matter. The feds determine how many immigrants will be let into the country. The feds determine what the requirements are for immigrants to enter the country, within Constitutional boundaries, of course. The feds can even forbid the states from determining how many immigrants any particular state is willing to accept.

And yet, when the feds get to call all the shots and make all the determinations, you expect the individual states to fully cooperate, when such cooperation isn't required under the Constitution, nor is it even implied, with all federal requests regarding immigration?

Why would they?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Drudge X
Member Avatar

Opinionated
Jan 4 2018, 03:09 PM
Drudge X
Jan 3 2018, 09:13 PM
Can an honest leftist answer this?

If say, Mississippi refused to honor gay marriage license, leftists demand to lock up that person and withhold federal aid.
But if states refused to comply with immigration law, leftists claim states' right.
Do you understand the concepts of civil rights, equal treatment under the law, reciprocity, and the 14 amendment? If you did, you would understand why marriage licenses are required to be honored across state lines.

But very little of that applies to immigration law. Immigration is, as per the U.S. Constitution, a federal matter. The feds determine how many immigrants will be let into the country. The feds determine what the requirements are for immigrants to enter the country, within Constitutional boundaries, of course. The feds can even forbid the states from determining how many immigrants any particular state is willing to accept.

And yet, when the feds get to call all the shots and make all the determinations, you expect the individual states to fully cooperate, when such cooperation isn't required under the Constitution, nor is it even implied, with all federal requests regarding immigration?

Why would they?
Got it. So you and Tsal claimed elected officials placed in office by citizens have no moral obligations to keep the citizens safe.
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

RaiderNation
Jan 4 2018, 05:40 AM
One (gay marriage) is a Constitutional issue, changeable only by amendment. The other (immigration) is merely a law, which is subject to change by act of Congress.

More fail from drudge. Nice phony comparison.
After careful reading of the US Constitution I am unable to find any mention of homosexuality or Gays............... :rotflmao:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 10:07 AM
It's not hard really.

CA is impeding data sharing. The state is under obligations to fulfill federal request to exchange data on the detainee and comply with federal request.

The state simply cannot order its law enforcement agencies to refuse to provide data on illegal immigrants. That's the same as the governor of Mississippi ordering all city clerks to refuse to issue marriage licences for gay couples.
Cite the law!

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 02:56 PM
BuckFan
Jan 4 2018, 01:53 PM
Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 12:32 PM
Tsalagi
Jan 4 2018, 10:25 AM
Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 10:07 AM
It's not hard really.<br /><br />CA is impeding data sharing. The state is under obligations to fulfill federal request to exchange data on the detainee and comply with federal request.<br /><br />The state simply cannot order its law enforcement agencies to refuse to provide data on illegal immigrants. That's the same as the governor of Mississippi ordering all city clerks to refuse to issue marriage licences for gay couples.
Actually, it's a bad analogy...and there are 4th Amendment issues, as well, but let's go with your premise, what Law does this "obligation" fall under...and besides, are you all bout State's Rights?
So you are saying the government representing the citizens have no obligations to keep the citizens safe knowing that releasing a criminal into society can cause harm others. Seems like you have a morality issue.
On that logic, no criminal should ever be released. All sentences for all crimes should be life in prison without parole. That would violate our Constitution.
Illegal immigrants
How does releasing illegal immigrants impact the safety of society? By almost every measure and study, illegal immigrants commit fewer violent crimes as US citizens based on percentages of population.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RaiderNation
Member Avatar

Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 05:26 PM
Opinionated
Jan 4 2018, 03:09 PM
Drudge X
Jan 3 2018, 09:13 PM
Can an honest leftist answer this?

If say, Mississippi refused to honor gay marriage license, leftists demand to lock up that person and withhold federal aid.
But if states refused to comply with immigration law, leftists claim states' right.
Do you understand the concepts of civil rights, equal treatment under the law, reciprocity, and the 14 amendment? If you did, you would understand why marriage licenses are required to be honored across state lines.

But very little of that applies to immigration law. Immigration is, as per the U.S. Constitution, a federal matter. The feds determine how many immigrants will be let into the country. The feds determine what the requirements are for immigrants to enter the country, within Constitutional boundaries, of course. The feds can even forbid the states from determining how many immigrants any particular state is willing to accept.

And yet, when the feds get to call all the shots and make all the determinations, you expect the individual states to fully cooperate, when such cooperation isn't required under the Constitution, nor is it even implied, with all federal requests regarding immigration?

Why would they?
Got it. So you and Tsal claimed elected officials placed in office by citizens have no moral obligations to keep the citizens safe.
And you continue to twist others' words to fit your skewed view.

Will Munny: "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it..."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RaiderNation
Member Avatar

Robert Stout
Jan 4 2018, 05:51 PM
RaiderNation
Jan 4 2018, 05:40 AM
One (gay marriage) is a Constitutional issue, changeable only by amendment. The other (immigration) is merely a law, which is subject to change by act of Congress.

More fail from drudge. Nice phony comparison.
After careful reading of the US Constitution I am unable to find any mention of homosexuality or Gays............... :rotflmao:
I'm not surprised. These concepts are WAY above your pay grade :biggrin:

Will Munny: "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it..."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
Jan 4 2018, 06:04 PM
Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 10:07 AM
It's not hard really.

CA is impeding data sharing. The state is under obligations to fulfill federal request to exchange data on the detainee and comply with federal request.

The state simply cannot order its law enforcement agencies to refuse to provide data on illegal immigrants. That's the same as the governor of Mississippi ordering all city clerks to refuse to issue marriage licences for gay couples.
Cite the law!

Lincoln never declared war against the Confederacy, but the Confederacy still got their azz kicked....... :biggrin:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Demagogue
Jan 4 2018, 11:59 AM
Another example beyond immigration laws would be drug laws. Under federal law marijuana is illegal. A number of states have laws making it legal there. Many of our liberal friends support these states in their efforts.

Federal law currently states that homosexual marriage must be recognized. Why can't states simply do what they have done with the marijuana? Would our left wing friends support these state level efforts in the same way that they support them on recreational drugs.

Personally I think the best government is local government so I support states rights issues. If California wants to allow a flood of illegal aliens to enter their state then more power to them. Mind you, the other 49 states should not have to pay for that decision and the federal government should be permitted to pull funding for anything that helps those illegal aliens.
Marijuana is considered a fungible product by the Federal Government.
That is not a status that can be applied to either homosexuals (or any protected class) or individual immigrants legal or undocumented.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robert Stout
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
Jan 4 2018, 06:17 PM
Demagogue
Jan 4 2018, 11:59 AM
Another example beyond immigration laws would be drug laws. Under federal law marijuana is illegal. A number of states have laws making it legal there. Many of our liberal friends support these states in their efforts.

Federal law currently states that homosexual marriage must be recognized. Why can't states simply do what they have done with the marijuana? Would our left wing friends support these state level efforts in the same way that they support them on recreational drugs.

Personally I think the best government is local government so I support states rights issues. If California wants to allow a flood of illegal aliens to enter their state then more power to them. Mind you, the other 49 states should not have to pay for that decision and the federal government should be permitted to pull funding for anything that helps those illegal aliens.
Marijuana is considered a fungible product by the Federal Government.
That is not a status that can be applied to either homosexuals (or any protected class) or individual immigrants legal or undocumented.

I have heard of Homosexuals referred to as fruits and nuts............ :confused:
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Coast2coast

Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 05:26 PM
Opinionated
Jan 4 2018, 03:09 PM
Drudge X
Jan 3 2018, 09:13 PM
Can an honest leftist answer this?

If say, Mississippi refused to honor gay marriage license, leftists demand to lock up that person and withhold federal aid.
But if states refused to comply with immigration law, leftists claim states' right.
Do you understand the concepts of civil rights, equal treatment under the law, reciprocity, and the 14 amendment? If you did, you would understand why marriage licenses are required to be honored across state lines.

But very little of that applies to immigration law. Immigration is, as per the U.S. Constitution, a federal matter. The feds determine how many immigrants will be let into the country. The feds determine what the requirements are for immigrants to enter the country, within Constitutional boundaries, of course. The feds can even forbid the states from determining how many immigrants any particular state is willing to accept.

And yet, when the feds get to call all the shots and make all the determinations, you expect the individual states to fully cooperate, when such cooperation isn't required under the Constitution, nor is it even implied, with all federal requests regarding immigration?

Why would they?
Got it. So you and Tsal claimed elected officials placed in office by citizens have no moral obligations to keep the citizens safe.
So if a person on parole commits a crime you also charge his parole officer along with the parole board?

Tsalgi is correct. The door you wish to open is impractable and has no boundaries.



Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 05:26 PM
Opinionated
Jan 4 2018, 03:09 PM
Drudge X
Jan 3 2018, 09:13 PM
Can an honest leftist answer this?

If say, Mississippi refused to honor gay marriage license, leftists demand to lock up that person and withhold federal aid.
But if states refused to comply with immigration law, leftists claim states' right.
Do you understand the concepts of civil rights, equal treatment under the law, reciprocity, and the 14 amendment? If you did, you would understand why marriage licenses are required to be honored across state lines.

But very little of that applies to immigration law. Immigration is, as per the U.S. Constitution, a federal matter. The feds determine how many immigrants will be let into the country. The feds determine what the requirements are for immigrants to enter the country, within Constitutional boundaries, of course. The feds can even forbid the states from determining how many immigrants any particular state is willing to accept.

And yet, when the feds get to call all the shots and make all the determinations, you expect the individual states to fully cooperate, when such cooperation isn't required under the Constitution, nor is it even implied, with all federal requests regarding immigration?

Why would they?
Got it. So you and Tsal claimed elected officials placed in office by citizens have no moral obligations to keep the citizens safe.
^^ likes to make crap up and then state we have said this very thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

Coast2coast
Jan 4 2018, 06:24 PM
Drudge X
Jan 4 2018, 05:26 PM
Opinionated
Jan 4 2018, 03:09 PM
Drudge X
Jan 3 2018, 09:13 PM
Can an honest leftist answer this?

If say, Mississippi refused to honor gay marriage license, leftists demand to lock up that person and withhold federal aid.
But if states refused to comply with immigration law, leftists claim states' right.
Do you understand the concepts of civil rights, equal treatment under the law, reciprocity, and the 14 amendment? If you did, you would understand why marriage licenses are required to be honored across state lines.

But very little of that applies to immigration law. Immigration is, as per the U.S. Constitution, a federal matter. The feds determine how many immigrants will be let into the country. The feds determine what the requirements are for immigrants to enter the country, within Constitutional boundaries, of course. The feds can even forbid the states from determining how many immigrants any particular state is willing to accept.

And yet, when the feds get to call all the shots and make all the determinations, you expect the individual states to fully cooperate, when such cooperation isn't required under the Constitution, nor is it even implied, with all federal requests regarding immigration?

Why would they?
Got it. So you and Tsal claimed elected officials placed in office by citizens have no moral obligations to keep the citizens safe.
So if a person on parole commits a crime you also charge his parole officer along with the parole board?

Tsalgi is correct. The door you wish to open is impractable and has no boundaries.



The Taxi Cab company for the actions of a driver that was intoxicated, the dog walking company whose employee lost a dog....it would be a never ending list of precedents.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply