politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The problem with his argument, just to play devils advocate for what the right wing would say, is that local law enforcement has a responsibility to assist federal law enforcement to enforce federal laws even if they do not exist at the state level. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes this very clear. With that being said, it is the role of the AG to resolve conflicts between state and federal law and from that perspective, they are also correct. At some point, it becomes a matter of what laws people choose to enforce, have the resources to enforce, or want to enforce or not for political reasons. This is kind of like the difference in federal classification of cannabis versus state classification of cannabis. If it is still illegal federally then in theory the feds can force the states to shut down cannabis shops and deport people. Just for clarity, the ancestors of the people being deported lived here long before the United States was created and have a right to be here and states have a right to determine the best path forward on cannabis. Just my personal opinion, but of course, even a state AG can have their opinion and there is always going to be a limit to their power. The Trump admin, Supreme Court, and Congress all on the other side of an issue makes it difficult to win. At the end of the day the truth is that there are not really any laws, the courts exist to determine things in favor of who has the most money, and money has bought everyone at all levels for a long time. It's only what those in power choose to enforce, or how they choose to resolve contradictory state and federal laws, or how they are paid to decide how to resolve it, and so no laws really exist, it's just up to whoever is in power at that point in time.
I understand you are playing the devil's advocate here, but this is a legally misinformed take. There is a legal doctrine in American law called the "anti-commandeering doctrine", which states that even though federal law is supreme to state law, the federal government may not "commandeer" organs of the state government by requiring them to perform actions in furtherance of a federal policy. Hence, it would be illegal for the federal government to require states use their law enforcement resources for immigration purposes.
The State of Colorado in particular has instead chosen to explicitly forbid its law enforcement agents from expending state resources to enforce or aid in the enforcement of federal immigration law.