An illegal immigrant commits a crime, say vehicular homicide. ICE lodges a detainer against this person, and the local PD refuses and instead releases the offender. As a result, ICE runs a tactical team out to go pick him up.
This is the outcome that you appear to believe is optimal, and you are intentionally using emotionally loaded words like "lenient" to attempt to guilt me into retreating from my position that this is, in fact, not an optimal outcome. In many cases like this additional crimes are committed before the offender is apprehended, crimes which are of course 100% preventable, without you and your "leniency".
>Tell me you at least recognize the difference between actively doing something against some group, and merely not helping them?
Technically speaking, you are right. These states are actively working against their own citizens, not the Federal government.
Your initial claim was that some States are merely "not assisting" the Federal government with their immigration duties, which is actually not a choice they get to make since the controlling caselaw (again, Arizona v. United States) prevents them from doing this even if they wanted to. Local cops cannot investigate immigration status, full stop. I point it out that some states actually go further, and passed laws that bar their police from doing the following.
Feds: hey you arrested individual_x, he's in the country illegally and oh by the way has a few other outstanding warrants, can you please hold him at the jail house, we're going to pick him up for immigration proceedings.
Cops: sure thing, let us know when you get here
And now we get.
Feds: hey hold that guy you arrested, he's got a standing deportation order from years ago, hold him until we get there.
Cops: No, in fact, we're going to let him go.
You continued to imply that banning the former is somehow preferable, even though the latter results in ... street raids.
I'm not really seeing how I'm the bad guy here, and honestly I think your real policy preference is simply that no immigration law is enforced at all. You should have the courage to say so, since that is quite clearly the policy preference for a large portion of the electorate, and possibly a majority of the Democratic Party.
> Feds: hey you arrested individual_x, he's in the country illegally and oh by the way has a few other outstanding warrants, can you please hold him at the jail house, we're going to pick him up for immigration proceedings.
> Cops: sure thing, let us know when you get here
> And now we get.
> Feds: hey hold that guy you arrested, he's got a standing deportation order from years ago, hold him until we get there.
> Cops: No, in fact, we're going to let him go.
You’ve accurately described how states who do not want to assist the federal government, send instructions to their employees on how to not assist the federal government
> You continued to imply that banning the former is somehow preferable, even though the latter results in ... street raids.
The latter results in street raids because of the choices of the federal government and the current leader. It is not an immutable law of physics that street raids have to happen.
This is abuser logic. Do what I want or I _have_ to hurt you.
> I'm not really seeing how I'm the bad guy here, and honestly I think your real policy preference is simply that no immigration law is enforced at all. You should have the courage to say so, since that is quite clearly the policy preference for a large portion of the electorate, and possibly a majority of the Democratic Party.
My preferred immigration policies are ones that brain drain the rest of the planet for my countries benefit.
I am calling out how states not enforcing federal policy for free is an example of states rights.
This comment chain started with me responding to `Jensson stating
> I thought it was so states could knowingly house illegal aliens or illegal drug businesses without doing anything.
> Normally states wouldn't have that right, but I see many who think they should have it.
Which is patently false if you believe in states rights unless you are a hypocrite or belief that states only have the right to believe in the federal governments commands
This is the outcome that you appear to believe is optimal, and you are intentionally using emotionally loaded words like "lenient" to attempt to guilt me into retreating from my position that this is, in fact, not an optimal outcome. In many cases like this additional crimes are committed before the offender is apprehended, crimes which are of course 100% preventable, without you and your "leniency".
>Tell me you at least recognize the difference between actively doing something against some group, and merely not helping them?
Technically speaking, you are right. These states are actively working against their own citizens, not the Federal government.