SemiAuto

Members
  • Content count

    34,149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

SemiAuto last won the day on October 28 2005

SemiAuto had the most liked content!

About SemiAuto

  • Rank
    The cake is a lie.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Converted

  • Location
    the local pub
  • Gender
    rather not say
  1. If it is the state or local jail then it is obvious that they're forcing them to detain them. Which is precisely the problem with mass deportations. It is a great one for those that don't want to see minor offenders turn into a burden on state and local governments. Then the federal government needs to be realistic about what it can and can't enforce.
  2. The federal government should enforce federal law. Forcing the states to do it for them is what is wrong. If the Federal government wants to flood a sanctuary city with ICE agents then they can, they just can't charge the city for doing it (or used funds as a means of subservience). As the article points out, "ICE is free to send as many agents as it wants to San Francisco, but it’s up to San Francisco officials to determine whether to assist."
  3. “In CBO and JCT’s assessment, however, the nongroup market would probably be stable in most areas under either current law or the legislation.” Probably? If you just ignore the 800 lbs gorilla in the room of higher premiums and large scale coverage loss. I don't care who you are, that there is funny.
  4. The answers are 'no' and 'no'. That is the point of the 10th Amendment. To keep the federal government from forcing itself on the states and people.
  5. Technically they can if they deny that this is what they're doing. There is enough shadiness in politics without that sort of crap going on.
  6. Not exactly. As the article points out: In short, Sessions want to commandeer local law enforcement for federal law enforcement activities. He wants to use federal funds as means of compliance. That ain't allowed. As the article also points out: You can thank the 10th Amendment for that one. Otherwise why not just put every police department under the thumb of the federal government? That is a terrible idea.
  7. Sorry, but if John Doe, the illegal immigrant, gets a parking ticket, the locality is not going to hold him for ICE, period. It is up to the locality to decide this and not the federal government via bullying with federal funds. That is a no-no.
  8. Then have the Feds come pick them up. It really should be up to the state and local how long they're going to hold someone on federal charges. The more serious the crime the more likely they should hold the suspect. It is common sense.
  9. They would be dumb to do that. I haven't seen the argument that sanctuary cities should turn hardened criminals loose. The point is that they're not going to lock up jay walkers and hold them for ICE.
  10. Because keeping people in jail costs the states money.
  11. I think you're missing the point. The federal government should enforce federal law and not gang press the states into doing it for them.
  12. Yet here it is. Again. Like I said, strange bedfellows.
  13. I'll take that intervention comment as sarcasm.
  14. The 10th Amendment. It separates federal and state power and the rights of the people. That is the civil right in question and the argument is that Sessions is violating that. The federal government is not interfering with the state to enforce civil rights. Quite the opposite. The federal government is interfering with the state in violation of civil rights.
  15. But what is going on here is violating civil rights in favor of government interference. You've got it backwards. Or is it a case of wanting the results of liberalism without being liberal?