Hey it's easy to see it as "The law's the law" but some of us, especially the ones that can put a face on the person who's breaking the law have an easier time ignoring it.
Sort of like, if a father got in trouble because he stole some bread to feed his starving family, some people will see the father as a rulebreaker who should be punished along with his family, others will see him as someone who would do anything so his family would survive.
That's an example of ignoring federal law. Doesn't mean that if it was hashed out, people wouldn't acknowledge the existence of the higher federal law. The federal law is the one that actually has final say on what the laws are, and with marijuana states have chosen to ignore that in a sense (which many think is kind of fine in this case as a means of pushing federal law where it should go).Marijuana legislation says hi!
There are a number of laws (both Federal and State) on the books that are ignored for various reasons. They could be outdated, it could be lack of funding, it could be political reasons, etc.
Illegal immigrant gets beat up by her husband. Does she call the cops? If she's scared of being deported she probably doesn't and has to suffer under that.
Just a small example that I've actually dealt with personally.
An independent New California Republic.
Ask google and facebook to fund the 1 billion.
Why are they not pulling any weight.
So why do people on the right say they harbor illegal criminals?
.
Woah Dallas and Houston are sanctuary cities???
Woah Dallas and Houston are sanctuary cities???
They should probably take the money AND just let illegal immigrants post up in the city anyway.
That's an example of ignoring federal law. Doesn't mean that if it was hashed out, people wouldn't acknowledge the existence of the higher federal law. The federal law is the one that actually has final say on what the laws are, and with marijuana states have chosen to ignore that in a sense (which many think is kind of fine in this case as a means of pushing federal law where it should go).
So why do people on the right say they harbor illegal criminals?
God bless you, Seattle.
I don't see how there going to withhold federal funding. Won't the cities just sue them?
Federal funds are unrelated to the laws and you can't just unilaterally withhold the funding?On what grounds? The cities are breaking the law.
Federal funds are unrelated to the laws and you can't just unilaterally withhold the funding?
stuff like this should be going through court on whether they are breaking the law and should be required to help the federal government
Wrong. Seattle is breaking the law.
Living up to the username, I see.As a (relatively small) shareholder of both GOOG and FB, hell no.
Trump on the brink of successfully dividing communities already. How sad. Even if a city retains sanctuary status, cutbacks from the lack of funding will only demonise immigrants further.
Living up to the username, I see.
I wish I had that optimism.It won't it on these cities. It will demonize Trump et Al.
I wish I had that optimism.
It's a federal law, must be obeid.
If it's a good or bad law I guess depends of the point of view, but the law exists. Is kinda anarchy simply refuse to comply and nothing happens, after all it's "United States".
Pulling a billion dollars of funding can change some people's ideals rather quickly.Big liberal cities are the bastion of Democrat ideals.
It isn't idealism it is fact. Look at Texas; San Antonio, Austin, Houston, Dallas.
They all lean democratic in a largely Republican state. Those are the strongholds.
The battles come from the more rural areas.
Living up to the username, I see.
Why would I want companies in which I own stock to donate $1B to some random cities instead of reinvesting in their infrastructure or paying me dividends?
Marijuana is still a Schedule 1 drug and thus even in the states where it is legal, is Federally Illegal, so I suppose if the government wanted to halt federal funding of Marijuana states, because of it's illegal status you would agree then that the laws the states voted on are null and void since at a federal level it's illegal.
Same reasoning, undocumented immigration is illegal at a federal level, but some cities voted and made policy decisions that can provide certain protections for undocumented immigrants.
Well if you want to move to Seattle, better do it quick, rent is getting crazy.
They should probably take the money AND just let illegal immigrants post up in the city anyway.
Serious question....
Wouldn't a better policy be (instead of rounding up illegal immigrants and deporting them) to give undocumented peoples an expedited path to citizenship in order to integrate them into society faster (and with that comes paying taxes, civic duty, etc).
Or am I over-simplifying things?
Sanctuary cities literally harbor criminals. If their crime is simply illegal immigration, I understand, but often it is not.
Kathryn Steinle's story is like the worst case scenario; she moved to San Francisco and was walking along the Embarcadero with her parents when she was shot:
A Mexican national who is in the country illegally, he has told news media that he was in San Francisco seeking work a restaurant, landscaping or construction job. In a KGO-TV interview from jail after Steinle's death, he indicated that he went to San Francisco in part because of its liberal laws that made it easier for immigrants without documents to fly under the radar.
Before his arrest, Lopez-Sanchez had been convicted of seven felonies and been deported five times. His felonies and deportations were mostly for narcotics charges, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials confirmed.
http://www.latimes.com/local/califo...tuary-kathryn-steinle-20150723-htmlstory.html
I find very strange, the country has a law and some cities simply chosen to ignore.