re: Do you support local law enforcement being compelled to enforce federal law?

quote:

---

If they want more boots on the ground, they need to hire them.

---

Here here

quote:

---

I would assume that state's have the right to create their own budgets and run their own law enforcement agencies.

---

I agree. They should pay for everything themselves.
They can run their own law enforcement agencies as long as they don't obstruct the duties of other law enforcement agencies acting within the authority given them by the Constitution.

It's like any other right. Your right to express yourself stops at the tip of someone elses nose.

quote:

---

I am curious what part of the constitution binds states to enforce federal law. Any idea?

---

They are not being asked to enforce federal laws. They are required to not obstruct the actions of federal law enforcement officers doing their jobs.

quote:

---

dictate how to operate local law enforcement agencies.

---

They aren't.

quote:

---

Nothing screams states rights like having a state run facility overrun and occupied by federal agents.

---

Hey!...it was your idea not mine. How else could they do their job if a bunch of whiny little liberal bitches in uniform want to act all tough?

quote:

---

So would you agree that the fed has the authority to write any immigration statute

---

I would, within the framework of the constitution.

quote:

---

that states must comply with those regulations...seeing that immigration guidelines are in the purview of the fed.

---

This is more tricky. I seriously doubt a hypothetical law that would compel local law enforcement to suddenly enact all federal law would stand up in court. If you said that all citizens (instead of states) need to comply with federal law I would have agreed with you.

Thats a terrible idea and completely nullifies state law.

Take state legal marijuana for example. Under your proposal police officers sworn in by the state are suddenly arresting people smoking state legal MJ that broke no state laws, but are now incarcerated by state law officers, and paid for by state funds.

Thats a greivous violation of states rights.

quote:

---

Do you support local law enforcement being compelled to enforce federal law?

---

You mean honoring a federal detainer for an inmate that was already booked on local offenses? I have no problem when that when it comes to armed robbery or conspiracy on the federal level or when it comes to an immigration issue and neither should you.

quote:

---

Take state legal marijuana for example. Under your proposal police officers sworn in by the state are suddenly arresting people smoking state legal MJ that broke no state laws, but are now incarcerated by state law officers, and paid for by state funds.

---

Then you don't understand. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Immigration laws involve a singular issue. The movement of human beings across a defined border. Controlling the movement of those human beings is a federal issue.
Inanimate objects --like drugs--being used by the residents of a particular state is a state issue the fed has no interest in. The violation of law that is criminal alien trespass and associated crimes are not simply an individual smoking a joint. There is no evidence that the fed has any interest in policing Bill and Teds excellent adventure. In the situation of drug laws, states do have leeway with enforcement and can write laws that define it. To my knowledge states do not write immigration laws. That is in the purview of federal law.

quote:

---

To my knowledge states do not write immigration laws. That is in the purview of federal law.

---

I agree. Which is why they are under no obligation to enforce any laws but their own.