One of the most controversial issues facing this new administration, is the challenge of enforcing immigration laws. One of the promises, then candidate, Donald trump made was to build a wall along the southern border, and to increase border security. Along with that, Mr. Trump also promised to deport the millions of illegal immigrants already here.
One obstacle in the way of the deportation of these people, is what is known as “sanctuary cities, and states”. These are cities and states which have chosen to not cooperate with federal agencies, when it comes to reporting and prosecuting any illegals they come in contact with, other than those who may have committed a crime. And yes, I know they committed a crime just coming into the country illegally.
The argument these city and state governments make for this, is public safety. They feel that if the illegal immigrants fear being deported, then they will not report other crimes such as robbery, rape and other crimes. If they fear the police will turn them over to the federal agencies for deportation, they will remain in the shadows.
This argument has merit, though I am not condoning these cities and states ignoring the law of the land.
Following his swearing-in, the new U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has been speaking out against the practice of these sanctuary cities and states. He has communicated the administration’s policy to withhold all federal grant and aid funding for any city or state which is not adhering to the federal laws and regulations. He has also stated there could be even more punitive measures taken.
This new change in the attitude of the federal government on this issue, from that of the previous Obama administration, has drawn both praise and condemnation. The praise of course comes from those who supported Donald Trump, and who have for sometime looked for a tougher stance on immigration enforcement. The people supporting this, have no problem withholding these funds from the cities and states, who give so-called sanctuary to the illegal immigrants within their jurisdiction. In fact many feel this does not go far enough.
Now as many who follow me here at Delaware Right know, my pet peeve is hypocrisy. I have no issue with people who have a point of view different from my own, I will debate them, and I will listen to their arguments. But what drives me over the edge is hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is not changing your mind, everyone does that from time, to time. Hypocrisy is when a person hold forth a point of view or opinion on a topic or issue, and then at a later point changes those views and opinions. And they do so without acknowledging this difference. In fact in most cases they will deny there is any hypocrisy at all.
That brings me to something I see in a similar light. Right here in Delaware, there is a bill being pushed through the General Assembly which would legalize recreational use of marijuana. Now this has already happened in other states around the nation, and is being proposed in even more. The problem is, marijuana is still illegal according to federal law.
This means, if the state of Delaware were to legalize marijuana, it would be in direct conflict with federal law. In other words, the state of Delaware would be offering sanctuary to pot smokers.
This is why it is so surprising to see just how many of the people, who support the new tougher stance on illegal immigration and sanctuary cities and states, are some of the same people pushing for the state of Delaware to break federal law, and to ignore, no endorse the use of an illegal substance. The rule of law, is the rule of law, just because you don’t like the law, doesn’t mean you get to ignore the law.
Why are these people not asking the U.S. Attorney general to also withhold funding from any state which passed laws giving sanctuary to pot smokers? After all, Jeff Sessions is anti-pot, and it wouldn’t be surprising if he decided to also start enforcing the federal law on marijuana.
How many people know, these so-called businesses selling pot, cannot get bank accounts. They have to pay their help in cash, and all transactions are in cash. Kind of sounds like your local, on the corner drug dealer, now doesn’t it?
I am not advocating for either of the two, my views on both issues are fairly well-known. But I do wish people could simply be consistent in their views. If you are against a city or state ignoring the federal law about immigration, then by the rule of law, you should be against states ignoring the federal law on marijuana. If there are laws we do not like, we don’t ignore them, we work to change them.
So, if Delaware passes the legalization of marijuana, and you see someone smoking pot, make sure you call the DEA and report them, the same, I am sure these patriots call ICE when they see illegal immigrants, and trust me, these so-called patriots, see illegal immigrants everywhere.
So I open this up to conversation. Why is this okay?
But this is not?
I guess if you quantify the two issues as equal transgressions, then your query is a legitimate stumper, but I believe that maybe the two issues are dissimilar in that one is the issue of states allowing US citizens to break a prohibition, while the other is states allowing non citizens to ignore US boarders and illegally reside on US soil which is a national sovereignty issue.
LOL, one of these things is a felony and one is a misdemeanor. Can you guess which is which? There is another category for those who merely over stay their visa (like our Russian and Ukraine friends in Rehoboth) subject to only civil penalties.
The data will show that pot smoking is worse for you than alcohol. It makes you stupid. Why do you think most people quit it after they get out of high school?
Frank,
Illegal immigration is caused by NAFTA and our propping up Latin American despots, not because pot is illegal or legal or local authorities don’t enforce Federal immigration law.
Okay, Delacrat is completely out of the loop on their own agenda. And I think they took Meatblall with them.
FBH at least is following the topic. And I must thank them for demonstrating exactly what I was speaking of. FBH can justify the state ignoring the federal law o marijuana while insisting they enforce immigration.
The point is FBH both are laws, and we are a nation of laws. So why is it okay to ignore one while insisting enforcement of others?
A state that legalizes marijuana is affording a freedom to its citizens.
A state becoming a sanctuary is affording a freedom to people who are not citizens, they are here illegally, and have no right to be on US soil.
It’s a faulty or false analogy.
Frank: “Hypocrisy is when a person hold forth a point of view or opinion on a topic or issue, and then at a later point changes those views and opinions. And they do so without acknowledging this difference. In fact in most cases they will deny there is any hypocrisy at all.”
The conventional definition of hypocrisy is to tell other people to do something that you don’t do. Or to say one thing and do something else. There are lots of examples I could offer up, and most that come to mind center around Trump.
Again, anonymous is justifying breaking the law in one case and insisting it be enforced in the other. Anonymous, both are laws, rightly passed by the people and mechanisms of our government. But thank you for making my point.
Honi, in the case of governing, words are actions, so if you are giving opposing opinions on similar issues, then I believe you fall under the definition of a hypocrite.
Again, anonymous is justifying breaking the law in one case and insisting it be enforced in the other. Anonymous, both are laws, rightly passed by the people and mechanisms of our government. But thank you for making my point.
I clearly did not justifying or insist on anything.
This has always been one of your fundamental, logical weaknesses, Frank. You narrowly define the playing field, often with false choices, and make assumptions (what I’m “justifying” and what I’m “insisting” on) so you can claim some sort of intellectual victory and pat yourself on the back.
I simply pointed out that your analogy is false. You filled in the rest. Incorrectly.
The data will show that pot smoking is worse for you than alcohol. It makes you stupid. Why do you think most people quit it after they get out of high school?
You never fail to surprise me, meatball.
I read a study done fairly recently by Harvard Medical and Northwestern Medical- hardly bastions of conservative orthodoxy. There are many effects of long-term pot use, but the most dangerous is the damage to the hippocampus. This is no joking matter as far as mental health is concerned.
Personally, I don’t believe in drug laws, because a certain segment of the population will become addicted to something, legal or not.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
By declaring a jurisdiction to be a “sanctuary,” the leadership is essentially sanctioning John C. Calhoun’s doctrine of nullification. Since all laws, statutes, codes etc. are ancillary to the US Constitution, “sanctuary cities” are illegal, although I guess only if the jurisdiction actually hinders investigations and/or arrests.
The pot situation is similar. While I can see how not enforcing federal criminal drug statutes may not amount to nullification, legalizing an illicit drug does do so.
Money talks. There’s money for the states in pot, and there’s money for agriculture, chicken plants, landscaping and so on in “illegal” labor. My guess is that Sessions is going to focus on violent illegals with a criminal or gang history.
Holy crap Batman, I think Rick and I just agreed.
Anonymous, you said, “A state that legalizes marijuana is affording a freedom to its citizens.”
I’m sorry but that sounds like you are justifying a state breaking the law. The state cannot “afford” a freedom upon a citizen, if said “freedom” is illegal at the Federal level, if the state does this, they are breaking the law, and encouraging its citizens to also break the law.
You then said, “A state becoming a sanctuary is affording a freedom to people who are not citizens, they are here illegally, and have no right to be on US soil.”
So you are of a mind that if a person is here illegally, they are not afforded the same rights as citizens, is that correct? So let me ask you this, if an legal immigrant cannot be protected by our laws, how can they break them?
A law is a law, if you break the law, you must face the consequences, be you an illegal immigrant, a city, a state, or just a pot head.
You see, the issue here is not which law is correct, and which law is wrong, the issue is, can a city and state pick and choose which laws they will enforce, or ignore? I say no in both cases, if we don’t like a law, we work to repeal it. You can’t repeal a law that makes something illegal simply by passing another which says it is legal. You have to repeal or amend the original law.
Like I said before, one has to do with national sovereignty, and the other has to do with contraband. It’s apples and oranges, but if certain cities and states want to allow illegal immigration while others are cracking down, then I say let them have at it. I don’t think it will be sustainable though, without the extra federal funding that will be needed to accommodate all the people with few means, who will be
gravitating towards these sanctuary destinations.
Let me say it again FBH this is not about which law is right or wrong. It is exactly about apples and apples. The laws could be about speeding and money laundering. The question is, do you believe cities and states have the authority to ignore federal laws?