Enforce what rules? The ones where some states require it's use or the rules where it isn't mandatory or the rules where there are restrictions on its use?
None. Make the government employees we already have enforce the rules that already exist.
None.
Make the government employees we already have enforce the rules that already exist.
But but we have sanctuary cities.. the government employees cannot simply deport people from them.
Enforce what rules? The ones where some states require it's use or the rules where it isn't mandatory or the rules where there are restrictions on its use?
How are they going to enforce it? Physically go into every house in the country, and interrogate every person? And then drive them over the border? All 11+ million of them?
Sanctuary cities should be illegal as they are in direct opposition of Federal Laws.
This would be unconstitutional. You can't force states to enforce federa law. I thought conservatives were all about states' rights?
* Suddenly wonders if there is Penicillin around *
Oh, but you can enforce Federal Law with Federal Law Enforcement in all of the states and cities regardless of what the city or state says.
Sanctuary city is a term that is applied by some to cities in the United States or Canada that have policies designed to not prosecute undocumented immigrants in the United States. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-6/05-obligation-of-states-under-supremacy-clause.html
Obligation of State Courts Under the Supremacy Clause
The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation "is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States 'the supreme law of the land'."18 State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and laws and treaties but also the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court.19 Although states may not have to specially create courts competent to hear federal claims or give courts authority specially,1 it violates the Supremacy Clause for a state court to refuse to hear a category of federal claims when the court entertains state law actions of a similar nature,2 or sometimes even when it does not entertain state law actions of a similar nature.3 The existence of inferior federal courts sitting in the States and exercising often concurrent jurisdiction of subjects has created problems with regard to the degree to which state courts are bound by their rulings. Though the Supreme Court has directed and encouraged the lower federal courts to create a corpus of federal common law,21 it has not spoken to the effect of such lower court rulings on state courts.
Step #1: Trump is the nominee.
72% (54 votes) said never for the wall in March, does this change any minds?
Jim
Thread from March, 2016
Step #2 Trump is the president elect. Can he build the wall now?
This wall is such a nice diversion away from the real cause of the illegal immigration "problem".
I'll repeat this again for the millionth time: Stop our business people from hiring illegals first and foremost and there won't be a reason for illegals to come here. But no, let's instead spend billions building a monument to stupidity and divertive politicking rather than simply and cost effectively plugging the holes our clever business folks had their lapdog legislators write into our immigration laws for them.
It's the preemption doctrine which enables federal law to nullify any lower law that is in conflict with it. There are instances, however involving diversity of citizenship cases where federal courts are bound to abide by state laws.Oh, but you can enforce Federal Law with Federal Law Enforcement in all of the states and cities regardless of what the city or state says.
Sanctuary city is a term that is applied by some to cities in the United States or Canada that have policies designed to not prosecute undocumented immigrants in the United States. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.
http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-6/05-obligation-of-states-under-supremacy-clause.html
Obligation of State Courts Under the Supremacy Clause
The Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and constitution. Their obligation "is imperative upon the state judges, in their official and not merely in their private capacities. From the very nature of their judicial duties, they would be called upon to pronounce the law applicable to the case in judgment. They were not to decide merely according to the laws or Constitution of the State, but according to the laws and treaties of the United States 'the supreme law of the land'."18 State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict; federal law includes, of course, not only the Constitution and laws and treaties but also the interpretations of their meanings by the United States Supreme Court.19 Although states may not have to specially create courts competent to hear federal claims or give courts authority specially,1 it violates the Supremacy Clause for a state court to refuse to hear a category of federal claims when the court entertains state law actions of a similar nature,2 or sometimes even when it does not entertain state law actions of a similar nature.3 The existence of inferior federal courts sitting in the States and exercising often concurrent jurisdiction of subjects has created problems with regard to the degree to which state courts are bound by their rulings. Though the Supreme Court has directed and encouraged the lower federal courts to create a corpus of federal common law,21 it has not spoken to the effect of such lower court rulings on state courts.