Should the Federal Government Pay States for Jailing Illegals?

Watermark said:
Where in the constitution does it say the federal govenrment has a responsible to keep the brown folks out? For 100 years what we call "illegal immigration" was simply how American immigration was handled.

The federal government can decide on whatever the hell immigration policies it wants to. The states can decide on whatever the hell crime policy they want to.

....
Click to expand...

You are so short sighted.

This isn't about "keeping brown people out" #1) it applies to caucassians too#2) Second, its about holding the federal gov't accountable for its failures and the implications it could have else where.
 
Watermark said:
Where in the constitution does it say the federal govenrment has a responsible to keep the brown folks out? For 100 years what we call "illegal immigration" was simply how American immigration was handled.

The federal government can decide on whatever the hell immigration policies it wants to. The states can decide on whatever the hell crime policy they want to. Like it or not, it was the states action that they are locked up. They are not constitutionally bound to lock kids who snort cocaine up, they don't have to do it, but they do it anyway. It doesn't matter if it's an illegal or not, they are responsible for what they did.

Hell, if I get a parking ticket today, and the federal government didn't kill me before I got it, is it the federal government fault to? Fucking juvenile.
Click to expand...


It's national policy to enforce borders, queef. If the federal government fails to do it's job, states should have rederess for costs incurred by their failure.
 
LadyT said:
You are so short sighted.

This isn't about "keeping brown people out" #1) it applies to caucassians too#2) Second, its about holding the federal gov't accountable for its failures and the implications it could have else where.
Click to expand...

What failures?

The federal government passes its own laws and enforces them. It may do this however it wants. If it doesn't want to keep immigrants out at all, that's completely within its rights. If it wants to make every Mexican an American citizen, that's within its rights. It may let people into America that aren't citizens, that are, and anything else.

The states may lock kids up for snorting coke, and if the state locks it up, it was the states decision to pass the law that locked the person up, and it is their responsibility to bear the burden, no matter who it was.
 
AssHatZombie said:
It's national policy to enforce borders, queef. If the federal government fails to do it's job, states should have rederess for costs incurred by their failure.
Click to expand...

The federal governments job isn't to keep brown people out. Tell me where in the constitution it says that? The federal government may have passed a law that says that people who enter America should be thrown out, but if the federal government decides not to enforce it, it's the federal governemnts own fucking business.
 
Watermark said:
What failures?

The federal government passes its own laws and enforces them. It may do this however it wants. If it doesn't want to keep immigrants out at all, that's completely within its rights. If it wants to make every Mexican an American citizen, that's within its rights. It may let people into America that aren't citizens, that are, and anything else.

...................
Click to expand...

very little of that makes sense, so I'll just address the question:

a fluid and essentially open border where an apparently substantial number of criminals freely pass through is a failure when its the feds job to ensure that doesn't happen.
 
LadyT said:
very little of that makes sense, so I'll just address the question:

a fluid and essentially open border where an apparently substantial number of criminals freely pass through is a failure when its the feds job to ensure that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...

They don't have a responsibility to control the border. Whatever they have done in controlling the border to this point, that was their own voluntary decision. The federal govenrment isn't responsible for the people that come to America.


The feds have no responsiblity to keep brown people out.
The states have no responsbility to put people in prison.
 
Watermark said:
They don't have a responsibility to control the border. Whatever they have done in controlling the border to this point, that was their own voluntary decision.


The feds have no responsiblity to keep brown people out.
The states have no responsbility to put people in prison.
Click to expand...

Yes they do have a responsibility to control the border. You're a fucked in the head moronic imbecile.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yes they do have a responsibility to control the border. You're a fucked in the head moronic imbecile.
Click to expand...

They can treat the border however they want. They set immigration policy. They have a right not to set ANY immigration policy - just like the founders didn't. They have a right to go in between.

Tell me, what is the magnificient supernatural law that states that they DO?
 
Absolutely!

LadyT said:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/23/texas.law/index.html

"In addition, the nation's governors are looking for compensation from the federal government for the cost of housing illegal immigrants in local jails.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California is one of a nearly dozen governors demanding that Washington pay the costs that states incur for jailing criminal illegal immigrants"
Click to expand...



and train them in Immigration law as well..........
 
Watermark said:
They can treat the border however they want. They set immigration policy. They have a right not to set ANY immigration policy - just like the founders didn't. They have a right to go in between.

Tell me, what is the magnificient supernatural law that states that they DO?
Click to expand...

It's not a supernatural law. It's part of the definition of being a sovereign nation.

Is it your belief that leaders can do what ever they damn well please? IS this what you're learning these days?
 
Watermark said:
They can treat the border however they want. They set immigration policy. They have a right not to set ANY immigration policy - just like the founders didn't. They have a right to go in between.

Tell me, what is the magnificient supernatural law that states that they DO?
Click to expand...

Did any one mention natural rights in this thread? Why are you even talking about them? That has nothing to do with the fact that the border IS controlled by Federal government and they are taking money from EVERY STATE to do so. If they are not going to do their jobs and what they have been contracted by theses united states to do, then they owe said states their fvcking money back. That's how we operate here.

Why are you so emo over this? I don't care what the issue is, the feds should be held responsible when the states have to pony up the dough for something that they are obliged to do.
 
Watermark said:
That's retarded. Let them free if your so pissed about it.
Click to expand...
Wow. So say Walter Ramos, Heroin Dealer, who was set free on "Agricultural Trespassing" by Bill Ritter (Now Governor of CO who did that to ensure he wouldn't be deported) who later was convicted of Child Molestation in CA should be set free without deportation? (BTW - Walter Jumped bail he is running around the nation without any check on his molester behind).
 
Damocles said:
Wow. So say Walter Ramos, Heroin Dealer, who was set free on "Agricultural Trespassing" by Bill Ritter (Now Governor of CO who did that to ensure he wouldn't be deported) who later was convicted of Child Molestation in CA should be set free without deportation? (BTW - Walter Jumped bail he is running around the nation without any check on his molester behind).
Click to expand...

You guys are just assuming a lot. The states don't have a right to sue the government because they don't like it's immigration policy. One thing about immigration, is that it results in more people in the land, and whenever there are more people, there is naturally going to be more total (not necessarily per capita) crime. So obviously, it would result in more prisoners. But that's not the federal governments problem, unless your talking about federal prisoners.

It would make more sense if you were trying to argue that the federal government was being negligent in who it was letting in, and let only people who were damaged sue. But that raises a lot of questions in itself. Certainly, whenever the founders had their immigration policy, and someone came in and committed a crime, the states couldn't sue. And most pointedly, most of the people coming in don't have a criminal record, so if they committed a crime, there was nothing we could go on anyway.

As for the states throwing people in prison, they are wholly responsible for every single person they put in prison. If an illegal goes to Texas and snorts coke and Texas sentences him to life in prison without parole, it's not like the feds are hitting Texas's car, ladyt.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
You guys are just assuming a lot. The states don't have a right to sue the government because they don't like it's immigration policy. One thing about immigration, is that it results in more people in the land, and whenever there are more people, there is naturally going to be more total (not necessarily per capita) crime. So obviously, it would result in more prisoners. But that's not the federal governments problem, unless your talking about federal prisoners.

It would make more sense if you were trying to argue that the federal government was being negligent in who it was letting in, and let only people who were damaged sue. But that raises a lot of questions in itself. Certainly, whenever the founders had their immigration policy, and someone came in and committed a crime, the states couldn't sue. And most pointedly, most of the people coming in don't have a criminal record, so if they committed a crime, there was nothing we could go on anyway.

As for the states throwing people in prison, they are wholly responsible for every single person they put in prison. If an illegal goes to Texas and snorts coke and Texas sentences him to life in prison without parole, it's not like the feds are hitting Texas's car, ladyt.
Click to expand...
They can sue them for not following their policy. And if the lapse in policy enforcement entails people who would otherwise not be an expense to the state they can sue to be recompensed for that.
 
Watergerber said:
You guys are just assuming a lot. The states don't have a right to sue the government because they don't like it's immigration policy. One thing about immigration, is that it results in more people in the land, and whenever there are more people, there is naturally going to be more total (not necessarily per capita) crime. So obviously, it would result in more prisoners. But that's not the federal governments problem, unless your talking about federal prisoners.
Click to expand...

And you keep throwing out strawman after strawman.

The issue IS NOT about Brown people or even Mexico specifically - so stop arguing as though that is the position. Additionally the issue IS NOT about not liking the immigration policy. Stop being obtuse and pretending that we're talking about that.

The issue IS about the federal goverment taking tax receipts to do a job that they are not doing. It just so happens to be immigration in this case. As a consequence of them not living up to their end of the bargain.........which is coincidently what they are paid to do......states should be entitled to get reimbursed for money expended as a direct result of the federal gov't not holding up their end of the bargain.
 
I used to think watermark was really smart. But I now I see he's smart and a disingenuous lying word parser, infected with globalist dementia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top