What is so wrong with trying to control who is entering the United States, and attempting to make sure they are doing it legally? What is wrong with attempting to make sure that jurisdictions are not intentionally sheltering people who are unlawfully present? Most other countries do this. Let’s start off with Scott Shackford at libertarian leaning Reason
GOP Pushes Bad, Punitive Anti-Federalist Immigration Bills Through the House
House Republicans overwhelmingly voted in favor of two bad immigration-focused bills yesterday that potentially punish those in the United States illegally with new harsh prison sentences and attempts to push cities into helping federal authorities deport people.
I’m failing to see the problem.
The first bill, popularly known as “Kate’s Law,” adds new criminal penalties and federal prison sentences to any immigrant who returns to the United States after being deported for criminal behavior. But it also threatens up to 10 years in federal prison for illegal immigrants who repeatedly return to the United States after being deported, even if they’ve committed no other crimes. It also forbids the immigrant from challenging the legitimacy of any prior removal orders.
The great thing about Kate’s Law is that it is really meant to deter illegal alien absconders from recrossing the border. We don’t want to actually throw them in jail unless the illegals force the issue. We’d rather they not come back. Shackford spends little time in trying to say bad things about a law named after a woman murdered by an illegal alien who had recrossed the border after being deported 5 times. He’s not that brave.
But, he does spend a lot of time whining about the No Sanctuary For Criminals Act, especially since Rep. Justin Amash whiningly voted against it, along with Kate’s Law.
What the “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” does is forbid municipalities from stopping local law enforcement officials from helping federal immigration officials by complying with detainer orders. In areas of immigration enforcement, it overrules the ability of cities to control the behavior of their own law enforcement officers.
And that’s part of the “anti-federalist” argument. However, Los Federales are tasked by the Constitution with enforcing immigration. Are local officers allowed to ignored a kidnapper from another state because federal law enforcement wants them caught and demands they be held? All ICE asks is that an illegal alien be held for 48 hours. That’s it. If they do not pick the illegal up, they can be released. The problem is ICE’s at that point.
These bills represent attacks on immigrants that aren’t backed up by data. There is little evidence that illegal immigrants are a source of crime that justifies new, harsher federal criminal penalties and the data suggests otherwise. Furthermore, it’s utterly inappropriate for the federal government to try to overrule a state or city’s control over its own law enforcement officers.
Not in this case. Some on the Right who support illegals go through just as many contortions as those on the Left.
Not to be outdone, Cleveland.com runs an op-ed by Kok-Leong Seow, pithily entitled And then they came for me. He forgets to mention that his parents brought him to the country when they came here unlawfully. But, he thinks all these dealing with illegal aliens is totally like the book 1984, and then dives down an Insanity Hole
It’s that dramatic. It’s happening. It’s history repeating itself.
We are a country of laws. But law does not equal morality. The world has a history of implementing and enforcing laws that aren’t just. North Koreans are executed for having a different opinion than the regime. Blacks were counted as 60 percent of a person. Cherokee people were forced to Oklahoma. Japanese were put in internment camps. Jews were gassed in chambers. Stalin starved all of Ukraine. There are many more examples. All were part of law. All seemed justified at the time. But all were regrettable and shameful events in history.
You read that right. This illegal alien presumes to dictate the immigration laws of the United States because he and his family came illegally, and then compares enforcing existing law with the mass murder of Jews. Are we supposed to take this seriously at this point? Then end point of these pieces, along with many others, is that they want the enforcement to stop and amnesty to occur. Surprise?
Crossed at Right Wing News.
We have philosophic differences with Reason.com and CATO, but it’s interesting that their consistent and indeed, principled stands on federalism are met with derision from the cult-like trumpatistas.
What trump has revealed of his minions, is a significant contingent of white nationalist authoritarians with free-floating “principles”, whose main objective is power and control. They are an amalgam of X-tian identitists, white supremacists and John Galt fetishists in a symbiotic relationship with a manipulatable puppet reliant on nothing more than their constant and devoted worship, support and flattery. They give him “love” – he grants them their wishes.
All that stands between America as we knew it and a second Civil War is a GOP-dominated Congress with the power to correct the electorate’s mistake.
Reason.com pointed out that the Sanctuary bill forces local communities to turn over control of their local law enforcement to the feds. How conservative.
In Jeffery’s tortured world, enforcing immigration laws somehow equals “white supremacists”. And “civil war”. All this as usual with no proof. “Turn over local control of law enforcement to the Feds.” All this because in many places local law enforcement isn’t…..enforcing the law in regards to immigration. Very simple to fix.