• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up...

Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
Perhaps I did not word myself correctly either. By "convicted" I also meant already served my time in prison in Washington. And by full rights restored i'm talking about my right to carry a gun, right to vote etc etc if I moved to Idaho.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure what you mean or what your point is, but I'll try to answer your question as best I can

In may issue states, CCW permits can be denied to people who have been previously convicted of a crime. Since CCW permits are not a fed matter, I don't see how Idahos' CCW law conflicts with a power reserved to the fed govt (as it is with immigration)


First, the feds already made their decision, illegal aliens are suppose to be deported, that is the law. That is the decision.
Click to expand...

You are certainly justified in being upset when the govt doesn't do what they're supposed to do. But if you're concerned about the govt not doing what it's supposed to do, the I'd say that wanting the state govt to do what it's not supposed to do is an odd way of reacting to that.

So the states don't have to carry out the regulations that the EPA demands? They don't have to carry out the federal ban on machine guns? With your logic the States can ignore any federal law there is because they can't carry out any of it without going beyond their capacity.
Click to expand...

In the case of environmental regs, or any fed law, states can only enforce those laws when the fed law delegates the power to do so. In most cases, when a state prosecutes someone (or some corp) for an environmental violation, they are prosecuting them for violating a state reg. If it's a violation of fed laws, then they refer the case to the feds.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

sangha said:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean or what your point is, but I'll try to answer your question as best I can

In may issue states, CCW permits can be denied to people who have been previously convicted of a crime. Since CCW permits are not a fed matter, I don't see how Idahos' CCW law conflicts with a power reserved to the fed govt (as it is with immigration)
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about CCW permits. I'm talking about buying guns and voting. Both because of a either a state conviction from another state or from a federal conviction. With the logic that you have used then if I am convicted, sentenced and served my time in a state that I commited a felony act and then moved to another state then I am considered innocent and the state cannot treat me other than "innocent". With your logic if I commit a federal felony, was convicted and served my time in prison then states that I lived in then must consider me innocent and cannot deny me my right to own a gun or vote. Because I am "innocent" of their state laws. And any state that made a law stating otherwise would be punishing people that are considered innocent since they committed no crime with in their state, IE "they are not just following the law".


sangha said:
In the case of environmental regs, or any fed law, states can only enforce those laws when the fed law delegates the power to do so. In most cases, when a state prosecutes someone (or some corp) for an environmental violation, they are prosecuting them for violating a state reg. If it's a violation of fed laws, then they refer the case to the feds.
Click to expand...

Ok then let me ask you a question...Do states have the right to protect their own borders and their own economy and their own people?
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Fisher said:
It isn't like murderers are being turned loose.
Click to expand...
Statistically speaking - releasing them would be a better bet for society than releasing non violent offenders.
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
I'm not talking about CCW permits. I'm talking about buying guns and voting. Both because of a either a state conviction from another state or from a federal conviction. With the logic that you have used then if I am convicted, sentenced and served my time in a state that I commited a felony act and then moved to another state then I am considered innocent and the state cannot treat me other than "innocent". With your logic if I commit a federal felony, was convicted and served my time in prison then states that I lived in then must consider me innocent and cannot deny me my right to own a gun or vote. Because I am "innocent" of their state laws. And any state that made a law stating otherwise would be punishing people that are considered innocent since they committed no crime with in their state, IE "they are not just following the law".
Click to expand...

The laws which forbid a convicted person from buying a gun apply to dealers who are licensed by the fed.

And state making such a law would not be punishing the person for breaking the law. Under the law, denying a purchase is not a criminal punishment.





Ok then let me ask you a question...Do states have the right to protect their own borders and their own economy and their own people?
Click to expand...

That's three questions.

States are not allowed to keep people from travelling into and out of their borders. As far as protecting their economy and people, those phrases are unclear and could mean many things. You'll have to state them in a way that's relevant to this issue if you want me to address them
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

sangha said:
The laws which forbid a convicted person from buying a gun apply to dealers who are licensed by the fed.
Click to expand...

It also applies to individuals. Remember, private sellers are forbidden from knowingly selling guns to those convicted of a felony.

sangha said:
And state making such a law would not be punishing the person for breaking the law. Under the law, denying a purchase is not a criminal punishment.
Click to expand...

:doh It's not punishment for breaking the law? What exactly is it then? A hug and cuddle?


sangha said:
States are not allowed to keep people from travelling into and out of their borders.
Click to expand...

For citizens you are correct. For non-citizens? There is precident that the states are not allowed to keep people from traveling to and from the state, but that precident is only based on citizens. It says nothing about non-citizens.

sangha said:
As far as protecting their economy and people, those phrases are unclear and could mean many things. You'll have to state them in a way that's relevant to this issue if you want me to address them
Click to expand...

What are the usual things that illegals are blamed for? Come on sangha, we've been having a wonderful debate here so far, lets not get bogged down in semantics and minutia. If you really want me to name a few then I will but lets try not to get bogged down ok?
 
Re: Release of about 300 illegal immigrants from federal custody in Arizona stirs up.

Kal'Stang said:
It also applies to individuals. Remember, private sellers are forbidden from knowingly selling guns to those convicted of a felony.
Click to expand...

True, but that's not an example of a state being compelled to enforce a fed law.

:doh It's not punishment for breaking the law? What exactly is it then? A hug and cuddle?
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

For citizens you are correct. For non-citizens? There is precident that the states are not allowed to keep people from traveling to and from the state, but that precident is only based on citizens. It says nothing about non-citizens.
Click to expand...

Wrong. It applies to "people", not citizens.



What are the usual things that illegals are blamed for? Come on sangha, we've been having a wonderful debate here so far, lets not get bogged down in semantics and minutia. If you really want me to name a few then I will but lets try not to get bogged down ok?
Click to expand...

You will have to be specific. For example "protecting their economy" could mean their ability to offer tax incentives to businesses that move into their state. That is something they are allowed to do.

But states are not allowed to prohibit people with a criminal record from travelling into their state
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom