• 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!

Does President Trump value state's rights?

Does President Trump value state's rights?

  • Total voters
    40
Harshaw said:
They are not required to enforce federal law.

Attempting to coerce them into it through funding is not friendly to states' rights. No amount of lipstick pretties up that pig.
Click to expand...

i agree, but because we have federal income tax [which i don't want], that allows the federal government to suck wealth out of states and redistribute it based on what congress desires, the carrot and stick approach is a tool for the federal government
 
Master PO said:
i agree, but because we have federal income [which i don't want], that allows the federal government to suck wealth out of states and redistribute it based on what congress desires, the carrot and stick approach is a tool for the federal government
Click to expand...

Yeah. And Trump's willingness to use it belies the idea that he believes in states' rights.
 
radcen said:
Does President Trump value state's rights?

Value, advocate, respect, etc.

Your opinion.
Click to expand...

I picked no because he may value it so long as he feels the areas in which he is referencing it provides what he feels is value to his own ends and doesn't where it does not.

In other words, I don't think any support he gives to states rights is based on principle.
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah. And Trump's willingness to use it belies the idea that he believes in states' rights.
Click to expand...

true, i agree, but lets all remember that is those who believe in socialism, which have sought to move powers away from the states to more of a national level, are now complaining the government is using the power of money over them

well guess what, they are the ones that gave the federal government that power.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
I didn't read it that way, but if you did, then excelsior.
Click to expand...
I was acknowledging that they have the legal ability to do the money carrot/stick thing, but then said that I hate that they actually do it. I've always thought that it was a crappy way to do things that they know they shouldn't be doing and couldn't be doing otherwise. Anyway, we're good. :)
 
"States rights" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution and are a political construction. Thus, Donald cannot support what does not exist.
 
Harshaw said:
They are not required to enforce federal law.

Attempting to coerce them into it through funding is not friendly to states' rights. No amount of lipstick pretties up that pig.
Click to expand...

They are required to cooperate, that's completely different. These cities are letting people go after being asked by the feds to hold them.
 
Phys251 said:
"States rights" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution and are a political construction. Thus, Donald cannot support what does not exist.
Click to expand...

Ten Amendment, try to keep up.
 
Phys251 said:
"States rights" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution and are a political construction. Thus, Donald cannot support what does not exist.
Click to expand...

states don't have rights, rights are inherent in flesh and blood people, states have powers

powers of the states are mentioned in the constitution.
 
American said:
Ten Amendment, try to keep up.
Click to expand...

The Tenth Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Powers, not rights. Big difference.
 
Phys251 said:
The Tenth Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Powers, not rights. Big difference.
Click to expand...

That's what States has always been about. Geezzus
 
American said:
That's what States has always been about. Geezzus
Click to expand...

It seems that in your world, powers and rights are one and the same. By your logic, the US has the right to invade anyone that it chooses.
 
American said:
They are required to cooperate, that's completely different. These cities are letting people go after being asked by the feds to hold them.
Click to expand...

They are NOT required to "cooperate." They simply cannot interfere in the areas where federal law is supreme. They are under no obligation to help enforce federal law. None.
 
8 CFR 287.7 - Detainer provisions under section 287(d)(3) of the Act.
287.7 Detainer provisions under section 287(d)(3) of the Act.
(a)Detainers in general. Detainers are issued pursuant to sections 236 and 287 of the Act and this chapter 1. Any authorized immigration officer may at any time issue a Form I-247, Immigration Detainer-Notice of Action, to any other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency. A detainer serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the Department seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the alien. The detainer is a request that such agency advise the Department, prior to release of the alien, in order for the Department to arrange to assume custody, in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible.

(b)Authority to issue detainers. The following officers are authorized to issue detainers:

(1) Border patrol agents, including aircraft pilots;

(2) Special agents;

(3) Deportation officers;

(4) Immigration inspectors;

(5) Adjudications officers;

(6) Immigration enforcement agents;

(7) Supervisory and managerial personnel who are responsible for supervising the activities of those officers listed in this paragraph; and

(8) Immigration officers who need the authority to issue detainers under section 287(d)(3) of the Act in order to effectively accomplish their individual missions and who are designated individually or as a class, by the Commissioner of CBP, the Assistant Secretary for ICE, or the Director of the USCIS.

(c)Availability of records. In order for the Department to accurately determine the propriety of issuing a detainer, serving a notice to appear, or taking custody of an alien in accordance with this section, the criminal justice agency requesting such action or informing the Department of a conviction or act that renders an alien inadmissible or removable under any provision of law shall provide the Department with all documentary records and information available from the agency that reasonably relates to the alien's status in the United States, or that may have an impact on conditions of release.

(d)Temporary detention at Department request. Upon a determination by the Department to issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise detained by a criminal justice agency, such agency shall maintain custody of the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays in order to permit assumption of custody by the Department.

(e)Financial responsibility for detention. No detainer issued as a result of a determination made under this chapter I shall incur any fiscal obligation on the part of the Department, until actual assumption of custody by the Department, except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.

[ 68 FR 35279, June 13, 2003, as amended at 76 FR 53797, Aug. 29, 2011]



while the states are not required, they are being counter productive to the duties of ICE and powers of the federlal government over immigration, so the question is why are they doing this?
 
In 2012, the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Arizona upheld state legislation that requires state and local law enforcement officers to make a reasonable attempt to ascertain the immigration status of persons involved in a lawful stop when officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state laws and policies are preempted when they conflict with federal law, as well as when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Congress has set priorities through the INA to determine who may enter and remain in the United States. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies shield aliens from the administration of federal law, thereby frustrating the execution of immigration law as Congress intended.

federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits policies that impede cooperation between federal, state, and local officials when it comes to the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of information regarding immigration status. Under that provision, any federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from the federal government, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. Congress enacted this law in 1996 with the intent to block state and local leaders form obstructing the INA’s carefully crafted scheme because of pressure from special interests and partisan politics. Thus, because sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies inherently restrict such communication, they are in direct conflict with federal law and should be deemed invalid.

The Role of State & Local Law Enforcement in Immigration Matters and Reasons to Resist Sanctuary Policies
 
Harshaw said:
They are NOT required to "cooperate." They simply cannot interfere in the areas where federal law is supreme. They are under no obligation to help enforce federal law. None.
Click to expand...

The law won't work without cooperation, unless you'd like to see a federal police force of marshals driving around your town stopping people to see their papers. Think about it. Are you pro-illegals or something?
 
American said:
The law won't work without cooperation, unless you'd like to see a federal police force of marshals driving around your town stopping people to see their papers. Think about it. Are you pro-illegals or something?
Click to expand...

Now you're descending into idiocy. "Pro-illegals." :roll: It doesn't matter at all that you like, or don't like, the policy. A state is not required to cooperate.

If you think they should be just because of your views on illegal immigration, then you don't really believe in states' rights, either. :shrug:
 
radcen said:
Does President Trump value state's rights?

Value, advocate, respect, etc.

Your opinion.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that Trump genuinely understands federalism.
 
federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits policies that impede cooperation between federal, state, and local officials when it comes to the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of information regarding immigration status. Under that provision, any federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from the federal government, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. Congress enacted this law in 1996 with the intent to block state and local leaders form obstructing the INA’s carefully crafted scheme because of pressure from special interests and partisan politics. Thus, because sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies inherently restrict such communication, they are in direct conflict with federal law and should be deemed invalid.

(a) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
(b) Additional authority of government entitiesNotwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(2) Maintaining such information.
(3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.
(c) Obligation to respond to inquiries
The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.
(Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title VI, § 642, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–707.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1373
 
radcen said:
Does President Trump value state's rights?

Value, advocate, respect, etc.

Your opinion.
Click to expand...

Let's see.

He wants to send feds into states that legalized marijuana.

He wants to send feds into sanctuary cities.

He wants to take Americans private property and give it to a foreign corporation.

He wants to send feds into Chicago because of ... the murder rate(?).

I honestly don't know how anyone could seriously consider him a proponent of states rights. And i don't see how he could get re-elected after pissing off the stoners.
 
Absentglare said:
Let's see.

He wants to send feds into states that legalized marijuana.

He wants to send feds into sanctuary cities,

He wants to take Americans private property and give it to a foreign corporation.

He wants to send feds into Chicago because of ... the murder rate(?).

I honestly don't know how anyone could seriously consider him a proponent of states rights. And i don't see how he could get re-elected after pissing off the stoners.
Click to expand...

can you give us examples of each one of these
 
radcen said:
Does President Trump value state's rights?

Value, advocate, respect, etc.

Your opinion.
Click to expand...
A simple litmus test to determine an individual's "value of states' rights" is to determine how far to the left, the person in question is.

The further left one is, the more that person supports a large controlling Central Government.

Which systematically usurps power reserved for the states...Constitutionally of course.

So; on a scale of 1 to 10 with number 10 being extreme left, what number would you assign Trump?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom