This isn't a Game
Imagine you're out walking the dog down the boardwalk and you notice "suspicious" behavior at a little green house down Pennsylvania Avenue.
As a concerned member of the neighborhood, you call the authorities who respond and expose a large methamphetamine lab. As the neighbors gather at the scene they are baffled when the police leave the house and explain they can do nothing because drug enforcement is the responsibility of the U.S. Government--not state and local officials.
Sounds rather absurd right?
Well once again I open the paper to see there is confusion regarding the roll of the state in "distinctly federal" responsibilities. In this case it pertains to immigration (not drug) enforcement.
Despite the fact no reasonable individual would rescind local authority to enforce illegal drug activity, some vilify states for attempting to identify and enforce illegal immigration activity. It would be unreasonable to call the Feds every time police find a joint in someone's pocket. In reality, the DEA is in place in an attempt to limit drug trafficking between states, and across U.S. borders. When they fail to stop such activity, it becomes the responsibility of local authorities. This should also true for illegal immigration.
Plain & Simple: People are tired of the "get out of jail free" mentality. Now legislators are responding with a "go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200" mentality. Our Federal Government does not have a monopoly on enforcement of laws pertaining to illegal drug activity--nor should we expect them to handle illegal immigration on their own. Enforcement efforts must be collaborative between state and the federal authorities.
As a concerned member of the neighborhood, you call the authorities who respond and expose a large methamphetamine lab. As the neighbors gather at the scene they are baffled when the police leave the house and explain they can do nothing because drug enforcement is the responsibility of the U.S. Government--not state and local officials.
Sounds rather absurd right?
Well once again I open the paper to see there is confusion regarding the roll of the state in "distinctly federal" responsibilities. In this case it pertains to immigration (not drug) enforcement.
Despite the fact no reasonable individual would rescind local authority to enforce illegal drug activity, some vilify states for attempting to identify and enforce illegal immigration activity. It would be unreasonable to call the Feds every time police find a joint in someone's pocket. In reality, the DEA is in place in an attempt to limit drug trafficking between states, and across U.S. borders. When they fail to stop such activity, it becomes the responsibility of local authorities. This should also true for illegal immigration.
Plain & Simple: People are tired of the "get out of jail free" mentality. Now legislators are responding with a "go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200" mentality. Our Federal Government does not have a monopoly on enforcement of laws pertaining to illegal drug activity--nor should we expect them to handle illegal immigration on their own. Enforcement efforts must be collaborative between state and the federal authorities.
Immigration policy is a trans-national issue. Letting states make their own policy is akin to Indiana declaring war on Venezuela. I agree that law enforcement is a local issue as well as a state and federal issue, but the federal government needs to take the lead. Allowing state and local governments to create their own immigration laws would create a patchwork nightmare for foreign born travelers. (Assuming the goal is not just to get immigrants of all types to leave your jursidiction) We had a system like that once, it was called jim crow.
Reply to this
Well, no...
First the states don't have the constitutional authority to declare war--that's granted to the Federal Government under Article One of the US Constitution. Second, the states already create their own laws. However, they are superseded by Federal laws and can be no less stringent than the Federal law.
For example, the Federal Government can make alcohol illegal. No individual state would have the right to make it legal.
However, the Federal Government can make alcohol a legal product and a state can limit its sale on Sunday--like Indiana has done.
The ATF is the federal governing body that (like the DEA) exists to deal with illegal activity between states and across US borders. It would be inconsistent to suggest the former INS and now Homeland Security should be run differently.
Reply to this
Good post! thank you
Reply to this
Good! All well written
Reply to this
I found this post from a reference on twitter and added it to my hyperlinks
Reply to this
This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I love seeing websites that understand the value of providing a quality resource for free.
Reply to this
Damn! Cool!
Reply to this