zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
LMAO what the hell kind of take is this?
The Siege of Minneapolis
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
Just not when it’s at the federal level apparently.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
It's not a protest. Watch the video, nothing he was doing was a protest. He was doing his legally allowed observance. ICE turned it into a confrontation. We have multiple eye witnesses and video evidence of such.
ICE is doing illegal things and people are trying to record thme and they're trying to stop it. You're basically say bend over and take it.
I’d think you would favor more legislative and executive restraint, not less/equal.
Metaphysicist
Not Actually Brian Hunter
Since you asked, I will give you the respect of answering your questions. But I was serious about dipping out of here because these threads are so pointless.
My core disagreement is that you get this wrong right at the beginning. No "federal law" obligates the governor of Minnesota to "arrest illegals." That's a fundamental misunderstanding of Federalism if you think that. Minnesota enforces Minnesota criminal law. If an alien commits a crime, they will be charged under Minnesota law. If they are convicted, they will be sentenced and will serve that sentence in Minnesota. When they are done with their sentence, it should not be difficult for the feds to come grab them and deport them, unless they are wasting their time on other matters.
The federal government, not the states, is tasked with enforcement of the civil immigration laws. They are authorized to go into Minnesota and enforce them if they choose to do so, and Minnesota cannot obstruct this task. But under the anti-commandering doctrine, for better or for worse, the Federal Government cannot order Minnesota to do its job for it. This is the same reason the Feds can't force states to ban sports betting on its behalf (NCAA v. Murphy). Minnesota could help, if they wanted to, but they don't have to. That's federalism, baby.
Though it is in my opinion dumb and a poor use of resources, ICE has the authority to come look for illegal aliens in Minnesota. People who don't like that policy choice have the right to protest that decision. I do not see why this "alternative" has to involve ignoring the fourth (arrest/seizure), and fifth (due process) amendments to the Constitution.
To the extent "sanctuary city" means a city will not tattle on aliens without criminal convictions (which is what that generally means, and how I generally understand the Minn. policies), I do not believe that an alien who arrived here illegally, but who is otherwise contributing to the economy and obeying the laws, is causing much harm. So I just don't view these types of enforcement actions as a priority in anyway.
I am not "OK" with the status quo, but I believe the appropriate avenue is reforming our immigration policies to find a way to bring them into the system in a coherent way (which does not have to mean "blanket amnesty"), not brutalizing them and destroying their families and communities.
If you mean something else by "sanctuary city," then I don't understand the question. Having traveled and lived in multiple countries, I have no serious issue with the idea that if you go to another country and commit crimes, they will (forcefully) ask you to leave (after punishing you).
This is simply not an accurate characterization of the situation.
I am sad to hear that you have fallen prey to the "we must destroy the Constitution of the United States to save it" way of thinking. Down that path lies madness.
sturg33
I
I always enjoy a good faith back and forth with you because as far as leftists go, you're one of the intelligent ones (if there is such a thing).
But this is my point. If the decision has been made to remove illegals out of the country, and a state simply refuses to help you (and is actively trying to harm that effort), then I don't see any other way to achieve it other than what is happening. I understand your position is, you'd rather fix something moving forward and avoid this chaos. but others disagree with that, others have been voted in, and this is the path they have chosen. From where I sit - I don't see a better way to
I mean Minnesota is playing a huge role in this chaos - and I believe it is chaos of their own doing. For starters, they proudly announce to the world that illegals are welcome to live in their cities. They also appear to be knowingly aiding (or, at the most generous interpretation - turning a blind eye) to a historic fraud operation being run by immigrants. Tim Walz is asking the feds to leave them alone. Walz could be a partner here. He could cooperate and offer state resources. But they are so obsessive about protecting illegals they refuse to simply help maintain order and peace.
Also I know it's common talking point that people just come here illegally and then live productive lives. I think that was once true but isn't so anymore. There is tons of data showing them taking more welfare than native born people, and I've made the point several times that illegals are far less likely to report their correct income and pay income taxes like the rest of. In the case of Minnesota - 80% of Somalians require welfare to survive. That create a new victim called the US tax payer
I grow tired of being punched in the face and told I can't punch back bc of my principles
But you're in luck... I'm in favor of punching back aggressively within the power provided by the constitution. That's why I wanted DeSantis to win bc I knew he land punches that would last beyond his EOs and court challenges. There are ways to cripple leftist institutions legally and would take decades to build back. Instead, Trump governs via Exec order and his useless speaker just rubber stamps the status quo with funding across the board