Post 1985 SF “sanctuary cities” where the city says they won’t spend money enforcing federal law?
That’s fine, and actually legal.
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[42] The legislation outlawed cities’ bans against municipal workers reporting a person’s immigration status to federal authorities.[43] Nothing in the law forces states or local governments to help the federal government with immigration enforcement.[44]
But if that’s the balance you’re looking for, if trump is elected he could raid “legal” stores in states he doesn’t like and seize all the money. Just like CBP and ICE can still operate in a sanctuary city.
I never said it was a solution. It should be decriminalized entirely. But in the meantime, decriminalizing it at the state level helps everyone in that state. Any harm reduction is worth doing.
But do you understand that your solution isn’t even a bandaid?
It’s just ignoring the wound.
In this case infection would be a conservative president siccing the DEA on “legal states”.
And if Biden won’t/can’t get the DEA to deschedule, how is he able to stop the DEA if they decide they want the billions in seized revenue from blue states to use at the border?
You’re arguing Biden has no power over them (which me and the Congressional Research Services disagee with) but if that’s true, wouldn’t he also be unable to stop the DEA from enforcing federal law in those states?
So your opinion is the Confederacy was right in the Civil War?
And even if the federal government made slavery illegal, all the South had to do was ignore it?
Because you just don’t seem to understand what you’re promoting…
Are you arguing that sanctuary cities are wrong?
…
Historically?
They were started by religious fundamentalists, and it was kind of a shitshow
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city
Post 1985 SF “sanctuary cities” where the city says they won’t spend money enforcing federal law?
That’s fine, and actually legal.
But if that’s the balance you’re looking for, if trump is elected he could raid “legal” stores in states he doesn’t like and seize all the money. Just like CBP and ICE can still operate in a sanctuary city.
Do you think trump won’t do that?
So if you’re ok with state and local agencies not enforcing federal immigration law, why are federal drug laws different?
I’m also not sure where you got this idea I’d rather have Trump. Overall I’m satisfied with Biden’s performance.
Sanctuary cities can’t stop ICE or CBP from arresting anyone…
And there is nothing stopping the federal government from raiding “legal” stores, arresting everyone, and seizing all the money.
That’s why your “solution” isn’t an actual solution.
I’m not saying you support trump, I’m saying any president who wanted to could do that and use the money for something they want.
And trump not doing it his first term is already surprising, you think he would have hesitated to do it to Cali if he thought of it?
The next Republican president probably won’t be as stupid as trump. But he’s gonna want all the same policies.
I never said it was a solution. It should be decriminalized entirely. But in the meantime, decriminalizing it at the state level helps everyone in that state. Any harm reduction is worth doing.
But do you understand that your solution isn’t even a bandaid?
It’s just ignoring the wound.
In this case infection would be a conservative president siccing the DEA on “legal states”.
And if Biden won’t/can’t get the DEA to deschedule, how is he able to stop the DEA if they decide they want the billions in seized revenue from blue states to use at the border?
You’re arguing Biden has no power over them (which me and the Congressional Research Services disagee with) but if that’s true, wouldn’t he also be unable to stop the DEA from enforcing federal law in those states?