Comment by lmm 2 days ago
> You appear to be arguing that law enforcement focusing on dangers to their communities and not doing someone else’s job instead is bad.
Deprioritising lawlessness against the will of the electorate is bad enough, but I'm talking about deliberate noncooperation policies, e.g. the California sanctuary laws. That's going much further than "focusing on" other things.
> weren’t imposed by an aliens, they were enacted by democratically elected representatives
Elected at the state level, sure. But it was against the will of the national electorate and they knew it. Democracy means going along with popular decisions even if you disagree, not finding tricks to undermine what was nationally agreed because your corner of the country doesn't like it.
> the kind of people most of the electorate want enforcement focused on, not gardeners and farm workers.
Most of the electorate wants all illegal immigrants deported, not just the ones caught committing violent crimes.
> Elected at the state level, sure. But it was against the will of the national electorate and they knew it.
Surveys have shown for many years that most people nationwide want a legal path to immigration for law-abiding workers. Sanctuary laws exist solely because a minority of the population has been able to game the Congressional structure to prevent immigration reform while also shielding the businesses which depend on cheap, exploitable workers from punishment.
I suspect that you would complain strenuously if the United States changed from a republic to the direct democracy you are arguing for in this case, or many others where unpopular policies are maintained due to the odd structure of our government.
> Surveys have shown for many years that most people nationwide want a legal path to immigration for law-abiding workers.
A path, perhaps. Not carte blanche.
> Sanctuary laws exist solely because a minority of the population has been able to game the Congressional structure to prevent immigration reform while also shielding the businesses which depend on cheap, exploitable workers from punishment.
Nah. That's at most a convenient fig-leaf for their motivations.
> I suspect that you would complain strenuously if the United States changed from a republic to the direct democracy you are arguing for in this case, or many others where unpopular policies are maintained due to the odd structure of our government.
You suspect wrong. And I'm not saying there's no case where the government should decide they know better than the people, but when they oppose the will of the people they should do it openly and directly, not with procedural rules-lawyering and disingenuous "tee-hee we're not actually opposing the law we're just prioritising other laws" arguments.
There are plenty of things that are rightly decided at state level. That doesn't mean it's OK for states to undermine the rules the populace (via their duly elected federal representatives) have chosen to make law at federal level. (And in any case it would be practically impossible to set immigration policy at state level, given that we don't have any intranational border control).
As the other comment stated- You're saying that _your opinion_ was "what was nationally agreed" to. Trump has at many points stated illegals (daca recipients) should have a path to citizenship, do you think some trump voters might have believed trump when he said that and voted for that position?
Why do you think the “national electorate” should have any say in California state laws? Is it just a basic lack of understanding civics, or do you think states, cities and local communities should be abolished because people in Alabama should actually be in charge of people in Sacramento?
I’m so tired of absolute nonsense like this being said by people who clearly know absolutely nothing about how this country works. Is this just barely disguised foreign agitation?
> Why do you think the “national electorate” should have any say in California state laws? Is it just a basic lack of understanding civics, or do you think states, cities and local communities should be abolished because people in Alabama should actually be in charge of people in Sacramento?
Immigration law isn't California state law, it's federal law, duly passed (and frankly any other approach would be crazy, unless you're proposing to introduce border checks between states). If the duly elected federal government felt it appropriate to leave the matter to the states, they would! If it was constitutionally inappropriate, the legislature would strike it down. States set their own laws on a lot of matters, but they don't get to opt out of federal laws they don't like.
> Deprioritising lawlessness against the will of the electorate is bad enough
You’re arguing that your personal opinion is “the will of the electorate”. The policies directing local police to focus on crime affecting their communities instead of shadowing federal immigration enforcement weren’t imposed by an aliens, they were enacted by democratically elected representatives.
California’s sanctuary laws are the subject of considerable mythology but they had no effect on crime rates according to actual studies because they don’t prohibit cops from working with law enforcement for cases involving people who pose a risk to their communities. They can’t hold people without cause or use a parking ticket to get someone deported but there’s no problem cooperating with federal law enforcement to get rid of a robber, killer, rapist, etc. – the kind of people most of the electorate want enforcement focused on, not gardeners and farm workers.
https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/01/california-sanctuary-...