Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

Should states that have legalized marijuana have to arrest people for violating federal laws?

Their argument is, "That's the fed's responsibility, not ours" and they don't do it.

From the website legalclarity.com about the conflict of local and federal laws on marijuana, "While states are not required to enforce federal laws, they cannot prevent federal authorities from enforcing the CSA within their borders."

Wouldn't sanctuary cities be the same idea? They are saying, they aren't required to enforce federal laws, but they don't prevent federal authorities from doing it.
 
Hercules56 said:
The USA has a maximum yearly asylum quota. Once that quota is reached, no more applicants should be allowed. How am I wrong?
Click to expand...
That's a violation of International Law that the US is a signatory to. There is no upper limit to the number of asylum seekers you have to accept once their status has been established. And everyone has a right to have their case investigated.
You can have quotas on Migrants or visitors.
 
Hercules56 said:
snip ...

The problem with this is that it violates the international treaty on refugees, which clearly stipulates that people seeking asylum are required to apply as soon as they reach the first safe country.

And for almost all of the people coming from Latin America who are seeking asylum, the first safe country they encounter is Mexico. But they are not applying for asylum there because they really want to live in America. But that violates the international treaty on refugees.

Anyone who came to the USA through Mexico, and seeks asylum in America due to events in a third country, should be required to go back to Mexico and apply for asylum there first. Otherwise you are just taking advantage of the system and that is not fair.
Click to expand...
That is just not correct, refugees are not obliged, according to the 1951 Convention on Refugees, to apply for asylum in the first "safe" country.
It's a very common misconception.
 
I find it hard to dignify nihilism by discussing it as a philosophy. I've always seen it -- and encountered it on a few occasions -- as the attitude enjoyed by teenage punks. When they're out to destroy, young hoodlums can't but resemble brown- or blackshirts. Thus fascism develops as the politics of vicious, sneering, defiant adolescents.

Or of ICE goons and their cheerleaders.
 
sinnikal said:
That is just not correct, refugees are not obliged, according to the 1951 Convention on Refugees, to apply for asylum in the first "safe" country.
It's a very common misconception.
Click to expand...
USA and Mexico have a first safe country agreement.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
And the sitting President sets the cap annually, in response to global conditions. So?
Click to expand...
I guess yearly caps are not a violation of international law. Otherwise Jimmy, Bill, Barack and Joe are all guilty of violating international law and should be arrested?
 
Hercules56 said:
I guess yearly caps are not a violation of international law. Otherwise Jimmy, Bill, Barack and Joe are all guilty of violating international law and should be arrested?
Click to expand...
No. Why do you ask?

Having a target cap in national policy doesn't mean you can close the door to refugees under international human rights law. Kind of like if a building has a maximum legal occupancy limit, but maybe temporarily exceeds that in an emergency?
 
pgwenthold said:
Should states that have legalized marijuana have to arrest people for violating federal laws?

Their argument is, "That's the fed's responsibility, not ours" and they don't do it.

From the website legalclarity.com about the conflict of local and federal laws on marijuana, "While states are not required to enforce federal laws, they cannot prevent federal authorities from enforcing the CSA within their borders."

Wouldn't sanctuary cities be the same idea? They are saying, they aren't required to enforce federal laws, but they don't prevent federal authorities from doing it.
Click to expand...
Except that sanctuary citizens are up in arms, trying to prevent federal authorities from doing it.

I expect we'd see similar mass disobedience if the DEA started going after decrim growers and "dispensaries".

I think sanctuary cities, as such, should be tolerated. But I also think sanctuary citizens who go out of their way to obstruct federal authorities should be treated like the insurrectionists they are.
 
Thermal said:
No. Why do you ask?

Having a target cap in national policy doesn't mean you can close the door to refugees under international human rights law. Kind of like if a building has a maximum legal occupancy limit, but maybe temporarily exceeds that in an emergency?
Click to expand...
You have provided no evidence that international law says a nation can create a maximum yearly asylum seeker quota.
 
mumblethrax said:
Trump does not have the power to unilaterally create international agreements.

There is no such agreement. You are making things up.
Click to expand...
No, you simply are not aware of the facts.

Trump created the policy, Biden tried to kill it but then federal court forced him to reinstate it.

www.aljazeera.com

‘Remain in Mexico 2.0’: How did the Trump-era policy get revived?

The Biden administration reinstated the controversial 'Remain in Mexico' programme under court order in early December.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom