[drewbug01]

There is a world of difference between “passing a state law that directly contradicts federal law” and “declining to proactively enforce federal laws in ways that are not required by those laws.”

To drive the point home: federal immigration laws are already enforced by federal agencies. Here in IL, state and local officials cooperate to the extent required by law. There are no federal laws on the books requiring them to do the job of the federal government for them (they could pass one, but they haven’t).

Calling that “nullification” is intellectually dishonest. As you said - “if you don’t like the law, fight to change it.” Don’t pretend it’s something it’s not.

[scoofy]

>Here in IL, state and local officials cooperate to the extent required by law.

This is clearly false in regards to most federal laws. To illustrate this, I'll take an exceptional example. If there where a serial killer who was living in IL, but had only killed anyone in other states, I suspect that IL government would likely go out of their way to assist the Feds in apprehending this killer, even though this is not required by state law.

IL would likely do the same for many, if not most, federal laws. The point of nullification is exactly when the state does not help when asked, still there are reasons for practical resources there, but it becomes very obvious nullification when the state passes laws preventing individuals who would LIKE to help, like local policed departments, from helping even if they wanted to. And this is exactly what has happened in many blue states.

Pretending that's not overt nullification is unserious.

[joshuamorton]

You're doing a selective quoting thing.

Not assisting with enforcement acts you don't feel are worthwhile is not nullification. I'm not engaging in "nullification" when I don't call the police on a jaywalker. Or I mean maybe you think this is, but then police engage in wildcat strikes all the time, or change enforcement priorities, or whatever you want to frame it as. Calling a difference in prioritization "nullification" wrong, especially if local police in immigrant communities want to maintain good relationships with those communities. I think it's laudable that some police forces show an interest in serving their communities interests, as opposed to yearning to be fashy.

> but it becomes very obvious nullification when the state passes laws preventing individuals who would LIKE to help, like local policed departments, from helping even if they wanted to. And this is exactly what has happened in many blue states.

Can you give examples?

Keep in mind, "sanctuary city" policies are usually actually supported by local police forces, because while they may look not tough on crime (and for this reason sometimes police forces halfheartedly lobby against them), they actually make on-the-ground local policing easier, because they engender trust between the local police force and immigrant communities who otherwise might not report crimes at all.

[scoofy]

I’m not going to engage with you if you’re going to get in multiple threads and refer to things as “fashy.”

It’s difficult enough to engage in a heterodox view in good faith. I don’t need to deal with slapdash bullshit.

[ThrowMeAway1618]

>I’m not going to engage with you if you’re going to get in multiple threads and refer to things as “fashy.”

>It’s difficult enough to engage in a heterodox view in good faith. I don’t need to deal with slapdash bullshit.

I see we've reached the point in the discussion where you 'abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating...that the time for argument is over.'

Good fascist! Nice fascist! Late for a Bund meeting, are we?

Source: “Never believe that anti-Semites [or in this case, fascist apologists] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” ― Jean-Paul Sartre[0]

[0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7870768-never-believe-that-...

[scoofy]

> I see we've reached the point in the discussion where you 'abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating...that the time for argument is over.'

I literally continued the discussion with this user in the other thread he was posting in… geez try and keep up my guy.