California Classifies Immigration Enforcement as Misuse of Network
eff.org
eff.org
I support EFF's main mission. But I don't necessarily agree with their positions on these ancillary issues. I'm less likely now to support the EFF financially and otherwise.
The EFF identified abuse of the CLETS system before immigration became relevant.
It's now relevant since a new California law prohibits use of state resources for federal immigration enforcement (except for prosecuting property crimes and violent crimes).
So using CLETS to support mass deportations of people who aren't wanted for property crimes or violent crimes is unlawful.
Are we a nation of laws, or is it just ideology all the way down? Do we expect law enforcement to follow the law, or can they break the law with impunity?
I think DoofusOfDeath was criticizing that law itself - that it shouldn't exist, not that it shouldn't be followed.
But it's a very odd argument, calling for strict adherence to the law as a means of allowing illegal immigrants to stay. Isn't law enforcement willfully turning a blind eye to the breaking of immigration law just as injurious to the 'nation of laws'?
In this context there's a conflict between state and federal law, so any law enforcement would be simultaneously following and breaking the law. Personally I'm more for state sovereignty than federal control (for issues on both side of the spectrum, none of that hypocritical bullshit here), but proponents of a more centralized form of government would argue differently.
Immigration law a federal responsibility. States don't maintain national borders.
California isn't contravening federal law, they've made it unlawful to use California-funded networks to enforce federal law.
Federal law enforcement officers are violating California law, currently with impunity. Seems to me if you believe in the rule of law, then you shouldn't support law enforcement breaking the law.
Now, you may disagree with EFF’s core mission being zealously pursued in this case because of your view on an ancillary issue at play here, but that's not EFF engaging in ancillary issues, it's EFF declining to compromise their core mission the way you'd prefer because of your view of an ancillary issue. And, yes, people with your views on the ancillary issue may withhold support for EFF because of it. But that's what being dedicated to the core mission costs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California#Nat...
Am I the only one who sees this as racist?
Are there no hispanic Americans?
Can hispanic Americans not be a majority?
Are hispanic Americans not supposed to care for their near and dear when law enforcement has gone bonkers?
What makes non-hispanic ethnicities so special that they can comment on hispanics as a whole?
What makes you so special to think ethnic self interested is all there can be?
Feel free to point out if there's something factually incorrect in my statement. Bear in mind 59% of hispanic Americans view their ethnicity as extremely to very important to their identity (compared to 15% of whites) [1], so it's not unfounded to say their votes would be influenced by ethnic self-interest.
[1] https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/04/09/race-in-america-2...
"There’s one obvious reason that the Hispanic and Latino vote splits up and isn’t monolithic: Hispanic and Latino voters aren’t one identity homogeneous group. As with every other large racial and ethnic category (white, black, Asian), there’s a lot of internal diversity when you look under the hood.
Hispanic and Latino Americans, like Asian Americans, don’t all come from one place. Most originally come from Mexico, but a solid number come from Puerto Rico, Cuba and elsewhere in Central and South America. And voting patterns vary across these groups. Cubans, for example, are a key voting group in Florida, and they tend to be more Republican than other Latino populations. There are real generational divides: Self-identified Hispanics who are third-generation or higher are more likely than others to self-describe primarily as American rather than Hispanic/Latino, less likely to say they have felt discriminated against because of their background and feel less connected to their country of origin. Hispanics live in a wide variety of areas, and there’s some evidence that rural Hispanics moved a bit toward Trump in 2016. Evangelical Protestant Hispanics are more Republican than mainline Protestant, Catholic or religiously unaffiliated Hispanics. There’s a gender gap in Hispanic voting, too. Democrats won both Hispanic men and women in 2018, but Hispanic men were more likely to vote for Republicans than women were."
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/05/trumps-su...