Thread by @GREENESJ333

Roger Froikin @rlefraim wrote, “Another view of the anti-ICE protests.

I support ICE’s goal of arresting illegal migrants who are criminals and deporting them. Such criminals prey on the people in their own communities.
1)

But I question how this is being done. The federal government has options. They can send in heavily armed paramilitary-looking fighters to do the arrests when the city or state refuses cooperation for political purposes, and
2)

if they do, protests will be part of the picture. To have some big discussion whether protesters are being misinformed, whether leaders of the protests are paid (which it appears they are), changes nothing.
3)

It comes off as people dressed for war going after illegal residents and people protesting, screaming what they believe to be true whether it is or not.

But there is another option. Enforce the law.

Note that 37 states that cooperated with ICE have not had a problem.
4)

ICE has had little issue with states turning over jailed criminals for which the federal government has detainers issued, many of them, by the way, unenforced detainers issued during the Biden years,
5)

nor for criminals that have been released from custody for whatever reasons, awaiting trials.

But in a few states I won’t name, the states have refused in any way to comply with federal law.
6)

The Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties are the “supreme law of the land.”
7)

This ensures that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws or constitutions. It binds all state and federal officials to support the Constitution.

But should that mean the federal government should send a paramilitary force? I don’t think so.
8)

There are other options in law.

One option would be to accuse the officials blocking the feds to be charged with obstruction under 18 U.S. Code Chapter 73, Obstruction of Justice.

Another option might be cutting off federal funds.
9)

Or, the federal government could leave it all alone. Let the cities involved keep their criminal aliens. Let their populations be subject to the additional violence and crime.
10)

One could say it is not the job of the federal government to solve the crime problems of the cities and the states—not to save them, not to pay for them.

Why should the citizens of Alabama, that helps eliminate criminal aliens within its cities, itself or
11)

by cooperation with the federal government, have to have its citizens taxed so fortunes can be spent solving crime in Chicago or New York, or Minneapolis?

Think about it.”
12)

@threadreaderapp unroll