> ... versus what the rest of the 350 million people voted for

Are we talking about a different country than the USA? There's ~174 million potential voters in the US, 77 million voted republican vs 75 million voted democrat at the last presidential election (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139763/number-votes-cas...)

So there's an about even population split that is in theory in support of those policies, versus the same amount of people against. Surely it's not "one state against what the rest of the country voted for" like you're suggesting...

This just feels like nitpicking over the exact numbers? At the end of the day, it's still cities/states representing some fraction of the country unilaterally deciding to override the immigration policies of the federal government.

>This just feels like nitpicking over the exact numbers? At the end of the day, it's still cities/states representing some fraction of the country unilaterally deciding to override the immigration policies of the federal government.

No. That's not it at all. While Federal law is the supreme law of the land, it is enforced by the Federal government.

The several states and any municipalities within them are under no obligation to enforce Federal laws, just as the Federal government is under no obligation to enforce state and local laws.

Which is why the Federal government often ties funding to legislation, using the carrot of funding (and the stick of pulling such funding if states do not) to compel states to cooperate with the Federal government.

What's more, the Federal courts (including SCOTUS) have repeatedly ruled that the states are not required to enforce Federal law for the Federal government.

And no one is "unilaterally deciding to override the immigration policies of the federal government." In fact, state and local law enforcement have repeatedly been used to back up Federal agents executing those immigration policies.

No Federal law requires a state to enforce Federal immigration policies. And not enforcing a law outside of a law enforcement agency's jurisdiction (again Federal law is the jurisdiction of Federal government not state/local governments) isn't "overriding" anything.

You appear to be confused about the law and how it works in the US and the several states. Here are a few links to help straighten you out:

https://www.cato.org/commentary/yes-states-can-nullify-some-...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/898/

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/144/

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/can-the-u.s.-government...

>The several states and any municipalities within them are under no obligation to enforce Federal laws, just as the Federal government is under no obligation to enforce state and local laws.

Be careful with this argument. Cops also don't have any "obligation" to stop crime, so if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, then it's fine (or at least, it's "not unilaterally overriding laws") for a cop to stand by while someone gets lynched.

Yes it is 'fine' for a cop to stand by while someone gets lynched. The supreme court ruled as such. They generally only have a duty to act if they've formed a special relationship, like having someone in their custody.

>Be careful with this argument. Cops also don't have any "obligation" to stop crime, so if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, then it's fine (or at least, it's "not unilaterally overriding laws") for a cop to stand by while someone gets lynched.

You're just figuring that out now? You're 50 years late[0] for Warren v. District of Columbia (rape, assault and burglary) and 20 years late[1] for Castle Rock v. Gonzales (triple murder).

Maybe you should start paying attention?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale...

No, it was indeed a pedantic, dickhead take. One could interpret my comment as I intended, as in, the federal government being representative of the rest of the country (i.e. the states that don't obstruct federal immigration enforcement, which is most of them).

The responder chose not to give me the benefit of the doubt, and to interpret my statement literally so as to own me. Guess we know what he thinks about ICE. It was not really in the spirit of Hacker News which encourages people to respond in good faith. Haters gon' hate.

This is the thing that disappoints me: I was pointing out for the sake of information that this is a separation of powers thing, my comment was nonpartisan and intended simply to inform. It was directly relevant and intended to be helpful to the original guy who had a question, because he said he wasn't American, so he probably wouldn't have thought about this angle.

The dickhead guy had to go make this dirty though.

I think it is a stretch to conclude that because someone voted for Trump, they support all of his immigration policies. Some of the policies perhaps, but I think it is a matter of degree. Many viewed Biden (rightly or wrongly) as not enforcing the law at all.

I agree, I think this situation is uniquely American, and yes, this is exactly separation of powers (federal vs. state) playing out. I also agree with you that neither side, given more authority, would produce a better outcome. It is my personal observation that many on the left seem to believe that there should not be a border, and that many on the right are clearly xenophobic. The answer is somewhere in the middle but unfortunately that is not what wins votes.