How has the debate over federal-state relations been affected by efforts to increase homeland security?
· How much federal money is being provided to state and local governments for meeting homeland security costs? Who decides how this money is spent?
· What are the advantages and disadvantages of allowing programs to be designed and implemented at the state level?
· In the area of homeland security, can states function as "laboratories of democracy," in the same sense that they do with respect to other issues such as welfare reform and health care provision?
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
I don't know if this will help or hurt your assignment......but we developed homeland security to protect our most venerable areas. Those places are located in most of our major cities. Most of those cities are "sanctuary cities" who don't ask for legal status. Why should we spend "federal funds" to protect a city that refuses to enforce "federal law" especially when we know what the problem is? The city decides how to spend the funds. In Chicago....they invested in cameras. We have tons of FILM.....just can't ask the pertinent questions. What good is video footage of people crossing the border when there's no-one there to pick them up? So far....all I've seen is the ability of "homeland security" to monitor the citizens....nothing to do with "terriorists".
We have documented film and proof of a college professor saying to kill the gringo. Nothing has been done. We have protestors saying to kill Bush. Nothing is done. We have signs saying they will take back their land....nothing. We have drug dealers than won't be busted unless they have OVER 500 LBS of illegal drugs....but they will bust a citizen for a roach clip....bust a student for a comment on their "my space" account.
I have asked over and over again what trumps what with laws? Smoking cigarettes is not illegal. It is not a federal crime. But...come here and smoke a LEGAL product in the wrong place and you have committed a crime. We have had cities that didn't want the smoking ban....but they said state trumps city. OK....Now if state trumps city....our STATE has declared English as the OFFICIAL state language. Then if that's the case.....why are people still going city by city declaring what their official language is? Why if it is federal law to not discriminate between sex, race, age etc.....that it is OK that a Spanish manager hires only latino people....but a black or white manager can't? Why is it OK for a majority latino community to oust a black principle because "their" children feel more comfortable with a "latino" principle......but it's "racist" if any other group does that? No matter what the "majority" of the population is in that area?
Seriously....I would like to know that answer myself.
A funny cigarette ad explaining the disadvantages of the longer cigarette
