The Sanctuary City fight (2 Viewers)

[jonessed]

I doubt the courts will allow it. And even if they do it will cause massive protests. 

But the bigger question is why even try? Are you that obsessed about undocumented people that you want local governments and law enforcement to spy on and report them? 

No.  I just don't see the point of paying them to go to college when they can't legally get a work permit in the US.

 

[NCCommish]

And similarly, Democrats went to court to force Arizona to abide by federal immigration policies.  

Everybody always switches positions on federalism based on their policy preferences.

I'm not sure those cases are analogous and Democrats are for federalism generally. Federalism says you can't make the states due the feds job. It doesn't say the states can makes their own laws that are counter to federal law. Not enforcing immigration law isn't the same as making your own.

 

[Christo]

Sanctuary Cities, which is a stupid, fearmongering name for them, are legal per the 10th as well as per the Constitution as well as per the ideals of America. 

We the People, first and foremost, fight for equality around the world as well is in our own country. We the people stand and fight for the minority, that is the majorities responsibility. We the people stand for freedom and the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We the people does not equal, "if you're born here." We the people consists of every human that walks the planet, background, religion, creed, orientation, be damned. We the people, remember this phrase since it's the basis of our ideals and way of life. 

I'd love to see your work.

 

[Megaton]

I'm not sure those cases are analogous and Democrats are for federalism generally. Federalism says you can't make the states due the feds job. It doesn't say the states can makes their own laws that are counter to federal law. Not enforcing immigration law isn't the same as making your own.

That is not what federalism says.  If it did, by your logic, George Wallace was perfectly within his power to block black students from entering the University of Alabama. 

 

[Christo]

That is not what federalism says.  If it did, by your logic, George Wallace was perfectly within his power to block black students from entering the University of Alabama. 

Actively violating federal law <> not enforcing federal law.

The main principle behind ferderalism is which government has the power to regulate a particular area.

 

[RBM]

Who gets to decide when it is OK to break the law?

Tim

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

If one wanted to combat illegal aliens, maybe they should punish companies or persons that hire illegal aliens as opposed to going after the illegal aliens.  Who can fault them for taking a job if someone is willing to break the law to hire them.  However that is bad for political business and could lead to elected officials not getting re-elected.  If businesses found there was not enough labor without relying on illegals, I am sure the politicians would be pretty quick to loosen regulations to feed the corporate machine.

 

[Megaton]

Actively violating federal law <> not enforcing federal law.

The main principle behind ferderalism is which government has the power to regulate a particular area.

That is true, but some sanctuary cities like San Francisco go further than just not enforcing federal law.  They will drop charges and release felons instead of allowing the feds to deport them.  That is more than simply not enforcing federal law and is getting into aiding and abetting. 

 

[BobbyLayne]

There are 39 cities and 364 counties who offer sanctuary. The sanctuary movement started as a faith based response in the 1980s. It has been fueled by police departments & sheriffs who didn't have the manpower resources or funding to carry out ICE functions.

Good read here (& surprisingly balanced):

http://www.msnbc.com/specials/migrant-crisis/sanctuary-cities