What's the point of sanctuary cities?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
They are not circumventing federal law. They are declining to provide resources to enforce federal law, as is their right under the Constitution.

So if the feds reimbursed the costs incurred by the cities in complying with immigration status checks and detention, you'd rethink your support for sanctuary cities? I find that rather dubious since "don't break up families" gets cited as the reason for the policy far more often than costs. It's really disingenuous to offer costs as a fig leaf excuse for something when your true motivation is a moral one.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,964
55,355
136
So if the feds reimbursed the costs incurred by the cities in complying with immigration status checks and detention, you'd rethink your support for sanctuary cities? I find that rather dubious since "don't break up families" gets cited as the reason for the policy far more often than costs. It's really disingenuous to offer costs as a fig leaf excuse for something when your true motivation is a moral one.

No, the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal law regardless as that's a violation of the 10th amendment.

As for what my 'true motivation is', wrong.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,042
4,689
126
It is pretty simple.
1) The US constitution gives power to Congress to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". See Article I, section 8, clause 4.

2) While the constitution doesn't say a thing about immigration or enforcement of immigration, the supreme court has ruled over and over and over again that the "rule of naturalization" also gives congress power over immigration and enforcement.

3) Congress has used this power to write immigration laws and to give federal entities (such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Executive Office for Immigration Review) powers to enforce those laws.

End of story. The rest is state's rights as called out in the 10th amendment. If a state or city wants to spend time, effort, and resources towards immigration and enforcement, that state and/or city can. But the federal government can't force the local governments to do the federal government's work.

So, basically, the point of "sanctuary cities" is to preserve the 10th amendment of state's rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Homerboy

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
It is pretty simple.
1) The US constitution gives power to Congress to "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". See Article I, section 8, clause 4.

2) While the constitution doesn't say a thing about immigration or enforcement, the supreme court has ruled over and over and over again that the "rule of naturalization" also gives congress power over immigration and enforcement.

3) Congress has used this power to write laws and to give federal entities (such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Executive Office for Immigration Review) powers to enforce those laws.

End of story. The rest is state's rights as called out in the 10th amendment. If a state or city wants to spend time, effort, and resources towards immigration and enforcement, that state and city can. But the federal government can't force the local governments to do the federal government's work.

So, basically, the point of "sanctuary cities" is to preserve the 10th amendment of state's rights.
And doing immigration checks on every minor traffic stop or crime ends up being onerous and additional paperwork, which eats time, which eats money that local governments don't have. And when illegal immigrants are afraid of deportation, they hide more, which includes not reporting crimes against them or crimes they witness, which makes it harder for local police to do their jobs and make illegal immigrants more likely to be victims. Sanctuary cities are such largely because it's a bigger drain on them to not be.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Interesting that under 0bama, the Constitution was a living document created by ancient old white men, yada, yada, yada. Now, it's a highly revered document that must be strictly adhered to according to interpretation by proggies and wise latina women, etc. The only thing that hasn't changed is that the left feels they can dictate how everything is done under a Republican president and a Republican controlled Congress the same as when they were in charge.

The nation is being fundamentally transformed. It was all unicorns and rainbows when that was occurring for the left the previous eight years but now it's gloom and doom. To put it mildly.

Pardon my apathy. Actually don't pardon it, get used to it. The train is rolling down the tracks and picking up speed.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126


cheap under the table labor to bypass unions, minimum wage, etc, all this socioeconomic, think of the children bullshit is just that bullshit, big business wants cheap labor so profits can trickle up, liberal democrats want to influence Hispanic votes their way.

Meanwhile vets and other Americans go without,costs for legal working people goes up, and California is already starting to cut pensions and raise rates for municipalities in the pension system.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/12/20/calpers-cuts-pension-benefits-for-first-time.html

The unthinkable just happened in Loyalton, California, a small remote city nestled high in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

For the first time in its 85-year history, the California Public Employees Retirement System, CalPERS, is drastically cutting benefits for public retirees. Starting January 1st, four retired City of Loyalton public employees will have their pensions cut 60 percent. For 71-year-old Patsy Jardin, that means her pension will drop from about $49,000 a year to a little more than $19,000.

In an interview with the FOX Business Network, Patsy asked, “How am I going to make it now? What am I going to do?”

Fellow Loyalton retiree John Cussins is asking the same question since his pension will also drop 60 percent, to $1,523 a month.

“It’s not cheap to live here when you’ve got to go on a 100-mile trip just to go to a hospital or a doctor to get your groceries and things and stuff,” he said. “Now, not to have that money we’re going to have to skimp on everything we got.”

John worked about 22 years for the City of Loyalton, Patsy worked there for 34 years. Both of them thought their pensions were safe when they retired since the city had always paid its CalPERS bills in full.

But three years ago, the City Council in Loyalton voted to leave CalPERS in order to save money. At that time, CalPERS informed the city its pension accounts were only 40 percent funded despite the fact Loyalton had paid all its previous bills.

“The City of Loyalton defaulted on their retirees,” CalPERS Deputy Executive Officer Brad Pacheco said. “They made a bad decision and those retirees are going to suffer for it.”

John and Patsy say CalPERS cares more about the 3,000-plus cities towns and municipal entities that pay into the fund than the people the pension fund is supposed to cover in retirement.

Like Loyalton, CalPERS is far from fully funded, only 65 percent. That means right now CalPERS has 65 cents for every dollar that it needs to provide pension benefits for almost two million people.

Some of them are still working and not yet receiving pension benefits. The rest are retired and drawing funds from CalPERS.

Pacheco, the CalPERS spokesperson, told FOX Business network the pension fund is healthy but in a negative cash flow position.

“We are paying out more in benefits than we are taking in in contributions,” he said.

CalPERS pension debt is roughly $164 billion and mostly likely will grow larger in coming years.

For several decades, CalPERS predicted its investments would earn a 7.5% return. Pension funds call that return on investment a “discount rate”. A higher “discount rate” like 7.5% allows politicians to avoid raising taxes or cut spending to meet their obligations to public employees.

A lower “discount rate” requires cities to pay more each year into the pension fund to keep it solvent. CalPERS is actually considering cutting its “discount rate” to just 6.4% to reflect what it expects to be smaller returns in the future. That will require cities, towns and other municipal entities in the CalPERS system to pay more money to cover their employees. Some may have to raise taxes to do it. Others may opt to leave CalPERS just as Loyalton did.

But those that leave may be shocked to learn their pensions are less than fully funded. That’s why Patsy Jardin thinks CalPERS is using her plight to send a message to other California public employees and cities, that despite tight budgets, dropping CalPERS may come with consequences.

She said: “I just think they are setting an example out of the four of us, I really do. I just think we are the ones who are going to pay for this, for all retirees.”

And for those who thinks the courts are going save the sanctuary cities, don't forget who is president and going to be filling the Supreme court the next few years.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
And doing immigration checks on every minor traffic stop or crime ends up being onerous and additional paperwork, which eats time, which eats money that local governments don't have. And when illegal immigrants are afraid of deportation, they hide more, which includes not reporting crimes against them or crimes they witness, which makes it harder for local police to do their jobs and make illegal immigrants more likely to be victims. Sanctuary cities are such largely because it's a bigger drain on them to not be.
How many illegals are you supporting in your household? I mean actually living with you. Under your roof. You paint a rosy picture that's not based in reality but I can tell it's entirely believable to you so, are you practicing what you're preaching?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
Sanctuary city is a name given by alt right retards. I never heard the term till you retards started saying it. The basic idea is if you want to bust illegals come do it. Dont expect me to pay for it.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
How many illegals are you supporting in your household? I mean actually living with you. Under your roof. You paint a rosy picture that's not based in reality but I can tell it's entirely believable to you so, are you practicing what you're preaching?

our cops have enough to do without doing this. They are busy man. It will cost us a lot of money to enforce federal laws. Its funny how much you guys talk about states rights until its something you dont like then its all "force the feds to make them"

What a joke.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
How many illegals are you supporting in your household? I mean actually living with you. Under your roof. You paint a rosy picture that's not based in reality but I can tell it's entirely believable to you so, are you practicing what you're preaching?
You know, you often make me wonder if you are legitimately retarded. Your post has literally nothing to do with mine. It's like I said "this is how pizza is made" and you started ranting about how I'm attacking Heinz Ketchup.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
The feds can either choose to provide education and health care funding or they can not. If they try to tie it to cooperation on immigration enforcement though they will be violating the 10th amendment and they will lose.

If the feds want to stop funding health care and education nationwide then those cities should expect large federal tax breaks as they generally provide considerably more tax funds than they get back, meaning they will be able to easily provide those services themselves. I don't think the rest of the country that depends on these cities for money would be very happy with this situation though.
The Feds have no obligations to fund education for non citizens.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
The Feds have no obligations to fund education for non citizens.

If you want the fed to stop sending money to cities cities are going to find ways to stop sending money to the fed. We pay in way way more then we get plus our votes count for less then you country folk. This will not stand.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
If you want the fed to stop sending money to cities cities are going to find ways to stop sending money to the fed. We pay in way way more then we get plus our votes count for less then you country folk. This will not stand.
I live in a solid blue city. I don't agree with where all my tax dollars go but such is life.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
I live in a solid blue city. I don't agree with where all my tax dollars go but such is life.

Thats why you vote your local issues. This is telling states and cities they must spend local money doing the feds bidding. Imagine a liberal fed telling local governments they must spend local money on abortion clinics and gun safety classes?

Now its a states rights issue yes? But how states and cities use their local law enforcement dollars isnt? Bullshit.
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
Meh, my impression always has been that it is about protecting local law enforcement. If local law enforcement also has to police immigration, it makes their job harder and more dangerous.
 

deathBOB

Senior member
Dec 2, 2007
569
239
116
Meh, my impression always has been that it is about protecting local law enforcement. If local law enforcement also has to police immigration, it makes their job harder and more dangerous.

Also discourages immigrants from reporting crimes, which is just bad for everyone.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,350
4,973
136
If you look at your example the Feds withheld HIGHWAY funds with the justification being traffic deaths from DUI. In this case the Feds could probably withhold immigration related funds but those are fairly small and mostly related to law enforcement. A blanket ban on federal funds? Not a chance. SCOTUS has spoken.

I think the law enforcement funds are considerable. > than 100 million. To some states and then the grants on top of that.
 
Last edited:

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
22,350
4,973
136
our cops have enough to do without doing this. They are busy man. It will cost us a lot of money to enforce federal laws. Its funny how much you guys talk about states rights until its something you dont like then its all "force the feds to make them"

What a joke.

I think that the biggest contention isn't local cops actively enforcing immigration law. It is that they release illegal immigrants that they have in custody after the feds ask them to detain them until they can be picked up. Case in point San Francisco.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
A Republican SCOTUS said Feds couldn't deny states Medicaid dollars for not cooperating on expanding Medicaid under the ACA. I wonder how quickly they will throw federalism under the bus for Trump.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,549
761
146
Also discourages illegal/criminal immigrants from reporting crimes, which is bad for any civilized nation.

Why do people always make this excuse? If you round them up, less illegals and anchor babies around and less reason for them to come over if we don't offer hospitality. Their offspring also commit crimes above the rate of the white population, so there's that, too. As is, police do BS work racking up traffic tickets and going after marijuana users.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Thats why you vote your local issues. This is telling states and cities they must spend local money doing the feds bidding. Imagine a liberal fed telling local governments they must spend local money on abortion clinics and gun safety classes?

Now its a states rights issue yes? But how states and cities use their local law enforcement dollars isnt? Bullshit.
So let me get this straight. You are appalled at the idea of local law enforcement dollars being spent to enforce federal law and remove those here illegally, but you find it acceptable for your tax dollars to go towards providing them with social services, education and health care?
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
So let me get this straight. You are appalled at the idea of local law enforcement dollars being spent to enforce federal law and remove those here illegally, but you find it acceptable for your tax dollars to go towards providing them with social services, education and health care?


Do you live in my state or county or city? If not what do you care what we do with our money?