What's the point of sanctuary cities?

[baydude]

Or sanctuary states?

An IGS-UC Berkeley poll shows that 74 percent of Californians want sanctuary cities ended; 65 percent of Hispanics, 70 percent of independents, 73 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/01/30/calif-to-consider-enacting-statewide-sanctuary/

 

[imported_tajmahal]

There are some large cities in California with massive numbers of liberal Democrat voters who have passed various laws making those cities "sanctuary cities"

"Sanctuary city is a name given to a city in the United States that follows certain procedures that shelters illegal immigrants. ... The term most commonly is used for cities that do not permit municipal funds or resources to be applied in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws."

Because there are numerous cities, towns, municipalities and counties in California that don't support this lawlessness supporting criminal aliens the Legislature in California wants to force every town, city and municipality to toe their line. It's a pretty decent example of liberal authoritarianism.
http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html

 

[1sikbITCH]

The politicians here protect immigrants because Bmore has been experiencing white flight for decades and now even black folks are getting in on the act and hightailing it for the burbs. They are trying to attract residents any way they can. Plus usually cities are full of people who grew up around all sorts of other cultures and are generally not scared of them so they tend to be accepting even though they shoot each other over crack. It's weird.

And then you have the cops, who really are just the baddest street gang in the hood. Nobody likes the cops and they are generally happy with that arrangement.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/ma...bs-md-ci-sanctuary-cities-20170125-story.html

 

[pcgeek11]

They want it cause it feels good. LOL

 

[theeedude]

When Republican areas are subsidizing liberal areas with their federal tax dollars, and not the other way around, we'll listen to their opinion on various subjects like sanctuary policies.

 

[pcgeek11]

We will see when the feds cut off all that sweet federal money to the sanctuary cities / states.

 

[compuwiz1]

We will see when the feds cut off all that sweet federal money to the sanctuary cities / states.

He's gonna make em cry uncle. #MAGA!

 

[fskimospy]

We will see when the feds cut off all that sweet federal money to the sanctuary cities / states.

And then we will see the courts slap Trump down. You guys realize that the exact same part of the ACA ruling that conservatives loved which states opt out of Medicaid expansion prevents the Feds from cutting federal money to sanctuary cities, right? Conservative heads are going to explode.

It's also ironic that the state's rights people can't wait to force states to expend resources to enforce federal law. As always, 'state's rights' for conservatives only really means the right of states to do conservative things. As soon as those states want to use their rights to do liberal things you want to throw them out.

 

[pcgeek11]

And then we will see the courts slap Trump down. You guys realize that the exact same part of the ACA ruling that conservatives loved which states opt out of Medicaid expansion prevents the Feds from cutting federal money to sanctuary cities, right? Conservative heads are going to explode.

It's also ironic that the state's rights people can't wait to force states to expend resources to enforce federal law. As always, 'state's rights' for conservatives only really means the right of states to do conservative things. As soon as those states want to use their rights to do liberal things you want to throw them out.

How exactly does the ACA relate to this. I guess you are making a reference to the ruleing the USSC made concerning medicaid funds to states that refused the expansion. I don't see where that compares to withholding federal money to cities that do not comply with federal law. Much like the speed limit many years ago when the government withheld federal funds from states that didn't comply with the 55 MPH Limit...

States are not allowed to use "states rights" to justify circumventing federal law.

 

[fskimospy]

How exactly does the ACA relate to this.

SCOTUS ruled that the federal government couldn't cut Medicaid funding to states if they didn't expand Medicaid (i.e.: do what the Feds demanded they do) because cutting all funding like that would be 'unduly coercive'. Sound familiar?

Cutting off all funds to sanctuary cities for not enforcing federal law will be slapped down so fast Trump's head will spin.

States are not allowed to use "states rights" to justify circumventing federal law.

They are not circumventing federal law. They are declining to provide resources to enforce federal law, as is their right under the Constitution.

 

[pcgeek11]

SCOTUS ruled that the federal government couldn't cut Medicaid funding to states if they didn't expand Medicaid (i.e.: do what the Feds demanded they do) because cutting all funding like that would be 'unduly coercive'. Sound familiar?

Cutting off all funds to sanctuary cities for not enforcing federal law will be slapped down so fast Trump's head will spin.



They are not circumventing federal law. They are declining to provide resources to enforce federal law, as is their right under the Constitution.

I don't see it. I edited my post above for a more detailed info.

I guess we shall see.... Neither of us knows as it hasn't been ruled on. I think it falls more in line with my example than the ACA example...

 

[fskimospy]

I don't see it. I edited my post above for a more detailed info.

I guess we shall see.... Neither of us knows as it hasn't been ruled on. I think it falls more in line with my example than the ACA example...

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.

 

[fskimospy]

For a more thorough discussion as to why this is blatantly unconstitutional here's something from Eugene Volokh, who is hardly a liberal guy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uary-cities/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.73e839d2d64c

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I never understood the concept of "If we catch you anywhere on your way to the city we're deporting you, but once you're there you're home free baby!" Talk about a ridiculous incentive to migrate illegally.

 

[echo4747]

Where there is a will there is a way... If the Feds want to they can go into these cities without help from the sanctuary cities . It will just be a harder task. It will be interesting to see who is more determined

 

[Sunburn74]

I never understood the concept of "If we catch you anywhere on your way to the city we're deporting you, but once you're there you're home free baby!" Talk about a ridiculous incentive to migrate illegally.

I think a lot of it is
1) there actually is considerable socioeconomic benefit to both legal and illegal immigration believe it or not and some people want to hold on to those benefits. There are also costs as well.
2) to truly not be a sanctuary city, you're asking local law enforcement to essentially become immigration police which is something cities want don't want to take on as burdensome
3) to stick it to Trump who insulted the people of these cities in many other ways and is generally disliked

 

[baydude]

I think a lot of it is
1) there actually is considerable socioeconomic benefit to both legal and illegal immigration believe it or not and some people want to hold on to those benefits. There are also costs as well.
2) to truly not be a sanctuary city, you're asking local law enforcement to essentially become immigration police which is something cities want don't want to take on as burdensome
3) to stick it to Trump who insulted the people of these cities in many other ways and is generally disliked

Wouldn't it make better sense to fight for these illegal immigrants to become legal immigrants if there are benefits for them to be in the city? Or do the city want them to stay illegal for the benefits? Seems like the cities are fighting a never ending battle.

 

[Starbuck1975]

SCOTUS ruled that the federal government couldn't cut Medicaid funding to states if they didn't expand Medicaid (i.e.: do what the Feds demanded they do) because cutting all funding like that would be 'unduly coercive'. Sound familiar?

Cutting off all funds to sanctuary cities for not enforcing federal law will be slapped down so fast Trump's head will spin.



They are not circumventing federal law. They are declining to provide resources to enforce federal law, as is their right under the Constitution.

States are meant to be the incubators of democracy, and you are correct in your assertion. I say let cities continue down the path of providing sanctuary. Since cities do not have the power to grant US citizenship, they can also cover the health care, education and other services these people will require, but without any federal help to do so.

You should visit Santa Ana, CA, and compare it the the affluence of its Irvine neighbor. The future is now.

 

[Sunburn74]

Wouldn't it make better sense to fight for these illegal immigrants to become legal immigrants if there are benefits for them to be in the city? Or do the city want them to stay illegal for the benefits? Seems like the cities are fighting a never ending battle.

They are working on it.
DACA program for example. Hillary clinton ran on a platform for path to citizenship and Obama fought hard and lost for work visa permits as well. Bush did as well for the latter.

Long and short of it is immigration is complex, but the simple solution of kicking out all illegals is
1) not very simple at all
2) adds a cost and removes a benefit
3) morally and ethically is very challenging given our countries founding principles

 

[1sikbITCH]

Now we have Democrats hollering for States' Rights while Republicans flip the script completely the other way and demand the states bow to the federal government. Bizarro world.

 

[fskimospy]

States are meant to be the incubators of democracy, and you are correct in your assertion. I say let cities continue down the path of providing sanctuary. Since cities do not have the power to grant US citizenship, they can also cover the health care, education and other services these people will require, but without any federal help to do so.

You should visit Santa Ana, CA, and compare it the the affluence of its Irvine neighbor. The future is now.

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.

 

[fskimospy]

Now we have Democrats hollering for States' Rights while Republicans flip the script completely the other way and demand the states bow to the federal government. Bizarro world.

Not really, almost everyone is for state's rights to some extent and federal power to another. I personally am for a substantial reduction in state autonomy but even I realize the idea of the President being able to say 'do what I want or we revoke all federal funding' is so insanely extreme that it basically ends the concept of federalism. My previous link put it better, and the whole thing is really worth a read to see how incredibly dangerous this order really is.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...uary-cities/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.dbde97b57182

There are two serious constitutional problems with conditioning federal grants to sanctuary cities on compliance with Section 1373. First, longstanding Supreme Court precedent mandates that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to states and localities unless the conditions are “unambiguously” stated in the text of the law “so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds.” Few if any federal grants to sanctuary cities are explicitly conditioned on compliance with Section 1373. Any such condition must be passed by Congress, and may only apply to new grants, not ones that have already been appropriated. The executive cannot simply make up new conditions on its own and impose them on state and local governments. Doing so undermines both the separation of powers and federalism.

Even aside from Trump’s dubious effort to tie it to federal grants, Section 1373 is itself unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not “commandeer” state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment.

Section 1373 attempts to circumvent this prohibition by forbidding higher-level state and local officials from mandating that lower-level ones refuse to help in enforcing federal policy. But the same principle that forbids direct commandeering also counts against Section 1373. As the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia explained in Printz v. United States, the purpose of the anti-commandeering doctrine is the “[p]reservation of the States as independent and autonomous political entities.” That independence and autonomy is massively undermined if the federal government can take away the states’ power to decide what state and local officials may do while on the job. As Scalia put it in the same opinion, federal law violates the Tenth Amendment if it “requires [state employees] to provide information that belongs to the State and is available to them only in their official capacity.” The same is true if, as in the case of Section 1373, the federal government tries to prevent states from controlling their employees’ use of information that “is available to them only in their official capacity.”

It is deeply ironic though that the party which so enthusiastically embraced an incredibly expansive view of state's rights now embraces a policy that essentially ends them. It's almost like they never cared about state's rights at all, and simply cared about advancing their agenda.

 

[zinfamous]

We will see when the feds cut off all that sweet federal money to the sanctuary cities / states.

yeah, good luck with cutting off the revenue stream that the GOP depends on.

Make Red States Poor(er) Again!

 

[zinfamous]

Wouldn't it make better sense to fight for these illegal immigrants to become legal immigrants if there are benefits for them to be in the city? Or do the city want them to stay illegal for the benefits? Seems like the cities are fighting a never ending battle.

It's like you weren't paying attention during the entire Obama administration and, for that matter, Bush Dubya administration (relating to immigration).

 

[OutHouse]

We will see when the feds cut off all that sweet federal money to the sanctuary cities / states.

Miami already caved.