Is anybody intrigued besides me about this? I find this all of the following: nonsensical, audacious, encouraging/empowering. I really like the local defiance even if it is pointless. A city can claim sanctuary all it wants but unlawful immigrants enjoy only a hollow protection. This reminds me of the marijuana issue in that no matter what the state or city does the United States trumps or supercedes pot possession and use. Smokers are not truly free in states like Colorado and Washington as well as maybe 4 or 5 others.
Another interesting angle is the reversal of conservative and liberal traditional views(post 1930's) of state power vs USA power. I never thought that I would call myself a "state's rights" kind of chap but after these types of issues I guess I am.
I do spend some time thinking about this. But I am confused. I think I am leaning more towards States Rights than I used to as well. And yes, it is very like the "legalization" of weed. As I keep reminding my kids and grandkids.
It's not even a historical thing, it's still the basic premise of the two parties today. The people who would prefer the Feds to have more control (say, on things like healthcare or school curriculum) are the ones who want local control of immigration and marijuana, while the people who typically prefer location control (on things like LGBT rights or gun control) are the ones who tend to want the Feds in control of these issues I'm sort of on the fence. I think the states should have more control of their own substance policies (though I wouldn't be surprised to see something like the highway funding rule that got the individual states to raise their drinking age to 21), but immigration is an issue that constitutionally belongs to the Federal government. But until we get a clear ruling on either issue, I would recommend people use the national rules as the law of the land Both of these are really interesting to me, partly for the policies themselves but mostly for how they counteract the basic platform of both parties. I'm not quite sure how we got here, but it's fascinating to watch
I guess this makes me a bad liberal, but I think federal immigration laws should supersede state and local. The US Constitution is pretty clear on this point.
But the US Constitution is not clear. Not clear at all. Clear on 14th amendment (well for this discussion clear enough) but not on restricting immigration. Of course Congress has assumed power on the immigration issues but the Const has not spelled out anything here. There's that section 8 of Article 1 stuff that Congress enjoys to exploit using "broad construction" but nothing is spelled out. NOTHING.
Now, I'm sure if this thing where tested the Supreme Court would favor Congressional power in this arena. But like so many other issues before the court interpretation of the Const means everything.
It's worth noting also that "Sanctuary City" is anything but a defined term. Different cities are using that term quite differently. NYC, for instance, has said that they will in fact turn over people who have committed serious crimes to the feds for deportation, but will not turn over those with minor infractions like parking tickets or misdemeanor pot possession, as Trump wants them to do.
