Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
FWIW, I am not a fan of so-called sanctuary cities who claim they don't need to cooperate with ICE. It's setting a dangerous precedent - not to mention burdening the taxpayers of those cities.
Sort of like the Kentucky Clerk for failing to uphold laws. I know, I know "it's different."
I picked up on that too. If Davis can be cuffed and stuffed; why ain't the "powers to be" treated that same way when failing to detain illegal aliens? Big time double standard.
FWIW, I am not a fan of so-called sanctuary cities who claim they don't need to cooperate with ICE. It's setting a dangerous precedent - not to mention burdening the taxpayers of those cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
Ok, ok... here's my take.
Sanctuary laws are meaningless because, state and local government lack authority to enforce immigration laws. So what does it mean that local or state governments don't enforce laws that they don't have the authority to enforce in the first place? Nothing!
In point of fact, the Court has ruled that enforcement of immigration laws are the sole purview of the Federal government and went so far as to prohibit states from enacting laws for the enforcement of the nation's immigration laws and provides no authority for state or local law enforcement to enforce existing Federal statues finding, and I quote, "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."
Sanctuary laws are meaningless because, state and local government lack authority to enforce immigration laws. So what does it mean that local or state governments don't enforce laws that they don't have the authority to enforce in the first place? Nothing!
In point of fact, the Court has ruled that enforcement of immigration laws are the sole purview of the Federal government and went so far as to prohibit states from enacting laws for the enforcement of the nation's immigration laws and provides no authority for state or local law enforcement to enforce existing Federal statues finding, and I quote, "As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."
Sort of like the Kentucky Clerk for failing to uphold laws. I know, I know "it's different."
While I'm as upset about sanctuary cities as are you, the answer to your question is rather simple: federalism. State officials cannot be made to enforce federal law as a general matter, something that the Supreme Court has held on various occasions (its called the anti-commandeering doctrine). The only exceptions are when federal laws are imputed on the states by the Constitution itself, as is the case with 14th Amendment EPC issues, and most of the Bill of Rights.
While I'm as upset about sanctuary cities as are you, the answer to your question is rather simple: federalism. State officials cannot be made to enforce federal law as a general matter, something that the Supreme Court has held on various occasions (its called the anti-commandeering doctrine). The only exceptions are when federal laws are imputed on the states by the Constitution itself, as is the case with 14th Amendment EPC issues, and most of the Bill of Rights.
Sanctuary cities: if the feds cut OFF funding; I have a feeling they'd fall in line real quick in treating illegal aliens as the lawbreakers they are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.