If you're a proponent of states' rights, why do sanctuary cities concern you?

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

I mean. Isn't that an intrusion of the federal government? Cities should have the right to protect inhabitants within their jurisdictions. All of this hating sanctuary cities just shows the hypocrisy of those on the right.

Wrong, OP.

Cities should only have the right to protect those lawfully within the USA.

[NoNansea]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

I mean. Isn't that an intrusion of the federal government? Cities should have the right to protect inhabitants within their jurisdictions. All of this hating sanctuary cities just shows the hypocrisy of those on the right.

Really? First of all the so-called sanctuary cities are within the states. Are the sanctuary cities being funded by the state exclusively? By the cities themselves? The problem is the officials in these self named sanctuary cities are accepting federal financial support while defying federal law. So if the Federal government continues to send federal dollars to the sanctuary cities then the federal government is aiding and abetting the breaking of its own laws. It's called a conflict of interest.

[Tall Traveler]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

I mean. Isn't that an intrusion of the federal government? Cities should have the right to protect inhabitants within their jurisdictions. All of this hating sanctuary cities just shows the hypocrisy of those on the right.

It concerns me because of the extreme hypocrisy of liberals picking and choosing which constitutional rights they support based on their political position of the day.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by rbohm

that depends on how the law is written. arizona wrote SB1070 to mirror federal law, though some sections didnt, and those sections were blocked by the courts.

You are misunderstanding SB1070 and the legal challenges to it. Most of the law was blocked. The only portions unblocked were those that dealt with the management of AZ law enforcement & not with immigration enforcement. The Court found that AZ can require its law enforcement to inquire about immigration status when someone is detained with a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully in the country (but can't detain the person too long while trying to verify status). AZ could not, however, criminalize immigration status. AZ could not deport people. AZ could not initiate deportation proceedings. The only thing AZ could do is check status, and transfer people to the federal government.

There is a theme here: states can govern their own executive resources. They cannot create their own immigration law.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Local governments handle literally like 90% of federal law enforcement. And everywhere else in the entire country, local/state law-enforcement agencies enforce the federal immigration laws.

The cities which are self-proclaimed sanctuary cities, are the only places in the country where the local police refuse to enforce federal immigration law. But why?

As I said earlier in this thread, Trump could, with the flick of his pen, set up literal federal immigration checkpoints all throughout San Francisco and Los Angeles. Or he, with Congress, could cut funding to sanctuary cities/states, if they refuse to coordinate with the Federal government.

Because the truth is, this isn't about the cost of enforcement, or about federalism. California doesn't give a rats ass about federalism. This is about defying a federal immigration policy that you don't like.

California cannot be allowed to drag down the union with their stupidity.

States do not handle federal law enforcement. They often cooperate with federal law enforcement authorities. They sometimes have shared jurisdiction and similar legal regimes to the federal ones. But they don't handle federal law enforcement.

States do not enforce federal immigration law. The most a state can do is contact INS or Customs & Border Control and transfer a detainee to that federal authority. All deportation proceedings are handled by the federal government.

No local police force is allowed to enforce federal immigration law.

If Trump could set up immigration checkpoints throughout the country, why has he not done so? If he could cut funding to sanctuary cities & states, why has he not done so?

Originally Posted by TrapperJohn

But drugs like marijuana are illegal at the federal level....

Drug offenses are subject to both federal and state jurisdiction. Every state in the union has criminal laws on drug possession & distribution. But those laws need not follow the federal version. Some states have ended their state laws prohibiting marijuana possession. Those states are entitled to do so. They can even prevent state & local law enforcement resources from being used to prosecute marijuana-related federal crimes. But they cannot change federal law, which continues to prohibit marijuana possession.

Yet the DEA does not have the resources to pursue every local marijuana possessor in the United States. Without a state law on marijuana possession for local police to enforce, there are not going to be many individual criminal cases for marijuana possession in state that legalizes marijuana under state law. Growers & dispensaries are another story, especially under a Sessions-led Department of Justice.

[Maccabee 2A]

Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey

I mean. Isn't that an intrusion of the federal government? Cities should have the right to protect inhabitants within their jurisdictions. All of this hating sanctuary cities just shows the hypocrisy of those on the right.

Because immigration is a federal concern. Same with the constitution. States cannot infringe on it.