Sanctuary Cities


I am not a lawyer but IMO the constitutional situation in the US is such that the federal government and the governments of the several states share sovereignty.  This can be clearly seen in the structure of the US Constitution and the existence of such things as separate state law codes in the states.  Municipalities in the United States have no sovereignty.  They are altogether instruments of the state governments or in the case of the District of Columbia, of the US Congress.  State laws automatically apply within the cities contained in the individual states.  In the same way the principle of the supremacy of federal law applies to the states and the cities with them.  This principle is very popular with left when they are in command of the federal government, but not so much when the right is in charge.

Therefore, IMO ,there is no basis in law for cities to defy federal immigration law.  What has emerged in this area of law is something similar to the defiance of federal law by the states with regard to marijuana.  pl

This entry was posted in Policy. Bookmark the permalink.

113 Responses to Sanctuary Cities

  1. Out of Steppe says:

    The 10th Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
    Under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot commandeer state/local authorities to participate in a federal enforcement scheme. Despite the hyperbolic language of “sanctuary” cities, state and local governments are on solid ground in refusing to use local resources to enforce FEDERAL laws:

  2. Tyler says:

    You are correct, there is not a legal basis for them to stand on, and they know it. The game plan seems to be to fight it in the courts, have the courts find it so, and then use it as a bloody shirt.
    President Trump is planning on releasing a monthly report on crimes committed by illegal aliens, especially in as sanctuary cities. The man understands optics. During the signing ceremony for his immigration EOs, he read the names of those murdered by illegal aliens. Powerful stuff. He is striking back at the Left’s holding up of a valedictorian from some crappy HS with 10 cases of citizens murdered by illegal aliens and saying “this is who they want to protect”.

  3. John Habib says:

    I think the issue here is whether the federal government can pressure a local government to assist with the federal government’s duties or lose federal funding.
    In a similar recent situation, the supreme court ruled against the Feds. It stated the Obama administration cannot withhold traditional medicaid funding in order to force some states to accept the medicaid expansion under Obamacare.
    There are many reasons why a local government may resist helping the feds. Politics is a big one, but there are valid ones as well. If a local government is perceived as overly helping the feds, then the illegal immigrant communities would not come forward and assist with law enforcement. Not to mention that figuring out who is legal and who is not is not always straightforward.

  4. Edward Amame says:

    The SCOTUS ruled that states (and municipalities) can’t deny basic social services to anyone regardless of nationality, immigration status, etc.
    There’s also the “the anti-commandeering doctrine.” The SCOTUS also says that a state can’t obstruct federal law, but the feds can’t force a state (and/or municipality) to act against its will, that the feds can’t force the states to enforce federal law.

  5. doug says:

    I can’t speak to other states but in California, municipalities have certain sovereign capabilities. They can’t conflict with state law of course but local jurisdiction is often quite burdensome. Building permits, zoning restrictions and even some criminal (misdemeanor only) laws can be municipal ones.
    Still, issues of US citizenship are clearly federal, not state, and the federal government certainly can enforce them. While states do not have to cooperate, they can’t stand in the way or obstruct those things the Constitution allows the Feds to do. I believe the founders would be aghast at the way the interstate commerce clause has been used by the Feds to extend control far beyond what the founders intended.

  6. Fool says:

    For Trump, not much political blowback to this; Clinton won the 100 most populous counties, i.e. cities, by 12.4 million votes, which is to say I doubt he anticipates the support of these municipalities 4 years from now. On the other hand, it’s a sensitive issue for state legislators — including Republicans — who can’t afford to alienate their largest districts.
    The solution to illegal immigration, IMO, will begin with examining the impetus for *why* half a million people immigrate illegally here each year — only the questions this would raise about the wisdom of our economic statecraft (and who it serves) is inconvenient for both sides. Thus politics as usual: at least four years of grandstanding back and forth on this one.

  7. Clonal Antibody says:

    Judge Napolitano had this to say

    Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.
    The term “sanctuary cities” is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.
    Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states — and thus the municipalities in them — to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.
    The high court has also prohibited the federal government from “commandeering” the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.
    If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.
    Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor. He cannot use a stick to bend the governments of sanctuary cities to his will, but he can use a carrot. He can ask Congress for legislative grants of funds to cities conditioned upon their compliance with certain federal immigration laws.

  8. marc b. says:

    i’m no expert, but this a more complicated legal issue than some may appreciate. as i understand it, state authorities have very strict guidelines under which they have the authority to detain individuals arrested on state charges, who cannot document their legal status in the US. reporting requirements, distinct from detention, have a different set of standards, and i think prior CA law imposing an obligation on state and local law enforcement to report to the feds got struck down as a violation of the preemption clause. (that was a while ago, so things may have changed). for what it’s worth anecdotally, friends/acquaintances of mine who are lawyers who do criminal work tell me that state judges always go through a colloquy with criminal defendants who are entering a plea, instructing them of the potential impact of the plea on their immigration status, but i presume that is directed at someone here on a ‘green card’, not to ‘illegals’. so i am not sure that failure to detain, report, or otherwise enforce federal immigration law by state authorities necessarily constitute a state ‘defying’ federal law.

  9. Origin says:

    In December, I stood in the Nuremburg rally grounds and in the square in Vienna where the Jews were rounded up after Kristallnacht. I also sat in the seats in the Palace of Justice.
    One of the most effective ways the Nazis churned up hatred against the Jews was their regular publication of the real and trumped up “crimes” of the Jews in the Völkischer Beobachter.
    There is strong evidence that illegal immigrants do everything they can do to avoid engaging in criminal activity and the great majority of them work hard, try their best to follow the law, and do not commit crimes. Certainly there are a few bad apples, but statistically, the crimes they commit are proportionally small when compared to non-immigrants.
    The reason Trump wants to list immigrant crimes is simply that he wants to create irrational fear by scapegoating immigrants so that he can increase his personal power by making people act from fear.
    Citizens are more likely to be killed by an infant with a gun than they are to be harmed by an immigrant.
    The listing of the immigrant crimes to enhance fear and to scapegoat immigrants who make up a large part of the fabric of this nation is a shameful act.
    Leading a nation by engendering hate and scorn is effective. It may even be fun for the supporters of the movement.
    Leading by fear, hate and scorn is un-American. We are better than those who destroyed Europe in the mid Twentieth Century who had a great time at the rallies and dreamed of nationalistic domination.
    Perhaps now is a time for me to recommend a book. The eBook is pricey, but it is a worthwhile read for the members of this committee regardless of whether you are liberal, conservative, or nationalist, the better to understand where we are now in our history and to help us understand the weaknesses in our souls.

  10. rjh says:

    You must carefully separate refusal to enforce a federal law from compliance with a federal law. For example, my local police will have nothing to do with complaints about violations of SEC regulations. That’s a federal matter. You have a complain, call the Feds. Neither do they go looking around for SEC violations.
    This is not the same as refusing to comply with federal law. The town is quite careful to comply with SEC regulations regarding bonds, filings, payments, etc.
    Both of these issues are often mixed together quite carelessly in discussions of sanctuary cities and in the implementation of sanctuary cities. It’s quite reasonable for a city to say “Not our problem. Call the Feds.” It’s not reasonable to violate the federal laws.

  11. Fred says:

    What court decisions were these? Where in the Constitution does the Judicial branch gain power to impose funding directives to the legislative or executive branches of government?

  12. It’s not so much a matter of cities and states defying federal law as it is of cities and states refusing to expend local funds and resources in the enforcement of those federal laws. Others here have pointed out the tendency of the courts to side with state and local rights over Federal over reach. I don’t see that trend changing. The cities and states don’t show much heart in clamping down on local businesses hiring illegals either. If the Feds focus their internal efforts on gangs and drug crime associated with illegals, they may get more cooperation. In the meantime, securing the borders and getting a handle on the flow of immigrants/visitors should receive priority. I also see a full reinstatement of those programs that allowed local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. Obama pretty much put an end to that.

  13. toto says:

    Newsflash: if “the courts find it so”, it *is* law by definition.

  14. Tyler says:

    You’re wrong. 287(g) is not at issue here, but local interference in refusing to recognize federal immigration law. Your half baked website doesn’t grok the Supremacy Clause.

  15. Origin says:

    Sometimes, a little numerical perspective can help us understand the extent to which illegal immigrants are part of the very fabric of our society and the magnitude of forcing them all to leave.
    It is estimated that there are 11.3 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
    Based upon the U.S. Census 2016 Population estimates, deporting all 11.3 million illegal would be equivalent to deporting the entire populations of the eight red states, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming plus about 427,000 from other states.
    Then, add to that the number of legal immigrants and native born citizens who are part of the families of the illegal immigrants. The affected population is simply Yuuuge.

  16. Eric Newhill says:

    I’m no lawyer either, but it seems to me that the left is opening a door they may not want opened by working on setting a precedent with sanctuary cities (which I am against) defying federal law and with cannabis legalization (which I am for).
    Could we not then have 2A sanctuary cities – or states – in which citizens are allowed to own machine guns and RPGs, purchased over the counter, no permit or licensing required and carried openly if desired? How about right to life sanctuaries where abortions are outlawed? How about return to segregation sanctuaries?
    What difference does it make what the SCOTUS has ruled on these matters? SCOTUS has upheld laws making cannabis illegal, has it not? If SCOTUS can be ignored in that matter, why not these others?
    My understanding is that, technically, the federal government could send agents into the states where cannabis is legal under local law and arrest everyone involved in that business. It has just chosen not to. Same with sanctuary cities. And so it would be with the possibilities I mentioned.
    So this, it seems to me, is a real test of how far the feds are willing to go. Cutting funding is the nice approach. They could get far more heavy handed. If nothing is done by the feds, in the current political atmosphere, what is to stop local governments from defying the feds on matters that the progressives wouldn’t like?

  17. Tyler says:

    Andrew Jackson’s portrait is telling. I suspect any legal chicanery will be met with “Mr. Roberts has made his decision. Let him enforce it.”

  18. Tyler says:

    Eisenhower didn’t send in the 101st Airborne to enforce Brown v Board of Ed? I see.

  19. turcopolier says:

    These powers are granted to local municipalities by the states as a function of the states’ sovereignty. they are not evidence of local sovereignty. pl

  20. turcopolier says:

    You are an odd lawyer. you seem unconcerned with the law itself. The mayor of Washington, DC proposes to use public money to resist federal authority in this matter. This is all right with you? pl

  21. Fred says:

    “There is strong evidence that illegal immigrants do everything they can do to avoid engaging in criminal activity …
    100% of illegal immigrants are in violation of immigration laws.
    Thanks for the Nuremberg, Kristallnacht reminders. A couple of my relatives died ending the Holocaust. You can keep the guilt trip but be sure to say thanks the next time you’re in Tunisia:

  22. Thomas101st says:

    ALL illegal immigrants are engaged in criminal activity. What don’t you understand about the word “illegal” ? Any crimes they may or may not commit after arrival is irrelevant to their initial criminal act. It is ludicrous to compare the (hopefully) round up and deportation of illegal immigrants in the US with the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany. The Jews were German citizens. The illegals in the US are invaders and should be treated the same as any invader.

  23. Thomas101st says:

    Only if the courts have the authority to rule on the matter in question.

  24. Fred says:

    Judge Judy’s brother was a New Jersey judge. “was” and “New Jersey” being the operative words. His media opinion is worth the paper its printed on.

  25. Fred says:

    If this is a math test then you left out some important numbers. According to the UN Earth’s population reached 7 Billion in 2011. By your logic they all have “equal rights” to enter the US illegally and there is nothing actual citizens of the US can do about it.
    “The affected population is simply Yuuuge” Yes it is. How many other federal laws don’t apply to them, like not voting in our elections?

  26. Thomas101st says:

    Then what Trump needs to do is appoint enough SCOTUS judges to overturn the ridiculous ruling described in paragraph 3 of Napolitano’s statement. If the equal protection clause of the Constitution applies to illegal immigrants (AKA invaders) so does every part of the Constitution including the right to vote. This destroys the very concept of citizenship. The SCOTUS ruling is simply the personal political opinion of the judges involved and not based on any sound legal principle.

  27. TV says:

    “Do their best to follow the law?”
    Their FIRST action in the US was to break the law.

  28. Edward Amame says:

    Prigg v. Pennsylvania, New York v. United States, Printz v. United States, and Independent Business v. Sebelius.
    Plyler v. Doe

  29. Edward Amame says:

    I won’t be engaging with you any longer. Thanks.

  30. doug says:

    True. Municipalities, unlike states which are sovereigns within limits imposed by the Constitution, only have the autonomy granted by the state and it can be removed at any time by the state. The United States has not that authority.

  31. gowithit says:

    Better hope not as Calif sends more tax $$ to the USA treasury than they receive in benefits

  32. gowithit says:

    Ike was enforcing a Supreme Court decision

  33. Thomas101st,
    Illegal immigrants are engaged in criminal activity by being here. Those who crossed the border illegally committed the misdemeanor of improper entry carrying a penalty of up to six months in jail and/or a fine of up to $250. Get caught a second time and you’re a felon. Just being here (unlawful presence) is not a crime. It is a violation of immigration law subject to civil penalties. So those who are here by overstaying their visas are not criminals. Someone else will have to explain to be the difference. In any case, those guilty of unlawful presence are still subject to deportation. It’s also interesting to note that those of us who exceed the speed limit while driving are engaged in criminal activity. Come to think of it, flooding the highways with state troopers and highway patrolmen would probably save more lives than the deportation force. It’s all a matter of priorities.

  34. Oops, I meant NOT engaged in criminal activity.

  35. scott s. says:

    In the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, Congress empowered US Marshals and commissioners
    “…to summon and call to their aid the bystanders, or posse comitatus of the proper county, when necessary to ensure a faithful observance of the clause of the Constitution referred to, in conformity with the provisions of this act; and all good citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services may be required; as aforesaid, for that purpose…”
    Further provisions provided for cause of federal action against persons hindering arrest / removal of slaves. Various states passed “personal liberty” laws, in an effort to create what amounted to “sanctuary states”.
    In Wisconsin, one Sherman Booth was arrested for aiding an escaped slave fleeing from the US Marshal for the district of Wisconsin which resulted in the Wisconsin courts issuing a writ of habeas corpus, the case proceeding to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In the opinion of that court (given in June 1854) the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was unconstitutional and declared void, citing 5 particular reasons.

  36. Kutte says:

    ” We are better than those who destroyed Europe in the mid Twentieth Century… “.
    How does that fit in with “All people are born equal”?.
    That is exactly the point where you are losing reality, in a very conspicious way.

  37. Freudenschade says:

    I think the latter doesn’t follow from the former. He served as a judge and as a law school professor. No need to be scornful of CA’s contribution.

  38. AndreL says:

    Unless there are specific penalties for a public entity violating any federal law, the only recourse seems to be loss of federal funds. Exceptions might be when the folks the feds are trying to protect through a national law are threatened with violence, not directly by the public entity, but perhaps indirectly as during Segregation. Enter the 101st Airborne. In the present situation, some of the cities or states are content to lose the federal funds and replace such loss with funds raised locally. This seems to be their legal right and if any citizen under their jurisdiction objects then the options may be to pursue legal action, take action in the voting booth, or leave the sanctuary altogether and find solace in the camp of a like-minded tribe.

  39. Freudenschade says:

    Respectfully, I did not draw from Origin’s post any assertion that undocumented immigrants or the rest of the earth’s population have “equal rights” to enter. Neither phrase or argument appeared in his post. He was merely observing how impractical and/or painful a mass deportation would be.
    How did you come with the “equal rights” argument?

  40. Fred says:

    Bingo! Plyler v. Doe
    “JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
    “Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1251 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV).””
    You might have read these first. I really liked the linking of the fugitive slave act decision to illegal immigration. That was truly inspired.

  41. eakens says:

    11.3 million illegals. The only thing this proves is the failure of government. So the question is, do you continue to watch the government fail you, or do you do something about it. Trump is sitting in the WH because people want something done about it.
    That said, let’s assume one were for mass amnesty with every single illegal given a green card, no questions asked. There is no logical way one can be for that, and against the wall, so you have to start with the wall no matter what.
    Mass deportation of all 11.3 million is no more likely than giving everybody a green card, but somewhere in the middle is where the solution lies.

  42. Origin – I’m not sure that you have given full consideration to what would happen if your argument were to be put into practice.
    It is, to take one example, possible for most UK citizens to enter the US. What happens if they attempt to stay for good without satisfying US residence requirements? At present they are asked to leave. You are arguing that they should not be asked to leave.
    In that case any UK citizen who wished could come and live in the US. So, to be fair, could any other foreigner. That is an open borders policy. Is that what you really wish to advocate?

  43. Nancy K says:

    You are so right, hate and fear is not who we are and it is not who I ever want to be.

  44. Tyler says:

    So we have the trifecta of Leftist shibboleth:
    – Holocaust schmaltz
    – Conflating legal and illegal immigrants
    – Pretending illegal aliens aren’t criminals
    I’m sure Kate Steinle’s parents and those others affected by illegal immigration would take issue with all this.

  45. Tyler says:

    What Fred said.

  46. Tyler says:

    Those numbers haven’t updated since 1994. The real numbers are estimated to be near 30 million.
    Is the law a popularity contest now? Shall we stop enforcing the laws on rape and murder because X number of people are “affected”?

  47. Tyler says:

    Here we see the “ideology is everything” mentality of the Left. When a Leftist is in power, the courts are to be used to advance the ideology, no matter the cost or logic even if it is 180 degrees reversed from prior logic. When the Left is out of power, the same applies, right down to the schizophrenic logic.
    When Arizona passed SB1070, it was “states can’t enforce immigration, it is a federal matter”. Now that the shoe is ok the other foot, the FedGov magically cannot interfere in state matters.
    Leftism is a mental illness.

  48. Nancy K says:

    It always amazes me how conservatives shout state rights to justify their beliefs but so agree with federal authority when it behooves them. I’m proud of CA standing up to this administration. Maybe CA should not send all their tax money to Washington, they send so much more than they get back.

  49. ann says:

    One difference between the marijuana and sanctuary city issue is that voters approved the recent changes in pot laws. The DEA was founded by executive order of Richard Nixon.
    The sanctuary cities issue can be tied to economic issues. Tourist destinations need tons of low wage workers. Roofers, golf course maintenance, the millionaires lifestyle would be seriously impaired if the immigration laws were enforced, adversely affecting the wealthy and their real estate.
    It will be interesting to me to see if Trump can remove the tax benefits that favor real estate and his own wealth.
    Marijuana, also, now, generates a Lot of tax revenue. Follow the money?

  50. Clueless Joe says:

    I’m amazed that people can’t see how dangerous such a slippery slope can be, can’t see that having local and State authorities openly defying the Federal government and federal laws is basically the first step towards internal strife and ultimately secession. I wouldn’t be that surprised if it happened in another country, but it is the USA, where the Civil War still killed more Americans than all other wars put together… (this is a global blame, it could well have applied, or will apply at some point in the future, to some Republicans)

  51. steve says:

    Passively refusing to enforce federal immigration law is not the same as interference. The only obligation or requirement to do so imho would be that all state and local law enforcement officials take an oath to uphold all laws, federal as well as state, but violating that oath in terms of immigration law is not going to get anyone fired in California.
    With states that have legalized marijuana–which is within the state’s right to do so–they have no obligation to enforce federal marijuana laws.

  52. falcone says:

    Thanks, O. I couldn’t have said it better.
    As to the idea that all illegal immigrants are criminal, sure, and all drivers who speed are illegal drivers.
    Look, I’m a proponent of a wall. I think we should have a legal policy that can be enforced and followed. But people who begrudge those who made it here at a time when the country looked the other way are just being jerks.

  53. falcone says:

    Yes to this.

  54. falcone says:

    I don’t know whether Origin believes that. I don’t. But I think that most of them came at a time when the country’s de facto policy was different from the law. The first issue is to get control of the border. Then we can talk rationally about how many people we want to enter.

  55. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Perhaps you can explain to non-Americans why Andrew Jackson, the fore-runner of the carpetbaggers and the man whose utter disregard for the Law contributed to the initiation of the War Between the States later, is considered an American hero?

  56. Bill H says:

    On the other hand the Feds were able to withhold highway funding in order to impose the 55mph speed limit until, oops… That too was overturned.

  57. Bill H says:

    The federal government can force the states to abandon state laws which violate the consitution. They cannot force states to enforce federal laws.

  58. jonst says:

    There is strong anecdotal evidence (bolstered by a wit of common sense and familiarity with most human beings) that the vast majority of immigrants go out of their way to avoid criminal behavior, or technically, unlawful (traffic violations and such) behavior. These people should not be demonized.
    There is equally strong anecdotal (and other types) of evidence that cartels are bringing into the United States the same corrosive, and organized processes/tactics that have turned their own respective countries into ‘failed states’. This is especially so within our prison systems, fed and state. So incarceration merely expands the control of the cartels of the individuals in questions as inmates are, for survival’s sake, strengthening their connections to gangs/cartels. They are attempting to intimidate, with some success, the people that run our justice systems.
    To deny this is suicidal in my parochial view. And all the trips to Nuremberg in world won’t change this. The greatest dangers (leaving aside someone with a nuclear device entering the country) come from right across our own borders.
    Throw into this a well thought out and organized debasement of our normal identifican/credentialing processes, i.e. SS numbers, drivers licenses, false front business entities, tax return processes and such, is a collateral issue that comes with the Cartels.

  59. J says:

    It seems that some in California have been watching BREXIT, and have now formed their own CALEXIT, and they’ve even set up a CALEXIT consulate in Moscow, which have the Russians taking three steps back and snickering at them.
    So…..will California exit stage left out of the Union?
    Officials announce proposal that would establish California as separate nation
    Now back here in the Central U.S., my neighbor Texas has some of their citizenry calling for exit from the Union, but those calls were under when Obama and his oppressive regulations and BS had many Texans in a tizzy. Not quite sure how Texans are feeling regarding a TEXEXIT maneuver.
    IMO between the two states, only Texas could survive as a separate nation, as they already have the infrastructures necessary for self sufficiency, unlike California which is so dependent on the rest of the nation. California fruit and veggies aren’t quite enough to sustain California as a separate nation.

  60. ISL says:

    Dear Colonel,
    I am perplexed by the discussion that has ensued. IMHO it seems the question is whether the states can command federal subsidies. Since congress controls the purse, then it seems to me that congress controls how the purse is spent.
    I do not recall when the courts have commanded congress to spend money in certain ways (maybe that a program was unconstitutional and must be terminated). Could the courts rule that the disposition of army bases in the US is an unfair bias for California against North Dakota, for example? Seems that if they were to make such a ruling, a constitutional crisis would ensue.
    Sending in the Feds to enforce federal law clearly is premature (though feasible) as I interpret President Trump as assessing that greed is a sufficient motivator for our politicians. But I recall numerous examples of federal law trumping state and local law.

  61. Nancy K says:

    How exactly is CA dependent on the rest of the nation? I think k it is still accurate that CA economy is the 7th largest is the world. CA pays much more in taxes than gets back in federal aid.

  62. Tyler says:

    More mendacious liberal sophistry.
    “Refusing to hold someone on a federal murder charge is enforcing the law.”
    Great analogy. You’re really in a panic over there, eh?

  63. Tyler says:

    Based off taxes on over valued start up stock optuons and Hollywood.
    Take those away and you got nothing.

  64. Tyler says:

    Are we splitting hairs now? He was enforcing the law. We both know your misdirection is intentional.

  65. Tyler says:

    Yeah, its called Arizona v United States.
    The law isn’t this plastic thing you get to massage how you want depending on whether or not you’re in power. Deal. With. It.

  66. Babak Makkinejad says:

    In regards to California becoming a separate country; an independent state; outside of being a fantasy, there is this: California would immediately plunge into a brutal and viscous civil war among all the nationalities, races, religions, and identities.
    That fate will almost certainly befall Texas as well as the Tejanos, Texan Anglos and transplants from the North will slug it out.
    I think the cause of independence was defeated on the field of battle in US – it is a done deal and one needs to move on.

  67. jerseycityjoan says:

    Would it be enough for you if Americans just said, we’ve taken in more than enough new people over the past 50 years.
    We will now cut legal immigration in half and do all we can to eliminate illegal immigration?
    There now, that’s unemotional and rational.
    How about that?
    Are these permissible goals for our country? If not, why not?
    And by the way, whose permission should be asking, if our own decisions about our own country are not good enough for others in the world?

  68. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Rightism is not any different; behind both of which stands the refusal to look at things the way they are and not the way things ought to be for some sort of Utopia.
    That party that calls itself GOP in US; what does it stand for but for the proposition that the poor sick people should have the decency to die quickly and the rich should inherit the earth?

  69. Jack says:

    It should be obvious that illegal immigrants have broken the law and are making a mockery of legal immigration. I don’t get those that support this breaking of the law using the guise of morality.
    Our laws must be enforced. Municipalities that don’t enforce the law because of political beliefs are being renegade. Why do folks support sanctuary cities and illegal immigration? Why not attempt to use legitimate political methods to change immigration law instead?
    IMO, employer prosecution for hiring illegals will go a long way in reducing illegal immigrants.

  70. Jack says:

    “..would immediately plunge into a brutal and viscous civil war among all the nationalities, races, religions, and identities.”
    How do you arrive at such a conclusion? False in my opinion.

  71. Nancy K says:

    Plunge into a brutal and viscous civil war among all the nationalities, races, religions and identities. And how exactly would that make it different than the way things are going now?

  72. charly says:

    Not really. IIRC convicted criminals can’t vote in the US (something i find weird)

  73. Edward Amame says:

    I did read it. With Plyler v. Doe, the SCOTUS struck down a Texas statute denying school funding for illegal immigrant kids. Even the four dissenters said that it wasn’t smart (in principle, anyway) to deny immigrant kids a public education.
    I’m curious. Did you look into the other four (10th amendment) cases? It seems odd to me that conservatives here seem to be ready to obliterates state sovereignty over immigration, especially considering cases like Printz v. United States –
    Regarding Brown vs Board of Ed. The 10th Amendment applies to the federal gov’t. It’s there to limit fed power. Particular state laws can only get struck down due to extreme circumstances/prevailing federal interest. Although Kansas state law permitted segregating schools, prevailing fed interest in desegregating them was such that the SCOTUS found the law unconstitutional.

  74. Edward Amame says:

    Eric Newhill
    Precedent has already been set. Please see: Prigg v. Pennsylvania, New York v. United States, Printz v. United States, and Independent Business v. Sebelius.
    The SCOTUS ruled that states can’t obstruct federal law, but the feds can’t force states (and/or municipalities) to act against their will, that the feds can’t force the states to enforce federal law. It’s referred to as the “the anti-commandeering doctrine.”

  75. Edward Amame says:

    Babak Makkinejad
    Yup, a fantasy. 2/3 of the states would have to agree to let Cali go bye bye.

  76. Edward Amame says:

    Pot and sanctuary cities will pose a challenge to the right. Are they willing to smash the “states rights” (10th) amendment over immigration?

  77. Fred says:

    He served as a judge in the State of New Jersey not the Federal judiciary. John Yoo is a law professor too. His legal opinion was highly valued in some circles too.

  78. Fred says:

    I’m simply providing some additional mathematical analysis and observing that those 11.3 million he mentions are here illegally have no right to be here and neither do a few billion others not here.

  79. Fred says:

    Why wait, besides that being the policy of the political party that just lost an election?

  80. Fred says:

    So California now concurs with Jefferson Davis that states have a right to secede from the Union? I’m sure that’s going to go over well with the NAACP wing of the Democratic party.
    “California fruit and veggies… .” They would do fine as long as they keep getting water from Colorado and other states.

  81. Thirdeye says:

    Don’t confuse equal protection with equal enfranchisement.

  82. turcopolier says:

    The constitution specifically places immigration under the authority of the federal government. there is no 19th amendment argument. pl

  83. J says:

    California today is not the California of independence when it was a plum of Spain and Mexico.
    IMO I don’t think they could stand alone for very long before crumbling at their feet. Some of their problems have been irrigation water and land restrictions necessary for crops and raising of livestock on the scale necessary for independence self-sufficiency.
    California’s economy today on paper is IMO not reflective of its true sustainability/non-sustainability as a nation unto itself.

  84. J says:

    If and I said ‘if’ Texans decided to exit the Union stage left, you would see states surrounding it (my Oklahoma included) banning together with our Texas neighbors to form a seperate union. The civil strife you talk about, IMO would not happen as the mindset of the Central U.S. is not the same as of some of the other regions. The Central U.S. for the large part still believe in neighbor helping neighbor. We still have barn raisings, hog kills, pancake fund raisers, neighbor help neighbor, feed the stranger, and Christian church every Wednesday and Sunday, excluding the various Prayer gatherings.
    The Federal bans on prayers at public events in the recent past under Obama has riled many much more than the MSM (fake news) types report.
    We in this neck of the woods can still saddle up and go, read by coal-oil lamp, dig an outhouse hole, use corn cobs leaves and rocks if we need to, can’t say that for the CALEXIT types.

  85. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Euro-Americans would say: “We want to be part of US”.
    Mexicans: “We want to be independent so that we may later rejoin Mexico.”
    African-Americans: “We want to be independent so that we live free of the yoke of the White Man.”
    Immigrant A: “Goodie, independence means that I can become official in this new country’s government and live off the hog (labor of others).”
    Immigrant B: “Frightening, I will need to arm myself and be ready to flee to the United States.”
    The International Indian: “I am with Euro-Americans…”
    Steve (of Barbie Fame) in Arizona: “I am going to California to defend the honor of Barbie…”
    And so on and so forth.

  86. Babak Makkinejad says:

    You evidently are not familiar with historical instances of previous civil wars.

  87. charly says:

    He leads because there are 11 parties in the second chamber but he only gets something like 20% of the votes. Also almost all parties have said that they wont work with him, the right-wing parties because it is impossible to work with him so it would be surprising if he ended up as prime minister. There is also the issue that he is economical very right-wing but his party and voters are economical left-wing so he probably would loose all his voters if he ruled

  88. Mark Logan says:

    I can confidently predict no stick will work. The Mayors have the backing of their police and DA’s in this. The biggest stick imaginable will yeild but token acts at best, probably only lip service.
    It will take a carrot if it is at all possible, which I doubt. The courts and jails are already packed in every major city and we are talking a least a trebling of the case load…and what a case load! How do we handle a 30-something “undocumented” who has no living memory of living anywhere else? Whose country their parents came from does not acknowledge? Deport them to where? Gitmo, I suppose. And how much would that cost? Offer the funding and see what happens. There is a heck of a lot more behind this resistance than ideology.
    The Feds simply do not have the capacity to take up this task either, btw. The Federal court system is very small and they do not have a great many beat officers standing by waiting for something to do. In fact they have but a tiny force in comparison to the massive capacity of the collective police forces of our major cities. It would take years to build a force capable of enforcing Trump’s dictate.
    This is a legacy of decades of laxness. When somebody decides to start tossing anyone who hires an illegal alien in jail we will know it is more than pandering.

  89. Old Microbiologist says:

    One other thing to consider other than the illegality of such as measure is California represents an enormous number of Democratic voters. If they were to secede then there is absolutely no way a Democrat will ever return to the White House without those voters. If I am correct then the major source of resistance at the national level would be from the Democrats once they wake up and realize the problem. So, if this gains some ground and it very likely will, then someone at the National level will put the kiboshes on it.

  90. Edward Amame says:

    Col Lang
    I should have been more clear. The arguments over legalized pot and sanctuary cities are both over 10th amendment, states’ “rights” issues. Obama’s feds took a hands off approach to both. When it comes to legalized pot, candidate Trump said it “should be a state issue, state-by-state,” but we’ll see what happens with Attorney Gen Sessions. 10th amendment advocates note that both sides of the political aisle turn to/from the 10th Amendment when it’s convenient.

  91. Fred says:

    Now you are bringing up segregation? Get real. “state sovereignty over immigration” They don’t have any. Quoting some opinion on the Brady Act is a sign of desperation. If a state won’t perform the action required to receive federal funding then they won’t get the money, regardless of whether the action was directed, requested or a delegation of federal power. In addition that judicial opinion would indicate that the Federal government has authority within the state boundary to enforce federal laws. Interfering with federal agents in the performance of those duties would be a violation of federal law. I’m sure lots of folks are ready to go write letters from the Birmingham jail because foreign nationals here in violation of our laws really aren’t here in violation of our law, they are just descendants of slaves suffering under Jim Crow.

  92. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Thank you for your comments.
    I outlined a scenario regarding Texas.
    In regards to the neighboring states; will there not be a clash between the Northern transplants in the urban areas, who would wish to stay within the United States, and the rural populations that you mentioned?

  93. Tyler says:

    Are you really so ensconced in your bubble that you don’t realize how much Trump has upset the paradigm? Lecture me more about US domestic politics from the Mid East, why don’t you?

  94. Tyler says:

    Because he did the right thing for the right reason.

  95. Tyler says:

    Its not that hard when you’re always so damn wrong.

  96. Tyler says:

    “She has made her order, now let her enforce it.”
    Ave, true to Kaiser.

  97. Jack says:

    I think you’ve had one too many hits of the Humboldt stuff. I grew up with many of Mexican origin who have lived here for generations and have very little in common with Mexico. They don’t speak any Spanish for one.
    This all against all in a Mad Max scenario that you describe is classic prepper fantasy. While identity politics has grown I disagree with you that ethnic identity is as strong as you make it out to be. And that it would lead to tribalism. There is no history of ethnic or religious purges in California like what was witnessed in Sarajevo.

  98. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I am not lecturing you,
    But boy, you do have a very think skin…
    Ever thought some naval gazing, it might calm you down man and cause you to develop some tolerance…

  99. Babak Makkinejad says:

    A very convincing argument – I am sure any descendant of the Cherokee Nation reading your comment will go home feeling relieved that the sufferings of his ancestors on the Trail of Tears was for the Right Thing.

  100. Cee says:

    Excellent read. I was telling people to start reading this after 911 and Patriot Act was foisted on us.

  101. Edward Amame says:

    Yes Fred, I am bringing it up because segregation’s germane. So are state gun laws. Please do some reading up on the 10th amendment and state sovereignty. A good place to start is the 10th Amendment Blog. Here’s a page on sanctuary cities and the 10th amendment:

  102. Fred says:

    Good luck with that logic. See Article 2, section 1 para 1; article 1 section 8 para 4 and section 10 para 4 as well as article IV section 4.

  103. Sam Peralta says:

    Curious where Origin and others cheering for illegal immigration stood when the left’s hero Bill Clinton was president.
    “We are a nation of immigrants.. but we are a nation of laws”
    “Our nation is rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country…
    Illegal immigrants take jobs from citizens or legal immigrants, they impose burdens on our taxpayers…
    That is why we are doubling the number of border guards, deporting more illegal immigrants than ever before, cracking down on illegal hiring, barring benefits to illegal aliens, and we will do more to speed the deportation of illegal immigrants arrest for crimes…
    It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws that has occurred in the last few years.. and we must do more to stop it.”

  104. TimmyB says:

    The entire premise that municipalities are somehow different than states under federal law is wrong. Cities, towns, counties, parishes (in Louisana) and any other state subdivision are all creatures of state law. The power of the Federal Government to issue orders to New York City is the same as it is to issue orders to New York State.
    Concerning immigration law, the state’s have no authority to arrest anyone for violating immigration law. They can hold people for the INS to come and get if they chose to, but that’s it. As immigration enforcement has become less popular in some jurisdictions, those jurisdictions are calling themselves sanctuary cities and refusing to hold people for the INS. That’s all they are doing.

  105. TimmyB says:

    There is no Constitutional right to vote. There is an amendment from the Civil War giving exslaves citizenship rights, an amendment giving women the right to vote, an amendment giving 18-year olds the right to vote, federal laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, and the Voting Rights Act.
    If a state gave immigrants the right to vote, it would not currently be illegal.

  106. TimmyB says:

    Obama was the “Deporter-in-Chief” with over 2.5 million people deported on his watch. No other president has deported more people than Obama, including Bush the Lesser.

  107. Fred says:

    They will stop issuing visas and start issuing a pot tax. The more you inhale the more you pay off Obama’s debt.

  108. Fred says:

    Old Microbiologist,
    That is a very important point. I think a close look at the core voters of the Democratic party is in order to understand just who actually lost power in the last election.

  109. Tony says:

    Nailed it!

  110. Tyler says:

    This is absolute horsesh*t. They invented this stat by including all people arrested crossing the border and counting expedited returns, NTAs, Reinstates, and the like as “deportations”.
    Actual, legitimate deportations went down preciptiously under Obama.

  111. Tyler says:

    Seeing as you are another of the Eternal Victim class, I suspect you empathize with other victims.
    A bloo bloo bloo.

  112. Tyler says:

    No, I just don’t want to hear about how the US should work from a sophist living in a Turd World country.

  113. Tyler says:

    Schizophrenia is a hallmark of the Left. Its why they can support Islam and gay rights in the same parade.

Comments are closed.