Sanctuary cities: good or bad idea?

[I’m not Stu]

Good idea or bad idea?

[OSR stands with Israel]

 Bad - as dealing with immigration is a power given to the federal government and congress which means states and cities cant use the 10th amendment to not follow federal law.

[White Trash]

Bad - as dealing with immigration is a power given to the federal government and congress which means states and cities cant use the 10th amendment to not follow federal law.

Exactly. A lot of folks forget that the 10th amendment works both ways.

[SWE]

Weakens the ability of the federal government top enforce immigration laws= great.

[Crumpets]

Weakens the ability of the federal government top enforce immigration laws= great.

At the same time, it empowers local law enforcement to solve crimes within the immigrant community without people having to worry their mothers might get deported if they want to help.

[Santander]

I actually support a basic "don't ask, don't tell" policy of sorts for illegal immigrants not convicted of crimes of moral turpitude. (e.g. people should not be asked about immigration status during a traffic stop or arrest, schools should not be expected to turn over information regarding suspected visa overstays or illegal immigrants without due process, etc.) It's not ideal, but we need something to prevent witch hunts by overzealous law enforcement officers/agencies or make the US an even more terrifying place to be a (legal) foreigner.

However, I do not support local law enforcement agencies impeding or being otherwise uncooperative in the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. If immigration enforcement action is initiated by the federal government, or in the case of known illegal immigrants convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, state and local agencies should be expected to cooperate fully with the federal government to defend the integrity of our laws and protect the public. There is also nothing wrong with not providing driver's licenses or other services to illegal immigrants, and it is deeply offensive to grant in-state tuition or other state benefits to illegal immigrants.

[I’m not Stu]

I actually support a basic "don't ask, don't tell" policy of sorts for illegal immigrants not convicted of crimes of moral turpitude. (e.g. people should not be asked about immigration status during a traffic stop or arrest, schools should not be expected to turn over information regarding suspected visa overstays or illegal immigrants without due process, etc.) It's not ideal, but we need something to prevent witch hunts by overzealous law enforcement officers/agencies or make the US an even more terrifying place to be a (legal) foreigner.

However, I do not support local law enforcement agencies impeding or being otherwise uncooperative in the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. If immigration enforcement action is initiated by the federal government, or in the case of known illegal immigrants convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, state and local agencies should be expected to cooperate fully with the federal government to defend the integrity of our laws and protect the public. There is also nothing wrong with not providing driver's licenses or other services to illegal immigrants, and it is deeply offensive to grant in-state tuition or other state benefits to illegal immigrants.

I agree with that. Why not only deport illegal immigrants who are convicted of severe crimes without deporting anyone else?

[Santander]

I agree with that. Why not only deport illegal immigrants who are convicted of severe crimes without deporting anyone else?

Well, I wouldn't go that far. All I'm saying is that for practical reasons, I don't like the idea of local law enforcement playing border patrol with every single "foreign"-looking or -sounding person. The last place I want to live is a "show me your papers" police state. Also, the federal government has a policy of not generally pursuing removal action against people who have not broken any laws other than being in the country illegally itself, and I think that's good policy from a practical perspective. However, even if I think that is good policy, I am fine with the federal government pursuing removal action on an individual basis against anyone who they know to be in the country illegally, as it is their right and responsibility to enforce the law.

[I’m not Stu]

I agree with that. Why not only deport illegal immigrants who are convicted of severe crimes without deporting anyone else?

Well, I wouldn't go that far. All I'm saying is that for practical reasons, I don't like the idea of local law enforcement playing border patrol with every single "foreign"-looking or -sounding person. The last place I want to live is a "show me your papers" police state. Also, the federal government has a policy of not generally pursuing removal action against people who have not broken any laws other than being in the country illegally itself, and I think that's good policy from a practical perspective. However, even if I think that is good policy, I am fine with the federal government pursuing removal action on an individual basis against anyone who they know to be in the country illegally, as it is their right and responsibility to enforce the law.

I also oppose a "show me your papers" state.

[Kingpoleon]

I actually support a basic "don't ask, don't tell" policy of sorts for illegal immigrants not convicted of crimes of moral turpitude. (e.g. people should not be asked about immigration status during a traffic stop or arrest, schools should not be expected to turn over information regarding suspected visa overstays or illegal immigrants without due process, etc.) It's not ideal, but we need something to prevent witch hunts by overzealous law enforcement officers/agencies or make the US an even more terrifying place to be a (legal) foreigner.

However, I do not support local law enforcement agencies impeding or being otherwise uncooperative in the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. If immigration enforcement action is initiated by the federal government, or in the case of known illegal immigrants convicted of crimes of moral turpitude, state and local agencies should be expected to cooperate fully with the federal government to defend the integrity of our laws and protect the public. There is also nothing wrong with not providing driver's licenses or other services to illegal immigrants, and it is deeply offensive to grant in-state tuition or other state benefits to illegal immigrants.

... This may be your greatest post I have ever seen.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Opposed on principle but it isn't local law enforcements job to handle this stuff. I'm basically in agreement with Santander aside from the part about schools.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

very good (sees undocumented immigrants as human)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Bad - as dealing with immigration is a power given to the federal government and congress which means states and cities cant use the 10th amendment to not follow federal law.

Exactly. A lot of folks forget that the 10th amendment works both ways.

Nothing in the 10th amendment allows the federal government to turn states and localities into enforcement agents.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

RIP soon.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Bad - as dealing with immigration is a power given to the federal government and congress which means states and cities cant use the 10th amendment to not follow federal law.

Exactly. A lot of folks forget that the 10th amendment works both ways.

Nothing in the 10th amendment allows the federal government to turn states and localities into enforcement agents.

     ICE would still be the enforcement agent, though; it would merely be incumbent on localities to cooperate with the federal government in this matter.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Bad - as dealing with immigration is a power given to the federal government and congress which means states and cities cant use the 10th amendment to not follow federal law.

Exactly. A lot of folks forget that the 10th amendment works both ways.

Nothing in the 10th amendment allows the federal government to turn states and localities into enforcement agents.

The 10th amendment says that the states have power to pass any law they want unless that power is given to the federal government or that state action is prohibited by the constitution .


Immigration is clearly a power given to the federal government which means sanctuary cities are unconstitutional  . On that same note though the Arizona law is also unconstitutional.

[Figueira]

Weakens the ability of the federal government top enforce immigration laws= great.

At the same time, it empowers local law enforcement to solve crimes within the immigrant community without people having to worry their mothers might get deported if they want to help.

Agree strongly with both of these.