Are Sanctuary cities constitutional?

[busybee01]

I live in a sanctuary city. Creating a sanctuary city and ignoring federal immigration laws, I would think 99% of us expect our local government was following our local ideals and OUR wishes. That is NOT TRUE here, in fact, creating so called "sanctuary cities" where NEVER by popular fiat of popular demand. In fact, I can't find out exactly HOW they happen, but its not done openly with wide public knowledge. Let alone voter approval. That has to be unconstitutional. States/cities or municipalities cannot create sanctuaries to anyone or anything without local foreknowledge and our approval. And they did just THAT.

State and local governments are not responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws. Nor are they required to cooperate with federal officials. Sanctuary cities are not violating the Constitution.

 

[MaryL]

State and local governments are not responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws. Nor are they required to cooperate with federal officials. Sanctuary cities are not violating the Constitution.

That's a cheap and petty excuse. ACTUALY, my point ( I am the OP). Democrat city/state leaders overstepped their authority by creating special protections creating "sanctuary" cities, they did so without foreknowledge or consent of the majority, and did so surreptitiously and in a deceitful way. IS THAT constitutional? (let alone moral or legitimate). THAT was the question.

 

[SavannahMann]

That's a cheap and petty excuse. ACTUALY, my point ( I am the OP). Democrat city/state leaders overstepped their authority by creating special protections creating "sanctuary" cities, they did so without foreknowledge or consent of the majority, and did so surreptitiously and in a deceitful way. IS THAT constitutional? (let alone moral or legitimate). THAT was the question.

Oh Phooey.

They have stood to elections at least once since then. Probably twice. The voters had the chance to vote them out of office didn’t they?

If the majority didn’t approve the Politicians would be out of office selling Used Cars wouldn’t they?

Isn’t that true?

 

[MaryL]

Oh Phooey.

They have stood to elections at least once since then. Probably twice. The voters had the chance to vote them out of office didn’t they?

If the majority didn’t approve the Politicians would be out of office selling Used Cars wouldn’t they?

Isn’t that true?

What? This response is typical. People like you dumbfound me with this. OUR GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT US! Perhaps you missed that finer point in civics class in the 8th grade. They don't pass agendas that harm us, or otherwise secretively allow surreptitiously allow criminals to violate either local or federal law. This is STILL a democratic republic, not a democrat dictatorship.

 

[SavannahMann]

What? This response is typical. People like you dumbfound me with this. OUR GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT US! Perhaps you missed that finer point in civics class in the 8th grade. They don't pass agendas that harm us, or otherwise secretively allow surreptitiously allow criminals to violate either local or federal law. This is STILL a democratic republic, not a democrat dictatorship.

They are representing the majority. The majority that elects them. You want them to represent the minority who votes against them.

You are just pissed off that the majority don’t think the way you do. This is proven by the fact that politicians you detest are still in charge.

 

[protectionist]

State and local governments are not responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws. Nor are they required to cooperate with federal officials. Sanctuary cities are not violating the Constitution.

They are violating FEDERAL LAW

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

www.law.cornell.edu

Penalties are severe and range from 5 years federal prison, up to the death penalty, depending on the circumstances.

 

[SavannahMann]

They are violating FEDERAL LAW

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

www.law.cornell.edu

Penalties are severe and range from 5 years federal prison, up to the death penalty, depending on the circumstances.

How about Arizona v. United States?

Policy Research

NCSL’s experts are here to answer your questions and give you unbiased, comprehensive information as soon as you need it on issues facing state legislatures. We answer more than 20,000 requests for information a year.

www.ncsl.org

Where the court decided that it was unconstitutional for states to enforce Immigration Laws?

 

[protectionist]

How about Arizona v. United States?

Policy Research

NCSL’s experts are here to answer your questions and give you unbiased, comprehensive information as soon as you need it on issues facing state legislatures. We answer more than 20,000 requests for information a year.

www.ncsl.org

Where the court decided that it was unconstitutional for states to enforce Immigration Laws?

Going off topic.

 

[busybee01]

That's a cheap and petty excuse. ACTUALY, my point ( I am the OP). Democrat city/state leaders overstepped their authority by creating special protections creating "sanctuary" cities, they did so without foreknowledge or consent of the majority, and did so surreptitiously and in a deceitful way. IS THAT constitutional? (let alone moral or legitimate). THAT was the question.

Sanctuary cities are not unconstitutional. You have yet to tell us which specific provision of the Constitution that it violates.

 

[busybee01]

They are violating FEDERAL LAW

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

www.law.cornell.edu

Penalties are severe and range from 5 years federal prison, up to the death penalty, depending on the circumstances.

No they are not.

 

[busybee01]

What? This response is typical. People like you dumbfound me with this. OUR GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT US! Perhaps you missed that finer point in civics class in the 8th grade. They don't pass agendas that harm us, or otherwise secretively allow surreptitiously allow criminals to violate either local or federal law. This is STILL a democratic republic, not a democrat dictatorship.

It shouldn't represent Nazis like you. No one is violating federal law.

 

[protectionist]

Sanctuary cities are not unconstitutional. You have yet to tell us which specific provision of the Constitution that it violates.

It doesn't need to violate the Constituition. It violates US law, US Code 8 Section 1324.

 

[protectionist]

No they are not.

Yes they are.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

www.law.cornell.edu

(iii)
"knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;"

 

[protectionist]

It shouldn't represent Nazis like you. No one is violating federal law.

Yes they are. Every politician who has voted for a sanctuary city/county/state law, and every mayor or governor who has signed such legislation into law, is guilty of violating
US Code 8, section 1324, and should be arrested and convicted (proof on record), and sentenced to prison or the death penalty.

 

[SavannahMann]

Going off topic.

It is Unconstitutional for the States to enforce Federal Immigration Laws. Isn’t that the topic? The Sanctuary Cities?

 

[Dr.Know]

I live in a sanctuary city. Creating a sanctuary city and ignoring federal immigration laws, I would think 99% of us expect our local government was following our local ideals and OUR wishes. That is NOT TRUE here, in fact, creating so called "sanctuary cities" where NEVER by popular fiat of popular demand. In fact, I can't find out exactly HOW they happen, but its not done openly with wide public knowledge. Let alone voter approval. That has to be unconstitutional. States/cities or municipalities cannot create sanctuaries to anyone or anything without local foreknowledge and our approval. And they did just THAT.

Same with Cigarette smoking in public spaces, I dont remember any debates. Ditto for Biden trying to give 10k student loan relief when Regan couldnt get 5 million for the Contras and Trump could not get 5 billion for a wall. The Deep state could care less about the public and just pass things.