Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?

[MaryL]

I am a dreamer. Like John Lennon. American immigration laws apply to everyone. They don't discriminate against any group or nation. I dream one day Democrats will wake up and realize that. I dream western American Democrats will stop shilling for international globalists. That's my dream, as a dreamer.

Interesting post, in view of the fact that one of the first things that Trump did was to ban immigration from several Muslim nations.

Off topic. Trump isn't the issue here. The legality and constitutionally of sanctuary cities. But good question.

 

[Circe]

Off topic. Trump isn't the issue here. The legality and constitutionally of sanctuary cities. But good question.

I think legality doesn't matter. What matters is whether they can get away with it. This is basically the opening move of a potential civil war, because of course it is denying the authority of the government (whether state or federal) and that is the definition of a rebellion. Note that the gun rights supporters in Virginia immediately used this same tactic because that is what they want, not to accept the authority of a government determined to confiscate their guns.

In such a case, law is not important: power is. Secession was obviously against the law, but the Southern States one by one and very quickly seceded from the Union as soon as Lincoln was elected. And they explicitly hoped to get away with it --- they did not bring war to the Union, they just wanted to be left alone. That isn't what happened, but that's the principle: people do what they hope will solve their problem and hope to get away with it.

There have been several such attempts in American history. The Mormon polygamy spreading all over the West was another -- Brigham Young wanted to rule the Republic of Utah and indeed declared it. That didn't work either. Polygamy kept on being practiced for 40 years, until increasing penalties and actions by the government did put a stop to it formally in 1890, though it was practiced on the quiet (and continues that way) for years more.

It's all about what people can get away with, and for how long. If the law can't be enforced, it won't be.

Take treason: it has never been used since Jane Fonda travelled to North Vietnam and sided with the enemy. That was plainly treasonous under any definition of the law, but the government nearly lost all educated young people and maybe the country over that stupid war and were afraid to move against her. But since they didn't move against an obvious case, it inactivated the law. She got away with it and had a fairly normal Hollywood career.

 

[danielpalos]

Well, I am sure that you don't live in my universe because "sanctuary cities" are not unconstitutional, or unlawful where I live, and though there are around 250 of them, no one has ever been arrested or convicted of anything illegal regarding their Sanctuary city status. Fortunately, in my universe, the constitution has not been shredded by the Right.

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

This year that question goes to SCOTUS. And then we will find out.

The 9th Circus Court has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision. It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.

While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.

The several States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808. Entry into the Union is an Obligation of the general government since then.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

So let me see if I understand.

You are saying that we don't shred the constitution.... because it is legal..... to have city refuse to enforce the constitutional power given to the Federal Government..... which proves you don't shred the constitution.

Makes perfect sense. Glad you cleared that up for me.

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

This year that question goes to SCOTUS. And then we will find out.

The 9th Circus Court has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision. It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.

While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.

The several States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808. Entry into the Union is an Obligation of the general government since then.

Since 1808 the Constitution only covers the prohibition of the importation of slaves. Until 1875 the states had control of who came and went within a state. The federal government only controls naturalization. Naturalization = citizenship.

If the only way a foreigner can be here is via citizenship, it's only a matter of time before they become the majority and vote the posterity of the founders into oblivion.

 

[danielpalos]

You don't have to be right or left; conservative or liberal; Democrat or Republican to understand this:

1) Courts interpret the laws and they create what are known as precedents

2) A precedent is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

3) In the 1990s local sheriffs refused to enforce gun control laws, specifically the Brady Bill. They refused to enforce federal laws because they felt they were unconstitutional. The case went before the United States Supreme Court where the high Court ruled:

The United States Supreme Court reasoned:

"The Court quoted Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly.[6] As such, the Brady Act's mandate on the Sheriffs to perform background checks was unconstitutional."

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged, all the lawyers had to do was invoke the holdings (that part where the high Court "HELD") that feds cannot command state officials to enforce federal laws. If you happen to own a gun and your sheriff some day refuses to confiscate it, using Printz as a defense, you can appreciate the law. THE FEDS CAN'T FORCE STATES TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. Thank you in advance. I not only donated money to advance that case, but shepardized cases for legal briefs in the early stages of that case.

Maybe this will explain it better:

Why Settled Precedent Prevents President Trump From Punishing Sanctuary Cities For Declining to Assist in Federal Immigration Policy

Now you know

What? Now that is even more stupid.

That last article, is suggesting that moving illegal immigrants, to sanctuary cities, is a punishment.

Do you not even realize the implications there? You are suggesting that giving illegals to the cites that openly say they want, and support, illegal immigrants... is now a punishment?

That implies that illegal immigrants are not a benefit to the entire country, but a punishment to the entire country.

Or can you explain how, illegal immigration is a huge benefit to our entire society, unless they go to sanctuary cities were they magically become a punishment?

Now I didn't think that Trump ever had the authority to force cities, or states, to take illegals. That was obvious. The point wasn't to try and violate the constitution, and start dictating to cities.

The point was to illustrate in plain view to the entire country, the hypocrisy of the left-wing, that here you have all these left-wingers saying they don't want borders, and how enforcing immigration policy is wrong, and how we welcome everyone everywhere to walk into our country freely..... and yet the very moment that someone suggests "Ok, then you handle this", then instantly "YOU ARE PUNISHING US!"

And Trump did this brilliantly.

Left-wingers are universally hypocritical, and this is just another example. Quick to demand more government services, but first to decline paying the bill. It's always someone else that will pay the taxes for all their free stuff.

And here again, quick to demand open borders, and no enforcing immigration law, and yes to sanctuary cities.... just until they are asked to deal with the consequences of that policy, and then it's "You can't punish us! That's a violation of the constitution!".

Funny how the left talks about 'fairness' all the time, but then wants to force everyone but themselves, to pay for bad public policy.

I have no idea why you aimed that at me. I reported the laws. States have jurisdiction over who comes and goes within their state. Sanctuary cities are protected form federal involvement. That is the law.

This year that question goes to SCOTUS. And then we will find out.

The 9th Circus Court has caused a 1 and a half year delay on that decision. It is now in a 9 month time frame to be challenged via the court case I've already shown in this thread.

While I believe in the 10th Amendment for State Rights..........time and time again Federal Laws are above the States on these issues............We shall find that out.

The several States have no basis to care if someone is from out of State or from out of state since 1808. Entry into the Union is an Obligation of the general government since then.

Since 1808 the Constitution only covers the prohibition of the importation of slaves. Until 1875 the states had control of who came and went within a state. The federal government only controls naturalization. Naturalization = citizenship.

If the only way a foreigner can be here is via citizenship, it's only a matter of time before they become the majority and vote the posterity of the founders into oblivion.

Legacy laws that should have been challenged at every opportunity. The several States were organized differently under the Articles of Confederation and had that sovereignty over their State borders, then.

Entry into the Union is a federal Obligation since 1808 and the several States of the Union no longer had any basis to care if someone was from out of State or from out of state since freedom of travel is a natural right and a civil right implied in State Constitutions under the United States.

 

[MaryL]

I have walked down the same hallowed halls Molly Brown trod. I don't think the same assholes that want open borders, they don't give a flying shit. We have roots and we care.

 

[MaryL]

I have to wonder. 2020 and still. Liberals want to impeach Trump, but never ask HOW did sanctuary cities happen? It violates every precept of the constitution I know. Homelessness is constitutional...but the 8th amendment. But allowing camping in the streets is humane?

 

[Vandalshandle]

I have to wonder. 2020 and still. Liberals want to impeach Trump, but never ask HOW did sanctuary cities happen? It violates every precept of the constitution I know. Homelessness is constitutional...but the 8th amendment. But allowing camping in the streets is humane?

Oh, god, here you go again....

 

[MaryL]

I have to wonder. 2020 and still. Liberals want to impeach Trump, but never ask HOW did sanctuary cities happen? It violates every precept of the constitution I know. Homelessness is constitutional...but the 8th amendment. But allowing camping in the streets is humane?

Oh, god, here I go again...you imply that's a bad thing.

 

[MaryL]

What statutory laws did Trump break? What LAWS exactly did Trump violate exactly/? Unlike say, the liberals, that violate federal laws and do without our consent ...um, sanctuary cities, WE didn't want it nor did WE ask for it.So, like I asked before, what is the legitimacy and the constitutional basis of sanctuary cities?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I have to wonder. 2020 and still. Liberals want to impeach Trump, but never ask HOW did sanctuary cities happen? It violates every precept of the constitution I know. Homelessness is constitutional...but the 8th amendment. But allowing camping in the streets is humane?

If anyone is scratching their heads, asking how sanctuary cities happened, they don't have a very high IQ.

FACT: the right made sanctuary cities legal AND they damn well should be proud. It's going to save their ass when state and local cops refuse to enforce Red Flag Laws, gun confiscations, bans, high capacity magazine bans, etc.

 

[protectionist]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.

 

[MaryL]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.

Well, since our so called Democrat councilpersons and local government seems to be above the laws they hold Trump to, when Pelosi turns in those impeachment articles to the Senate, I am going to snicker a little.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.

Well, since our so called Democrat councilpersons and local government seems to be above the laws they hold Trump to, when Pelosi turns in those impeachment articles to the Senate, I am going to snicker a little.

‘Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?’

Yes.

Again, the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from compelling states and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal laws – including immigration laws.

State and local law enforcement cooperate with Federal authorities when requested to do so, but local law enforcement is at liberty to not enforce Federal immigration laws or unilaterally detain those suspected of violating immigration law.

 

[MaryL]

Funny about this...it's early January 2020. Pelosi hasn't yet YET handed over the articles of impeachment. These same people that created sanctuary cities without our consent, giving aid and assisting foreign nationals skirting federal laws everyone else had to follow....And so on and so forth,,,,What statutory law did Trump violate that democrats willing violated and called it social justice or whatever and the have it overturned because it suits them?

 

[Porter Rockwell]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.

No, sanctuary cities are NOT violations of 8 USC 1324. Had the pro-gun sheriffs not taken the issue to court and won in the United States Supreme Court (see Printz v. US) there would be no sanctuary cities. That being the case, gun groups could not rely on pro-gun sanctuary cities to help shield them from federal gun control measures designed to circumvent the Constitution.

 

[protectionist]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.

Well, since our so called Democrat councilpersons and local government seems to be above the laws they hold Trump to, when Pelosi turns in those impeachment articles to the Senate, I am going to snicker a little.

‘Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?’

Yes.

Again, the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from compelling states and local jurisdictions to enforce Federal laws – including immigration laws.

State and local law enforcement cooperate with Federal authorities when requested to do so, but local law enforcement is at liberty to not enforce Federal immigration laws or unilaterally detain those suspected of violating immigration law.

Whether they cooperate with ICE or not, by providing any sanctuary in any way, they are in violation of US Code 8, Section 1324.

Barr should be arresting all of these sanctuary granting traitors.

 

[protectionist]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.

No, sanctuary cities are NOT violations of 8 USC 1324. Had the pro-gun sheriffs not taken the issue to court and won in the United States Supreme Court (see Printz v. US) there would be no sanctuary cities. That being the case, gun groups could not rely on pro-gun sanctuary cities to help shield them from federal gun control measures designed to circumvent the Constitution.

You don't know what you are talking about. US Code 8, Section 1324 is about shielding illegal aliens. Has nothing to do with guns.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.

No, sanctuary cities are NOT violations of 8 USC 1324. Had the pro-gun sheriffs not taken the issue to court and won in the United States Supreme Court (see Printz v. US) there would be no sanctuary cities. That being the case, gun groups could not rely on pro-gun sanctuary cities to help shield them from federal gun control measures designed to circumvent the Constitution.

You don't know what you are talking about. US Code 8, Section 1324 is about shielding illegal aliens. Has nothing to do with guns.

You, sir don't know what in the HELL you're talking about. I will give you a free mini civics lesson here:

The United States Supreme Court interprets the law. WHEN they do so, they create what are known as precedents. These precedents establish principles of law that must be followed in all states, by ALL courts.

In 1997 the United States Supreme Court lumped a lot of pending lawsuits against the Brady Bill brought by Sheriffs across the country telling the federal government that state and local law enforcement could not be forced to enforce federal laws. The United States Supreme Court agreed. The high Court reasoned:

" Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends. The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory"

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly..."

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged in the courts.... well let me give you some more info:

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Hear Sanctuary Cities Case

Oooops... What is that? The Printz case is being cited as the reason Trump loses.

IF Trump could prevail, then no state or local law enforcement agencies could refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws as they are today.

As for you citing Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the United States Supreme Court ruled on that one too. Let me give you THEIR WORDS:

"By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

It's going to be interesting to see how your side tap dances around rulings by the United States Supreme Court. The people you're listening to have been making the same arguments for over a decade and a half and have been consistently losing their proverbial posteriors.

 

[protectionist]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

Of course it does. Every sanctuary City is a violation of US Code 8, Section 1324, with penalties ranging from 5 years in Federal prison, to the death penalty.

No, sanctuary cities are NOT violations of 8 USC 1324. Had the pro-gun sheriffs not taken the issue to court and won in the United States Supreme Court (see Printz v. US) there would be no sanctuary cities. That being the case, gun groups could not rely on pro-gun sanctuary cities to help shield them from federal gun control measures designed to circumvent the Constitution.

You don't know what you are talking about. US Code 8, Section 1324 is about shielding illegal aliens. Has nothing to do with guns.

You, sir don't know what in the HELL you're talking about. I will give you a free mini civics lesson here:

The United States Supreme Court interprets the law. WHEN they do so, they create what are known as precedents. These precedents establish principles of law that must be followed in all states, by ALL courts.

In 1997 the United States Supreme Court lumped a lot of pending lawsuits against the Brady Bill brought by Sheriffs across the country telling the federal government that state and local law enforcement could not be forced to enforce federal laws. The United States Supreme Court agreed. The high Court reasoned:

" Federalist No. 51’s argument that by giving voters control over dual sovereign governments "a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself."[11][12] The Court concluded that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends. The Court identified an additional structural problem with commandeering the Sheriffs: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the President of the United States of his power to execute the laws; contradicting the "unitary executive theory"

...The Government had argued that the anti-commandeering doctrine established in New York v. United States (1992), which held that Congress could not command state legislatures to either pass a law or take ownership of nuclear waste, did not apply to state officials.[6] Rejecting the Government's argument, the Court held that the Tenth Amendment categorically forbids the Federal Government from commanding state officials directly..."

When the constitutionality of sanctuary cities was challenged in the courts.... well let me give you some more info:

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Hear Sanctuary Cities Case

Oooops... What is that? The Printz case is being cited as the reason Trump loses.

IF Trump could prevail, then no state or local law enforcement agencies could refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws as they are today.

As for you citing Title 8 of the U.S. Code, the United States Supreme Court ruled on that one too. Let me give you THEIR WORDS:

"By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012)

It's going to be interesting to see how your side tap dances around rulings by the United States Supreme Court. The people you're listening to have been making the same arguments for over a decade and a half and have been consistently losing their proverbial posteriors.

I would answer this brain post with a reply of "Nice Try", but it doesn't even rate that, Mr DODGE.

Typical liberal tactic. When defeated in debate, you change the subject, deflecting away from the initial subject.

US Code 8 Section 1324 pertains to the acts of harboring and/or shielding illegal aliens, not whether it is criminal for them to be here. Try reading the statute. If you are shielding these Invaders, you are a felon, and you better revise your activities. In worst case, you could get the death penalty. So says the statute.