Number of sanctuary cities grows to 340; thousands of illegals released to commit new crimes - Washington Times

As brought up in one of the many Kim Davis threads, how is this different than her refusal to follow federal law? Shouldn't the city officials be pursued for failing to comply with federal law?

As brought up in one of the many Kim Davis threads, how is this different than her refusal to follow federal law? Shouldn't the city officials be pursued for failing to comply with federal law?

 

The Kim Davis issue wasn't over federal law. The Court held that state laws that denied same-sex couples access to marriage violated the constitution and were invalid.

 

From what I understand of the sanctuary city issue the question there is whether states are compelled to enforce federal law. We know federal laws and state laws may differ, we know that when there is a conflict federal law wins out, but do states have to enforce federal law? I genuinely don't know the history of federalism well enough to give an answer. And this issue is thornier because the federal government has the purview to make laws on immigration. I don't believe states are able to make their own immigration laws.

 

However, I do think if this were a different issue and the federal government forced states to enforce laws they disagreed with there would be a lot more outrage.

Thanks. Perhaps the feds could suspend all assistance to these cities unless they are in compliance with federal law. That seems to be how they've responded in the past when they wanted states to comply with federal regulations. Not sure why they don't follow that model on this.

I'm surprised they haven't done that yet either.

Thanks. Perhaps the feds could suspend all assistance to these cities unless they are in compliance with federal law. That seems to be how they've responded in the past when they wanted states to comply with federal regulations. Not sure why they don't follow that model on this.

 

I'm surprised they haven't done that yet either.

 

With the current administration we have in place? You really find it a surprise?

With the current administration we have in place? You really find it a surprise?

 

It's not surprising Obama isn't leaning on them, but Congress controls the purse.

It's not surprising Obama isn't leaning on them, but Congress controls the purse.

Exactly!!

It's not surprising Obama isn't leaning on them, but Congress controls the purse.

 

If Congress tried to cut funding, the outrage would come from the Left so quickly it would make ones head spin. Look how quickly the Left came screaming when the attempt to defund PP was put into play.

The Kim Davis issue wasn't over federal law. The Court held that state laws that denied same-sex couples access to marriage violated the constitution and were invalid.

 

From what I understand of the sanctuary city issue the question there is whether states are compelled to enforce federal law. We know federal laws and state laws may differ, we know that when there is a conflict federal law wins out, but do states have to enforce federal law? I genuinely don't know the history of federalism well enough to give an answer. And this issue is thornier because the federal government has the purview to make laws on immigration. I don't believe states are able to make their own immigration laws.

 

However, I do think if this were a different issue and the federal government forced states to enforce laws they disagreed with there would be a lot more outrage.

 

It's not about enforcing, it's about ignoring.

It is amazing to me that anyone thinks it is OK for a city to ignore a Federal law that says that if someone is here illegally and is caught committing a crime that they should be deported. How can anyone think it is a good idea for the city to shield someone here illegally who commits a crime from the ICE guys? Just mindboggling to me that people defend this...

How long have sanctuary cities been going on? Is this something the Obama administration started? It seems shortsighted and agenda driven to blame the Obama administration for something that began in the 1980s.

How long have sanctuary cities been going on? Is this something the Obama administration started? It seems shortsighted and agenda driven to blame the Obama administration for something that began in the 1980s.

 

Good question. I think they were around before him, but this current political climate definitely doesn't hurt their existence/creation either.

First sanctuary city was in Los Angeles in 1979.

How long have sanctuary cities been going on? Is this something the Obama administration started? It seems shortsighted and agenda driven to blame the Obama administration for something that began in the 1980s.

 

I don't blame Obama only, I blame most politicians on both sides who don't have the guts to end this practice.

 

The Dems won't do it because they have a lock on Hispanic vote and won't rock the boat. The GOP won't do it because they will be labeled racists.

 

When any reasonable person when they look at it , realize these cities are lawless and threaten the saftey and freedom of US citizens.