Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

[Darat]

Maybe they shouldn't be here. That way they can't be deported.

Maybe USA businesses shouldn't employ them.

 

[ahhell]

It consist simply in not asking the citizenship status of someone who reports that they have been the victim of a crime.


I covered some of those previously. It's never as simple as stated. It frequently involves janky pseudo-legal stunts such as bogus warrants. The jurisdictions properly reject these, because it's necessary to do so in order to preserve the claim that the sanctuary jurisdiction is operating faithfully according to law, not out of discretion. But of course these occurrences can be spun to argue that it is naked obstruction.

In other cases, the jurisdiction argues that handing over criminals or alleged criminals for immigration proceedings would deprive the criminal justice system of its corrective power. If someone is charged and convicted of, say, rape, but is then lawfully deported before a criminal sentence can be served, then it can be argued that the state's right to justice in criminal matters has been undermined.


No, but that's a straw man. The issue is cooperation in enforcing federal law, not attempts to decriminalize or ignore federal law. As matter of fact, my local police force does not investigate violations of federal counterfeit law, and cannot be compelled by the federal government to do so on its behalf.


The 10th amendment, as interpreted in New York v. United States (506 U.S. 144 [1992]) and Printz v. United States (521 U.S. 898 [1997]). The 10th amendment is the source for the doctrine of state sovereignty. Being a sovereign generally means no other government can tell you what to do.


In general, current precedent remains that grants of assistance from the federal government cannot be conditioned on behavior unconnected with the purpose of the grant. And "unfunded mandates" similarly remain unconstitutional. The difficulty in enforcing a court decision upon a lawless executive remains a point of discussion.

Thanks for the references, nice to hear progressives care about states' rights and admit that states the Fed have shared sovereignty.

New York v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've got to be honest, not following how this quite applies.

It consist simply in not asking the citizenship status of someone who reports that they have been the victim of a crime.

Sure that's what you mean by it. Its a trivial effort to figure out that what it actually means in practice varies quite a bit. That is the most reasonable version the least reasonable is that a local jurisdication will not cooperate with ICE at all.

This time article is pretty typical:

What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why Is Trump Targeting Them?

Sanctuary cities have once again taken center stage. Here's what you need to know.

time.com

There is no legal or universal definition of the phrase, but sanctuary cities are commonly regarded as jurisdictions which have policies that limit or define the extent to which a local/state government will share information with federal immigration law officers.

There are sanctuary schools, can the feds limit education grants on account of that, probably. Various grants to law enforcement, seems likely that the feds can limit those if locals won't cooperate with federal law enforcement. Not cooperating with federal law enforcement seems pretty directly connected to money going to law enforcement. At least as direct as legal age at which you can buy beer is to transportation money.

 

[Hercules56]

Maybe USA businesses shouldn't employ them.

Oh, I 100% agree.

Knowingly employing illegal workers should come with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and $100,000 fine.

How do we reconcile this with our need for cheap labor? No idea. Import more cheap stuff.

 

[theprestige]

Oh, I 100% agree.

Knowingly employing illegal workers should come with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and $100,000 fine.

How do we reconcile this with our need for cheap labor? No idea. Import more cheap stuff.

We don't need cheap labor. We like cheap labor.

One hypothesis is that if we get aggressive about not importing more cheap labor (especially illegal cheap labor!), working-class Americans will start being able to earn a living wage again, enough to support a family and buy a home.

That's a hypothesis I'd very much like to test.

 

[Hercules56]

We don't need cheap labor. We like cheap labor.

One hypothesis is that if we get aggressive about not importing more cheap labor (especially illegal cheap labor!), working-class Americans will start being able to earn a living wage again, enough to support a family and buy a home.

That's a hypothesis I'd very much like to test.

We can either pay workers less OR import cheap goods.

There is no third moral option.

 

[theprestige]

We can either pay workers less OR import cheap goods.

There is no third moral option.

Counterpoint: We can pay our workers more, import fewer cheap goods, and make more expensive goods here at home.

That seems pretty moral to me.

 

[Hercules56]

Counterpoint: We can pay our workers more, import fewer cheap goods, and make more expensive goods here at home.

That seems pretty moral to me.

More pay means higher prices. Americans dont like that. But yes it is a third option.

 

[JayUtah]

Thanks for the references, nice to hear progressives care about states' rights and admit that states the Fed have shared sovereignty.

I don't think there's much disagreement in the abstract. Where conservatives and progressives disagree, in my observation, is what issues should be controlled by which sovereignty. I think that's a healthy debate, even if it leads to a lot of accusations of hypocrisy. I think that tension is inherent to the question of shared sovereignty.

New York v. United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I've got to be honest, not following how this quite applies.

It lays out a framework by which Congress may create incentives for states to agree to cooperate voluntarily with enforcement of federal mandates. In the issue before the court there, some of a particular law's provisions were upheld as an admissible exercise of Congress' incentives under the Commerce Clause, but others were disallowed, such as requiring the state to take possession of hazardous waste that operators in the state have not properly handled. The latter attempts to require the state to do something that it would otherwise wish to avoid doing, in order to compel the state to act more reasonably in other ways as deputies for federal enforcement. That is deemed to violate the state's sovereignty.

I've found it helpful when reading precedent cases to isolate the general principles of law being decided from the particular facts and findings of the case on its individual facts.

That is the most reasonable version the least reasonable is that a local jurisdication will not cooperate with ICE at all.

Correct. If presented with a judicial warrant, for example, state authorities must comply.

 

[ahhell]

I don't think there's much disagreement in the abstract. Where conservatives and progressives disagree, in my observation, is what issues should be controlled by which sovereignty. I think that's a healthy debate, even if it leads to a lot of accusations of hypocrisy. I think that tension is inherent to the question of shared sovereignty.

Pretty much agree there. There is plenty of hypocrisy, but I don't find that to be an especially useful thing to argue about. It's easy to avoid, just have no standards or opinions.

I have heard some folks deny that the US federal system includes shared sovereignty on the part of the states though. There is some disagreement on that issue.

 

[mumblethrax]

There are sanctuary schools, can the feds limit education grants on account of that, probably. Various grants to law enforcement, seems likely that the feds can limit those if locals won't cooperate with federal law enforcement. Not cooperating with federal law enforcement seems pretty directly connected to money going to law enforcement. At least as direct as legal age at which you can buy beer is to transportation money.

Limit, yes. Eliminate, almost certainly not. Something like 5% of federal highway funds are conditioned on states establishing 21+ drinking ages. The ACA's conditioning of all federal Medicaid contributions on coverage expansion, on the other hand, was struck down.

 

[JayUtah]

I have heard some folks deny that the US federal system includes shared sovereignty on the part of the states though. There is some disagreement on that issue.

Assuming that disagreement is in good faith, it is perhaps useful to consider the federal supremacy clause. State sovereignty and federal supremacy are also naturally in tension. These are not always straightforward questions. There's a reason why Constitutional Law is one of the largest of the standard law school texts (vol. 1 alone is 1300 pages of 9-point text and 7 kg).

The Framers sought to guide mitigate the tension by giving Congress only enumerated powers of legislation. Congress may legislate only in certain specifically enumerated areas. By the 10th amendment, unless a power is specifically given to a branch of the government, it is reserved for the state.

In contrast, states have what political science calls "police power," which doesn't mean the narrow topic of uniformed law enforcement. A state's "police power" means its inherent power to pass legislation of practically any kind, generally aimed at the health, safety, and welfare of its population. Its laws must comport to its own constitution and to the U.S. Constitution. But those laws aren't limited to specifically enumerated categories. A state doesn't need to be granted permission to legislate, say, for the management of lands it owns. It has that power inherently, without it needing to be mentioned. All Congress's laws, in contrast, have to fall into the categories named in Article I section 8.

The Supremacy Clause comes into play when both Congress and a state have legislated on the same matter. The police power of a state overlaps in some categories with the enumerated categories of Congress. If there is any conflict between the federal law and the state law on the same facts, the federal law supersedes the state law. This is if both laws are each per se constitutional. Put simply, if Congress is allowed to legislate on a particular subject, and has done so, then its laws supersede any state law on the same subject that conflicts with the federal law.

For example, the Constitution gives Congress the explicit right to levy taxes. But many states also levy taxes, and this comes from their general police power. How is this permitted? Because the state law does not attempt to supplant or preclude the federal tax code. If a state were to levy a tax that it purports to be in place of the federal tax, this would not be allowed. A state can't say, "You must pay taxes to me instead of to the federal government." The laws don't conflict. Each law levies a separate tax.

However, if Congress passes a nationwide minimum wage law under its power to regulate commerce, a state cannot pass a law establishing a lower amount. That state law would be in conflict with the national law, since you could offer a lower wage lawfully under state law that violates the federal law. A state-imposed minimum wage that is higher than the national amount would be okay, since it's possible to obey both laws by paying the higher wage.

In sanctuary jurisdictions, no law is being made that challenges the validity of federal immigration law. Illegal aliens are just as unlawfully present in sanctuary states as they are in non-sanctuary states. No law directs officials to obstruct or impede federal enforcement efforts, or to disregard their authority. The difference between obstruction and non-cooperation is subtle but vital.

 

[mumblethrax]

It's a bit weird that we talk about states having sovereignty--they don't in the same sense that, say, Sweden does--but I think everyone apart from a few cranks understand that the territory of the US is co-governed under the federal system.

When the Trump administration demands that New York shuts down its congestion pricing scheme, the appropriate response is "We'll see you in court." When they demand that some bureau in Stockholm shuts down DEI programs, the appropriate response is "...what?"

 

[Hercules56]

It's a bit weird that we talk about states having sovereignty--they don't in the same sense that, say, Sweden does--but I think everyone apart from a few cranks understand that the territory of the US is co-governed under the federal system.

When the Trump administration demands that New York shuts down its congestion pricing scheme, the appropriate response is "We'll see you in court." When they demand that some bureau in Stockholm shuts down DEI programs, the appropriate response is "...what?"

Sovereign states? Meet the Interstate Commerce Clause.

 

[JayUtah]

Sovereign states? Meet the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Oh yeah, that's a huge one. Compared to 1790, most of our commerce these days is interstate.

The Necessary and Proper Clause can also serve as a catch-call. It lets Congress legislate on the periphery of its enumerated categories, and that boundary can sometimes be a little fuzzy. Congress can establish post offices, which means it can create a criminal offense for mail fraud. For every primary authority given to Congress, the N&P Clause gives secondary authority to help make that primary purpose happen.

 

[dirtywick]

In sanctuary jurisdictions, no law is being made that challenges the validity of federal immigration law. Illegal aliens are just as unlawfully present in sanctuary states as they are in non-sanctuary states. No law directs officials to obstruct or impede federal enforcement efforts, or to disregard their authority. The difference between obstruction and non-cooperation is subtle but vital.

they've been doing it with marijuana for a long time now. cities and entire states simply won't arrest or prosecute people for possessing it but also not stopping the federal government from doing so, which at times they have. essentially, i'm not sure what grounds there are for the federal government to require the states to do their jobs for them. there's often overlap, but when there's not, there's not.

 

[Hercules56]

Oh yeah, that's a huge one. Compared to 1790, most of our commerce these days is interstate.

The Necessary and Proper Clause can also serve as a catch-call. It lets Congress legislate on the periphery of its enumerated categories, and that boundary can sometimes be a little fuzzy. Congress can establish post offices, which means it can create a criminal offense for mail fraud. For every primary authority given to Congress, the N&P Clause gives secondary authority to help make that primary purpose happen.

Our states are NOT sovereign when it comes to gun laws, gay marriage, civil rights, voting rights, worker rights, child labor, slavery, environmental laws, etc etc. Basically are sovereign until the feds pass a law saying they are not.

 

[Donal]

Actively encouraging illegal immigration seems like a terrible idea.

great. Go after the companies hiring them.

Also I think it's hilariously dystopian that most sanctuary city policy boils down to running cover for people you're arresting for crimes.

No, they are "running cover" for the residents of the city in question

These aren't the hard working, law abiding, undocumented fine upstanding members of your community.

In fact, many are. In fact, many are actually American citizens. And the ones that may fit your description are still entitled to due process.

You're intentionally offering protection to people who shouldn't be in any of our cities,

And who put you in charge of making that distinction?

who also like to commit crimes. These are people that any sane city would want to make someone else's problem as soon as possible.

Let me know when the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on Wall Street start getting shipped off to El Salvador.

So while I think they should be tolerated as a matter of federalist principle...

... In terms of morality and social responsibility, I think they are pants on head retarded, and should be repudiated at every turn.

Translation : You want to continue having a comfortable lifestyle from exploiting them. You just don't want to see them as fully human.

 

[Donal]

Oh, I 100% agree.

Knowingly employing illegal workers should come with a minimum 10 year prison sentence and $100,000 fine.

How do we reconcile this with our need for cheap labor? No idea. Import more cheap stuff.

Why do you think those imported goods are so cheap?

 

[Hercules56]

great. Go after the companies hiring them.

No, they are "running cover" for the residents of the city in question

In fact, many are. In fact, many are actually American citizens. And the ones that may fit your description are still entitled to due process.

And who put you in charge of making that distinction?

Let me know when the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on Wall Street start getting shipped off to El Salvador.

Translation : You want to continue having a comfortable lifestyle from exploiting them. You just don't want to see them as fully human.

So deporting illegal migrants means we see them as unhuman?

 

[Hercules56]

Why do you think those imported goods are so cheap?

Lower cost of living therefore lower wages. Less regulations on manufacturing. Govt subsidized industries.