Are sanctuary cities really sanctuary cities?

[Luvnit2]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-democrats-fear-looming-political-disaster-migrant-crisis-ticking-time-bomb

Democrats urged immigrants to come to NYC, they would educate their children, give them free health insurance, phones and more. The same Democrats had no sympathy for border cities and states.

Now the Borden open borders policies find more illegal immigrants wandering around the US than any time in history. Mayor Adams wants to bus them out of NYC and into the suburbs (who are not sanctuary cities). Mass. wants people to open up their homes for illegal immigrants. Yet we have a homeless crisis in major US cities (Democrat ran cities) and Democrats put illegal immigrants over US citizens.

Meanwhile drug cartels are getting rich bringing in illegals and also bringing in drugs. Drug deaths are sky rocketing.

How can Biden say he is doing everything he can to secure the border. Why did the immigrants sent to Martha's Vineyard (home of Obama and the elite) send them away within a coupe of days?

Illegal immigrants who are not vaccinated and in a lot of cases carry deadly diseases in from their countries who do not have the different shots required by the US are now everywhere. Any Democrat who says the border is secure and Biden is doing. great job is lying. The border states received no help from the federal government, but NY state is getting help for their crisis (small in comparison to border cities in Texas and Arizona).

The Democrats bragged for years they care about illegal immigrants, it was easy as it had minimal impact to cities like NYC. But now, the crisis is hitting home and we are learning Democratic cities and states being impacted are not happy to spend billions of dollars to honor their sanctuary city status.

[Belsnickel]

All I need to see is the "Biden open borders" line and my bullshit meter immediately goes off and I stop reading. It would be great if people could just stop lying.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-18-2023, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: All I need to see is the "Biden open borders" line and my bullshit meter immediately goes off and I stop reading. It would be great if people could just stop lying.

The sad thing is this is actually an excellent topic to discuss.  It is demonstrably true that some "sanctuary cities", such as Chicago quickly change their tune when confronted by the reality of mass migration.  The topic is actually a solid one for the GOP, but they, typically, have muddied the waters by putting extras on it.

[treee]

Biden is getting raked over the coals for continuing trump administration migration policies yet also has 'open borders'. Fascinating.

[*Nately120*]

(08-18-2023, 12:41 PM)treee Wrote: Biden is getting raked over the coals for continuing trump administration migration policies yet also has 'open borders'. Fascinating.

Reminds me of when Obama kept the Patriot Act and the Bush war going and each side was elated or furious with their insistence that he was such a flower power peacenik.  That must have been news to the people being peacefully blown up, but hey, only Americans and their perceptions matter eh?

Why base your perceptions upon anything more complicated than the D or R next to the name of the current president?  

[Stewy]

(08-18-2023, 12:41 PM)treee Wrote: Biden is getting raked over the coals for continuing trump administration migration policies yet also has 'open borders'. Fascinating.

That's because most people are either ignorant (most people), hypocrites or liars.

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2023, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The sad thing is this is actually an excellent topic to discuss.  It is demonstrably true that some "sanctuary cities", such as Chicago quickly change their tune when confronted by the reality of mass migration.  The topic is actually a solid one for the GOP, but they, typically, have muddied the waters by putting extras on it.

Well, it isn't though. It would be a solid one if sanctuary cities were what the GOP claims they are versus what they actually are: cities that do not support/aid ICE in arresting undocumented immigrants. That's all. The idea of sanctuary cities isn't that they will give them anything or support them in any way. There are places that have said they will do that, but that's not what a sanctuary city is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-18-2023, 01:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it isn't though. It would be a solid one if sanctuary cities were what the GOP claims they are versus what they actually are: cities that do not support/aid ICE in arresting undocumented immigrants. That's all. The idea of sanctuary cities isn't that they will give them anything or support them in any way. There are places that have said they will do that, but that's not what a sanctuary city is.

You're not entirely correct about the designation, I can tell you it goes far beyond not assisting ICE and is well into actively hindering.  That said, is the distinction really that important?  If you prevent federal authorities from doing their job how can that be construed in any way other than you directly aiding those the feds are targeting?  Also, I don't think "giving them anything" is the position of many.  

The real problem, and I believe this trend started with this issue, is the suspension of the rule of law.  If you don't like a law then change it.  But choosing to ignore it when it's expedient to you flouts the entire concept of having laws in the first place.  This opened the door to prosecutors who actively ignore the law in pursuit of the ideological objectives.  And when I say actively, I literally mean it.  I haven't seen as many mischarges from a DA in my twenty plus years on this job than I have since Gascon took over.  More in the past three years than the other twenty combing and multiplied by a hundred.

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2023, 01:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're not entirely correct about the designation, I can tell you it goes far beyond not assisting ICE and is well into actively hindering.

Maybe in some, but that's not the majority and not what the designation really is. I will share this link for a good definition of the term: https://fclawlib.libguides.com/immigrationlaw/sanctuary

I will note that even the way I worded it is incorrect from what this says and the definition really acknowledges the differences that exist. The main point is that the term does not mean what the OP was claiming it means.

(08-18-2023, 01:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That said, is the distinction really that important?  If you prevent federal authorities from doing their job how can that be construed in any way other than you directly aiding those the feds are targeting?  Also, I don't think "giving them anything" is the position of many.  

I think it is. There is a difference between material support and what the intentions of sanctuary city policies are. The OP lays it out in the first line of his post and we have been seeing this narrative from Abbot and DeSantis as they have trafficked undocumented immigrants under fraudulent conditions.

(08-18-2023, 01:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The real problem, and I believe this trend started with this issue, is the suspension of the rule of law.  If you don't like a law then change it.  But choosing to ignore it when it's expedient to you flouts the entire concept of having laws in the first place.  This opened the door to prosecutors who actively ignore the law in pursuit of the ideological objectives.  And when I say actively, I literally mean it.  I haven't seen as many mischarges from a DA in my twenty plus years on this job than I have since Gascon took over.  More in the past three years than the other twenty combing and multiplied by a hundred.

I don't disagree, but here is my position on sanctuary cities. Immigration law is federal law and I have zero issues is a state or local government states that they will not be involved in the enforcement of a federal law. I do not think there should be active interference, but if the policy is one where they won't aid in the enforcement then I have no problem with that. After all, a federal law isn't a law a state or locality can change, but it also isn't their law to enforce for those same reasons.

[masonbengals fan]

So you actually believe our border is secure ?

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2023, 01:41 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: So you actually believe our border is secure ?

No, but I know the problem is misrepresented by elected officials on a regular basis in an effort to gin up support. The realities of the border situation are much different than how it is presented to the general public.

[masonbengals fan]

(08-18-2023, 01:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, but I know the problem is misrepresented by elected officials on a regular basis in an effort to gin up support. The realities of the border situation are much different than how it is presented to the general public.

& the sad reality is that it's probably worse than what's shown.

 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-18-2023, 01:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Maybe in some, but that's not the majority and not what the designation really is. I will share this link for a good definition of the term: https://fclawlib.libguides.com/immigrationlaw/sanctuary

I will note that even the way I worded it is incorrect from what this says and the definition really acknowledges the differences that exist. The main point is that the term does not mean what the OP was claiming it means.

I can tell you one thing I have definitely noticed is the difference between what is said publicly and what is actually implemented.  What Los Angeles says publicly about being a sanctuary city is not even close to the policies they actually enforce.

Quote:I think it is. There is a difference between material support and what the intentions of sanctuary city policies are. The OP lays it out in the first line of his post and we have been seeing this narrative from Abbot and DeSantis as they have trafficked undocumented immigrants under fraudulent conditions.

Let me ask you a question because I'd honestly like to know how you view the following.  How would you classify the county, or city forbidding ICE from detaining people outside of county jail or inside a court building?  Is that not supporting or is it actively hindering?

Quote:I don't disagree, but here is my position on sanctuary cities. Immigration law is federal law and I have zero issues is a state or local government states that they will not be involved in the enforcement of a federal law. I do not think there should be active interference, but if the policy is one where they won't aid in the enforcement then I have no problem with that. After all, a federal law isn't a law a state or locality can change, but it also isn't their law to enforce for those same reasons.

By that same logic a local government, county or smaller, could say they will refuse to enforce any gun control laws passed at the state level.  Which we both know has happened.  At what point does the refusal to follow a law enacted by a larger organ of government become a complete dissolution of the rule of law?  Can a city refuse to follow county law?  Can a city refuse to follow a law, such as in CA, where Newsome is suing Huntington Beach for refusing to comply with this edict that "X" number of housing in a city be designated as low income?

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/04/10/california-sues-huntington-beach-for-violating-state-housing-element-law/

Cannot Huntington Beach refuse to comply with this law as it is enacted by the state?  Yes, they have representation in the state legislature, but the same argument could be made for representation at the Federal level.  This idea that you can refuse to participate in a law that was enacted at a higher level is a dangerous one to say the least.

[treee]

(08-18-2023, 02:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can tell you one thing I have definitely noticed is the difference between what is said publicly and what is actually implemented.  What Los Angeles says publicly about being a sanctuary city is not even close to the policies they actually enforce.




Let me ask you a question because I'd honestly like to know how you view the following.  How would you classify the county, or city forbidding ICE from detaining people outside of county jail or inside a court building?  Is that not supporting or is it actively hindering?


By that same logic a local government, county or smaller, could say they will refuse to enforce any gun control laws passed at the state level.  Which we both know has happened.  At what point does the refusal to follow a law enacted by a larger organ of government become a complete dissolution of the rule of law?  Can a city refuse to follow county law?  Can a city refuse to follow a law, such as in CA, where Newsome is suing Huntington Beach for refusing to comply with this edict that "X" number of housing in a city be designated as low income?

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/04/10/california-sues-huntington-beach-for-violating-state-housing-element-law/

Cannot Huntington Beach refuse to comply with this law as it is enacted by the state?  Yes, they have representation in the state legislature, but the same argument could be made for representation at the Federal level.  This idea that you can refuse to participate in a law that was enacted at a higher level is a dangerous one to say the least.

Your post reminds me of an article I read the other day

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article276848586.html

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-18-2023, 02:09 PM)treee Wrote: Your post reminds me of an article I read the other day

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article276848586.html

Here's an archived link for those who want to read this.

https://archive.li/qoXuK

I'd be interested to know your thoughts on this.

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2023, 02:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can tell you one thing I have definitely noticed is the difference between what is said publicly and what is actually implemented.  What Los Angeles says publicly about being a sanctuary city is not even close to the policies they actually enforce.

Well, that is true about SO many things.

(08-18-2023, 02:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let me ask you a question because I'd honestly like to know how you view the following.  How would you classify the county, or city forbidding ICE from detaining people outside of county jail or inside a court building?  Is that not supporting or is it actively hindering?

I have been mulling this over. My first instinct is that it would be hindering to prohibit detainment on the street outside of the jail, but inside is not at the active hinderance stage. The difference there being public access. However, a court building is also a public building so it gets a bit sticky. I think I will stick with my initial gut reaction.

(08-18-2023, 02:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: By that same logic a local government, county or smaller, could say they will refuse to enforce any gun control laws passed at the state level.  Which we both know has happened.  At what point does the refusal to follow a law enacted by a larger organ of government become a complete dissolution of the rule of law?  Can a city refuse to follow county law?  Can a city refuse to follow a law, such as in CA, where Newsome is suing Huntington Beach for refusing to comply with this edict that "X" number of housing in a city be designated as low income?

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/04/10/california-sues-huntington-beach-for-violating-state-housing-element-law/

Cannot Huntington Beach refuse to comply with this law as it is enacted by the state?  Yes, they have representation in the state legislature, but the same argument could be made for representation at the Federal level.  This idea that you can refuse to participate in a law that was enacted at a higher level is a dangerous one to say the least.

Not quite the same, at least not in every state. So, states are independent of the federal government. The federal government may have the supremacy in the law but the states are not creatures of the federal government, meaning the states actually created the federal government and their authority does not stem from them.

However, in most states, my Commonwealth of Virginia being one of them, there is something called Dillon's Rule. Dillon is the principle that municipalities are creatures of the state and their authority stems from them, therefore their authority only extends to the point at which the state government explicitly lays out.

Now, Dillon's Rule applies to 39 states in some way or another, California included. Some of them have different levels of independence from the state government. For instance, in California about 25% of the cities are what they call charter cities, which have more independence from the state than the other cities have.

So, while states have the freedom to have and enforce whatever laws they wish so long as they do not step on the toes of or conflict with the feds, cities in most states do not enjoy those same freedoms with how their authority is set up based on the constitutions of their states.

I could get much more in the weeds on this because it is kind of in my wheelhouse as a public administration guy, but I would bore everyone to tears.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-18-2023, 12:41 PM)treee Wrote: Biden is getting raked over the coals for continuing trump administration migration policies yet also has 'open borders'. Fascinating.

The exact same policies?  AOC is gonna have to hurry down to Texas soon then.  It's almost Labor Day.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-18-2023, 02:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, that is true about SO many things.

Very true, rather naïve of me to actually say it.

Quote:I have been mulling this over. My first instinct is that it would be hindering to prohibit detainment on the street outside of the jail, but inside is not at the active hinderance stage. The difference there being public access. However, a court building is also a public building so it gets a bit sticky. I think I will stick with my initial gut reaction.

Then I can tell you almost all of CA is actively hindering federal law enforcement.

Quote:Not quite the same, at least not in every state. So, states are independent of the federal government. The federal government may have the supremacy in the law but the states are not creatures of the federal government, meaning the states actually created the federal government and their authority does not stem from them.

However, in most states, my Commonwealth of Virginia being one of them, there is something called Dillon's Rule. Dillon is the principle that municipalities are creatures of the state and their authority stems from them, therefore their authority only extends to the point at which the state government explicitly lays out.

Now, Dillon's Rule applies to 39 states in some way or another, California included. Some of them have different levels of independence from the state government. For instance, in California about 25% of the cities are what they call charter cities, which have more independence from the state than the other cities have.

So, while states have the freedom to have and enforce whatever laws they wish so long as they do not step on the toes of or conflict with the feds, cities in most states do not enjoy those same freedoms with how their authority is set up based on the constitutions of their states.

I did not know that, very interesting.  This rather makes a solid argument for keeping the Electoral College, does it not?  Also, does it only apply to 39 states because the other eleven didn't adopt it?

Quote:I could get much more in the weeds on this because it is kind of in my wheelhouse as a public administration guy, but I would bore everyone to tears.

What you just shared was very interesting information that I'm sure many people here were not aware of.  You might be surprised.

[Belsnickel]

(08-18-2023, 02:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then I can tell you almost all of CA is actively hindering federal law enforcement.

That doesn't surprise me any. A lot of people make fun of Texas for their attitude of being their own country, but California views themselves that way as well in many ways. The two states really have a lot of similarities just with different political positions.

(08-18-2023, 02:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I did not know that, very interesting.  This rather makes a solid argument for keeping the Electoral College, does it not?  Also, does it only apply to 39 states because the other eleven didn't adopt it?

One could certainly make that argument. My argument is that the POTUS does not have authority over the state governments and that the government is a government of the people, not of the states. While the states created the federal government by ratifying the constitution and agreeing to adhere to it, the federal government is not created by a collection of the state governments. If the POTUS acted as essentially a governor who was a first among peers I would be more inclined to agree with the premise of the EC, but this is not the case and the intention behind the EC is outdated.

As for who it applies to, that is hard to say. The 11 states without Dillon's Rule are Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, and West Virginia. When you look at that list it really is a head scratcher to look for some sort of common thread. We have some of the very first states, and some newer ones. Conservative and liberal. East and west. North and south. Urban and rural. Some states have Dillon's Rule but have given their localities so much leeway through statutory efforts that it is useless. Others, like Virginia, are so clamped down on it that local governments have no freedom and our cities can only do what our GA explicitly tells them they can do. We tried to pass an ordinance in my city about mulch next to buildings and materials used because we had a couple of housing complexes burn down thanks to discarded cigarette butts. We were told no by our State Senate. An building code ordinance specifically for within our city limits, but we were shot down by our state legislature.

Anyway, municipal governance is a very interesting and misunderstood topic. I live down the road from the home of the Council-Manager form of city government, which most people don't even think about this sort of thing. But when I look at a city I start looking at their form of government, are they strong- or weak-mayor? Does their mayor have any sort of administrative role or is it entirely invested in a manager? Is their city council broken up by divisions or is it a general election situation? How interconnected is their school board? Their courts? Do they have a sheriff and a police department? How do they split up the roles?

Yeah, this is what I get nerdy about.

[Luvnit2]

(08-18-2023, 12:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: All I need to see is the "Biden open borders" line and my bullshit meter immediately goes off and I stop reading. It would be great if people could just stop lying.

Please by all means share the numbers who entered illegally under Trump and those (ones we know of) under Biden. The number of 6.3 million illegal immigrants under Biden only covers through January, 2023.

https://www.newsweek.com/border-crossings-3-times-higher-under-biden-trump-1744641



Also, the wall was approved by Congress, but yet the material either sits on the ground or is being scrapped. The completion of the wall would have deterred illegals.

Some say Biden has Trump immigration policy is not accurate. Biden changed the law to allow illegal immigrants to enter our country, surrender and then be dispersed around the country. They are given a court date but unlikely to ever show up.

Trump sent illegal immigrants back to Mexico to await their hearing. Agin, you can close your eyes and ignore the damage Biden has done with immigration or you can look at the sheer numbers under Biden and under Trump.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2023/05/09/more-illegal-immigrants-entered-the-us-under-biden-than-live-in-these-33-states-n2622970
It's no secret that the United States' border is anything but closed, secure, or under control as President Joe Biden and his administration claim. The record number of illegal immigrants being apprehended since Biden took office — and the number of known "gotaways" — is sobering, yet it goes almost completely ignored by the Biden administration and mainstream media. 

According to Customs and Border Protection, since January 2021 when Biden took the oath of office, there have been 5,118,661 encounters with illegal immigrants along the southern border. Add to that the number of known "gotaways" — illegal immigrants who were either spotted visually by border agents or detected via unmanned monitoring equipment and not apprehended — since Biden took office, and the number of illegal immigrants who've entered the country is even greater.


Through the first half of Biden's term from January 2021 through January 2023, Customs and Border Protection reported 1.2 million "gotaways." That is, at least 1.2 million illegal immigrants were confirmed to have unlawfully crossed the U.S.-Mexico border. The actual number of illegal immigrants who entered the country unimpeded is, by nature of the crime, unknown. It could be double the number of known gotaways, it could be three times worse, or more. We just don't know, thanks to Biden's border policies.