Are sanctuary cities really sanctuary cities?

[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.