1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Legality of "Sanctuary Cities"

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Sierra Mike, Jul 9, 2010.

  1. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Just wondering what folks think about so-called sanctuary cities. It seems to me that if the Fed is rolling hot to press Arizona to the mat for (supposedly) acting in a fashion that counters Federal law, aren't these sanctuary cities doing the same thing? When Copz mentioned that Houston was such a city, I found that the city leadership has been sneaky about it, making the city a sanctuary in an "unofficially" offical fashion--that is, no legislation has been enacted to promote this status.

    Yet, it seems clear their actions are in contravention of Federal law. How can they get away with it, when Arizona's SB 1070 is not only subordinate to Federal law, but specifies the same language?

  2. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    And there you have the ultimate hypocrisy coming out of Washington. They really don't want to do anything about the illegals coming across the border, nor do they want to do anything about those that are already here. The only reason why they even pay lip service to the issue is due to the anger of the rest of the population. 
  3. Swamp Fox

    Swamp Fox Veteran Member

    According to Wiki,

    Furthermore ...

    And ...

    Assuming legislation can be passed through Congress, the sanctuary cities aren't going to last very long. They may even be given a positive duty to report illegal immigration, and, if so, the cities can really be nailed, not to mention the officials.
  4. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah.. Right.. San Fransisco has been very vocal about not following the law and what's happened? Absolutely nothing. Do you see the Justice Department suing California for ignoring the law? 
  5. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    San Francisco is clearly a sanctuary city, and according to what I've read, Houston has been one since 1992 or 1993. Which means the fourth largest city in the US is clearly operating against Federal law, to some degree. I'm surprised by that.

  6. Morg

    Morg The ultra-moderate

    Selective law enforcement is not new; it's been around since we've had laws.

    Mr Obama (and Mr Bush and Mr Clinton before him) chooses not to enforce most laws against illegal immigration. I'm not sure of their motives, but it seems to me that they hope to harvest Hispanic votes. It has been several decades since we've had a president who felt bound by the laws and the US Constitution.
  7. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    The interesting thing to me is that Hispanics, as a group, tend to be rather conservative and are largely Roman Catholic. The Republicans could lock up the Hispanic vote rather quickly if they'd get off their asses and do something positive about immigration reform.
  8. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    You talking small time. California is predominately a sanctuary state. God Bless Arizona is all I've got to add.
  9. joseftu

    joseftu ORIGINAL Pomp-Dumpster

    Instead they seem to be almost willfully alienating and offending Latinos at every turn.
  10. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    Amen to that! It bugs me when they spend time and $$ passing those laws and then look the other way while they are being broken. That's just cowardly!!!!!!!!!!!
  11. mikepd

    mikepd Veteran Member

    The subject of sanctuary cities is going to get very interesting if SCOTUS upholds Arizona's law regarding immigration. The Feds may be forced to uphold the law for once as other states will pass legislation similar to Arizona making sanctuary cities harder to find.
  12. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    There is this lawsuit which will be expressed to SCOTUS and then there is further down the road a potential legal issue on Obama's mandatory healthcare and you get taxed if you don't obtain health care. Opponents to the Federal positions say the Federal government cannot constitutionally make us buy anything. If states prevail on either of these issues it will have a huge and functional impact on a lot of things not to mention a headache for the Feds and those bureaucrats and their elitist toadies who support bowing down worshiping the Gods in Washington DC.

    Victories for the states in either case will mean that a lot more laws will be created by states giving them more hands on local control and putting their fate and futures more in the actions of those it will impact, we the people, instead of some "King" and his court in the Beltway.

    Who in the heck do they all think they are in DC? King George?
  13. Swamp Fox

    Swamp Fox Veteran Member

    Umm, Joe, don't you know Dan Quayle studied Latin so he could speak to Latin Americans?

Share This Page