Opinion of "sanctuary cities"?

[SWE]

Freedom Cities (non-white supremacist)

[SillyAmerican]

Sanctuary cities are fine, just so long as the cities internalize the cost of housing illegal migrants. There is a double standard here though: Arizona gets yelled at by the Justice Department and the Supreme Court for taking efforts at the local level to enforce immigration law, but San Francisco does not get any reprimand for flouting the law.

How is it that sanctuary cities are "fine"? Such a city is basically saying "No need to bother following federal or state statutes here; we know the correct way of doing things, so within our area, this is what goes." What next? We start allowing cities to print their own money? Issue their own passports? If not, why not? The principle is exactly the same, at least from where I'm sitting; immigration is a federal issue, and we have federal laws on the books which specify how that is handled. If people don't like those laws, they should go ahead and work to get them changed, but they don't get to cherry pick which laws they find acceptable and which ones they don't. It's a bad idea, no matter what the People's Republic of San Francisco might think, and if you wanna know why it's a bad idea, just ask Jim Steinle.

I think this is more of a semantic argument than anything. You don't think sanctuary cities should be permitted at all, I don't think they should be permitted so long as these cities are getting federal money for health care, housing, education, welfare, police, etc.

The problem is that the costs associated with sanctuary cities go far beyond mere dollars. Once again, for further pertinent details, contact Jim Steinle.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Freedom Cities (non-white supremacist)

LOL, what a joke post.

I was going to type out a more well-reasoned answer, but if this is the insane hyperbole coming from the supporters of what are frankly lawless cities who actively antagonize federal law when it suits their needs, then I'm perfectly content to just say HC.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

No cities should be exempt of the law, the law is the law. Try to have it changed if you won't but crackdown on sanctuary cities. They're breaking the law. I support immigration reform, not breaking the law.

[mencken]

Sanctuary cities are fine, just so long as the cities internalize the cost of housing illegal migrants. There is a double standard here though: Arizona gets yelled at by the Justice Department and the Supreme Court for taking efforts at the local level to enforce immigration law, but San Francisco does not get any reprimand for flouting the law.

How is it that sanctuary cities are "fine"? Such a city is basically saying "No need to bother following federal or state statutes here; we know the correct way of doing things, so within our area, this is what goes." What next? We start allowing cities to print their own money? Issue their own passports? If not, why not? The principle is exactly the same, at least from where I'm sitting; immigration is a federal issue, and we have federal laws on the books which specify how that is handled. If people don't like those laws, they should go ahead and work to get them changed, but they don't get to cherry pick which laws they find acceptable and which ones they don't. It's a bad idea, no matter what the People's Republic of San Francisco might think, and if you wanna know why it's a bad idea, just ask Jim Steinle.

I think this is more of a semantic argument than anything. You don't think sanctuary cities should be permitted at all, I don't think they should be permitted so long as these cities are getting federal money for health care, housing, education, welfare, police, etc.

And, again, I believe that federalism is the immigration restrictionist's ally in this situation, so long as it is applied consistently. Let the urban hellholes recklessly endanger their citizens at their own expense, and let the rest of the country enact policies to defend themselves, since the federal government clearly has no desire to do so. (And I hope that none of the former would complain that none of the latter are participating in Obamacare or other social engineering schemes)

The problem is that the costs associated with sanctuary cities go far beyond mere dollars. Once again, for further pertinent details, contact Jim Steinle.

And what means would you propose for enforcing a no sanctuary cities policy, besides what I have outlined?

[SillyAmerican]

The problem is that the costs associated with sanctuary cities go far beyond mere dollars. Once again, for further pertinent details, contact Jim Steinle.

And what means would you propose for enforcing a no sanctuary cities policy, besides what I have outlined?

I believe that more folks should be turning to the courts for decisions on this issue, which again is why I support the activities of Governor Abbott in Texas. I would hope that well played legal challenges would eventually get rid of this craziness.

[tallguy23]

My brother is a former police officer in Los Angeles. He said that requiring the police to inquire about a resident's immigration status just makes his job harder. It takes time away from focusing on public safety and scares many undocumented people who may have information about a crime.

You want the public to communicate and interact with the police. Immigration is a federal responsibility.

[Penelope]

Freedom Cities (normal, not a heartless xenophobe)

[Crumpets]

Freedom Cities (normal, not a heartless xenophobe)

Glad that I live in one.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

They defy federal law, and thus should not exist.

Freedom Cities (normal, not a heartless xenophobe)

Opposing sanctuary cities does not make you a heartless xenophobe.

[SillyAmerican]

They defy federal law, and thus should not exist.

The backlash over this silliness has begun, with the San Francisco sheriff being voted out of office. This issue needs to be addressed at the ballot box and in the courts, and I believe that the change is under way.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

My brother is a former police officer in Los Angeles. He said that requiring the police to inquire about a resident's immigration status just makes his job harder. It takes time away from focusing on public safety and scares many undocumented people who may have information about a crime.

You want the public to communicate and interact with the police. Immigration is a federal responsibility.

So, what do opponents say about this? Because I think a lot of opponents may not understand the reality of living in a large city (especially a port like San Fran). Police have got more than enough things to worry about without poking at that hive.

[SillyAmerican]

My brother is a former police officer in Los Angeles. He said that requiring the police to inquire about a resident's immigration status just makes his job harder. It takes time away from focusing on public safety and scares many undocumented people who may have information about a crime.

You want the public to communicate and interact with the police. Immigration is a federal responsibility.

So, what do opponents say about this? Because I think a lot of opponents may not understand the reality of living in a large city (especially a port like San Fran). Police have got more than enough things to worry about without poking at that hive.

Yeah, it's unfortunate that we've ignored our immigration laws, and now find ourselves living with the problem of over 11 million illegal aliens. So I suppose the only thing to do is further complicate matters by saying that within certain large cities, these folks need not worry about following our laws. Brilliant.

I'm not saying that the police need to be "poking at that hive", but for some reason, citizens are being asked to ignore the fact that these folks we're talking about have broken the law. So either change the law, or enforce it; the idea that we can create some kind of middle ground within large cities for convenience is just plain silly.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Wtf? I think the term "sanctuary city" confuses things tbh. It's not like these municipal governments are going full Calhoun. They're just defining the rules of their own municipal police force as not covering migration law to make it easier to, err, fight crime as opposed to fruitlessly round up every single undocumented worker and deport them.

[mencken]

Wtf? I think the term "sanctuary city" confuses things tbh. It's not like these municipal governments are going full Calhoun. They're just defining the rules of their own municipal police force as not covering migration law to make it easier to, err, fight crime as opposed to fruitlessly round up every single undocumented worker and deport them.

If police apprehend an armed robbery suspect and find out that he is also guilty of first-degree murder in another state, do they not have a duty to extradite him? If so, then why does the same logic not hold for federal immigration law?