Can the courts make providing sanctuary to illegal aliens permissible, or is it

1. 65

   Perspycaciousposted 7 years ago

   Can the courts make providing sanctuary to illegal aliens permissible, or is it aiding/abetting?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 90

   lisavollrathposted 7 years ago

   I think the citizens of each city should decide what is best for them.
   
   Here in Texas, the state is trying to override individual cities that are saying they won't change their policies toward undocumented aliens, and the cities are fighting against it. We don't feel the state, or the feds, have a right to tell our local police how to act, or how to allocate their resources.
   
   If the courts can help keep the choice of determining how individual cities choose to police their communities in the hands of the people who actually live in them, and out of federal or state government, I think that's a good thing.

   replyreport
   1. 46

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Lisa, if you just bump this up a notch you make the perfect case for the electoral college. Let states decide for themselves and get the heck off of national popularity. Federalism or not? Outside a city (rural) enforced. City not? Boundaries?

      replyreport
   2. 90

      lisavollrathposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Nah, the Electoral College is BS. Why should a vote in Nebraska have more weight than one in California? Why does some random group of electors decide who becomes President? To me, that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying.

      replyreport
   3. 46

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What is the difference between cities deciding what is best for them and states deciding what is best for them. National popularity should determine what is best for Texas? EC makes it a state choice? What makes it a city choice?

      replyreport
3. 70

   ptosisposted 7 years ago

   
   
   Sanctuary to refugees in the process of getting documented as long as not criminals should be left free to live.  I hate the term 'illegal' - as if you don't have a right to exist.   
   
   What do you suggest? Forcibly remove them to detention centers where in a concentrated center of work programs are offered, they will be 'taken care of'?
   
   http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/i … ary-cities

   replyreport
   1. 46

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I think I understand you but maybe not. Someone who commits a felony of illegal border crossing is not a criminal?

      replyreport
   2. 70

      ptosisposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      It's a lot more complicated than a yes/no answer. All I can do is give you a link to all the different ways but I can't find it. Something about Mexi Gal stays if say US husband beats her up. (take 10 years the normal way)

      replyreport
   3. 90

      MizBejabbersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ptosis, I don't understand. The blog you linked seems to refute your answer and make the opposite point.

      replyreport
4. 90

   MizBejabbersposted 7 years ago

   I don't understand why the U.S. feels like it should take in every citizen who is disgruntled with his or her own country. Ask Canada if it wants to take in every U.S. citizen who is unhappy with our current government. We support many of them and allow them to keep their own separate cultures and call it "diversity" as if that were a good thing. Mirriam Webster defines diversity as "the element of having or being composed of differing elements." Differing here is the key because it is the opposite of "united."
   In the case of emigration it seems to always be the aboriginal peoples who suffer. If that is the case, then our original immigrant ancestors founded this country, and the recent immigrants are demanding equal rights to keep their individual societies within and separate from the parameters, which unite this country, set by those ancestors.
   Your question "can the courts make providing sanctuary to illegal aliens permissible, or is it aiding/abetting?" is one that all legal citizens should ask. I would say that if the court determines that it is a matter of national security, they can make providing sanctuary illegal. After all, if the court can declare the city of Damascus, Arkansas, a speedtrap and make it illegal for the city to write traffic tickets, which is not a matter of national security, surely the court can declare sanctuary cities illegal.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Perspycaciousposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      This is one of the most "thoughtful" responses I have ever had to one of my questions.  Not mentioned is Mexico's responsibility for their porous border and the resulting smuggling of people and drugs, something not unrelated to America's expenses.

      replyreport
   2. 90

      MizBejabbersposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Right, there is no reciprocal with Mexico as far as emigration goes. A Mexican friend, now a U.S. citizen, told me that if we want to legally live in Mexico, we must have $25,000 in a bank account to prove we won't be a burden on that country.

      replyreport
5. 46

   Ericdierkerposted 7 years ago

   I think many are woefully ignorant when it comes to centralized type federational government. One must start with the 10th "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
   This was added in 1791.
   The issues of immigration and health insurance are right in the middle of the idea of centralized government. Does the federal government have the right delegated to it in these areas?
   Probably in immigration as you do not really become a citizen of a state but rather an US citizen.
   Health Care would seemingly not be delegated.
   But we have this pesky problem with what is known as the Interstate Commerce Clause,  Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
   This was interpreted to allow for federalization of Health Insurance. Most assuredly it then would cover immigration, which very much impacts interstate and international trade.
   On the practical side we have the example of Marijuana. Clearly it can be and is illegal under federal law. Yet it is legal in multiple states.
   Once congress passes a law it is presumed constitutional until otherwise ruled upon by a court of jurisdiction.
   But it is up to our federal and state and city Executive Offices to actually enforce the laws. And so whether sanctuary cities are held to be legal or not the feds can yank policing monies from localities that are not in sync with the feds. The same applies to education.
   Technically aiding and abetting might be correct. But who the heck is going to prosecute that one?
   The act is prosecutable in all 50 states in state law and a federal crime. It is real easy to prove. But I cannot foresee a prosecutor touching that with a ten foot pole if she wants to keep her job.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Hxprofposted 7 years ago

   Well,  the courts CAN do it, but it's in violation of US immigration laws, and Immigration falls within the constitutionally designated powers of the federal government; giving immigration powers to cities/states is unconstitutional.

   replyreport