Sanctuary Cities

Up until last June, San Francisco’s Juvenile Probation Department had been transporting illegal alien juvenile drug dealers to their home countries to avoid their being arrested and deported by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

Isn't that called "hindering prosecution"? I'm no lawyer, but heck, I believe that's against the law. Isn't it? OK, that one doesn't 'exactly' fit? How about "harboring fugitives"?

I would not discontinue ALL federal funding to these so-called Sanctuary Cities, but most. I don't want to cut off the nose to spite the face. I want to punish people guilty of crimes, and NOT punish people who have done nothing wrong. The system whereby the federal government takes money from states to then return to states is, in itself, stupid and flawed; but until such time as that idiotic process ends, I will not advocate punishing innocent Americans, through action or inaction, by withholding funds for things like disaster relief.

I would, however, gladly arrest the mayors of such Sanctuary cities as San Francisco, CA and New Haven, CT among others. Sorry, guys, but you don't get to pick-and-choose which laws you'll follow and which ones you won't -- no more than the rest of America does.

For those who are unaware of this idiotic practice on the part of the federal government: This is why many of us long for a return to the rule of the Constitution as final arbiter of federal power. There's a really interesting bill in Oklahoma, proposed by House Rep. Charles Key (Joint House Resolution 1089) which reasserts Oklahoma’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution’s own language, is “serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates.” The bill states:

“The State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

Oklahoma became a hotbed of federal vs. state authority clashes when a federal judge blocked a portion of Oklahoma’s tough immigration laws, ruling that plaintiffs would likely establish that the state mandates preempted federal immigration laws. Oklahoma’s immigration statute, known as the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, originated as House Bill 1804 (co-authored, incidentally, by Key). It has been characterized by USA Today as “arguably the nation’s toughest state law targeting illegal immigration.”

The statute prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving tax-supported services, and makes it a state crime to transport or harbor illegal immigrants... it further mandates that businesses take measures to verify the work-eligibility of both employees and independent contractors.

On June 4th, U.S. District Judge Robin J. Cauthron issued an injunction against enforcing the aforementioned mandates, which were schedule to go into force on July.

“We’ve just had a federal judge say that our immigration law’s employer provisions are unconstitutional, claiming it as federal government territory,” said Key in response. “That goes right to the issue of (Resolution 1089). The federal government doesn’t have the right to have sole domain over that issue or many of the issues it has spilled over into."

Pretty weird, eh?