Sorry to interject in your discussion, but sometimes I can't keep my damn mouth shut. Neither of you guys are totally wrong on sanctuary, but you're both just a little off but in important ways.
Something has been gnawing at me...how can some who profess the power of State rights over Federal take this stance on sanctuary cities?
It depends on what they mean by "taking a stance on sanctuary cities." If we're talking about a federal ban on sanctuary cities, that's not constitutional, and it's not OK. The federal government cannot force states and cities to enforce their immigration laws. However, if they want to deny federal money to cities that adopt sanctuary policies and ordinances, they certainly can do that.
Personally, I don't like that game - Congress using federal money to de facto do what the Constitution would otherwise prohibit (such as withholding federal highway money if you don't pass open container laws, etc.). However, the Supreme Court says it's OK, so if the tool is available, they can use it.
On the merits, many on the Right have a kneejerk "screw 'em" attitude toward illegal aliens. If something makes their life harder, they like it, and if it makes their life easier, they don't like it. Sanctuary policies make life easier for illegal aliens, so they don't like them, and they don't really take the analysis any further than that. Many on the Left have a "screw 'em" attitude toward the Right. Sanctuary policies piss off the Right, so they like them.
I think the sanctuary city issue is another area where we need more common sense and less ideological stupidity and rigidity. If an illegal alien witnesses a crime or is a victim of a crime, he or she should be able to call the cops, make a statement, or testify in court without fear of getting turned over to ICE. On the flip side, if an illegal alien IS the person committing the crime, he or she certainly SHOULD fear getting turned over to ICE. Any city that doesn't do this is insane and is putting its own citizens at risk.
Because it's a Federal issue ... immigration.
The States consented to that in the Constitution. Texas can't have it's own immigration policy while Caly has a different one.
The cities aren't asking to have their own immigration policies. They're asking not to be forced to enforce or assist in enforcing federal immigration laws. That's their right, and so long as they're willing to forego federal money (not likely) and so long as they aren't keeping federal ICE officials from enforcing federal immigration laws, then the Constitution is entirely on their side.
