What, exactly, is the rationale for establishing "sanctuary cities?"

California State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Léon (D-Los Angeles) introduced a bill into the California State Senate that would make California a sanctuary state.

“Someone simply who received or purchased a [fraudulent] Social Security card down at McArthur Park, or elsewhere in my district would be eligible immediately for mass deportation,” De Léon said.

"I can tell you half of my family would be eligible for deportation under [President Donald Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification."

It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California

The official confirmation had to wait until new population figures were released by the Census Bureau this summer. The new tally, released in late June, shows that as of July 1, 2014, about 14.99 million Latinos live in California, edging out the 14.92 million whites in the state.

California is a harbinger of the national rise in Latinos. The nation's Latino population has grown 57% since 2000. "It is going to accelerate," Suro said. "This is really the beginning of a new phase that will play out over another generation."

I suppose that before long, Spanish, not English, will be the official language of California.

I think some of the rationale is strictly based on sentiment. People see news stories where a bunch of illegal aliens with crying children are being hauled out of their homes in the dead of night by armed government agents dressed in black...

Such are the consequences when the vast majority of our (legal) immigrants come in due to chain migration (family connections) as opposed to merit and/or any assessment of the likelihood that they will "assimilate."

I don't care who they cheer for or how patriotic they are.

The Reconquista ("reconquest") is a term that is used (not exclusively) to describe the vision by different individuals, groups, and/or nations that the U.S. Southwest should be politically or culturally conquered by Mexico.

In a 2001 article on Latin American web portal Terra entitled "Advancement of the Spanish language and Hispanics is like a Reconquista (Reconquest)," Elena Poniatowska said:

"A U.S. media outlet recently stated that in some places like Los Angeles, if you didn't speak Spanish, you were 'out.'...The people of the cockroach, of the flea, who come from poverty and misery, are slowly advancing towards the United States and devouring it".

The Nationalist Front of Mexico opposes what it sees as "Anglo"-American cultural influences[ and rejects the "American occupation" of territory formerly belonging to Mexico and now form the southwestern United States.

On its website, the front states:

The Nationalist Front of Mexico wrote:

We demand that our claim to all the territories occupied by force by the United States be recognized in our Constitution, and we will bravely defend, according to the principle of self-determination to all peoples, the right of the Mexican people to live in the whole of our territory within its historical borders, as they existed and were recognized at the moment of our independence.

A prominent advocate of Reconquista was Chicano activist and adjunct professor Charles Truxillo (1953–2015)[7] of the University of New Mexico (UNM), who envisioned a sovereign Hispanic nation called the República del Norte (Republic of the North) that would encompass Northern Mexico, Baja California, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. He supported the secession of U.S. Southwestern states to form an independent Chicano nation, arguing that the Articles of Confederation gave individual states full sovereignty and thus the legal right to secede."

In an interview with In Search of Aztlán on August 8, 1999, Jose Angel Gutierrez, a political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, stated that:

"We are a captive people, in a sense, a hostage people. It is our political destiny and our right to self-determination to want to have our homeland [back]. Whether they like it or not is immaterial. If they call us radicals or subversives or separatists, that's their problem. This is our home, and this is our homeland, and we are entitled to it. We are the host. Everyone else is a guest."

"I believe that in the next few years, we will see an irredentists movement, beyond assimilation, beyond integration, beyond separatism, to putting Mexico back together as one. That's irridentism [sic]. One Mexico, one nation.

I got sick of the issue when it erupted in the Sierra Club back in '04 and seldom discuss it because it almost immediately results in accusations of racism.

This is personal for me, someone I care very much is currently on DACA.

I don't know if you are looking for a rationale, or a fight. I will give you a rationale. This is personal for me, someone I care very much is currently on DACA.

The main issue is the rights of local communities versus the power of the Federal government. In these communities there are millions of American citizens who have friends, neighbors and family members who are undocumented. We want them to be protected. That is what Sanctuary Cities are... American citizens exercising our right to not cooperate with the Federal government.

The police don't work for the Federal Government. They work for me. I don't want them to cooperate with the Federal government on an issue I go to my local government and my state representatives and tell them to set the policy (which I have personally done). The police policy is set by local government.

Sanctuary policies are being established because American citizens living in these cities and states want them.

The main issue is the rights of local communities versus the power of the Federal government.

You are asking for the reason that so many American cities are setting sanctuary policies. There are tens of millions of American citizens who have personal connections to this issue.

If that answers your question... then good.

I don't know if you are looking for a rationale, or a fight. I will give you a rationale. This is personal for me, someone I care very much is currently on DACA.

...American citizens exercising our right to not cooperate with the Federal government.

Sanctuary policies are being established because American citizens living in these cities and states want them.

There is nothing illegal with citizens passing laws to prevent local police from cooperating with federal agencies on an issue.

Sorry, but the George Wallace [law enforcement] types can't just sit back, crack a beer, and watch a lynching while saying: "If you want someone to stop that, call in a fed. I aint no fed." Even less can they make it illegal for anyone to even call a fed under those circumstances.

The legal framework under the Constitution is pretty obvious... no one questions it.