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

Quote:

You want the state to have the right to disregard federal laws and policies that you don't like, but will attempt to punish any city within the state that disregards state policies that you do like.

Obviously! Everyone wants the state to have the right to disregard federal laws and policies they don't like, but will attempt to punish anyone who disregards policies they do like. I don't really get your point.

We have a legal system, and a complex set of sometimes contradicting laws. When people disagree, they go to court.

I am making no claim that my side is always right by the "correct" interpretation of the law. We win some in court, and we lose some in court. But, as an American citizen I want my side to push in court at least as hard as the other side. I am also willing to engage in civil disobedience on this issue... but that is another issue. The law give us rights, and we will take them.

And when it comes to the local police, they work for me. My community can fire them if they don't do their jobs the way we think they should. That's how it works.

We have a legal system, and a complex set of sometimes contradicting laws. When people disagree, they go to court.

I am making no claim that my side is always right by the "correct" interpretation of the law. We win some in court, and we lose some in court. But, as an American citizen I want my side to push in court at least as hard as the other side.

U.S. judge deals blow to Texas 'sanctuary' city law Aug. 31, 2017

AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) - A U.S. district judge in Austin has rejected an effort by Texas to have a law that would punish so-called sanctuary cities be declared constitutional ahead of the measure taking effect next month.

The Republican-backed law is the first of its kind since Republican Donald Trump became president in January, promising a crackdown on illegal immigrants and localities that protect them. Texas is the U.S. state with the longest border with Mexico.

After the law was approved in May, Texas sued major urban areas, including Austin, El Paso and Houston, as well as civil rights groups, saying they backed policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration officials.

US Appeals Court Allows Texas' 'Sanctuary Cities' Law to Take Effect Sep 25, 2017

Texas can require law enforcement to honor federal immigration requests to detain people in local jails for possible deportation under a new "sanctuary cities" law supported by the Trump administration, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday.

Major cities such as Houston, Dallas and Austin had sued the state, saying the measure was unconstitutional and warning that it would have a chilling effect in immigrant communities.

CALIFORNIA SLAMS TRUMP OVER PLANS TO ARREST SANCTUARY CITY LEADERS AMID CRACK DOWN ON IMMIGRATION

State leaders blasted the Trump administration for threatening to arrest mayors of so-called sanctuary cities on Tuesday and a major immigration sweep that is expected in Northern California within the next few weeks.

The announcement comes after Thomas Homan, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), warned California of an expected immigration crackdown by federal enforcement across the state. “Hold on tight,” he said on Fox News, before adding that he believed sanctuary leaders must be punished for breaking federal smuggling laws.

What you're saying is that states should have the right to disregard federal laws and policies that they don't like, specifically cooperation with immigration enforcement. However, if cities make the very same argument to the states, that they will disregard state laws and policies that they don't like, for example, that they wish to cooperate with ICE, you will try to punish them. In other words, you wish to claim a right you have no intention of granting.

More states line up behind Trump, pushing anti-sanctuary city legislation.

Last week, the Cincinatti City Council voted to become a sanctuary city, triggering pushback from state legislators.

In response to the move, State Representative Candice Keller and Treasurer Josh Mandel drafted a bill that would hold city officials accountable for crimes committed by illegal immigrants in sanctuary jurisdictions.

Late in January, Colorado State Rep. Dave Williams made waves as a Latino lawmaker introducing legislation that would allow victims of certain crimes committed by illegal immigrants to sue the politicians that provided safe haven.

If the law is passed, local officials can be held liable if they uphold sanctuary policies and refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and federal immigration law.

"If these politicians create the environment, then they need to own it. They need to have skin in the game," Williams said in an interview.

In Maine and Alaska, state legislators are also reportedly considering the Colorado proposal to allow criminal proceedings against local officials who support sanctuary laws.

In Texas, the state legislature is now in the final phase of ushering through a tough new law against sanctuary cities. Among the provisions, the bill would allow criminal charges to be brought against city or county officials who do not comply with federal immigration law.

Bills have now been introduced in 24 state legislatures to curb sanctuary cities, demonstrating a willingness to change the immigration system and improve cooperation with federal authorities.

On a weekly basis, DHS is now responsible for documenting all the instances where a sanctuary jurisdiction declined an ICE detainer, preventing the agency from pursuing an individual for violating immigration law.

These reports could provide ammunition for states pursuing legislation to criminally prosecute those who intentionally violate immigration enforcement laws, said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Despite Trump's political opponents trying to use his tough anti-immigration platform against him during the election, nearly two-thirds of his voters cast their ballot on Trump's promise to slow immigration, enforce existing laws, and prevent criminals from entering the country.

... there is a right-wing American conspiracy theory that "la raza" means something akin to "the master race" and that Mexicans are plotting to take over the US. I think that is what he is fishing for.

The Spanish expression La Raza ("the Race") refers to the Hispanophone populations, considered as an ethnic or racial unity historically deriving from the Spanish Empire...It remains in active use specifically in Mexico and in the context of Mexican American identity politics in the United States.

Mexican writer José Vasconcelos proposed the term La Raza Cósmica ("the Cosmic Race") in 1925. The term Chicano likewise arises in the early 20th century as a designation of Mexicans. In the 1960s to 1970s, the term became associated with a movement of Mexican-American identity politics activism. In the United States, the terms La Raza and Chicano subsequently became closely associated.

Various Hispanic groups in the United States still use the term.[3] The Raza Unida Party was active as a political party representing Mexican American racial identity politics in the 1970s. The Hispanic advocacy organization National Council of La Raza was formed in 1968.

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA (NCLR)
1126 16th Street, NW - Suite 600
Washington, DC
20036-4845

Controversy over the Name “La Raza”

The words “La Raza” (Spanish for “The Race”) in NCLR's name have long been a source of considerable controversy. Critics claim that the name reflects an organizational commitment to racial separatism and race-based grievance mongering.

According to NCLR, “the full term,” which was coined by the Mexican scholar (and Mexican secretary of public education) José Vasconcelos (1882-1959), is “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people.”

As Guillermo Lux and Maurilio Vigil (professors of history and political science, respectively, at New Mexico Highlands University) note in their 1991 book, Aztlan: Essays on the Chicano Homeland:

Quote:

"The concept of La Raza can be traced to the ideas and writings of Jose Vasconcelos, the Mexican theorist who developed the theory of la raza cosmica (the cosmic or super race) at least partially as a minority reaction to the Nordic notions of racial superiority. Vasconelos developed a systematic theory which argued that climatic and geographic conditions and mixture of Spanish and Indian races created a superior race. The concept of La Raza connotes that the mestizo [of mixed race, usually the child of a person of Spanish descent and an American Indian] is a distinct race and not Caucasian, as is technically the case."

Aztlán emerges throughout these essays as one of the Chicano Movement's fundamental ideological constructs. ...

A valuable work for those interested in Chicano, ethnic and southwestern studies." -- Books of the Southwest

Sonia Sotomayor

During her years at Princeton, she joined two campus organizations whose efforts were devoted chiefly to the celebration of nonwhite ethnic identities. She reminisces: “The Puerto Rican group on campus, Acción Puertorriqueña, and the Third World Center provided me with an anchor I needed to ground myself in that new and different world.” In April 1974, during her sophomore year, Sotomayor co-chaired Accion Puertorriquena.

The other group to which Sotomayor belonged, Princeton’s Third World Center (TWC), was established in 1971 to provide "a social, cultural and political environment that reflects the needs and concerns of students of color...and to teach minority students to “become more sensitive to the consequences of a long history of prejudice and discrimination.”

TWC's constitution and founding documents were steeped in anti-American and anti-white rhetoric. A 1976 TWC document titled “Oppression breeds resistance,” stated: “The history of the peoples of the Third World, who have suffered from U.S. Imperialism, and of the oppressed nationalities within the United States—Afro-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, Asians, and Native Americans, has been a history of oppression and resistance.”

The group’s 1984 constitution stated: “We define the term ‘Third World’ as those nations and people who have fallen victim to the oppression and exploitation of the world economic order. This definition includes the peoples of color in the United States, as they too are victims of a brutal and racist socio-economic structure perpetuated by those who still exploit such groups as Asians, Blacks, and Latinos and who still occupy the homelands of the Puerto Rican, Mexican, Native American, and Alaskan peoples. Therefore, we must seek to understand the historical and contemporary ramifications of oppression we are to liberate ourselves from economic and social chains which bind us.”

At that time, future First Lady Michelle Obama was a member of the TWC board.

In her 1976 Princeton yearbook, Sotomayor selected, as her special quotation, the following statement of Norman Thomas, who ran for U.S. president six times on the Socialist Party ticket: "I am not a champion of lost causes, but of causes not yet won."

there is a right-wing American conspiracy theory that "la raza" means something akin to "the master race"

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.”

Quote:

What you're saying is that states should have the right to disregard federal laws and policies that they don't like, specifically cooperation with immigration enforcement. However, if cities make the very same argument to the states, that they will disregard state laws and policies that they don't like, for example, that they wish to cooperate with ICE, you will try to punish them. In other words, you wish to claim a right you have no intention of granting.

This is a little bit different of a question... but not much different. I feel like I am repeating myself.

There are legal issues in each case that come from the complex and sometimes contradictory laws. The federal government has some legal powers, the states have other legal powers, and city governments have other powers.

When they disagree, they settle it in the courts. I am not happy with the Texas decision that Layman so gleefully posted. But the decision of the court that the State in this case can force cities to comply is a legally binding decision.... I accept that.

Sometimes my side wins. Sometimes it doesn't. My State (Massachusetts) is pretty supportive of the rights of immigrants no matter what their status is. My local government, based on the American citizens living here, has even greater support for immigrant rights. We are good cheese-eating Americans and we are proud of that. We sure as hell are going to oppose any ICE activity here with any legal power we have... and even with civil disobedience.

I don't know if you have more of a point than that.

But, I will be honest. My moral sense of right and wrong is far more important to than legal principles, and as such, I will push whatever legal principles in court that I can and use whatever political power I have in service of my sense of morality. That's how democracy works.

[With respect to this concept], Leon Trotsky in his book, Their Morals and Ours explained that it "forces its ends upon society and habituates it to considering all those means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function of official morality...."

"A means can only be justified by its end."

For Marxists: the end is justified if it leads to increasing the power of humanity over nature and to the abolition of the power of one person over another. Permissible and obligatory are those and only those means, we answer, which unite the revolutionary proletariat....