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

Another point here: The Mexicans still feel aggrieved because they like to think they "lost" land which they never had in the first place.

...Personally, deporting breadwinners to the detriment of American families is a penalty with costs that are far worse than the infraction. This is a moral principle, but it is also a political message. We want these cases front and center in the public political debate.

We need to win public support and emotional appeals highlighting the cost of this policy is a reasonable thing to do. Of course, this isn't a legal argument... it is a political one.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.

In 1800, the colonial province of Texas was sparsely populated, with only about 7,000 non-Indian settlers. In 1829, as a result of the large influx of American immigrants, the non-Hispanic outnumbered native Spanish speakers in the Texas territory. The settlers and many Mexican businessmen in the region rejected the demands, which led to Mexico closing Texas to additional immigration, which continued from the United States into Texas illegally.

Who should get the house? If it's them, I lose $250,000 and I didn't do anything wrong. If it's me, they lose their house for nothing.

layman wrote:

Who should get the house? If it's them, I lose $250,000 and I didn't do anything wrong. If it's me, they lose their house for nothing.

They keep the house. It's was theirs before all this happened, and it remains theirs.

You are the victim of fraud. Most fraud victims "did nothing wrong", yet they still lose the money or other valuable item they were tricked out of. You lost a quarter mil. The fake owner had no title to transfer.

In 1999, Hispanics accounted for 47% of all U.S. gang members, African Americans for 34%, whites for 13%, and Asians for 6%. Law enforcement agencies reported in 2011 that gangs affiliated with ethnicity and non-traditional gangs have expanded in recent years.

Hispanic gangs form the largest group of ethnic-based gangs in the United States. A California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the twenty thousand members of the 18th Street Gang in California are undocumented immigrants. The Latin Kings is the largest and most organized Hispanic street gang in the United States.

Mara Salvatrucha, commonly abbreviated as "MS", "Mara", or "MS-13", is another Hispanic street gang operating in the United States. It originated in Los Angeles.

I do not agree with this. The severity of punishment, and the costs to the community, has to fit the crime. That is the responsibility of the judge, not of the offender.

People are only responsible for actions that they themselves take. The offender has the responsibility for the offense. The authorities have the responsibility for the punishment they mete out, and for the costs they incur on the community at large. This is why we restrict police from using their firearms, or even for the circumstances in which they can engage in high speed chases.

A civilized democracy puts careful thought into the costs that punishments have on society. If people are being jailed for speeding tickets... that not only be excessive, but it would also have real negative economic costs. Parents wouldn't be able to work, children would suffer and there would be less productivity.

That is why when you break the speed limit, we give you a fine that you are perfectly able to pay. I suspect you drive over the speed limit. If I gave you a 10 year prison sentence for breaking the speed limit, that would likely make you less likely to speed. But we don't do that... because the cost to society would of this punishment would be too great.

Again, I will point out the historical examples. In prohibition, Americans broke the law because they liked drinking. We upped penalties and enforcement and found out that the costs of this enforcement were worse than the offense of drinking. The same thing happened with miscegenation laws and anti-sodomy laws.

Deportation is an appropriate penalty for being in a country illegally. Any negative consequences are the fault of the person who is in the country illegally, not of the country for enforcing laws that the illegal alien knew about when breaking them. It is not equivalent to giving a 10 year prison sentence for speeding.

Sanctuary city supporters say that undocumented immigrants have come here to escape economic/political misery. So these supporters feel that they have a moral obligation to refuse to help in their deportation.

Quote:

Deportation is an appropriate penalty for being in a country illegally. Any negative consequences are the fault of the person who is in the country illegally, not of the country for enforcing laws that the illegal alien knew about when breaking them. It is not equivalent to giving a 10 year prison sentence for speeding.

What is an appropriate penalty is a matter of subjective judgement. When you make this judgement you have to consider all of the costs...

. - to the immigrant here illegally.
. - to their families which may very well include American citizen spouses and children.
. - to social services agencies who will have to provide for American citizen spouses and children who have lost a breadwinner.
. - to communities and neighbors who have lost friends, valued members of churches or social groups and neighbors.
. - to the local economy who has lost productive workers, and customers for local businesses.

You may make the judgement that the penalty is appropriate and that these costs to American communities, businesses and families are a necessary evil. That is your subjective judgement.

But you are wrong that the people who make the rules and decide the punishments are not responsible for the social costs of these social policies. The person who breaks the law is responsible for breaking the law. The people who make the rules and decide the penalties are responsible for the consequences of their policy.

Again, I will point you to other historical examples (prohibition, anti-miscegenation laws, anti-sodomy laws). In prohibition people were jailed for buying, selling or serving alcohol. It soon became clear that this policy was hurting communities far more than it was helping anything.