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

I thought it was funny Layman.

Do you disagree with the proposition that the feds can FORCE state officials to comply with federal law, whether the local officials like it or not.

First, let me answer you question with a simple and definitive "No".

There is no Federal Law that says that state officials have to do anything to enforce immigration law. If the Federal Government decides to enforce federal law... that is their responsibility. They don't get to tell state officials to do anything.

Your thread title suggests that you are looking to understand the rationale. .

If you want to understand why we are doing this... I could help you understand.

As I said at the outset, I am seeking a logical, not merely an emotional, explanation. Strong emotions may be an explanation, but standing alone they do not constitute a REASON for doing something (or not).

1. I don't get you point about "sentiment". In a democracy, every law and every policy depends on the sentiment of the voters. The laws you support are equally sentiment.

If you are not actually an advocate for truly open borders, then how and why would you object to immigration laws being enforced?

I would like the Federal Government to have a rational immigration policy. What that means doesn't matter in this context... but suffice to say I think that the current immigration policy is ridiculous.

The voters in my local city want to protect "illegal immigrants".

The police are appointed by the local governments and are accountable to only the residents of the city and state where they serve.

layman wanted to know the rationale for establishing sanctuary cities and I think we know the answer — some people object to the enforcement of immigration laws as they have an emotional or economic investment in allowing illegal aliens to live and work in their communities. Changing the law is the only solution.

Sure... and we have changed the law. Sanctuary cities are the result of changing the law What you are failing to understand is that Federal Law is not local law. These often interact in weird ways but these are settled in the court.

Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

The federal government must enforce its own laws, using federal personnel. So when state or local police arrest immigrants who are present in the country illegally, they are under no obligation to deport them, as deportation is the responsibility of the federal government alone.

This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.

It follows that, consistent with the anti-commandeering doctrine, Congress can require state, local or university police to tell federal agents when they arrest an immigrant present in the country illegally.

A separate constitutional doctrine, the anti-coercion doctrine, likewise won't shield sanctuaries. This doctrine holds that while Congress may impose conditions on receipt of federal funds, it cannot coerce states into accepting those conditions.

Some, including the Washington Post's editorial board, have suggested that Congress should give sanctuary cities flexibility to report only those who've committed the most serious violent offenses. But precisely which criminals should be subject to deportation requires resolution by Congress, not each city or university. The Constitution is clear that power to determine deportation policies belongs to Congress, not states, municipalities or universities.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied. Even state constitutions are subordinate to federal law.

Quote:

Do you disagree with the proposition that the feds can FORCE state officials to comply with federal law, whether the local officials like it or not.

First, let me answer you question with a simple and definitive "No".

The law on this question is quite clear: arresting aliens who have violated either criminal provisions of the INA or civil provisions that render an alien deportable "is within the inherent authority of the states." And such inherent arrest authority has never been preempted by Congress.

It is well established that the authority of state police to make arrests for violation of federal law is not limited to those situations in which they are exercising delegated federal power. Rather, such arrest authority inheres in the States’ status as sovereign entities. It stems from the basic power of one sovereign to assist another sovereign. There is abundant case law on this point. Even though Congress has never authorized state police officers to make arrest for federal offenses without an arrest warrant, such arrests occur routinely.

....And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.’" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295).

When local law enforcement agencies arrest and detain aliens for violations of immigration law prior to transfer to federal immigration authorities, it has been the regular practice of the federal government to reimburse such agencies for any detention costs incurred.

There is a wealth of cases in which the arrest of an alien by a state or local police officer was crucial in securing the capture of a suspected terrorist, a career criminal, or an absconder fleeing a final removal order. The role that state and local police officers play simply cannot be overstated. They are the eyes and ears of law enforcement that span the nation. They are the officers who encounter aliens in traffic stops and other routine law enforcement situations.

California attorney general threatens legal action if employers assist federal immigration raids

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra warned businesses on Thursday to keep quiet when talking to federal immigration authorities or face legal ramifications.

The state’s new law, the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, which aims to protect workers regardless of immigration status. The new law seeks to prevent workers from being detained at their workplaces.

If they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees...they subject themselves to actions by my office,” Becerra said.

“We will prosecute those who violate the law,” he continued.

8 USC section 1324 (a) (1) (A) (iii) makes it an offense for any person who knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection such alien.

8 USC section 1324 (a) (1) (A) (iv) makes it an offense for any person who encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of the law.

8 USC section 1324 (a) (1) (A) (v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or to aid or abet the commission of the above offenses.

Los Angeles is at the center of the immigration debate, and Mayor Eric Garcetti, who is thinking of running for president, is in the middle of it. Garcetti spoke of President Donald Trump with contempt.

Garcetti supports the long-standing Los Angeles Police Department policy of limiting cooperation with federal immigration officers in dealing with undocumented immigrants. This is a linchpin of the national “sanctuary city” movement.

He and the Los Angeles City Council are working on ordinances to strengthen these procedures, and Garcetti’s office has reached out to help immigrants in other ways.

He's Irish.