Illegal Immigrants and Sanctuary Cities - Send 'em back?

[Joan Nyan]

Sanctuary cities are essentially cities where local law prohibits police from asking anyone if they are an illegal immigrant or not, and police are also not allowed to report illegal immigrants to federal immigration authorities. These are mostly big, metropolitan areas like San Francisco, Portland, or New York City.

So, should cities be allowed to do this? What rights, if any, do illegal immigrants have? Do mass deportations make economic sense, and if not could there be other reasons to do so that trump economic concerns?

To answer my own questions, no, none, I'm not sure, and plenty (security, to uphold laws, cultural preservation, etc)

 

[AnOminous]

Sanctuary cities are essentially cities where local law prohibits police from asking anyone if they are an illegal immigrant or not, and police are also not allowed to report illegal immigrants to federal immigration authorities. These are mostly big, metropolitan areas like San Francisco, Portland, or New York City.

So, should cities be allowed to do this?

Allowed to do what? The federal government is not entitled to force local governments to enforce federal laws. That would actually be unconstitutional. The federal government could not pass a law requiring state governments to enforce immigration law without delegating their exclusive authority to do so. The federal government does not want to give away its power to the states in this way.

 

[Pikimon]

Last time they tried prosecuting people who gave work to illegal immigrants the economy of Alabama nearly imploded back in 2012. Now imagine taking out all illegal immigrants in the United States. It's not so much the blue states that will suffer (since they all have money to cushion such a blow) It's going to be the shit-tier states in the South that will suffer the most.

What rights, if any, do illegal immigrants have?

Immutable rights is part of the constitution fam, laws and rights apply for all people in the United States. You can't just revoke human rights because they don't have the right papers.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

So, should cities be allowed to do this? What rights, if any, do illegal immigrants have? Do mass deportations make economic sense, and if not could there be other reasons to do so that trump economic concerns?

I think that cities should not be allowed to do this and I don't see why anyone would differ
I would say that I think illegal immigrants being non citizens have no rights because of the lack of a social contract.
I do not think that they make sense in the USA to mass deport mexican illegal immigrants but I think it makes sense to mass deport the invaders in europe
I don't believe that there is such a thing as non economic concerns but I am more concerned with the invaders engaging in war rape and genocide rather than taking jobs away from europeans

 

[AnOminous]

I think that cities should not be allowed to do this and I don't see why anyone would differ

Be allowed to do what?

 

[Derbydollar]

Let cities make their own decisions. Too much power is relegated to the federal government anyways.
Legalize and integrate current illegals, strengthen border control to prevent the illegal population from increasing.

 

[Pikimon]

I would say that I think illegal immigrants being non citizens have no rights because of the lack of a social contract.

Except for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence of course. "Immutable rights" and "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and all that jazz.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

Be allowed to do what?

Be allowed to violate federal law by prohibiting federal authorities from detaining illegal immigrants (I saw your post earlier and I was thinking about this from a Canadian perspective where immigration is entirely federal (with the exception of Quebec))

Except for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence of course. "Immutable rights" and "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and all that jazz.

I guess one can interpret that as making the USA some sort of universalist pseudostate but I doubt that was the intention of the writers to allow uncontrolled immigration but rather that just wasn't an issue in 1776
I thought that wasn't even in the constitution but in the declaration of independence though

 

[AnOminous]

Be allowed to violate federal law by prohibiting federal authorities from detaining illegal immigrants (I saw your post earlier and I was thinking about this from a Canadian perspective where immigration is entirely federal (with the exception of Quebec))

They are not prohibiting federal authorities from doing anything. Did you even read the OP?

 

[autisticdragonkin]

They are not prohibiting federal authorities from doing anything. Did you even read the OP?

I thought American police were federal just like Canadian police are (at least in the west)

 

[Joan Nyan]

Except for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence of course. "Immutable rights" and "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and all that jazz.

That's all from the Declaration of Independence, which doesn't have any real legal power. And besides, saying that everybody has unalienable rights isn't a promise to respect those rights. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government must respect the rights of everybody in the country regardless of citizenship?

 

[AnOminous]

I thought American police were federal just like Canadian police are (at least in the west)

No. Most police power is local or state. Having a federal general police power is dangerous, and arguably we already have too much.

Forcing the local police to enforce federal laws would basically be federalizing the police and entirely abolishing the sovereignty of states. That would be unconstitutional.

That's all from the Declaration of Independence, which doesn't have any real legal power. And besides, saying that everybody has unalienable rights isn't a promise to respect those rights. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government must respect the rights of everybody in the country regardless of citizenship?

This isn't about that. This is about whether local and state police agencies can be dragooned into service by the federal government to do their investigations and enforcement duties.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

This isn't about that. This is about whether local and state police agencies can be dragooned into service by the federal government to do their investigations and enforcement duties.

So does that mean that the federal immiration authorities are still able to deport people from San Francisco

 

[AnOminous]

So does that mean that the federal immiration authorities are still able to deport people from San Francisco

Yes. Of course.

 

[Strelok]

It's good. It's a complete waste of local police resources that can be better spent dealing with actual, immediate issues. You know, what local police's entire fucking job is.