I can't, as I don't favor sanctuary city policies anymore than I favored
The good Arizona sherriff's actions more than a decade ago. Immigration to me has too much of a foreign policy component to be a states' right.
But you're wrong about the pot analogy. Not a single state made its pot laws contingent upon the Feds' choice to not enforce its laws on the matter. If it chose to enforce, the state's and/or their industry would sue and the matter would play out in court. They haven't because some Feds favor decriminilization, and others think they'd have a poor Constitutional case.
Similarly, there are cities which passed sanctuary laws in popular votes. So this is exactly how a state or city can choose to challenge federal authority over them on this matter. How about churches which choose to shelter illegals from the Feds? These are legit acts of protest that the courts are tasked with resolving.
But more to my point in watching this absurd thread unfold, declaring disagreement with the all-knowing Hoodafan and his Trumpie allies to simply be "astounding" contributes to the board's devolution as much as the kneejerk "fuck yous".
|
(
In response to this post by Hoodafan)
Posted: 01/20/2020 at 11:10AM