Sanctuary Cities: Guns and Immigrants

As a response to some of the most strict gun control laws in the nation having been passed in WA state a few months ago, parts of WA are appropriating the concept of 'sanctuary cities' as a means to resist the new laws. At least one police Chief has directly propositioned his city council, and a few of the at least 15 county Sheriffs are considering the move as well.
(more here: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...servatives-embracing-sanctuary-cities.550764/ )

The concept of sanctuary cities has thus far been fairly partisan. Now, however, I think it just got far more complicated. Lets see what a poll finds.

Pick which most accurately represents your position, and follow with an explanation. Thx!

 

I believe locally elected authority should generally trump centrally elected authority, as our individual voice/vote has far more weight in the micro than it does in the macro. In this political climate where interpretations of The Constitution can vary widely from one sub-culture to the next, our ability to self-govern in any meaningful way is relative to the size and cultural bent of the population within which we are competing for our values to be represented in our laws. I see absolutely no difference between a cultural region wanting to welcome undocumented/illegal immigrants and a cultural region wanting legal access to illegal firearms. The social complications inherent to this dynamic are outweighed, imo, by the necessity for a perception of individual effect within the democratic structure. If too many of us feel that our values are not represented within the system, the system will fail. Far better that we likely suffer complications like (example) one city trading incarcerated firearm violators for immigration violators incarcerated in another city than for both cities to fall apart in a war over those issues.

 

they're all forms of anarchy... including the indiscriminate banning of anything... as for sides, i'll always go with my own personal freedoms, even if it puts me on the side of the underdog...

everything going on for the last few decades, & coming to a head now, has been geared towards infighting to break apart the greatest nation there ever was, and if it leads to an actual civil war again, either side will find it difficult to use the military against the other, and my instincts tell me that most of the soldiers in our military will see fit to defend the constitution so leftie should be worried about that... not so sure about leo's, as they are a mixed bunch with their own values & could go either way...

i've declined to cast vote on the grounds that sanctuary is a state of mind, a concept of values... to say one is against sanctuary is to fold one's hand, flip side to support sanctuary is to support dissension... yet if 'war' breaks, than we'd all need sanctuary...

 

Another poll I can't participate in because I don't lean towards the left or right but stand tall and erect with my shoulders back and chest out proud as hell being an American.

America # 1

MAGA

America first

 

May I ask, why does your poll only allow for two extremes?

How about adding a category which starts with "I am centrist" or "moderate" or non partisan??

 

Because almost no one is precisely in the center. If you can't admit you lean one way or the other at least a little, you're either part of such a tiny minority as to not matter in a poll seeking generalities, or you're not honest enough to participate.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but that's how I see it. I don't feel like making any considerable effort to accommodate the infinitessimal number of people represented by the tiny dot in the middle of the political spectrum. Its just not worth it.

 

We are a nation of laws. Uphold them, or change them. For individual entities to be allowed to arbitrarily choose not to enforce the laws is, a slippery slope.

 

I agree, its a slippery slope.
Do you support States Rights: the ability of different states to have different laws?

 

Yes I do. Federal laws should be, for the most part, limited to interstate issues.

 

So is it the scale of local government where you make the distinction?

 

Where I make the distinction is the law. If laws must be broken or disregarded to enact a sanctuary city, then I am against them. The feds should have no say in the matter, except to the extent to where interstate issues arise. If the laws are changed such that there is no infraction, then I'm OK with it.

 

Why do you support States Rights over Fed laws but not County or City Rights over State Laws?

 

Did I say that I do? I suppose my answer would be that we are, or should be, a country of sovereign states. I do not support the city defying county laws. I do not support the county defying state laws, and I do not support the states defying federal laws.

I do, however, support the 10th amendment, and I think the federal government should be limited. What cities do is between them and their county and/or state. Arbitrarily defying applicable law, no matter where that law originates, I cannot support. Uphold the law or change it, but don't make an institutional decision to just ignore it in defiance of the law.

 

You said you don't support sanctuary cities because they're not following the law, but you support States Rights to (ostencibly, correct me if I'm wrong) not follow Federal Law.

Where/how precisely do you draw the line between the local right to self govern vs the authority of centralized power?

 

Also, I see one voted for "I lean left and I support the concept of Sanctuary Cities for immigrants, but not gun owners" but neglected to leave an explanatory comment... I wonder why?

 

I think states SHOULD be able to self govern, and that the feds SHOULD stick to only those powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. That's where I draw the line. Read and understand the 10th amendment, and you will know where the line is.

The feds, for instance, do not have any constitutional authority to tell anyone they cannot buy, sell, or use marijuana. But they DO have constitutional authority to regulate interstate marijuana commerce. Just because they have no constitutional authority does not mean they won't do it anyway, and just because they have acted unconstitutionally for years unchallenged, does not make it OK. As long as it's the law, the law should be followed, unconstitutional or not... but it should be challenged and ultimately overturned on its constitutional merit. The scotus is, I hope, returning to it's focus on the Constitution, and away from activism.

FWIW - I have several problems with sanctuary cities, other than just their unlawful formation. But the basis on which to oppose them best is simple illegality.

 

Because it is an unsupportable position?

 

I have many problems with sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants, but I don't see any good reason why cities where it has popular support should be forced to enforce laws contrary to the populism, nor can I think of an effective, acceptable method of forcing them to do so anyway.

 

Would you have any problem if all the people in your neighborhood decided to burn your house down?

 

Yes. I would have such a problem that I would shoot as many of them as possible in self defense.

 

Good answer!

So why should "popular support" give license to break the law? Wouldn't changing the law be better? Would you have a problem if those who sought to follow the law in the face of an opposition majority acted in self defense too?

 

Neither illegal immigration nor civilian gun ownership are direct threats in and of themselves, whereas an angry mob burning my house down is a direct threat to me, direct violence against me.

In the cases of illegal immigration and civilian guns, the threat comes from a number of contributing factors. In a healthy society with a strong economy and sensible laws, criminal immigration would be low because it would be hard to get away with crime, economic immigration would be welcome because we would need more workers and entitlements would be too difficult to attain to be worth the trip. A healthy society would not be afraid of defending themselves, and violent immigrants would stay far far away from us. We would primarily be attracting people that we wanted here- peaceful producers. We are getting criminals and leeches because of other unhealthy dynamics going on in our society and economy.

In the same way, guns are not the problem. A society with rampant mental illness, eager victims, disarmament zones and hassling red tape promote criminals having firearms more than law abiding citizens and incentivize violent crime by making it less risky. If people saw it as their personal responsibility to protect themselves, the mentally ill had better access and incentive to seek help and if poverty were reduced, gun violence (along with violence in general) would plummet.

Neither guns nor illegal immigrants are the cause of any problems, but are far more the effects or symptoms of other problems within our society. As such, in contrast to my neighbors ganging up and burning my house, a directly violent act that should be illegal, I don't think we have ethical ground to restrict either guns or illegal immigration in populations where such is not popular. They are not directly damaging things in and of themselves.

 

Because counties and cities are not sovereign entities.

 

Does that mean you disagree with a Sheriff that refuses to enforce a law that is unpopular with his/her constituency?

If so, what (if any) methods would you support that could be used to force a Sheriff to enforce unpopular laws?

 

If a city Sheriff refuses to enforce the laws that were passed by their state or country they should be removed from office. The same goes for mayors, city councils, or clerks. States are sovereign entities within our system. The Federal government is granted powers by the states and thus has the ability to make and enforce laws as well. The Cities within their borders are allowed to function based on the state Constitutions and state laws. If those cities decide to ignore the laws then they can have their charters taken away and the state can come in and take control. If the Federal government over reaches its granted powers the States can also rescind or change the granted powers of the federal government through a Constitutional convention.