What do Sanctuary Cities offer sanctuary from, to whom do they offer it, and why?

The short answer: They offer sanctuary to illegal immigrants from checking their immigration status when they're detained by the cops, essentially sanctuary from federal detection, in order to look good to the local Hispanic population and use them as cheap labor.

Another definition would be: a city where the natural rights of individuals - who have not violated the life, liberty, or property of another individual - are defended, much to the dismay of a vocal majority who either a) think "law and order" is more important that "the rule of law" (or don't know the difference); b) believe that individual rights and not unalienable but instead emanate from the government; and/or c) just simply do not like brown people.

(07-30-2010 11:50 PM)Sleepy Owl Wrote:  Another definition would be: a city where the natural rights of individuals - who have not violated the life, liberty, or property of another individual - are defended, much to the dismay of a vocal majority who either a) think "law and order" is more important that "the rule of law" (or don't know the difference); b) believe that individual rights and not unalienable but instead emanate from the government; and/or c) just simply do not like brown people.

Thanks for your response.

OK. I hope you don't mind clarifying some things for me. I really want to understand the reasons defenders of the SC have, and this is a good start.

So, taking your points in order,

You appear to define the ability of people to be anywhere they want as a "natural right". Is this correct?

I guess I am possibly one of those incredibly stupid people who don't quite understand what what you mean by ' "law and order" is more important than the rule of law'. I thought I supported the rule of law, i. e., the enactment of laws by properly constituted means and authorities and the enforcement of same. I need you to expound on the difference. What is the difference here between the immigration laws and, say, laws regarding the nonpayment of taxes. It sounds to me that you think if a given law is stupid(IYO), it should not be enforced. I have heard similar sentiments regarding seat belt laws, smoking laws, certain tax laws and many other laws. Heck, I think some of those laws are stupid. How can we tell which laws are to be ignored and which to be enforced?

I do agree that some rights are inalienable and do not derive from from the government, for example, the right to life(IMO). I think other rights do derive from the government, for example, the right to vote or the right to operate a motor vehicle. What inalienable right(s) are SCs protecting?

Lastly, are you implying that only brown people are given sanctuary? I assumed even people from Sweden, North Korea, or Russia would also be granted freedom from the law(s) in those cities, if that were indeed the correct thing to do.

Edit: You imply that this dispute is a racial thing. I know plenty of "brown" people, American citizens, who support the enforcement of the immigration laws. They don't consider themselves race traitors, self-hating, or a special group that the laws don't apply to. I don't think a majority of Arizonans could be reached without the involvment of more than a few Hispanic-Americans.It is not a racial thing, although there are a few bigots on either side. I think it is a mistake to consider this a manifestation of racial bigotry.

I am just looking for some logic on this, and would be interested in learning the logic others see in it.

If we can have "Sanctuary" cities, why not "tax haven" cities, where one doesn't have to pay Federal taxes, or "_________" cities, where one doesn't need to heed the laws regarding __________. This seems to me to be more an abrogation of Federal authority than the Arizona law.

If we, the citizens of the US of A, want open borders and no restrictions on immigration, as we had in the early 1800's, then we should vote to repeal the laws. Is this what you advocate?

As you can see, I am not now in agreement with you, but I am willing to be persuaded, if a persuasive case can be made.

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Irony.

I just heard a radio appeal by the brother of one of the three hikers held by Iran who allegedly wandered a few feet over the border inadvertently.

Here we have thunderous disapproval of the US wanting to send home some people who willfully violated our space, and near silence on Iran NOT sending home 3 hikers who did NOT willfully enter their country with the intention of living and/or working there.

Presumably the three hikers had not violated the life, liberty, or property of another human being. So what is the difference? Does Iran have the right to control its borders? If so, then why not the US? If Iran does not have that right, as some say the US does not, then they are kidnapping our citizens, and a response is called for, i think.

C'mon sleepy.

A sanctuary city is one that generally doesn't use local funds to enforce federal immigration laws... meaning someone here illegally, arrested for a local crime, is only prosecuted/charged with that local crime. In contrast to your description, if they hadn't likely violated the life, liberty or property of someone else, they wouldn't be in a position where their citizenship was at issue. If you're going to talk about cops doing illegal things... fine... but that has nothing to do with sanctuary cities or what most people who support our immigration laws think about the rule of law or "brown people". The INS conducts immigration raids, not local police. I understand localities not wanting to spend their money to enforce something the feds should be doing... but I see nothing wrong with them doing so voluntarily.

What exactly is the point of things like borders and treaties, much less citizenship if enforcing those things (in your definition) violates the "rule of law"?

I guess in your description, I fall into "B", as borders and their enforcement are meaningless without a government. n How about property rights? Do the inalienable rights of individuals supercede my property rights? Your own description talks about property. Do Inot have the right to enjoy my property without tresspass?

Well, some cities do not want their police to regularly check immigration status, due to the impact on local policing. And I suppose cost could be an issue, but it is not usually mentioned by the police. But they do check immigration status once people are arrested and in jail. I believe Houston falls into this category, and many web sites refer to Houston as a "sanctuary city."

(08-01-2010 06:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What exactly is the point of things like borders and treaties, much less citizenship if enforcing those things (in your definition) violates the "rule of law"?

Yeah, I have been pondering Sleepys's reply. If all humans have an inalienable right to be in whatever country they want, what is the use of a passport or a visa?

(08-01-2010 06:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-01-2010 06:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  What exactly is the point of things like borders and treaties, much less citizenship if enforcing those things (in your definition) violates the "rule of law"?

Yeah, I have been pondering Sleepys's reply. If all humans have an inalienable right to be in whatever country they want, what is the use of a passport or a visa?

Indeed. Every time I take an international flight, with the attendant hassles of standing in various lines for various checkpoints, I think how inconsistent it all is with the fact that when it comes to our land borders, there are organized groups here who demonize any control whatsoever.

I don't understand this exaltation of land crossings versus air crossings. If we're going to forego immigration enforcement, then let's forego it for flying as well, so that international flights would be as simple as flying Southwest to Love Field. Plus, if we did that, we would get a much more diverse group of illegal immigrants: they would come in huge numbers from Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and the Pacific, as well as Middle America. Wouldn't that be better than having illegal immigration come overhwhelmingly from one region? If illegal immigration is a good thing, then certainly more is better; and more diversity is ALWAYS better than less, right?

Or perhaps there is an unstated racial motivation for having free migration only from one part of the globe?

Of course it is somewhat simplistic to talk about control of the border as if that was the whole problem. As I recall something like 40%+ of the 11 million illegals came here legally, ie student or tourist visas, and then did not go home. So just like George they stood in line and had the proper papers to get into the country. Somehow I don't think that makes you feel differently about their being here?

Then there are the seasonal migrants, who used to leave their families at home and go back after the crops were picked, but due to the increased security at the border now stay and bring their families over the border. Law of unintended consequences.

I was hoping to find a reasonable and logical explanation for the antipathy toward immigration law enforcement, of which the Sanctuary City is just one manifestation, even if it was an explanation that i did not agree with. It seems more than ever to me that opposition to immigration enforcement is fueled by irrational emotional responses to cries of "racism" and "meanie". But I am still open to persuasion.

(08-02-2010 03:37 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  Of course it is somewhat simplistic to talk about control of the border as if that was the whole problem. As I recall something like 40%+ of the 11 million illegals came here legally, ie student or tourist visas, and then did not go home. So just like George they stood in line and had the proper papers to get into the country. Somehow I don't think that makes you feel differently about their being here?

Well, I feel sorry for them for having had to stand in line and provide papers and all that. They had to go through all those hassles, and then they had to wait months til their visas expired before they became illegals. And who is rallying to stick up for them? Yet their land-arriving brethren didn't have to do any of that, but [/i]enjoy the exalted status of illegal alien from day one -- with all kinds of groups rallying to protect them, and demonizing any effort to the contrary. It's not fair (not fair, I say!) that the visa-overstayers and air-arriving illegals are discriminated against in this manner. We should eliminate all visa-checking at universities and all controls on air borders, so that that air-arrivers can become illegal aliens just as easily as land-arrivers can.

(08-01-2010 06:35 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  Well, some cities do not want their police to regularly check immigration status, due to the impact on local policing. And I suppose cost could be an issue, but it is not usually mentioned by the police. But they do check immigration status once people are arrested and in jail. I believe Houston falls into this category, and many web sites refer to Houston as a "sanctuary city."

I can certainly understand that as a local matter, a city could decide that aggressively enforcing certain laws (e.g. immigration laws, or fare-skipping on public transit) is not really worth it. I cannot understand the notion that if a city decides that it IS willing to take on those risks, such a decision is inherently evil.

(08-02-2010 03:57 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(08-02-2010 03:37 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  Of course it is somewhat simplistic to talk about control of the border as if that was the whole problem. As I recall something like 40%+ of the 11 million illegals came here legally, ie student or tourist visas, and then did not go home. So just like George they stood in line and had the proper papers to get into the country. Somehow I don't think that makes you feel differently about their being here?

Well, I feel sorry for them for having had to stand in line and provide papers and all that. They had to go through all those hassles, and then they had to wait months til their visas expired before they became illegals. And who is rallying to stick up for them? Yet their land-arriving brethren didn't have to do any of that, but [/i]enjoy the exalted status of illegal alien from day one -- with all kinds of groups rallying to protect them, and demonizing any effort to the contrary. It's not fair (not fair, I say!) that the visa-overstayers and air-arriving illegals are discriminated against in this manner. We should eliminate all visa-checking at universities and all controls on air borders, so that that air-arrivers can become illegal aliens just as easily as land-arrivers can.

Don't forget those who arrive by water.

I just want the same right to go settle in Australia or China or Mexico without the stupid paperwork or the need to justify myself. If I'm walking down the street in Melbourne or Caracas or Stockholm plying my trade peacefully, leave me alone!!! Don't need no stinkin' papers. Should be the same all the way around, for me as well as for them.

CLEARLY 75, this isn't a one-pronged problem or solution. For me, and I suspect for Arizona... this isn't about "keeping brown people out". This is about not having areas of our country where citizens are warned by our government not to travel because of the risks created by unregulated and apparently sometimes desperate immigrants or drug mules. (If they weren't sometimes desperate, there would be no need for warning signs, no??). This is about keeping KNOWN criminals from entering our country to do us harm, whether it be individually like theifs, rapists and drug dealers, or collectively like terrorists.

We need to control our borders just like we do those who arrive by air. We need to register our "visitors" just as we do our citizens. I don't get the resistance to this by our own citizens.

The very reason we have the "risk" of profiling or requests for "papers" is because we've failed to properly secure our borders in the first place. I'm sorry if that will make some people uncomforable for a while, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't solve the problem.

(08-02-2010 03:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I was hoping to find a reasonable and logical explanation for the antipathy toward immigration law enforcement, of which the Sanctuary City is just one manifestation, even if it was an explanation that i did not agree with. It seems more than ever to me that opposition to immigration enforcement is fueled by irrational emotional responses to cries of "racism" and "meanie". But I am still open to persuasion.

I'm one who is on the side of not really caring about immigration reform.

I am not aware of any strong emotions I have on the issue, I'm usually considered logical rather to a fault.

My problem is that I don't have any real problem with someone being here illegally and doing work and sending money back home. Sure, a lot of that is probably not great for the economy, I can see that argument. But you can't expect me to stand next to a guy who is doing the best he can for his family and treat him as if he's equivalent to a rapist or murderer. It's just not the same.

I might be persuaded that this is an issue we really need to focus resources on, if anyone wants to show me a) the "threat" to our economic and personal security from illegals warrants this kind of attention (as opposed to, perhaps, an actually intelligent drug policy) b) the response being mounted is not disproportionate to the threat in terms of resources devoted c) the response does not create (realistic) unintended negative consequences for citizens

(08-02-2010 07:38 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(08-02-2010 03:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I was hoping to find a reasonable and logical explanation for the antipathy toward immigration law enforcement, of which the Sanctuary City is just one manifestation, even if it was an explanation that i did not agree with. It seems more than ever to me that opposition to immigration enforcement is fueled by irrational emotional responses to cries of "racism" and "meanie". But I am still open to persuasion.

I'm one who is on the side of not really caring about immigration reform.

I am not aware of any strong emotions I have on the issue, I'm usually considered logical rather to a fault.

My problem is that I don't have any real problem with someone being here illegally and doing work and sending money back home. Sure, a lot of that is probably not great for the economy, I can see that argument. But you can't expect me to stand next to a guy who is doing the best he can for his family and treat him as if he's equivalent to a rapist or murderer. It's just not the same.

I might be persuaded that this is an issue we really need to focus resources on, if anyone wants to show me a) the "threat" to our economic and personal security from illegals warrants this kind of attention (as opposed to, perhaps, an actually intelligent drug policy) b) the response being mounted is not disproportionate to the threat in terms of resources devoted c) the response does not create (realistic) unintended negative consequences for citizens

I don't TERRIBLY disagree with you, with exceptions. The simple fact that there are sections of this country where citizens are warned not to travel... in our own country... is an issue for me. MS13, drug cartels, human trafficing etc are ALL significanlt threats in my mind. We spend an awful lot on TSA security, DHS background checks on fliers, the coast guard, much less standard border checkpoints. We seem worried enough about the "front" door to devote significant resources to it... but because the border is not secure in any way, we have no idea who is coming in through the back door... and criminals and terrorists aren't ALL stupid.


As to the threat being proportional to the necessary solution... When you consider the number of illegals in our prisons for something other than immigration violations, the cost of education of their children, healthcare etc... a Rice University Professor (not named, and can't substantiate his claim) said it was 19.3byn in 1993. That is an annual number. I've seen numbers from around $2byn to $300byn... so it's hard to know what to believe... but it's not nothing... and as a comparison, Clinton's budget for INS in 1994 was $1.6byn. If the Rice professor is correct, it seems we could have spent ten times our 1994 budget that year and likely every year since and STILL had a positive ROI.

On a personal level... I know for a fact that the VAST majority of illegals in this country are honest, hard working people.... so are our citizens... but we spend an awful lot of money in this country enforcing our tax, zoning, property etc laws on our citizenry. Why would we not be willing to spend as much to enforce immigration laws. I mean, most of us Americans are just here trying to make a better life for our children as well. I have no problem with aliens... my problem is with ILLEGAL aliens. Have them register like I, a citizen, have to (birth certificates, SSN, DL etc) and we can work something out.

(08-02-2010 07:38 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(08-02-2010 03:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I was hoping to find a reasonable and logical explanation for the antipathy toward immigration law enforcement, of which the Sanctuary City is just one manifestation, even if it was an explanation that i did not agree with. It seems more than ever to me that opposition to immigration enforcement is fueled by irrational emotional responses to cries of "racism" and "meanie". But I am still open to persuasion.

I'm one who is on the side of not really caring about immigration reform.

I am not aware of any strong emotions I have on the issue, I'm usually considered logical rather to a fault.

My problem is that I don't have any real problem with someone being here illegally and doing work and sending money back home. Sure, a lot of that is probably not great for the economy, I can see that argument. But you can't expect me to stand next to a guy who is doing the best he can for his family and treat him as if he's equivalent to a rapist or murderer. It's just not the same.

I might be persuaded that this is an issue we really need to focus resources on, if anyone wants to show me a) the "threat" to our economic and personal security from illegals warrants this kind of attention (as opposed to, perhaps, an actually intelligent drug policy) b) the response being mounted is not disproportionate to the threat in terms of resources devoted c) the response does not create (realistic) unintended negative consequences for citizens

And I know that there are issues you care about that I don't. Only fair.

But this idea that all the illegals are just honest, hard-working guys trying to do the best for their family is just another stereotype, and is about as accurate as stereotypes usually are - that is, it accurately describes SOME people and is nowhere close to others. To brand them all as just good guys wanting a good life for their family is no different than branding them all criminals.

I have lots of family on the border, and they are scared. My cousin lost his job, and I found him another, but because it would entail travel in Mexico, his wife made him turn it down. Another cousin, who has gone across the river to Mexico for various reasons for over 80 years, has not done so for any reason in 3 years due to fear. Now what is keeping the scary people on the SOUTH side of the river? The assumption that only honest, hard-working people who just want a better life for their family will head north?

We screen people entering the courthouse - why not screen those entering our country?

Why do other countries control their borders, and why should we be different? I think we should drop our controls only if all the other countries do too.

Tax evaders, bank robbers, shoplifters, thieves, grifters, all want the money for a better life for themselves and their loved ones. So we should permit anything in the name of better lifes?

A lot of Mexicans and Central Americans would have better lives in their own towns if we just supported letting Ameican businesses open plants there, but instead we have all the uprorar about American jobs being exported. There are two sides to every coin.

Even if, as the stereotype suggests, all illegals are harmless, why should we ignore their transgressions of whatever type while holding ourselves and our fellow citizens responsible for ours. I too want a better life for my family, so I guess that gives me carte blanche.

(08-02-2010 09:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And I know that there are issues you care about that I don't. Only fair.

But this idea that all the illegals are just honest, hard-working guys trying to do the best for their family is just another stereotype, and is about as accurate as stereotypes usually are - that is, it accurately describes SOME people and is nowhere close to others. To brand them all as just good guys wanting a good life for their family is no different than branding them all criminals.

You misunderstand me. I didn't say "these guys are all just hardworking family types, give them a break". I was specifically speaking to the crime in question. If they get caught stealing, raping, drug-trafficing, etc, then by all means throw the book at them and end of story.

(08-02-2010 09:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have lots of family on the border, and they are scared. My cousin lost his job, and I found him another, but because it would entail travel in Mexico, his wife made him turn it down. Another cousin, who has gone across the river to Mexico for various reasons for over 80 years, has not done so for any reason in 3 years due to fear. Now what is keeping the scary people on the SOUTH side of the river? The assumption that only honest, hard-working people who just want a better life for their family will head north?

I don't disagree that what is happening in Mexico is scary, but that could be more directly addressed (as I suggested above) by actually having a SANE approach to the "War on drugs" which is currently a massive failure. I don't think Mexico being scary really has anything to do with whether we should devote resources to rooting out and deporting otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants.

(08-02-2010 09:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Why do other countries control their borders, and why should we be different? I think we should drop our controls only if all the other countries do too.

The answer is largely practical - it's a huge border, and lots of people (as already pointed out) simply come in legally (checks and all) and overstay. I'm not saying I'm 100% against taking some measures, but we simply are NOT in the same position as, e.g., Iran.

(08-02-2010 09:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Tax evaders, bank robbers, shoplifters, thieves, grifters, all want the money for a better life for themselves and their loved ones. So we should permit anything in the name of better lifes?

Come on. I am not for "permitting" anything. I am looking at the situation as it exists, and trying to be practical. I am simply saying the response to the threat should be measured, and not driven by what appears to be a hysterical element in our society finding a scapegoat.

If they come in legally and overstay, then they are committing a crime. They agreed to stay for a predetermined period and agreed to "stay in touch"... and haven't. To me, this is a parole violator... Is it the worst crime ever?? Of course not. The QUESTION is, WHY did they stay? Simply because they didn't want to go home?? or can make more money here?? so their only reason to drop off the grid is to stay here? That can be addressed through work permits etc... but STILL, do we NOT have the right to control our borders and who comes and goes?? We don't let our citizens go without filing taxes... even if they don't owe any... why should we let people who have already shown a willingness to break the law for their personal gain go unchecked??

The solution is easy (in words anyway)
1) secure the border. If that means tanks and guns, then it means tanks and guns. I am quite hopeful it doesn't, but it must be done.

2) all people here illegally MUST register. No promises of what will happen if they do, but a promise of what will happen if they don't.
You don't register, you go home. No questions asked... no exceptions. If you make exceptions, people will "take their chances" and that defeats the purpose. MOST of the people who won't register are the ones we REALLY need to get rid of anyway. Empower the Police to find the bad guys. If that means our citizens get inconvenienced... it's a temporary problem with a long-term solution.

3) background checks... you fail, you AND YOUR FAMILY go home. You commit a crime other than things like traffic accidents, you go home

As to what happens to everyone here... here is where the argument will come... but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take the steps above NOW, just because we haven't yet agreed on the ultimate solution. I believe we have all agreed that what we are doing isn't working