I think the comparison/contrasts between the sanctuary philosophy and public officials who decline to conduct administrative functions as regards same sex marriages is legitimate.
And I think the comparison is the usual conservative baloney. But we’re all entitled to our opinions, I guess.
But you’ve yet to say why.
My point is simply that it is usual conservative baloney to say “Why do progressives care about THIS when they don’t care about this OTHER thing that we care about?” Of course, to be fair, people of all stripes use this same argument. But the issue of whether clerks are obligated to obey the Constitution and whether cities should voluntarily cooperate with non-mandatory procedures aren’t really the same, anyway.
There are millions of injustices which occur every day and so many different things worthy of attention. There is no way to attend to every valid concern, and I find statements which imply some kind of fault in persons who are not jumping on your particular band wagon to be completely unfair and sanctimonious. I don’t know that I would link it to one’s liberalism or conservatism, however.
Depending on how you view, this could be a big issue; everyone making up thier own law and applying. I think both conservatives and liberals are doing that. So far it is minor and it may remains so. If not, there will be a breakdown. Already liberals and conservatives aren’t talking to each other, no need to since they won’t follow the law if it irks them.
If a city isn’t following what ICE demands, a sheriff in charge of the jail wouldn’t need to follow the city sanctuary rules either.
The parents of the murdered woman, Kate Steinle, are calling for stronger laws, specifically one that would have mandatory prison sentences for deported aliens that return.
You’re confusing what ICE demands–which, as best as I can tell, isn’t a legal requirement but rather a request for cooperation–with the obligation to follow rules that are actually legally binding.
If there were actually laws prohibiting cities from following sanctuary rules, the cities would have to obey them. The courts would make them do so.
Nobody is outrage because there the minority now in CA. Pelosi and the likes don’t have to pander to them.
Just this morning, I saw in the news, the cartel drug lord from Mexico, the thug that escaped from prison a few days ago, sent a nasty gram to Donald Trump. It was hilarious, proves Trump’s point.
According to post #39, most cities are sanctuary cities. This has been going on for a long time, right? It’s one thing to want cooperation from the immigrant community and not have anyone fear deportation for cooperating. It’s another thing to not automatically deport children or young adults who were brought here as children. What troubles me are repeat criminals. If you’re guilty of a felony, especially a violent felony, your immigration status should be checked. Those are the people who should be deported.
This is what bothered me too. It is one thing for the Sheriff or City representatives to say, we don’t have to comply with ICE requests, the law doesn’t require it. And it is another to consciously refuse to make the independent decision that a repeat offender, illegal immigrant should not be looked at more closely and passed off to the appropriate federal authorities. That is simple negligence by the people whose job it is protect its citizens.
Nrdsb4 and Igloo make excellent points and their perspective reminds me of the early debates among allies in the modern civil rights movement about how to confront unjust laws. The slow case-by-case legal approach of Thurgood Marshall’s team of extraordinary lawyers was not universally supported. Young Martin King’s tactics were not universally endorsed by Black clergy and other leading figures in Black communities in the late 1950s and early 1960s either. But at least the parties were talking to each other and having strenuous soul-searching debates. Contrast this to people in the “religious objection debate” and the sanctuary city adherents, each of whom seem to have dug in their heels to prepare for a long battle to silence the other side ideologically.
The simple answer is that people who have government jobs have to obey the law, or quit. Right?
In this case I think the Sheriff should be fired (or recalled?) unless he has a religious or other legally justified reason for not properly doing his job. He might have a legal one. It is not clear to me whether the City can prohibit him from making referrals, but I don’t think so since the Mayor said the Sheriff should have picked up the phone and called ICE.