Arguments against my negative case in debate?

Question

RESOLVED: Sanctuary cities are morally justified.

I'm debating with the negative case of this issue, I just wondered what arguments you would have against this standpoint (I don't want to post this entire case, so just focus on the issue in itself), the gist being that sanctuary cities are illegal, people shouldn't come into our country whenever they want, and that sanctuary cities create disrespect for the rule of law.

If you debated against this resolution, what would be your main argument?

Answer 1

The constitution puts limits on the governmental powers the federal government can exercise, deferring all powers not designated for the feds to the states, and through the states to local governments.  The state constitutions and state laws give local communities significant powers to deal with the local environment that is not a state wide issue.  Cities declaring sancturay do not pose a state wide issue and so are entitled to such city wide action.  It is all about our forefathers belief that in regard to government, the power should be placed as close to the people affected by that power as good government organization permits.

Answer 2

The law argument is overused.

We are NOT debating illegal immigration. We are debating sanctuary cities. Illegal immigrants are people too, they deserve just as much as we do.

Answer 3

My main argument would be that the gist of the argument FOR sanctuary cities is that it is an attempt by government to dissolve our sovereignty as a country and allow the North American Union to progress.  Whoever is for this open borders policy is really for the dismantling of the country, they want to make America as Europe, and combine the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.  There is always some hidden agenda behind what people in power do, to sway public opinion to what they want.  I just learned this recently....call me dumb.