What is the legal justification for sanctuary cities that I hear of?

Question

The ones that protect illegal immigrants from prosecution. Doesn't disobeying the federal government overstep a city's authority?

Answer 1

There is no justification but you can not tell that to those who think that the laws are not to be followed like those in San Francisco or Berkley.

Answer 2

Well, one great thing about the constitution is that the states have thier own rights. A bad part of that is that many states/cities take it upon themselves to enact totally opposite laws from that of the federal government. It only hurts us all and something should be done.

Answer 3

Read up

http://ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp

Trying to stop funding by two Republicans

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issu...

Answer 4

Basically, it means that local governments will not take on the responsibilities (and increased costs) of arbitrarily enforcing immigration laws, which are completely within the domain of the federal government.  Contrary to the irrational fears of anti-immigrant activists, these policies, in no way whatsoever, shield undocumented aliens from criminal liability.  

One practical reason for enacting "sanctuary" policies is that it would encourage "illegals" to come out of the shadows since their immigration status would not be questioned.  The threat of deportation is the main reason why most "illegal" immigrants refuse to cooperate with local law enforcement, especially if the immigrants, themselves, happen to be victims of crime.

Answer 5

Well, the Feds set one helluva example by ignoring the borders and sticking border state taxpayers with the tab.

Answer 6

Nope.

Feds rule on this, thank you President Bush.

Answer 7

Playing devils advocate here. Their defense is that they only offer sanctuary from immigration issues not criminal. The fact is they arent reporting the criminal arrests either but since that isnt written into the sanctuary laws its just an unspoken thing, they can feel justified.