Sanctuary cities and states are good or evil?
- tizzoseddyLv 62 months agoFavorite Answer
To characterize something as good or evil is to make a subjective evaluation. Anything that is perceived as evil is indeed evil, but only within the minds of those that perceive it as being so.
- All hatLv 72 months ago
They are thieves. It's not their place to ignore the national laws and pretend they are their own little nation.
- 2 months ago
Sanctuary cities take advantage of non-sanctuary cities to succeed. Without the taxes, infrastructure, and flexibility of the surrounding non-sanctuary cities and/or states, they would not be able to exist. In other words, they are the political equivalency of leeches. A leech, like a maggot or a pile of dog ****, isn't good or evil...but it isn't pleasant to be forced to tolerate it either.
- Anonymous2 months ago
Neither. They're a pragmatic way of dealing with a problem that will take a much bigger, holistic effort to resolve than any that's yet been offered at a federal level. If simple solutions worked they'd have worked already. Meanwhile sanctuary policies offer a way to make day-to-day governance and law enforcement work which all they were ever intended to do.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- GA41Lv 72 months ago
Evil, they promote lawlessness. Without laws civil society cannot exist.
- Anonymous2 months ago
Sanctuary cities are fine, they are not breaking any law.
Unlike many other partisan issues these days, the law seems clear cut here: cities and states are perfectly entitled to set themselves up as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants.This claim may seem counterintuitive on its face—how can states and local governments pick and choose whether to enforce federal law? After all, our Constitution clearly states that federal law shall be supreme over state and local law; some have even asserted that sanctuary cities harken back to a time when states and cities would defy the federal government during the Jim Crow era.  In addition, there are specific federal statutes that require state and local officials to aid federal immigration authorities; Section 1373(a) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code says state and local governments can’t ban officials from sending or receiving information regarding the immigration or citizenship status of people to the Department of Homeland Security.  President Trump has chosen to enforce this particular statute through a withdrawal of federal grants and funds for violators, as per a January 25, 2017 executive order. Of course, this is all a total misunderstanding of what state and local governments do when they proclaim themselves to be sanctuaries. Rather than nullifying or violating federal law, what states and cities are doing is opting “not to use its resources to help federal agents identify, and deport, undocumented immigrants.”
In addition, while the federal government can require or prohibit certain acts, they cannot force state and local governments to require or prohibit the same acts or force them to enforce federal law. One of the most basic tenets of federalism and the Tenth Amendment is that the federal government cannot commandeer states and cities by compelling them to actively enforce federal laws at their own expense.
- humptyLv 72 months ago
Neither, if you are a rational person, or both if you are a militant Trumpist.
- Kinetic NebulaLv 62 months ago
Neither, but they are misguided. The problem is you have to have a fundamental respect for the law. If you're (correctly) going to go after a rancher for illegally using federal land to feed his cattle, then you also have to go after local municipalities that knowingly house undocumented foreign nationals. You can't have it both ways.
- The TaxpayerLv 72 months ago
No good or evil. If you choose to disobey federal laws, then you forfeit your right to federal money.
- Justin ThymeLv 72 months ago
Not only evil but illegal. Trump is cutting off Federal funds to them.