Are Sacturary cities Constitutional ? I really want to Know!

  
When it comes to legislation I love gridlock, let me explain, think of all the unjust laws that our in the books of laws and then think how many that would be out there if we did not have gridlock or checks and balances. Even an opposing movement or Idea or organization can be a tool to be used to keep me or you from abusing the authority we have been blessed with in this country we do not want any organization to have too much power of authority whether it be A Church, Trade Union, Business ,Environmental Lobbyist, The Film Industry, and especially Federal Civil Government.

 I am a constitutionalist and a social conservative which means live right and you will not need civil government to punish you and that the United States Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. I believe that a social conservative and a libertarian Idea such as The United States Constitution can coincide. You see as a social conservative we are bullied because of our Ideas on lifestyle and sometimes improperly legislated against. I am not going to assume why this happens but there is a blockade to prevent extensive legislation that hurt social conservatives and that blockade is the United States Constitution. Many times the supreme court when looking at the United States Constitution have given victories to social conservatives such as the recent decision to allow Hobby Lobby to choose what form of birth control to give their employees. I know as a constitutionalist I know our founders never dreamed that civil government would be in the affairs of business government such as birth control but that is the slow descent of where are freedoms have been taken away to argue for or against this claim of usurpation I would have to cite the constitution because again I am a Constitutionalist. I have a blog article where I discuss business and Property rights in the blog. This blog however is about sanctuary cities and if you are going to be against sanctuary cities or for them, buddy you better have a constitutional argument against or for them. I do not want to see propaganda films showing the big eyed kid being taken away from  their mother. We all know one of the biggest serial killers in England was a mother who was protected by the Father and do not show me the stats where Rape rises because of the fluctuation of Immigrants, rape is big in Chicago from illegal-immigrants as well as Chicago original residents. I want to know the constitutionality of the existence of the "Sanctuary Cities" This blog article looks at both sides of the Argument and if I feel like it I will write my opinion which is about as important as Meryl Streep's opinion on MMA Fighting.

 The Constitutional Argument For Sanctuary Cities

Under the Constitution, State and Local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law. In Cases like Printz v. United States and New York v. United States 1992 the Supreme Court has ruled that the tenth amendment forbids federal "commandeering" of State Government to help enforce Federal Law.  This might help you understand why States are allowed to make laws on Abortion as well. What happened in the Printz Case The Brady Handgun Violence Act required "local chief law enforcement officers" to perform background-checks on perspective handgun purchasers, until such times as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose.

 County Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the Brady Bill. In Both cases District Courts found the background checks unconstitutional.  In other words according the cases Local Government do not have to enforce Federal Law, you know like force a county clerk to marry a homosexual couple just kidding. You know what I am saying. Court cases like the one in Chicago also have said that cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, then came the Supreme Court which ruled that cities had to give to everyone these social services including natural born and unnatural born citizens. This argument not only says that Cities do not have to enforce Federal Law but at the same time that basic social services given to citizens must be given to non citizens as well. One might argue that Jerry Brown has more authority over the "Sanctuary Cities" in California then the President of the United States due to the Tenth Amendment.

  The Constitutional Argument Against Sanctuary Cities 

  States refusing to obey federal Law can go back to where Virginia and Kentucky once blocked enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798 during the Quasi War with the French. Some states refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and South Carolina also refused to enforce Federal tariffs. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution reads This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the Supreme Law of the Land: And the Judges in Every States shall be bound thereby, Any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 What is the Law that Federal Law Enforcement are to enforce? Well that law would be found in the US Code Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter 2 part VIII Section 1325  

 Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. The Keyword is the United States not State. In a Recent Debate in the New  York Times Jan C. Ting a Professor at Temple University's Beasley School of Law Argued that

 It was right for these politicians to critique sanctuary policies: Laws imposed locally for the protection of illegal immigrants interfere with the normal cooperation between law enforcement agencies.
That is why the Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, under pressure from a Republican Congress, notified sanctuary cities that they must be in compliance with 8 USC Section 1373, which prohibits any agency from restraining the exchange of information among federal, state and local agencies regarding the immigration status of any individual. The attorney general warned that sanctuary cities would not receive Justice Department funding in the current 2017 fiscal year if they did not comply. President-elect Trump and the Republican Congress can be expected to attempt to cut other federal funding to sanctuary cities in 2017.
Any prohibition against state and local officers sharing information and cooperating with federal immigration enforcement is a threat to public safety, and should not be supported by federal funding.
Law enforcement agencies have traditionally relied on each other for support and back-up in carrying out their respective missions: It helps build trust and avoids unhappy surprises. Now, more than ever, with law enforcement officers and agencies under both scrutiny and attack, such coordination and cooperation should be facilitated and encouraged.

Well now it's my Turn

  I love the tenth amendment and the Constitution and I abhor federalism and the centralization of anything for instance why should Mississippi be forced to teach evolution and why the heck should New York be forced to teach Creation? The bottom line States have certain Sovereign rights except when they violate the Constitutional rights of others and in some case Human rights in the case of slavery many slaves were not born in this country and were treated wrongly does that mean that men and women of different states have the right to step in?  Yes because one's God given rights have been violated. State rights that involve the removal of individual rights are not protected by the Constitution and calls for the interventions if need be. The tenth amendment leaves all thing not listed in the Constitution up to the states that is why the Constitution is pure and simple. If state taxes Alcohol accordingly it has that right. The right to alcohol is not listed in the bill of rights sorry drunks deal with it. In the Case of the Printz Case we see the Brady bill as an Unconstitutional Law yes so law enforcement do not have to enforce that law see the United States constitution you know the Second Amendment.

  The Question is do Local Law Enforcement have to corporate with Federal Law Enforcement on Immigration Law? Here is the Real Question are Immigration Laws Unconstitutional? Well no obviously Immigration Laws were legally passed through Congress constitutionally and therefore have to be enforced whether local governments agree to them or not which in many case can cause a civil war so we are right at a place where this needs to go to the supreme court and I would tell Jerry Brown and Lawyers to gather their information and lets hear their case and side of the Argument and go from there. I have a indication due to recent rulings on Abortion and the hearing of testimony on whether any rights are violated especially civilians of the United States that Sanctuary cities will become legal at this time they are not deemed legal and must abide by the current immigration law. I have mentioned before Loretta Lynch pointed that out to Sanctuary cities recently. I have pointed out right now Sanctuary Cities are in no way Constitutional but States do have the right to Challenge the Current Laws that are on the books and of course if you go by the legal theory of Nullification. The Federalist Papers would say that the role of states is to "sound the Alarm" regarding any unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress which include maybe wrongful Immigration laws that might harm Human rights if there be any in the books. The Constitution according to the Federalist papers gives the Supreme Court the power to review decisions of state courts in cases arising regarding the Constitution or Federal Law. In other words lets see this thing in court before we force any Cities to abide by Federal Law and go from there.