Why sanctuary cities must End.

Share with:


Jennifer Chacón, is a professor of law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. She does research in the fields of immigration law, constitutional law, and criminal law and procedure. She wrote in part in 2014 on the American Bar Associations Insights:

“Who controls the nation’s immigration laws? Although the question seems straightforward, the historical picture is mixed, and the text of the U.S. Constitution does not point clearly to the answer. While the Constitution’s text and the various Supreme Court cases interpreting this text suggest that the federal govern­ment has the exclusive power to enact and enforce the nation’s immigration laws, state and local authorities still play an important role in the regulation of immigration because they shape the conditions of daily life for immigrants in their jurisdictions.”

Federal Immigration Power

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con­stitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes that the federal government, specifically Congress, is responsible for crafting the laws that determine how and when noncitizens can become nat­uralized citizens of the United States. But control over naturalization does not necessarily require full control over immigration. And indeed, for the first century of the United States’ existence, many states enacted laws regulating and controlling immigration into their own borders. Various states passed laws aimed at preventing a variety of populations from entering the borders of their states, including individuals with criminal records, people reliant on public assistance, slaves, and free blacks.

It was not until the late 19th centu­ry that Congress began to actively reg­ulate immigration, in particular, with measures designed to restrict Chinese immigration. By this time, the Supreme Court had begun to articulate clear limits on state immigration powers. In 1849, with the Passenger Cases, the Supreme Court struck down efforts by New York and Massachusetts to impose a head tax on incoming immigrants. Four justices concluded that such taxes usurped congressional power to regu­late commerce under Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution. A unan­imous court applied the same rationale in 1876, striking down a New York state statute taxing immigrants on incoming vessels in Henderson v. Mayor of New York. A few years later, in 1884, with a decision in the Head Money Cases, the Court for the first time upheld a federal regulation of immigration, also on Com­merce Clause grounds.

From that time on, the Court upheld federal immigration regula­tions against constitutional challenges, although the underlying rationale shift­ed. With the Chinese Exclusion Case in 1889, the Court began issuing a series of decisions in which it treated con­gressional power over the regulation of immigration as a virtually unreview­able, plenary power. The Court upheld congressional immigration laws and executive enforcement of those laws against a series of challenges, in spite of their patently discriminatory nature and lack of due process guarantees for non­citizens. The Court repeatedly suggest­ed that this federal power flowed from the federal government’s prerogative to control foreign affairs.

From the late 19th century through the present day, the Supreme Court has upheld almost every federal immigra­tion regulation against constitutional challenge, citing Congress’s plenary power in this area. As Justice Kennedy wrote in the 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States:

The Government of the Unit­ed States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immi­gration and the status of aliens. … This authority rests, in part, on the National Government’s con­stitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations….

Sanctuary cities are an illegal and a cruel attempt at giving false hope to illegal aliens who have no right to be in this country and a blatant violation of Constitutional Law.

Local Governments who support the Sanctuary City Scheme are committing Treason. Every elected member of those local governments should be arrested and tried as traitors to the US Constitution.

We either have National Sovereignty and defensible Boarders or we Cease to be a viable Country.

You are either a legal resident of this country or you are an illegal alien.

DACA aliens have had several years to get their applications in order. Many have gained legal status. Those that have done nothing to become legal residents over the several years the DACA scheme was enforced, do not deserve sympathy or special consideration.

It is tough love to draw a line in the sand and end the illegal DACA Scheme? Yes it is, but come on, how long have they had and how hard is it to fill out the applications to get legal residence? Please President OBAMA gave them every opportunity to get their shit together. They have had another 8-9 months to make application. Why must we give them more time? When does it end? You snooze you loose.

In Websters Dictionary, Sympathy is between Shit and Syphilis.

Criminal Aliens have ZERO rights to stay in this Country and should be picked up in mass to be Imprisoned and deported upon completion of their sentence…. No if, ands, or Buts.

Any other viewpoint is irrational and dimwitted.


Share with:

Liked it? Take a second to support Cactusthorns on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

2 Responses to Why sanctuary cities must End.

  1. Avatar
    Yo moma July 16, 2019 at 3:07 am

    That’s like the dumbest arguments I have ever seen. What are you a fifth grader who pulled the argument against sanctuary cities out of a hat.

    • Dan OBrien
      Dan OBrien July 16, 2019 at 7:25 am

      Thank you…. I strive to please.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.