Federalism

Audio of Recent Federalist Society Teleforum on Sanctuary Cities

The event features Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, and myself.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

The Federalist Society has posted the audio of last week's teleforum on the sanctuary city/sanctuary state litigation of the last two years. The event featured presentations and rebuttals by Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute and myself. We covered all of the major sanctuary cases of the last two years, including challenges to President Trump's January 2017 executive order seeking to deny federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, cases involving then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions' efforts to force jurisdictions that receive federal law enforcement grants to assist in deportation efforts, and the legal battle over California's sanctuary state laws. I wrote about the big-picture issues for federalism at stake in the sanctuary cases here.

In the Teleforum, Ilya Shapiro agree on most of the questions at issue in the Trump executive order and Sessions law enforcement grant conditions cases, but differ on two of the three issues raised by the California sanctuary state case.

Because this event included both Ilya Shapiro and myself, there is a risk that it will exacerbate the already serious problem of #IlyaConfusion. Fortunately, I have created this definitive guide to telling the two libertarian Ilyas apart.

UPDATE: Unfortunately the audio at the Federalist Society website seems to include only first 2 minutes or so of the event. I have contacted the organizers and hope to have this fixed soon. In the meantime, I apologize for the annoyance.

UPDATE #2: The issue noted in the previous update has been resolved! The full audio is now available here, and also at the link in the text above.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

24 responses to “Audio of Recent Federalist Society Teleforum on Sanctuary Cities

  1. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Fortunately, I have created this definitive guide to telling the two libertarian Ilyas apart.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    tldr Ilya Somin is not actually libertarian in any coherent sense of the word. His opinion on any applicable subject or idea is based entirely on its benefit to open borders.

    1. Luckily we don’t have that problem with AmosArch, who is not even close to libertarian; his mantra consists of dumping on Ilya Somin.

      1. I don’t believe in forced cake baking for private businesses nor do I buy the idea that a name from the state is a right on the same level as freedom of speech. That alone puts me way ahead when it comes to the supposed definition of libertarianism when compared to people like Somin and Johnson.

        1. Somin thought that the baker in Masterpiece should win, so I don’t know what you’ve been smoking.

          “A name from the state is a right on the same level as freedom of speech”
          … what?

          1. Somin thought that the baker in Masterpiece should win, so I don’t know what you’ve been smoking.
            >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

            really? I recall at most Ilya using it as a way to bash trump, but in a mostly parenthetical fashion that seemed to go out of its way to avoid coming out in support of the baker’s actual right to free expression.

            >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
            “A name from the state is a right on the same level as freedom of speech”
            … what?
            >>>>>>>>>>>>>

            SSM: A battle for the State’s endorsement of one ontological definition of marriage over another masquerading as a fight for freedom.

            1. Really.

              “I am one of the relatively few people who believe that both the baker and the travel ban plaintiffs deserve to prevail.”

              You’re arguing with the wrong court and issue if you think it’s SSM that’s established a “right to marry”, which is not the same as a “right to a name”. Loving v. Virginia and Turner v. Safley did that last century.

              1. No, he’s right actually. It turned out that the substantive government benefits of marriage meant almost nothing and did not satisfy SSM advocates in the slightest. What they were mostly concerned with was having the govt redefine the language of marriage.

            2. SSM: A battle for the State’s endorsement of one ontological definition of marriage over another masquerading as a fight for freedom.

              I welcome the continued spouting of intolerant, stale, authoritarian nonsense by conservatives, mostly because I currently prefer to see most Republican candidates lose.

            3. “I recall…”

              No you don’t.

              “SSM: A battle for the State’s endorsement…”

              Libertarians don’t think states have rights. They believe in the primacy of individual rights.

    2. If AmosArch believes Prof. Somin is not a libertarian, perhaps AmosArch could identify which Conspirator(s) he would describe as libertarian — or does he believe the Conspirators are lying about this blog’s ostensible libertarianism?

      I will refrain from contributing my view of this matter, although Libertarian is my middle name.

    3. Professor Somin’s views on immigration line up more closely with the Libertarian party’s position than your own.

    4. “His opinion on any applicable subject or idea is based entirely on its benefit to open borders.”

      Really curious how Illya Somin’s views on open borders informed his opinion on Knick v. Township of Scott. I don’t see much of a connection myself, but what do I know.

  2. Sanctuary City laws exist because Congress (under the control of both parties) has consistently chosen to under-enforce the immigration laws, creating a pool of people who will not be deported but whom the local law-enforcement agencies must interact with. Illegal immigrants are witnesses and victims of state crimes, and getting them to report crimes and show up in court for the proceedings is difficult if they fear coming to the notice of federal immigration officials by coming forward but do’t fear this if they stay silent.

    Whining about Sanctuary cities without doing anything to actually resolve the problem is just stupid. Whining about Sanctuary cities while actively showboating a “solution” that doesn’t actually resolve the problem is doubly so.

    1. If these officials are so eager to see justice be done that they pass sanctuary laws, maybe they could also ease the fear of immigrant victims by actually punishing the criminals that target them rather than purposely releasing them on to the street and actively obstructing any outside attempt to punish them simply because they are illegals or slated for deportation.

      1. Sending people to prison isn’t punishment? You’re high.

        1. Yes, if they did it enough rather than trying to reclassify crimes and hide criminals from federal authorities to literally prevent criminals from being deported.

          1. Still high? That must have been some G-O-O-D stuff you got ahold of.

      2. I am old enough to remember when the advertised rationale for sanctuary laws were to reduce deterrents against crime victims and witnesses from coming forward.

        Somewhere along the way, it morphed into protecting criminals.

        1. I don’t know that AmosArch is speaking for sanctuary city proponents here…

          1. He’s absolutely not.

            Sanctuary cities exist because the federal government didn’t remove illegal immigrants at the same rate they arrived, for several decades. Now the states have to deal with the illegals who ARE here, and they aren’t Constitutionally allowed to practice immigration law. So there are two options… 1) deal with the illegals, or 2) pretend they don’t exist.

        2. It started out just as politicians responding to bad incentives: Thanks to the counting of non-citizens in apportionment and funding decisions, and birthright citizenship, politicians in areas with a lot of illegal immigrants noticed that the illegals were giving them increased clout. So they set out to attract more of them.

          But politicians don’t like admitting that they’re doing things for nakedly self-interested reasons, not even to themselves. So they invented excuses for it. Reducing deterrents against reporting crimes was an early one.

          The problem is that they hit upon making defending illegal immigrants into a moral crusade. And moral crusades are subject to positive feedback, as people compete against each other to demonstrate their moral purity.

          So now the people caught up in the crusade are each fighting to be more extreme than the others, and part of that is objecting to even criminal aliens being deported.

  3. One of the worthless Hispanic immigrants that liberals want to fill America with.

    Link

  4. Just release violent criminals into the community who are supposed to be deported. What could go wrong?

  5. Just release violent criminals into the community who are supposed to be deported. What could go wrong?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.