Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Will Liberals Learn to Love the 10th Amendment?

It's Trump vs. Scalia when cities offer sanctuary to immigrants.

In the 1997 case Printz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for the federal government to direct state and local law enforcement officers to enforce certain provisions of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

"The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems," the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion, "nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." In short, Printz held, the feds may not commandeer the states for federal purposes.

At the time it was decided, Printz was criticized by many liberals for being a "conservative" decision that promoted states' rights at the expense of duly enacted national reforms. In other words, they saw it as a case of the 10th Amendment run amok.

Liberals today are more likely to view Scalia's handiwork in a far more favorable light. That's because Printz now serves as perhaps the single best legal precedent in support of the constitutionality of so-called sanctuary cities—municipalities that either won't help the federal government round up and deport undocumented immigrants or otherwise refuse to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Sanctuary cities have become a hot topic since the election of Donald Trump. Less than a week after Trump won, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo took to Facebook with a defiant message for the incoming administration. "We won't allow a federal government that attacks immigrants to do so in our state," he declared. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel was equally blunt: The Windy City, he said, "will always be a sanctuary city." Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck announced that his department was "not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts. That is not our job, nor will I make it our job."

Federal authorities retain their own power to enforce national laws in those places. But the lack of meaningful local cooperation is no small hindrance. In effect, these cities are a bulwark against the far-reaching national agenda of border hawks in Washington.

If you like the sound of that, take a moment to thank Justice Scalia. As he made clear in Printz, "federal commandeering of state governments" goes against the text, structure, and history of the Constitution. Trump may not want to hear it, but "such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our system of dual sovereignty."

Photo Credit: Public domain

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.

  • Diane Merriam||

    With few exceptions, Republicans lean Libertarian when Democrats are in power and Democrats lean Libertarian when Republicans are in power. It's only when they can use it to oppose those they disapprove of that the personal freedom bell rings out on their side.

    Same for the Constitution. Only those parts of it they like are valid when they're in office and invalid when it's the other side.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    I hate to be a stickler about Libertarianism being more than a lean-to, but the Democrats don't lean Libertarian. The lefties are just looking for any excuses to keep their leftist agendas from falling apart. In this case state's rights and unenumerated rights of the People.

  • The Grinch||

    States' rights are a tactic for them, not a core belief, that's for sure. The same goes (to a lesser extent though) for Republicans.

  • Password: pode$ta||

    the Democrats don't lean Libertarian

    Republicans, for the most part don't either, with a few very notable exceptions.

    This is something that comes up a lot: some libertarians like to conflate libertarian ends with libertarianism, and that's how you wind up with things like Obergefell. Is gay marriage a libertarian thing? Yeah, I suppose one would say so. But if you arrive at it through a non-libertarian process (expanding state licensing), you end up with non-libertarian outcomes on the periphery (nazi cakes). Democrats pushing gay marriage were not being libertarian! They were fighting a culture war.

    Same thing with borders. Is open borders libertarian? Yes. But if you don't take a libertarian approach, you will end up with open borders and a massive welfare state, the size of which will increase to get new immigrants on the Democrat plantation through a culture war. Ostensibly libertarian ends, through a non-libertarian process will not have libertarian outcomes.

    That's why it's so important to discuss libertarian principles instead of just hammering libertarian goals all the time. The left in this country is 100% ends-justifies-the-means. Libertarian principles are the means and the ends come later. Process is important. Ideology is important.

  • John DeWitt||

    Well said

  • Mr Drew||

    +1
    Nuanced, thoughtful, called no one an idiot or fucking liar.
    I'm not sure I'm in the right place.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    You know who else wasn't in the right place?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    The people turned to goo in Star Trek the Motion Picture?

  • C. Anacreon||

    I think I sat next to them in the theater.

  • FD||

    Standing O.
    In three organized paragraphs you described libertarian principles more thoroughly than virtually all the virtue signalers on Reason's staff (sans perhaps Root and one or two others). The writers are a hodgepodge of 1990s New Democrat thinkers who haven't the analytical aptitude to construct a philosophically-consistent narrative, without falling into the "ends" trap. God forbid we ever employ the bivariate core of true libertarianism -- the NAP and property rights. Wouldn't want that now, would we.

  • ThomasD||

    That article rests on the notion that something called 'freedom' is a natural right. Ok. It further posits property as something that can exist in direct opposition to this freedom while also being entirely "non-invasive." Not ok.

    It's ultimately one big boot strap argument toward communitarianism. Which is not libertarian.

    Yes competing rights can come into conflict, be it invasive sorts or non-invasive sorts. And that is why we seek to establish mechanism for peaceful resolution of those conflicts. They are inevitable.

    But we do not pre-privilege one notion of a right - no matter whether we call it 'freedom,' or 'apple pie' - over any another right because properly speaking they are all property held by the individual.

    Property in our rights, and rights in our property.

  • ThomasD||

    "Then call yourself a propertarian"

    LOL. no, I call myself a libertarian because I believe in liberty. Which includes recognition of inalienable human rights. All of which are properties of the individual. What you believe is that 'property' - ie things of tangible value - must be subservient to another right that you deem to be 'freedom.'

    Meaning that anyone who can demonstrate a limit to their 'freedom' is somehow entitled to another's tangible assets.

    I think we can all see where that ultimately leads.

  • redfish||

    "It's ultimately one big boot strap argument toward communitarianism. Which is not libertarian."

    Not really. I read it (well skimmed it, because it gets tedious). It seems more of an argument that libertarianism should be reconciled with the notion of a public sphere. And... it sounds a lot like classical liberalism -- and the framers of the Constitution, who talked about stuff like the "public good", "common good", and "common welfare", and though the language they used would make modern libertarians wince, classical liberalism is hardly the same thing as communitarianism.

  • FD||

    From a Block-ian or Rothbard-ian perspective, there is no disconnect. The old "one owns oneself paradigm" fits into the propertarian template just fine and equates to liberty. Whilst the "property" semantic is scary to some, it is still the foundational premise.
    BTW, I enjoy Kinsella's analysis but he's one ornery s.o.b. and loses sympathizers because of his foul stubbornness. You're welcome to use "libertarian" but I suspect you spend more time re-defining (properly defining) it ad nauseum; I know I do. It's been perverted extensively and is co-opted by the likes of the Johnson-ites and the writers here. They're welcome to call themselves bumblebees for all I care. Doesn't make it so.

  • mr simple||

    Testing
    So reason isn't letting me comment now without turning on third party cookies?

  • mr simple||

    I had a long argument typed up but apparently the squirrels ate it.

    Suffice it to say: That paper is purely academic, an argument he tries to use to hand wave away retorts, and a long way of saying, "Muh roads!" It's the same argument leftists make to force people to sell gay nazi cakes, because they can come up with a hyperbolic, hypothetical situation where all minorities are starving and living in the streets.

    All freedoms are based on property rights and no two rights can be in conflict. Either you own property and can do what you want with it (given standard NAP) or you don't actually own it and aren't free.

    Your response to ThomasD is just a No True Scotsman, false appeal to majority and then conflating aggressions against others as somehow extensions of property rights.

  • mr simple||

    I did address them when I said "conflating aggressions against others as somehow extensions of property rights." To be fair, I had a longer argument that disappeared when I tried to post.

    Your arguments here are childish. I do not accept your basement. You've still locked me on your property and aggressed against me, causing me harm.

    And don't try to weasel your way out by saying I would be violating your rights by locking you in the basement.

    So don't make the correct argument? You can't just handwave away an argument and consider it defeated. You haven't made any statement as to why this would be allowed under property rights. Aggressing against another person is not a part of any rights and would in fact invalidate your own. If you lock me in your basement, I would be within my rights to escape by any means necessary, even if that necessitated taking your life.

    It's the same for the other two. Easements, as they stand, are created by and enforced by the government and not a part of natural rights. They can be created and the issue solved by private contract, of course. The last one depends on the level of government you accept for the argument, whether in today's actual world or the fictitious anarchist world of the essay (which is another problem with the essay, that libertarian =/= anarchy).

  • Fire Dalmia (DoM5k)||

    Five thumbs up!

  • ThomasD||

    "That's why it's so important to discuss libertarian principles instead of just hammering libertarian goals all the time. "

    This well and truly is the crux of everything.

    Application of principle is libertarianism. The other approach is utilitarianism.

  • Episteme||

    The principles vs ends issue is key. One reason that I think that Modern American Conservism (a.k.a. Reaganite or Buckleyite conservatism) can fellow-travel so well with modern Libertarianism and agree on many ends, often moreso than more Left Progressivism, is shared intellectual heritage. Both are descendants of classical liberalism, split off around the World Wars (hence why the NAP becomes the major philosophical distinction versus the early New Right's more muscular anti-communism). Both have built inroads relationships with other parties over decades – whether the "the three stools" built with Kirkian traditionalists on the right or the the utilitarian syntheses with parts of the New Left among Rothbardians. Yet, we still see time and again a first principle impulse from many to return to shared classical liberal liberal premises at times, whether it's from a NAP or Buckleyerian direction.

  • Bob Boberson||

    This needs to be written on parchment and nailed to Reason's door.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    States have powers, not rights.

  • The Grinch||

    They'll take advantage of Scalia's decisions and call him a Nazi in the same sentence. If states and municipalities start ignoring federal gun laws this fantasy will go out the window because it's hypocrisy and short-sightedness all the way down.

  • ThomasD||

    I'd agree that states cannot be compelled to enforce Federal laws. I'd further accept states that chose to exempt firearms manufactured within their borders, and marked as such, as being exempt from Federal firearms restrictions.

    I'd also agree that states must recognize that the Feds set immigration and naturalization law. But only to the extent that the states must recognize anyone who the Feds say is either a citizen, or a resident alien.

    Meaning that states retain the ability to remove persons who are not present legally should they so choose.

  • ThomasD||

    anyone who the Feds say is either a citizen, a resident alien, or has been granted a visa of specified duration.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Again? Instead of arguing that the feds should not be providing city welfare, they argue that it is some sort of constitutional right.

  • Lee wishes he made the list...||

    I'm on board with the feds ending all handouts, period. It's the endrun around the tenth amendment.

  • Password: pode$ta||

    This. But that's going to be very difficult. There was a thread on this the other day, using education spending as an example. The thing is, the state/local governments don't really want to control their own education spending. They would have to jack up state and local taxes. Same goes for pretty much all federal --> city/state handout programs.

    It's actually very politically convenient for state/local politicians to just route a lot of their spending through federal taxes and federal strings-attached money. On the federal side, this keeps taxes high, which keeps the slush fund large enough to pork barrel massive projects.

    TL;DR, states and cities don't actually want their 10th amendment rights because they would have to do unpopular things.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Well too bad. It is time they man up and take responsibility for their own barrel of monkeys.

    And the feds should not be involved in schools either.

  • ||

    States can't print their own money. That means that the goodies have to be paid for.

    If the Feds are part of the equation they can print money and (today's) taxpayers are happy and the goodies keep flowing.

  • Lee wishes he made the list...||

    Exactly

  • ThomasD||

    Rather than raise taxes they could get out of the "education" business altogether.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    They are approving that individuals work and presenting it to the public. I am not going to his blog and reading a post. I am going to their site, run by editors and squirrels, and reading their work.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Oh, will you please give the "Trump sacrifices virgin nuns" hysteria over immigration a freaking REST? Reason favors open borders. Favors them so strongly that you believe that not enforcing the existing laws and creating a legal limbo for large numbers of people is preferable to regulating immigration at all. I happen to think you are out of your tiny minds, but that's your privilege. But Trump was elected, in some large part, because a vast swath of the electorate was sick of 'Sanctuary Cities' and similar exercises in Ostentatious Liberal Piety. The Sanctuary Cities are going to get it in the neck under the Trump Administration. And, to the extent that being a 'Sanctuary City' has been a cheap exercise in virtue signaling that ducks any hard questions about the issue (that is, pretty much the entire extent) they deserve to get it in the neck. Maybe getting it in the neck will teach them not to be smug assholes about complicated issues.

    Or not.

  • EDG reppin LBC||

    That's a lot of "getting it in the neck". What is this, the movie 'Taken'?

  • ||

    WTF. Tell me more about this idea that the Feds can't make the states do their bidding.

    All you need to do is show me one state where 18 year-olds can drive around with beer and not get a DUI at .09 and I will completely buy your argument.

    How is withholding funds from sanctuary cities and different from withholding (hiway) funds from any state that didn't raise their drinking ages and BAC limits?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Preach it bruddah!

  • Authoritarian Fries||

    The threat was enough to get the states to acquiesce. It was never challenged in court.

  • DOOMco's Ref Chipper||

    I look forward to states lowering the age.

  • ||

    Actually, it was challenged in Court. South Dakota v. Dole (1987)

  • C. Anacreon||

    You are correct. It was South Dakota vs Dole Pineapple.
    Defendant wished to drink Pina Coladas while driving and was supported by the importer.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I see no problem in this instance, as there is absolutely nothing constitutional about sanctuary cities in the first place. Especially since border control and immigration are legitimate enumerated federal powers.

  • Diane Merriam||

    No they aren't. The Constitution gives the federal government the power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, i.e. citizenship. That's a completely different critter from immigration, no matter for how long or what the purpose of the person's coming here is.

    I will grant border control in a roundabout way. Since a government only operates in a specific and defined geographical region and one of the ultimate (legitimate) purposes of government is to defend the citizens from outside aggression.

    There are only two valid reasons for restricting someone's freedom of movement inside the country. If they are a criminal, having demonstrated by their actions that they do not respect the rights of others, their movement can be restricted all the way up to imprisonment.

    The other is rarely used. If a person has a serious (really serious) communicable (easily communicable) disease they can be prevented from mingling with other people until they have passed any contagion period.

    I can accept the government using one of these two reasons to justify not letting an individual into the country. Beyond that, no.

  • Password: pode$ta||

    "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems," the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his majority opinion, "nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." In short, Printz held, the feds may not commandeer the states for federal purposes.

    IANAL, but RC and John have both noted that this probably doesn't apply to sanctuary cities. The federal government is not forcing states to enforce laws, as it was in Printz. Just asking local authorities to hold illegal aliens for a legal period of time until federal agents can get there to do the enforcement. Not sure where Scalia would have fallen on that. SC decisions frequently hinge on such minor distinctions.

    Will Liberals Learn to Love the 10th Amendment?

    No. They will use it as a weapon to fight the larger culture war. Keep in mind that liberals just want their funding and their sanctuary cities. They aren't arguing that strings-attached money should go away. Just that it should keep going to them, even if they cut the strings.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Dude, you are getting in the way of the narrative by a key cog in the Statist machine, Damon Root.

    If Root says it is just dandy for the feds to drop bread on the ghetto, then Reason says it is just dandy to drop bread on the ghetto. And then, we all know what else is just dandy. Dig?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I don't even think it goes that far. It says that they can't be told *not* to do those things.

  • Diane Merriam||

    Checking the immigration status of a person and holding them both involve time and costs to the local government. *That* is what the cities are refusing to do. They will not allocate *their* resources in cases that involve the federal immigration laws. And they have a perfect right to refuse to do so, just as local governments have refused to allow local resources to assist in enforcing federal gun or drug laws. It's the same principle on all of them.

  • ||

    "...the feds simply have no lawful authority to order the states to enforce federal immigration laws."

    The court has also ruled that making a phone call to ICE is not commandeering.

  • Authoritarian Fries||

    Citation please. Forcing state actors to take action is the very definition of commandeering but we all know that courts regularly redefine the common understanding of language to achieve a prefered outcome. Anyway, "working with the feds" seems to require more than just a phone call. They have to question the detainees, fingerprint to establish id, search a database, provide a facility to do this all in, pay electric bills, water bills, etc.

  • ||

    Have you bought a gun lately?

  • brien||

    - "They have to question the detainees, fingerprint to establish id, search a database, provide a facility to do this all in, pay electric bills, water bills, etc"

    Isnt this pretty much what they do when someone breaks the law whether or not they are are here legally or illegally? Am I misunderstanding what the sanctuary city definition is?

  • C. Anacreon||

    Yes, this pretty much describes the booking process at a jail. Since all the feds want is to be notified that a particular illegal was arrested -- not just walking around minding his or her own business -- your whole definition of 'commandeering' really is off base, and all that really is being asked is an extra phone call, or maybe even just some online clicking.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Whether Trump likes it or not, the feds simply have no lawful authority to order the states to enforce federal immigration laws."

    Given that Trump's executive order denies federal funds to sanctuary cities, isn't the question whether municipalities have the lawful authority to order the federal government to give them federal funds?

    No, you don't have to lower the speed limit to 55 mph, but if you wanted federal funds for roads, that used to be what you had to do. If you'd rather forego federal funds than comply with federal requirements, then you should be free to do that.

  • ||

    As I understand it those cities agreed to certain conditions in return for that taxpayer money. This isnt about commandeering as much as upholding the terms of that agreement.

  • creech||

    So, Title IX sanctuary campuses? CRA Sanctuary cities? IRS sanctuary counties? BLM sanctuary states?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The argument I understood from John and RC Dean was that those programs (I used the Clean Water Act as an example) are enforced through federal agencies. The EPA, for instance, isn't an example of the federal government using local law enforcement. Those standards are enforced by federal law enforcement and federal courts.

    Again, my question is whether municipalities can demand funds from the federal government--because all Trump's order does is deny funds for not complying with federal mandates. Trump's order is not commandeering local law enforcement.

  • Authoritarian Fries||

    A simple command from King Cheeto to withhold Congressionally authorized funding would seem unconstitutional on its face.

  • american socialist||

    You would think but this isnt unique to king cheeto. As others have mentioned highway funding.

  • Authoritarian Fries||

    I don't think those threats were ever challenged in court but yeah I'm confused about whether the Executive can decide on its own how legislative funds are distributed. You think it would a new law to deny the funds to specific towns and states.

  • american socialist||

    So i posed a question just below that you made me think of how these legislative funds get allocated. Like grants for example

  • american socialist||

    If they are distributed to an federal agency to decide how and where they go then perhaps the executive would have say if congress just punts.

    For instance if congress allocated 100B to department of transportation...does then the dot decide projects where it goes or congress?

  • american socialist||

    Meant allocated 100b for infrastructure

  • Presskh||

    Some of these funds are "earmarked" for specific projects, meaning they cannot be used for other projects. Many times, these are the "pork" projects that specific members of Congress want. Otherwise, the funds are divided into specific agency categories and, depending on the agency, can only be used for that category. The agency gets to then choose what the funds are used for in that category.

  • american socialist||

    You bring up a good point that i thought.

    Does the congressional funding specifically tell where it has to go? Or is it just mainly to an agency with this broad plan for what used for and agency decides specifics?

  • Authoritarian Fries||

    Yep. I think that's an important part of this. I'd also like to know whether the equal protection clause comes into play whenever Congress is writing budgets.

  • FD||

    Right to the heart, precisely.
    If you wanna see a more wrangled, perverse, confounded puzzle of a paper trail then try to trace the allocations into the state, the dribbles to the counties, and then to the townships. the departments, the agencies, the line items on the ledger and the cashed checks. It's uglier than Arthur Anderson's file-to-confetti exercise 15 years ago.
    And if one thinks the auditors are salving our concerns, and the risk of corrupti-- err, rather, waste is minimal, then I guess Obama was a peacemaker too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "A simple command from King Cheeto to withhold Congressionally authorized funding would seem unconstitutional on its face."

    We're not talking about a command from Trump.

    We're talking about municipalities not complying with federal law.

    Making the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress. Isn't Trump merely enforcing the laws that Congress passed?

    Isn't that his job?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Yes, and yes.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    A simple command from King Cheeto to withhold Congressionally authorized funding would seem unconstitutional on its face.

    Correct. That would be an illegal impoundment if what you say were the actual facts.

    However, if the Congress handed over power to the president to give or withhold funds, then your notion is not applicable.

  • american socialist||

    Liberals dont care for people...they care about power over others to feed their egos

    Liberalism today is dominated by narcissists and sociopaths

  • Authoritarian Fries||

    Are we talking about Trump using nothing but executive power to deny funding or is the idea that Congress will pass a new law? And could Congress pass a budget that only spends federal dollars in states with Republican governers?

  • Jerryskids||

    "Not giving" is not "taking". The Feds aren't ordering the cities to enforce the federal law, they're just saying "if you want the doggie biscuit, you gotta do the trick".

    So the question is, do the feds have the right to withhold funds they've promised under one agreement due to the cities' failure to adhere to some other agreement? We all know how Trump feels about keeping up his end of a bargain, but for normal people, failure to adhere to one part of an agreement doesn't necessarily void the rest of the agreement, let alone any other agreements you made with the same party. Just because you're not happy with the dishwasher you bought at Lowe's doesn't mean you can refuse to pay for the stove and the refrigerator you bought there, too. The feds can withhold law enforcement funds if the law enforcement agencies aren't cooperating with the feds, but not other sorts of funds the city may be receiving for some other purpose. Screw 'em. You start following the rules, we'll start following the rules.

    But then you get into how states operate - they'll yank your driver's license if you get behind on your child support payments. What the hell does the one thing have to do with the other? So much as I may agree with the principle that the feds shouldn't be able to withhold unrelated funds, I can't see where the states have any sort of principled argument in that regard.

  • Jerryskids||

    Damn squirrels - the last bit in the second paragraph was supposed to go at the end of the third paragraph. Don't screw 'em until after you remember they started the screwing.

  • american socialist||

    My understanding it isnt all the funds...just law enforcement type grants

    May be wrong on that tho

  • american socialist||

    I forget is trump ahead of the federal agencies? If so im not sure how changing rules agencies put forth, who they can hire etc is illegal. If congress punts on it and says federal agencies can essentially make teir own laws (rules like dodd frank) im not sure how liberals can complain about trump changing them.

    These federal agencies shouldnt have that much power in first place. It isnt executive overreach if he is im charge of agencies.

    For example obama was cheered for aca and dodd frank legislation saying rules could be drawn up by agencies as time goes on but if trump gets rid of or alters some he is andicator?

  • Set Us Up The Chipper||

    Cities are not sovereign entities like States. QED.

  • american socialist||

    To libs...so trump using orders to change rules of federal agencies is bad...ok. But the way they come about in first place essentially by executive order is a ok? All about team. Seems what trump does with rules like the dodd frank is legal because they were rules not established by legislation but by executive agency

    Now i think federal agencies should be greatly reduced and at least 5 eliminated.

    Isnt this sanctuary thing witholding funds the same as the dept of education does with things like title 9 and colleges?

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Seems what trump does with rules like the dodd frank is legal because they were rules not established by legislation

    Dodd Frank was not established by legislation? LOL
    http://bit.ly/2jMnOKn

  • american socialist||

    Dodd frank was legislation that gave agencies power to make up rules at a later time like aca where the rules are still being written

  • american socialist||

    I meant that some of the rules were established later and not specifically in dodd frank to begin with when passed.

    Legislation saying we give you agencies permission to make rules at a later date as you please are not rules that were made by congress and thus executive can rescind or modify

  • Rational Exuberance||

    Shouldn't the Constitution also prohibit the federal government for redistributing federal tax dollars to local and state organizations for achieving goals unrelated to the enumerated powers of the federal government? So, yeah, these cities can insist that their federal funding shouldn't be tied to immigration enforcement, but then they shouldn't be receiving any federal funding at all.

    In any case, another way Trump can approach this is simply to take away the funding from cities altogether, hire more federal agents for immigration enforcement, and then loan these people back to the city to help out with regular policing.

  • american socialist||

    Yea. Speaking of that how is a progressive income tax or regressive constitutional at all (like ss which i think is not constitutional either)

  • Jerryskids||

    That seems like a good point - how is the federal government paying states to do stuff the feds aren't supposed to be doing in the first place any different than the feds doing it themselves? Unfortunately, the set of "things the federal government isn't supposed to be doing" is an empty set. It's the feds job to do good things so if it's a good thing to do it's the feds job to do it. Few people want to argue honestly about the principle of the thing - they'll argue the principle of the thing when it suits their purposes but if you want to argue the principle of the thing you're either "just saying that" or an unreasonably obdurate ideologue and why do you hate the children?

  • GamerFromJump||

    Apparently, state's right are only lawless when a leftist is in charge.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Will Liberals Learn to Love the 10th Amendment?

    While it suits them to utilize it. They will never abide by it in principle.

  • Shinin' Pete||

  • JayU||

    Cities are not states. And the Feds control immigration. Federal control of immigration is clearly defined in the Constitution itself and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of the Feds power to create and enforce immigration law.

    Just because you *want* this to be some illegal action, doesn't mean it is. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 3 and 4. Try reading. All movement of people in the Commerce Clause. Uniform Nationalization in Clause 4.

    The only thing worth pointing out is that it's up to Congress to determine all this, not the President. But cracking down on Sanctuary Cities is 100% Constitutional and anyone claiming otherwise is either a moron or doing so for partisan reasons.

  • JayU||

    *Naturalization

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Immigration, much less federal control of it is not mentioned in the Constitution. Naturalization is. The Constitution is mum on immigration.

  • JayU||

    "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…."

    - Justice Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court from the 2012 decision in Arizona v. United States

    But sure, man. There isn't 100 years of clearly defined precedent outlying the federal governments control over immigration. Sure man. Sure. Try reading.

  • MarconiDarwin||

    Scalia is dead. If he were alive, he'd have reasoned this differently. Just like he did in http://articles.latimes.com/20.....o-20110628

    Despite a precedent. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-.....0/629.html

    Scalia: "Because speech about violence is not obscene, it is of no consequence that California's statute mimics the New York statute regulating obscenity-for-minors that we upheld in..."

    A Republican is in the WH.

    It is not whether the left likes the 10th Amendment but rather how much the GOP will bugger it and how much reason.com will fail to point that out.

    Face it, reason.com and a lot of its commenters are more concerned about finding ways to blame past Democratic actions for what Drumpf is going to get away with. "Because Obama did X, Drumpf has a precedent to do Y" as if Drumpf was all about precedents and norms.

    Say, any thoughts on how that debt projection is going to look like in a few months?

  • Ken Shultz||

    If I'm reading the headlines right, it looks like a judge just put the kibosh on Trump's whole asylum order--including the part about asylum seekers who don't have green cards yet.

    He even put a temporary restraining order on giving preference to religion minorities--which I believe is actually codified in treaties on asylum seekers--or, at least, religious persecution is specified as legitimate grounds for an asylum claim in international law, and minority status speaks to persecution.

    I understand granting a TRO on the part of the order that was implemented against people who followed the law, already have green cards, and already achieved legal residency, but this judge appears to have gone too far.

  • american socialist||

    How can that judge do that?

    My understanding is only green cards and immigrant visas are the issue

  • Ken Shultz||

    I could be reading it wrong.

    Here's the ruling:

    http://online.wsj.com/public/r.....ruling.pdf

    Look under "IV Temporary Restraining Order".

    It says that it's granting a TRO for section

    Here's the text of the order:

    http://www.npr.org/2017/01/31/.....-annotated

    The sections he TRO'd appear to be the sections that do the whole thing--not just the part about green card holders.

    I'd love for someone better informed or even just with a second pair of eyes to read it, too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's rare for the courts to interfere with the Commander in chief's ability to fight terrorism.

    It's even rarer, I believe, for them to issue a restraining order beforehand.

    I wish the courts had been this concerned with our Fourth Amendment rights in regards to mass surveillance.

    Seems like the courts care more about immigration than they do about the Fourth Amendment.

  • RoninX||

    Maybe they should care about both?

  • Ken Shultz||

    They should care about due process, the Fourth Amendment, and the Constitution.

    Granting a TRO against the part of the order that isn't clearly unconstitutional is overstepping their own legitimate authority.

    I expect the Trump administration's arguments to prevail on all the aspects of the executive order that don't impact people who already have green cards.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    Liberals won't learn to love the 10th amendment until long after "moderates", conservatives, and some Libertarians embrace the 10th amendment.

  • John Rohan||

    Ending sanctuary cities doesn't mean the federal government is forcing local police to enforce immigration laws. It means forcing local police to COOPERATE with immigration authorities and their requests. The US government can't function if its own agencies are at odds with each other.

    For those who support sanctuary cities, I have a question. Do you think there should be any distinction between legal and illegal immigrants at all?

  • Rockabilly||

    There are few liberals left in the democrat party, most are authoritarians.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Since when did Kristallnacht National Socialists join the US Liberal Party of 1930? If it's still Politically Uncommunistic to call looters looters, why not call the gun-grabbers libertarians? As long as the idea is to compete in counterproductie foot-shooting and Republican brownnosing, calling Second Amendment repealers "libertarian" easily makes as much sense as calling them "liberals."

  • Longtobefree||

    So end all federal grants.
    If any given individual chooses to conspire to violate a federal law, say by refusing to identify a person known to them to be in the country illegally, arrest them (regardless of any local political office). Then give them a fair trial, and if convicted, imprison them for the term defined by the federal court.
    If someone helps a bank robber to avoid arrest, they usually face criminal charges. Same thing, only federal, as specified in the constitution.
    I would pay admission to watch a certain mayor of a city where his "sanctuary" is responsible for the death of a citizen be arrested in the middle of a press conference on how his conspiracy is a righteous act.
    "You have the right to remain silent - - - - "

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online