The article does not explain the executive order or just what the local governments are doing that violates federal law. Then there is the matter of whether the federal government can withhold funds as a remedy - and that matter is also not explained in the article. Maybe the follow-up article will have a LINK to the judge's ruling when released.

It is our tax money. Perhaps we should pay our federal tax into a trust account while awaiting the final ruling.

Or maybe we could just uphold our immigration laws, stop this ridiculous "sanctuary city" stuff and avoid the problem all together. Just a crazy thought... I don't appreciate the libs gambling with my tax dollars/ federal funds to protect people who have broken our laws by entering our country illegally. Sending them home is the reasonable and natural consequence to their actions.

@Alternatives,

Why is it that the people with the strongest opinions bout sanctuary cities always have no idea what a sanctuary city is? If you think this isn't you, please explain what the policy of Santa Clara county is.

@Sanctuary - yes, I certainly understand what a sanctuary city is and the unwillingness of local law enforcement to aid ICE in arresting illegal immigrants signals to these illegals that they are welcome here and creates for them a sense of safety and security, all of which encourages more people to cross our borders illegally. Santa Clara County is actually spending taxpayer funds on legal aid to protect illegal immigrants from deportation. So first we pay for their education, healthcare and food subsidies, then their legal fees and then on top of that we pay for lengthy court processes to try to keep them here (because they have "rights"?). It's ridiculous. A sanctuary city telegraphs to those still on the other side of the border as well as those illegally residing in other cities/counties that this is a good place to live because the likelihood of deportation is much lower than in non-sanctuary cities. Unfortunately those of us residing in the county that support our immigration laws continue to foot the bill for this big mess.

@Alternatives,

It'd be easier to just say you don't know, instead of ranting about people having "rights," as if that's a bad thing, and "illegals." Then again, I understand the value of catharsis, and hope that this helped you work through some issues.

I'll give you another shot, please point to specific parts of immigration law that place enforcement responsibilities on state and local governments.

So @Sanctuary, you're saying to throw out our laws, allow illegal immigrants to stay?

Rule of law. Look it up.

If that's what you read in my post, you seem to have some reading comprehension problems.

In our form of government, there is a separation of powers between the federal branches of government, and between the states and the federal government. If you think the federal government mandates enforcement of its laws and regulations onto state and local law-enforcement agencies, you should be able to point to the actual laws dictating that. This is the core of rule of law, not of men.

So, once again, please point to specific parts of immigration law that place enforcement responsibilities on state and local governments.

nice job playing the passive aggressive game of muddling the discussion. You know fully well what @alternatives and anyone else against sanctuary cities is suggesting.

The fact that a city even has a "policy" means that they're providing a protection to ILLEGALS. And there are many, many of us who are fed up with it.

I'm not an attorney and won't try to argue that aspect. Let the courts play it out.

That you can't even articulate what the policy factually is, but are so angry about it, goes to show my first point: the people with the strongest opinions about sanctuary cities always have no idea what a sanctuary city is.

@Sanctuary - if there are no laws requiring local enforcement then why bother declaring themselves a sanctuary city and jeopardize the loss of funding? Except (as mentioned in previous post) to telegraph to the illegals that they are more than welcome here and that we support their illegal entry.
PS: Try not to be so sanctimonious - your message would be better received.

@Sanctuary - and also, if it's as cut and dried as you suggest I would think that the judge would have ruled on it immediately rather than deferring his ruling.

@Alternatives,

Excellent question! This could be answered by reading the statements of the local law-enforcement agencies, but I'll get you started. Local law-enforcement agencies have the goal and responsibility to keep their communities safe, and their ability to investigate and solve crimes directly relies on the cooperation of the community. If people are afraid to report crimes, act as witnesses, and aid investigations because they fear the police will hand them over to ICE, our brave police officers will be unable to do their jobs and our communities will become less safe. These are practical policies with the primary goal of ensuring the safety of our community.

Now, on the other hand, if you believe that there are laws requiring local enforcement, it should be quite easy for you to point to that specific law. For some reason, no one here has been able to do that.

We must conclude, therefore, that the local law enforcement agencies are acting in the best interests of our communities, and that there is no law requiring them to enforce federal immigration laws.

@Sanctuary - that's bogus lib-speak. The police department is beholden to the mayor, the mayor is elected so it's all political. At least so say the sheriffs that are not beholden to elected officials and their jurisdictions have not become "less safe" than their sanctuary city counterparts. There are certainly no statistics to suggest that crime has relatively risen in cities/counties that have not declared themselves sanctuaries. The declaration of sanctuary city status is simply rhetoric/ a political statement that encourages illegal immigration.

@Alternatives,

I've been clearly posting factual information here, and you've posted nothing to support any of your assertions, but you give away the game when you call facts "bogus lib-speak." It'll be quicker if you just admit that no amount of reason will convince you away from your emotional reaction to "illegals."

I'm still waiting on specific parts of immigration law that place enforcement responsibilities on state and local governments, but I suspect I'll be waiting a really long time.

@ Sanctuary:
1. what you've posted are opinions, not facts. It is not a fact that crime will become more rampant if police aid ICE in deporting illegal immigrants and to date there are no facts that support that opinion.
2. I support legal immigration. We have immigration laws for a reason so yes, I react to a failure to enforce our laws and none of your "reasoning" will convince me that we should abolish immigration law.
3. You will be waiting forever for me to cite specific parts of immigration law... I'm not interested in doing legal research to this effect - this is being adjudicated in the courts and clearly is not as black and white as you seem to feel. And in any case it irrelevant to my opinion that declaring sanctuary city status creates a perception of protectionism that encourages illegal immigration.

@Alternatives,

This is a curious perspective. You claim to be not at all interested in the legal basis for who should be responsible for enforcing immigration laws, but you claim that state and local law enforcement not enforcing them is tantamount to abolishing immigration law. Who, in your view, is responsible for enforcing immigration law? Where does that power come from?

@ sanctuary - I don't know how many times I can say the say thing over and over again. Please read #3 above. And since you're SO knowledgable about who should be enforcing the laws perhaps you can advise the judge who doesn't seem to be as certain as you. Lets just agree to disagree here because I'm not interested in talking in circles anymore.

@ Sanctuary, I am interested in your interpretation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
De Canas v. Bica the Supreme Court held that any state law or policy related to immigration will be per se preempted if it is a regulation of immigration because the “power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” A state law or policy is a “regulation of immigration” when it determines who should or should not be admitted into the country, and under what conditions they may remain. Sanctuary laws, ordinances, or policies regulate immigration because they essentially decide who may remain in the United States. In particular, state and local governments that ignore the federal government’s request to hold an alien for pick-up or for notification of release regulate immigration because they take away the decision over who can remain in the country by shielding them from federal prosecution. As a result, such laws, ordinances, and policies should be per se preempted by federal law.
Finally, federal law at 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits policies that impede cooperation between federal, state, and local officials when it comes to the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of information regarding immigration status. Under that provision, any federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from the federal government, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. Congress enacted this law in 1996 with the intent to block state and local leaders form obstructing the INA’s carefully crafted scheme because of pressure from special interests and partisan politics. Thus, because sanctuary laws, ordinances, and policies inherently restrict such communication, they are in direct conflict with federal law and should be deemed invalid.

@Ignorantee,

Nice copy-paste from FAIR, an organization that argues for halting all immigration and that has been labeled a hate group by the SPLC. Next time, though, cite your sources. I'll engage with it anyway, but it seems tied to a misinterpretation of sanctuary policies.

It's a massive stretch to interpret local law enforcement not asking about a crime victim's immigration status as "regulating immigration." They do not decide who remains in the United States, and, in fact, this holding makes it even more clear that immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government. No one is "shielded from federal prosecution." Look to the holding in Arizona v. United States in 2012 for more clarity.

Finally, with regard to the federal code citation, you'll find, again, that none of the sanctuary policies restrict communication with ICE. To assert otherwise is simply false.

Many people seem to argue with an imagined version of what sanctuary policies are without engaging with the simple facts of the matter.