So here in Michigan we are having a 2A sanctuary movement in several counties trying to rile people up for the coming election, and it occurred to me that the logic of this movement could be applied to any law really.
If we can have sanctuary counties where the people have agreed not to follow the law put forth from Lansing or any other capitol (because they feel it would violate their rights), couldn’t the same apply to all other laws?
“We know that abortion is illegal in Florida, but in Dade County we are a sanctuary city!”
Already does apply to other laws. Making something illegal does not guarantee compliance. In general, it is best that governments do not pass and try to enforce laws without broad public approval. For many reasons.
I think this is a basic misunderstand of what “sanctuary cities” are. It’s a matter of jurisdiction and the anti-commandeering principle. It’s not incumbent on local jurisdictions to enforce federal immigration law. Federal agencies can’t commandeer local law enforcement to do so. It’s not a green like for people to break the law. It’s a constitutional principle that local jurisdictions can’t be forced by federal agencies to enforce federal law.
Any lawonks, feel free to correct me if I’ve basically butchered Printz.
Not quite. It would be about commandeering if sanctuary cities were just refusing to expend their resources to enforce federal law, but they have went beyond that and ordered/made it illegal for law enforcement to aid them on a voluntary basis. Which is expressly illegal via existing federal law. Section 8 U.S.C. 1373
