I am of two minds when it comes to “sanctuary ” cities. On the one hand I applaud States trying to stand independently of the Feds.
On the other hand……the law is the law. If you don’t like the law get it changed.
The Constitution gives certain powers to the Federal government. The writers of the Constitution, living in a time and place where the States had only recently formed a tenuous bond recognized that for them to maintain the strength they found in unity, there had to be a way to take individual interests out if the equation. Otherwise when the objective of independence was fully realized, States would once again seek their own gratification at the expense of the Republic.
In the case of sanctuary cities I feel it is ALL about cities serving their own interests. And the root of the problem lies in a chaotic and untenable immigration policy. Until immigration laws are revisited and a NEGOTIATED set of laws that the majority of States agree to is put in place we have no hope of avoiding conflict between the States and Federal government.
However, the likely hood of that is slim. If the Republican’s retake the Presidency, AND hold on to the majority in the House and Senate, they can force a reform package through the system that the President will sign into law. It then will be up to the President to force the DOJ to enforce the laws.
And enforcing the laws can be done. It would most likely mean criminal charges, trial and sentencing of officials within cities that refuse to obey. It could also mean crippling sanctions and fines against the city governments. I think that is less likely though, as it would mean making the people of the city suffer for the illegal acts of the few, something an elected body is unlikely to want reflecting on them come the next election.