Thread: Sanctuary Cities/Churches - Civil Disobedience or Blatant Disregard For the Law

With recent statements by San Francisco, I thought a discussion on this treasoness act of disobeying the law, and harboring criminals (by which I mean individuals who knowingly cross the border for various reasons, some committ further crimes, while most are looking for work their incompetant countires can't provide.) For the record, because I'm sure I would get a response about me being a racist, I'm a mexican american 4th generation, and am not a hate-monger.

Originally Posted by NedC

With recent statements by San Francisco, I thought a discussion on this treasoness act of disobeying the law, and harboring criminals (by which I mean individuals who knowingly cross the border for various reasons, some committ further crimes, while most are looking for work their incompetant countires can't provide.) For the record, because I'm sure I would get a response about me being a racist, I'm a mexican american 4th generation, and am not a hate-monger.

The laws in question do not rise to the level of treason. They are patently illegal and ill advised- but not treasonous.

Originally Posted by johnlocke

The laws in question do not rise to the level of treason. They are patently illegal and ill advised- but not treasonous.

Should there be action by the federal government, or state government to hold San Fran accountable for their decision?

Originally Posted by NedC

Should there be action by the federal government, or state government to hold San Fran accountable for their decision?

The only action that is required is for the courts to overturn the sanctuary city laws as unconstitutional. They unduly interfere in an area of governance reserved to the federal government (immigration and immigration enforcement).