Editorial: Nevada right to join sanctuary city fight

Protesters in San Francisco (AP pix)

Earlier this month Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt joined with nine other attorneys general in filing a friend-of-the-court brief challenging a federal judge’s decision in April to block a President Trump executive order that would deny some federal funding for sanctuary cities.

The judge sided with Santa Clara County, the city of San Francisco and other jurisdictions who argued that taking away federal funds from cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement could be unconstitutional.

After the order, Trump tweeted: “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!”

Laxalt argued that having sanctuary cities near Nevada poses a threat to public safety.

“Sanctuary cities in California endanger Nevadans, especially given their close proximity to us,” said Laxalt in a press release. “In some cases these cities refuse federal requests to temporarily detain illegal aliens with violent criminal histories and instead release these felons into communities that — under federal law — they have no right to be in. Nevada’s Legislature, sheriffs and municipalities have wisely rejected such nonsensical policies, but Nevadans should not be the victims of such policies in other states. Opposition to this extreme form of a ‘sanctuary city’ is pro-immigrant and pro-safety, as safety is a leading concern of our immigrant communities.”

In fact, the brief itself points out that one of the states seeking to overturn the judge’s ruling, West Virginia, is near Baltimore, which has adopted sanctuary city policies and is the source of illegal drugs that spill into West Virginia.

In addition to Nevada and West Virginia, the other states involved include: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas.

The brief also shreds the argument that denying federal funds for failing to voluntarily cooperate in immigration law enforcement is unconstitutional by pointing out the case of South Dakota v. Dole.

In that case the Supreme Court held that it is constitutional for Congress to withhold federal funds from states that failed to raise the legal drinking age to 21.

The brief also noted that — unlike another high court case, Printz v. U.S., in which the court said Congress could not force states to conduct gun background checks — the executive order does not require states to assist in enforcing immigration law, but merely prevents states from prohibiting local law enforcement from cooperating voluntarily with the federal government.

Laxalt’s press release notes that all 17 currently elected county sheriffs have consistently opposed sanctuary city policies and that in the vast majority of cases an individual must be arrested for committing a crime and booked into a jail before Nevada lawmen notify immigration authorities.

“So-called ‘sanctuary cities’ have no right — constitutional or otherwise — to enlist the courts in their attempt to subvert lawful federal immigration authority,” added Laxalt. “Especially when sanctuary policies create public-safety threats to neighboring states.”

We applaud the attorney general for sticking up for the rule of law and public safety, at negligible cost to the taxpayers of Nevada.

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

Advertisements

5 comments on “Editorial: Nevada right to join sanctuary city fight

  1. iShrug says:

    Your article reminds me of the “double nickels” National 55 mph speed limit. Federal highway funds were withheld from states that didn’t adopt it. Some states got pretty creative in avoiding issuing severe penalties to drivers, but they (officially anyway) enforced the federal speed limit. The law was repealed, but until that time, states had to comply.
    http://www.autosavant.com/2013/01/02/today-in-history-nixon-signs-55-mph-national-speed-limit-into-law/

  2. iShrug says:

    The court upheld the right of the federal government to establish a national speed limit, and to withhold federal highway funds from non compliant states.
    http://articles.latimes.com/1989-09-01/news/mn-1474_1_speed-limit

  3. Rincon says:

    If every Conservative turned in the illegal immigrants that they know, there would be hardly any left. Why bother with the political game? Just turn them in.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Agreed. If you take all of those people from the country, who will be left to fight their battles to correct the wrong & dangerous political powers left there? Us? No. It’s isn’t inhumane to allow them to fight their own battles. Just one opinion.

  5. deleted says:

    Sanctuary cities “near” Nevada endanger Nevadans?

    This guys supposed to be a lawyer right?

    I wonder what evidence the bastard pointed to to support that assertion?

    Which is all obviously beside the point in Trumplqndia, but what is relevant is: why is the bastard spending our tax dollars, fighting fights that have nothing to do with Nevada?

    Here’s an idea for the bastards next act; go back to where you came from and run for office.

    Creep.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s