Editorial: Nevada challenges California’s sanctuary cities

This past summer Nevada joined with other states in challenging a California federal judge’s decision to block President Trump’s executive order that would deny some federal funding for sanctuary cities, saying that such cities near Nevada pose a threat to public safety.

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.

With the case now going to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt has again joined with other attorneys general to file a friend-of-the-court brief.

“It is common sense that dangerous felons should not be released into neighborhoods, and that law enforcement must work together for public safety,” Laxalt was quoted as saying in a press release announcing the filing. “Sanctuary cities in California pose a danger to neighboring states like Nevada by making it easier for those not lawfully in this country and with violent criminal histories to evade law enforcement and travel out of state. What’s more, these cities undermine the rule of law and prevent cooperation between federal and local officials.”

The filing 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. “Sanctuary policies deprive jurisdictions of important tools that could assist with preventing such out-of-state drug trafficking,” the brief argues.

Days after taking office President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to deny certain federal funding to cities and jurisdictions that “willfully refuse” to comply with federal immigration laws, but a federal judge blocked the order.

The current brief states, “Sanctuary jurisdictions can cause harm to neighboring States by making it easier for people who are not lawfully in this country and have committed civil or criminal offenses to evade law enforcement and travel out-of-state.”

The brief also counters 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 notes this issue is not just an executive order by the president but is merely an instruction to enforce the law as passed by Congress.

“The Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from commandeering States by forcing them to administer a federal regulatory regime or conscripting state officers to do the same,” the brief explains. “But that is not what Congress did. Rather, the Order provides States with voluntary inducements to comply with federal law. And for its part, the Act simply displaces or preempts state laws that prohibit localities or local law enforcement officials from voluntarily communicating with federal officials, with a goal to further the comprehensive federal immigration regime. Congress thus acted within its enumerated powers and under the Supremacy Clause to preempt state laws that stand as obstacles to the creation of this uniform policy.”

Laxalt notes that all 17 currently elected county sheriffs have consistently opposed sanctuary-city policies. “Today, in the vast majority of cases, an individual must be arrested for committing a crime and booked into a jail or detention facility before Nevada law enforcement agencies check whether the individual is sought by federal immigration authorities and, if so, alert those federal authorities. Sanctuary-city policies that prohibit this communication allow violent offenders to be released back into the community,” his press release states.

We appreciate the attorney general sticking up for the rule of law and the safety of Nevadans.

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.

Lisa Benson cartoon

16 comments on “Editorial: Nevada challenges California’s sanctuary cities

  1. deleted says:

    It’s sad to see what I believed to be a principled states rights advocate change positions based on the issue.

    Not that you’re much different than most other people in that way because principles are so inflexible after all but still, disappointing.

  2. Athos says:

    Being principled would leave California politicians putting their OWN citizens welfare above the illegal alien invaders. That was why they were elected, wasn’t it? How can you have representation when you’re not a citizen?

  3. deleted says:

    Representatives swear to uphold the Constitution and many, if not most, protections granted against infringement apply to people regardless of whether they are citizens or not.

    Course, that wasn’t really the point I was making.

    But congratulations for showing that there are others who similarly preach about their principled belief in states rights, and their disgust of the big bad federal government putting their noses into issues that are beyond the authority granted to them in the Constitution, that are just hypocrites about it.

  4. Steve says:

    This guy is a rapist but Trump is a racist and a liar. (Modern Day Liberal blindness)

    “Alfonso Alarcon-Nunez drove women to their homes, assaulted them, and stole property including cellphones, computers and jewelry, officials said. He collected his fare payments through the smartphone app Venmo to disguise his identity and his Uber records.”

    “Alarcon-Nunez returned to the U.S. illegally after a voluntary deportation from New Mexico in 2005, officials said. Dow did not have details about why he was deported or whether he has a criminal record in the U.S.”

    “California issues driver’s licenses to immigrants in the country illegally and Alarcon-Nunez had a valid license since 2015.”

    http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/crime/article/Mexican-Uber-driver-in-US-illegally-charged-with-12515723.php

    If only California didn’t issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants….OR Uber did real background checks, OH, wait, UBER is a San Francisco organization…with all the same asshole liberal sickness as the rest of the California coastline.

  5. Athos says:

    If you don’t know what a “Constitution” represents, just say so.

    If you don’t believe in the rule of law, just say so.

    The Constitution is a contract between the citizens living in the nation designated “United States”. (that’s the ” We the People” part). Other countries are free to borrow from our Constitution and apply it to their own people, but our representatives are elected (and swear an oath”) to represent us (not the rest of the world)

    Anything else is delusional, utopian silliness.

  6. deleted says:

    As I said, Congressional representatives swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and most, of the protections written into the Constitution apply to individuals regardless of their citizenship.

    That is the Supreme Rule of law in the country.

    Contending that the Constitution doesn’t protect all individuals, regardless of citizenship, is contrary to the Supreme Law of the land.

    And we can agree about the “contract” part but you seem a little confused about contract law. See, given the express language in the Constitution that recognizes the rights of persons who are not citizens, what you have are third party beneficiaries of the contract made…at worst. Just as entitled to performance as any other intended beneficiary.

    And also, at least you showed enough restraint not to argue that your position regarding the tenth amendment isnt hypocritical. Kudos to you for that.

  7. Rincon says:

    I’ll leave it to the lawyers to decide what’s Constitutional. Common sense tells me that immigration is about U.S. citizenship, not state citizenship, therefore, it should be under federal jurisdiction. Common sense also says a wall is reasonable, if imperfect. The cost would be substantially less than the miles and miles of highly questionable noise barrier walls we’ve constructed along our highways.

    As for those immigrants that have built productive lives here, we should remember that for probably more than a hundred years, we’ve told them, “it’s illegal”, while giving them a wink. The past few years have changed that. There’s no wink anymore. We also should hesitate to send too many of them home, since produce in California is rotting in the fields due to a shortage of pickers. http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/immigration-worker-shortage-rotting-crops/

  8. Athos says:

    Little p, I totally forgot that your Supreme Power is good old President Pinocchio himself! The “Light-Bringer”, Barry Soetoro, Healer of Mother Gaia!

    Given this light, your sentence, “Contending that the Constitution doesn’t protect all individuals, regardless of citizenship, is contrary to the Supreme Law of the land.” just sounds like the ravings of
    a lunatic acolyte (which, given what you normally write, kind of describes you, doesn’t it 😉

    And good old Barry had no problem ignoring the Law, did he? He had a pen and Cell phone, and the corrupt FBI and Justice Department to spy on American Citizens.

    BUT:

    The rest of us are now starting to demand that The Rule of Law (American Constitutional Law) be followed across the board. For Her People (not People of the World – That was Pinocchio’s Legacy).

    And

    No exceptions, even if your name IS Clinton.

    And if these representatives DON’T want to put us American Citizens first, then we need to FIRE them, n’est pas?

  9. deleted says:

    Big A pretty obvious you can’t read, or understand what you read.

    You’re a perfect “conservative”. If it doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker you’re all confused.

    Check out the Constitution, or at least have someone read it to you sometime, and see how often in the first ten Amendments they use the word “citizen” to describe those whose rights are protected against government infringement.

    Then report back.

  10. Athos says:

    Reporting back as ordered, sir!

    “We the People of the United States” refers to the Citizens of the United States.

    Pretty simple, sir!

    Maybe you should get a refund on your Constitutional Law courses, sir! (Don’t tell me you took Barry’s class. Although that would explain everything!)

  11. deleted says:

    Man you’re dumb.

    Must be a “constitutionalist”. You know, the guys that went around during President Obama’s terms in office claiming how much they loved the Constitution even though, like you,they hadn’t ever read it, and certainly didn’t understand it.

    Geez.

  12. Steve says:

    Athos, that’s a high compliment coming from “patrick” AKA “deleted” AKA Shammy the Sham Plea King who actually cited a sham plea in an effort to claim “shall” really means “may”….pot meet kettle!

  13. Athos says:

    Little p reminds me of a story I once read.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

    So it’s quite understandable. Indoctrination camps are the only way these losers win.

  14. deleted says:

    Big A sure picked the right town to double down, but do you really have to double down on being stupid?

    Just say no.

    In what word does “person” mean citizen? Weren’t you the guy that talked about the Constitution being written so that people with a 6th grade education could understand it? Orwellian? You want the word “person” used through tout the Constitution and substitute the meaning of the word “citizen” and someone else is being Owellian?

    That’s some serious dumb there.

  15. STORMY DANIELS says:

    What? No mention of the RNC’s finance chairman’s perverted depraved creepy predatory behavior towards his employees? The GOP are sick traitors.

  16. Republican Scumbag SCOTT BAIO - Charles In Charge of Child Molestation says:

    I’ll tell you who’s a sick traitor! That no-good little bitch who ratted me out! Now she’s telling everyone what I did to her in that garage? How dare she! She wanted it anyway! SHE seduced ME!

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s