I don’t disagree with anything you’ve posted there. I’ve grown a bit weary of quick sloganistic retorts in place of reasoned responses. What you’ve provided on this thread has definitely been the latter.
In my view, questions regarding things like “sanctuary cities” (both for the purposes of illegal immigration and for gun control) need to be subjected to “reasonability tests” - would these arrangements or changes lead to a net good result or are they designed for partisan advantage? If one is regarded as necessarily bad does it follow that the other must be as well? Or should they be measured on their relative merits and not subjected to simplistic cookie-cutter litmus tests? And finally, do they follow established principles and precedent or do they run counter to convention?
In my old neighborhood some hispanics bought a nearby house. They seemed friendly and sociable enough and my inclination was (as is my nature) was to live and let live.
Their demeanor was a pretense however and within a year they had over a dozen people in addition to their own family living on the property. I began to have theft problems (there was only a waist high cyclone fence separating us). I asked the homeowner what was up and he shined me on. So I called the building department and inquired about the additions I could see appearing in my neighborhood. The homeowner was forced to demolish an illegal addition to their house and an outbuilding that was being used as an apartment/flophouse.
The following year that city joined the sanctuary city mob and my neighbor resumed his landlord operation. Crime increased and I chose to leave rather than fight.
Now I’m watching the arc of activity in Virginia (second amendment sanctuaries). Does (should) intellectual honesty compel me to oppose these 2nd amendment sanctuary cities? Regardless of my “feelings” on the matter? I don’t think so and here’s why:
Sanctuary cities (for the purpose of illegal immigration) are there to thwart constitutional law. They are there to thumb noses at established order. But sanctuary cities (for the purpose of 2nd amendment) are there to defend otherwise lawful citizens who are exercising their rights from unconstitutional infringement. My constitutional exercise harms no one but their unconstitutional practices do harm to the entire community. My .02
My hope is to continue reasoned debate in the upcoming year. There is going to be plenty to chew on!
Happy New Year!
The issues you described with your neighbor are similar to those faced by a close friend, who still lives out in California. He & his wife both have extended family in the area, and had never planned to leave, but they're actually talking about it now. I guess it's just another example of 'current events' reaching a point, where decisions are forced on you.
I agree that a 'cookie cutter' (or 'one-size-fits-all') approach can be less than ideal. You've seen a lot of what I post, which (for reasons obvious to me, at least ;^) tends to focus on the States, as part of the country's original "checks & balances" system. So my 'instinct', based on history, law, etc., might be to look to the States for the defense of liberty, as our country deals with today's problems. (I bet everybody reading this is laughing right now! ;^) For the most part, the States ain't what they used to be! (No offense intended, to folks who are proud of their States, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of Patrick Henrys or Ben Franklins in our State capitols.)
You do see the counties stepping up at times, as is currently happening in Virginia - not sure if there's a substantial legal foundation there, in this country's law, or even going back to English common law (something outside my experience). It may be that someone who's done some reading in that area can contribute something (I don't remember seeing many applicable references/discussions on these CW threads).
Speaking of which, it was kind of funny, citing Madison back-and-forth with OIFVeteran (I'll see your 2 Madison quotes & raise you 3 more! ;^). Kind of makes you wonder if there might be some wisdom there for our times, since Madison wasn't a strong advocate of secession, but not generally a proponent of Big Government either. Another subject that pops up (in the news & on these threads) is the potential for some good constitutional amendments, using the route that bypasses Congress ('The Swamp'). I think Bull Snipe and I agreed that balanced budget & term limits amendments might help preserve freedom in this country. But a lot of conservatives seem to fear that the State-based amendment process could somehow be 'hijacked', with dire results (don't see that myself, but the fear is out there).
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts...