Replies

I would under ordinary and legitimate circumstances agree with your position on California’s “sanctuary state” laws and its openly impeding the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The Constitution is quite clear that immigration is an authorized power of the federal government under Article 1, Section 8.

So, as far as immigration law goes, the federal law is the supreme law of the land.

Why, then, would the writer only agree with Sessions' position on immigration under "ordinary circumstances? If he is correct, you should agree with him on the particular issue, even if you disagree with him on other issues.

I cite as my legal precedence the case of "Blind Pig vs. Acorn".