Tea at Trianon: Sanctuary City Defiance

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Tuesday, February 11, 2025

Sanctuary City Defiance

From Amuse on X:

Federal law is unambiguous in its supremacy over immigration matters. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law takes precedence over conflicting state or local policies. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) grants the federal government exclusive authority over immigration enforcement, and Congress has determined that cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities is essential. Statutes such as 8 U.S.C. §1373 explicitly prohibit state and local governments from enacting policies that restrict communication with federal immigration agencies. This statute ensures that local officials cannot block or impede the flow of critical information needed to enforce federal immigration laws.
Moreover, the refusal to honor ICE detainers undermines the public safety rationale underlying immigration enforcement. Detainers are issued against individuals who have been arrested for violating state or local laws, meaning these are individuals already found to pose a threat to the community. By refusing to comply with ICE detainers, sanctuary jurisdictions actively shield criminal aliens from deportation, allowing them to be released back into communities where they may reoffend. The Trump administration has repeatedly cited cases in which violent criminals, shielded by sanctuary policies, have gone on to commit additional crimes, including murder, rape, and assault. This dereliction of duty by local officials places political posturing above the safety of law-abiding citizens.
The deliberate lawlessness of sanctuary cities is a direct affront to the rule of law. Cities and states that refuse to cooperate with ICE are not simply exercising discretion; they are willfully obstructing federal immigration enforcement. This reckless defiance emboldens criminals, undermines border security, and weakens national sovereignty. President Trump, alongside Border Czar Tom Homan and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, has pledged to end this dangerous practice and restore federal authority over immigration enforcement.
Sanctuary jurisdictions argue that ICE detainers are merely requests, not mandates, and that the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from compelling states to enforce federal immigration laws. They further argue that detaining individuals without a judicial warrant may violate the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unlawful seizures. However, these objections do not withstand scrutiny. The anti-commandeering doctrine established in cases such as Printz v. United States and Murphy v. NCAA applies to instances where the federal government seeks to directly force state officials to administer a federal regulatory program. Immigration enforcement, however, is not a regulatory program but a matter of national sovereignty, over which the federal government has plenary power. The detainer system is merely a mechanism by which federal officials take custody of individuals already arrested and detained by local authorities. (Read more.)