"Like I told McDonald's, this isn't mere arm-folding going on in those sanctuary cities. Sanctuary from federal law is a crime. Obstruction is a crime. Nullification is a crime. Registering criminals as citizens for the sole purpose of creating congressional seats is a crime."

Arm folding is the sanctuary city status. It's saying "I won't cooperate with you." If ICE comes back with a warrant for arrest, they can arrest them. Detainers are not warrants. They don't carry probable cause. ICE seems to think they do but that's not standing case law.

https://www.justice.gov/ag/us-sanctuary-jurisdiction-list-following-executive-order-14287-protecting-american-communities?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

There's no one definition of a sanctuary city but the above link takes you to where the Trump DOJ defines it. There are nine characteristics they list. None of them prevent an ICE agent, with a warrant, arresting someone they think is an undocumented migrant anywhere in the country. There's nebulous talk of "jailhouse restrictions" - but this falls into 2 categories - you need prior authorization from a sheriff to enter the prison, or you need a criminal warrant. see: https://www.albanylaw.edu/government-law-center/sanctuary-jurisdictions

There might be a case for not sharing certain communications with ICE being in violation of the law - but this is also not a given on the same grounds: the federal government cannot "commandeer" local and state officers to enforce federal law, and collecting and transmitting data to ICE could be enforcement. There could be grounds for conditioning funding for not sharing communications (this seems to be the conclusion of the 2nd circuit), but this is not the same as being "illegal." see: https://tracreports.org/tracker/dynadata/2020_05/LSB10386.pdf

The only other characteristic the DOJ lists that pertains to obstruction is this one:

Laws, Ordinances, Executive Directives: Cities, states, or counties that have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other formalized practices that obstruct or limit local law enforcement cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Seems redundant and nebulous. Also, the DOJ doesn't disaggregate and say which characteristics apply to which jurisdictions. On the other hand, ICE does: https://www.ice.gov/doclib/ddor/ddor2017_02-11to02-17.pdf.

Their main focus seems to be detainers.

"It's even worse than the 3/5 compromise hack for congressional power, since at least that was voted on. Nobody voted to count criminal non-citizens in the census."

3/5 compromise was voted on by the convention. Don't think the people had a say on that one. Same with the census clause which is actually a sentence away from the 3/5 compromise:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons.

Note it says "free persons" and not "US citizens." The word "citizen" is used elsewhere in the document, so one imagines this was deliberate. It would probably require an amendment to change that.

Census law was also passed in 1954 which established the Census bureau so if the people then voted for their Senators and House members - they did vote for it.

But yeah are you reading Black Reconstruction? by DuBois? It's a good book. Super long. Read up to and including the general strike.

the 3/5 compromise was openly debated and voted on; counting illegals for apportionment of congressional power never was. It slipped in through administrative interpretation, not democratic consent. (most of your corruption comes from unelected people like that)

So they use citizen everywhere else in the document but Tommy J slipped? I don't buy it, but I'll leave it to the SCOTUS if it comes to it. But it should be noted that the early American republic conferred voting rights to European non-citizens up until the 20th century (as well as easy naturalization). So the founders could very well have intended it.

https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2495&context=facpub (p. 14-15)

https://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/hayduk_-_chapter_2.pdf

This entire chapter (second link) gives you the history of non citizen voting rights.

Here's a snippet from p. 17

"Congress itself promoted noncitizen voting in the Northwest Ordinance of 1789, which gave “freehold aliens” with two years of residency the vote for territorial legislative representatives. Furthermore, it granted “wealthier” resident aliens with three years of residency the right to serve in territorial legislatures.16 In subsequent acts, Congress granted voting rights for immigrants in the new territories of Washington, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. In addition, Congress explicitly authorized the right of aliens to vote for representatives to statewide constitutional conventions in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois"

This makes me think that maybe the intent was not to exclude migrants from voting - especially because the "right to vote" is not really in the constitution originally.

You're just guessing at the intent of a bureaucratic official who made a decision without a congressional vote. Most unelected people have very selfish motives when it involves power.

"You're just guessing at the intent of a bureaucratic official who made a decision without a congressional vote."

Well, this is a job for the SCOTUS (though the originalists on the bench will probably agree). But here's what the first census counted:

"“Free White males of 16 years and upward” (to assess the country’s industrial and military potential); “Free White males under 16 years”; “Free White females”; “all other free persons”; and “Slaves.”"

https://news.virginia.edu/content/words-census

Oversaw by Tommy J himself, best known by his non-rap name Thomas Jefferson.

No question about migrant status at all.

Most unelected people have very selfish motives when it involves power

Most elected people have selfish motives when it involves power, too.

Also, they seemed to have debated it:

"A motion passed, 6–4 (Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, and Georgia opposed), to have a census of free inhabitants"

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/constitutionalconvention-july11.htm

Yeah, they voted to exclude slaves. Not to include whatever that unelected bureaucrat decided.

In any case, federal oversight over illegal aliens didn't happen until the late post-Civil war 19th century, so the debate on exactly who decides to include them starts at that point. For now, it is an unelected bureaucrat.

This is from the Virginia Plan 1787 drafted by James Madison, which was accepted over that of the New Jersey Plan:

"Resolved that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the articles of confederation; but according to some equitable ratio of representation — namely in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants, of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes in each State. "

It was voted on. Madison took notes during the constitutional convention.

yep, that was before federal oversight over illegal aliens. At least they made it clear an Indian non-citizen wasn't to be represented.

I'm sorry if I was too thorough and detailed for you to understand.

Did I say I did not undeerestand? See, you jump to conclusions. So do I, so I brand myself with the same accusation, but my one-word question means the answer could be rended in one word: it's brevity I'm after, my friend.

Yes, I understood what you meant by the mention of Scalia's draft - not the 10A. Scalia was not yet born at the ratificatrion of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights, and I presumed you knew that.

no i figured that but i was writing this during a caffeine crash and wanted to make sure i made sense

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that the census was constitutional when it was drafted into the constitution, but then sometimes late in the 19th century, it then became unconstitutional because undocumented migrants were subject to enforcement and regulation? Was it always unconstitutional?

What about the Alien Acts of 1798? That was 10 years after the constitution's founding and supported by some of the founders, including Thomas Jefferson. This did not change the questions on the census.

Women weren't allowed to vote or hold property under coverture law and yet they are counted, so it's not "just voters" either.

Also didn't you say that the constitution provided Congress with the authority to repel invasions - and you seemed to think that this included undocumented migrants? Well, if it only became federally regulated by the late 1900s as you say (I disagree given the Alien act), and undocumented European migrants lived in the US as residents, and the founders then seemed to encourage settlement, then surely invasions meaning "undocumented migrants" is also a bureaucratic ad hoc interpretation. The founders had no interest then in repulsing these "invasions" and were talking about something else. Ergo, the powers in that section of the Constitution do not confer the authority to expel migrants. Since federal regulation of migrants started in the late 19th century, the old constitutional powers don't apply, just as the old census clause doesn't after that late 19th century period.

I'm sorry if I was too thorough and detailed for you to understand.

Did I say I did not undeerestand? See, you jump to conclusions. So do I, so I brand myself with the same accusation, but my one-word question means the answer could be rended in one word: it's brevity I'm after, my friend.

How about you show us a one-word answer to your question that makes any sense at all.

The one word answer for illegal immigrants is Trump.

They have to answer to somebody.

Ah, caffeine - that stuff containing about 50 separate toxins...

You know I'm an Atheist, don't you?

Constitutionally, what "power" is given to States or Cities to be "sanctuary" for illegal migrants?

one word answer: none.

Lol

lol

Constitutionally, what "power" is given to States or Cities to be "sanctuary" for illegal migrants?

one word answer: none.

There you go, confirmation that you do not understand.

Clearly, Sanctuary cities is really a broken political promise as the states can do nothing to stop ICE from enforcing congressional laws.

This might drastically change the political landscape in America as people generally abhor broken promises.

Agreed, this could go poorly either way.

Immigrants have to be protected.

Sanctuary cities are 

localities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, creating safe havens where residents, regardless of immigration status, can access services like schools, hospitals, and police without fear of deportation, fostering community trust but drawing controversy over law enforcement responsibilities and federal authority. While U.S. policies focus on shielding non-criminal immigrants from ICE, Canadian "sanctuary" cities offer broader municipal support, and European versions often center on legal refugees, showcasing varied approaches to immigrant inclusion. 

Key Characteristics

1. Limited Cooperation: Local police often don't inquire about immigration status or honor all federal detainer requests, allowing people to stay in communities.
2. Focus on Trust: Aims to make immigrants comfortable reporting crimes and using public services, which supporters say improves overall public safety.
3. Varied Policies: Ranges from simple declarations (Canada) to specific laws limiting police/ICE interaction (U.S.).
4. Examples: Major U.S. cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, and Canadian cities like Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, have sanctuary policies. 

U.S. vs. Canadian/European Contexts

1. U.S.: Policies often shield undocumented immigrants from federal deportation, a concept rooted in the 1980s Sanctuary Movement for Central American refugees.
2. Canada: Cities offer municipal services and protection to non-status migrants, often using "access without fear" policies.
3. Europe: "Sanctuary" generally supports legal refugees and asylum seekers, not undocumented individuals, promoting integration. 

Debate & Controversy

1. Supporters: Argue localities shouldn't enforce federal immigration law; focus should be local safety; studies suggest crime reduction in some areas.
2. Opponents: Argue cities obstruct federal law, shielding criminals; localities should help enforce immigration laws.