I Support Sanctuary Cities

Mood music, for those so inclined:


Yes, I do support "sanctuary cities." And not just because I consider "borders" to be no different in principle than any other street gang turf lines. Even if you're an idiot you support immigration regulations and restrictions, you should support sanctuary cities as a practical matter. All a "sanctuary city" really is is a city government telling the federal government "it's not our fvcking job to enforce your laws for you. No, we're not going to spend our citizens' hard-earned money questioning people about their 'federal immigration status' for you. No, we're not going to use our jail budget warehousing anyone you might happen to want to talk to about their 'federal immigration status.' If you want that done, do it yourself. But not here. See that sign -- No dogs or jackbooted thugs? This means you." "Sanctuary cities" are, in a word, federalism in action. OK, so an "illegal immigrant" (actually, there's no such thing -- the US Constitution strictly forbids the federal government to regulate immigration) killed a woman in San Francisco, and suddenly the usual suspects have all got their panties in a nativist wad and want bigger, more powerful, more centralized government.  Horseapples. If the usual suspects didn't have their panties in a wad and want bigger, more powerful, more centralized government over "sanctuary cities," they'd have their panties in a wad and want bigger, more powerful, more centralized government over something else.
Statists gonna state.
UPDATE: dL notes in comments that US Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) threw in immediately with the big-government side of this non-issue, instead of dragging us all through his usual five day "I'm kinda sorta maybe a little bit like a libertarian on this ... but ... what was that, you said you'd vote for me if I dress in an SS uniform and fellate a Great Dane in public? ... woo-hoo! Let's find a costume shop and a damn dog!" routine.