Sanctuary Cities? That's a Constitutional 'Hell No'

This is a nicely written article that shows what happens when states try to avoid Government oversight and preemption. Right now Democrat/Liberals are attempting to rip this country apart, by harboring illegals in direct violation of Federal law.
This is exactly the type of thing that leads to armed conflict.
Sanctuary Cities? That’s a Constitutional ‘Hell No’
While there are many areas over which the states and the federal government share responsibility, immigration is not one of them.
The sanctuary policies implemented by cities such as Seattle seek to nullify federal immigration law and obstruct its enforcement.
Sanctuary states and cities want to “frustrate effectuation” of federal enforcement of our immigration laws.
I left this in another thread, but, it wasn’t really relevant to it, so posting it again here.
This very informative article is from 2007? It shows the what is allowable by states in the area of immigration.
The De Canas Court expressly noted out that Congress has never occupied
the field of immigration so as to displace state laws in the area. Provided that
a state statute is not expressly barred by federal law, the state statute does not
attempt to create state-level standards regarding which aliens may enter the
United States, the state statute does not pose an obstacle to the accomplishment of the manifest objectives of Congress, and it is possible to simultaneously
comply with state and federal law, preemption does not occur.
What follows is a summary of eight areas in which states or cities can
constitutionally act in the field of immigration. Those eight areas are:

A. Denying public benefits to illegal aliens;
B. Denying resident tuition rates to illegal aliens;
C. Prohibiting the employment of unauthorized aliens;
D. Enacting state-level crimes that mirror federal immigration crimes;
E. Enacting state-level crimes against identity theft;
F. Providing state and local law enforcement assistance to ICE;
G. Presuming illegal aliens to be flight risks for bail purposes;
H. Denying driver licenses to illegal aliens.

In all of these areas, there are three important restrictions that must be built
into any state statute if it is to conform to the requirements of federal law and
avoid preemption: (1) the statute must not attempt to create any new
categories of aliens not recognized by federal law; (2) the statute must use
terms consistent with federal law; and (3) the statute must not attempt to
authorize state or local officials to independently determine an alien’s
immigration status, without verification by the federal government.29
Let us look at;
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 115

prev | next
§ 2381 – Treason
§ 2382 – Misprision of treason
§ 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection
§ 2384 – Seditious conspiracy
§ 2385 – Advocating overthrow of Government
§ 2386 – Registration of certain organizations
§ 2387 – Activities affecting armed forces generally
§ 2388 – Activities affecting armed forces during war
§ 2389 – Recruiting for service against United States
§ 2390 – Enlistment to serve against United States
Democrats had better watch out……..they are playing with fire.
What is preemption?
What does “preemption” mean in law?
In law, the term “preemption” refers to situations in which a law passed by a higher authority takes precedence over a law passed by a lower one. Usually, “preemption” is used interchangeably with “federal preemption,” meaning that a law passed by the U.S. Congress must be applied if it conflicts or overrules a law passed by a state legislature on the same subject. However, some torts cases also deal with “state preemption,” in which a law passed by a state legislature takes precedence over an ordinance passed by a local government, like a city council or zoning board. For instance, premises liability cases in which someone is injured in a slip and fall accident might deal with state preemption.
Mexican Government Colluding With US ‘Sanctuary Cities’?
The Mexican government announced on Wednesday it would increase “collaboration at the state and local level” in the United States regarding Mexican immigrants, suggesting some form of possible collusion with “sanctuary cities.” read more here>
We don’t need to get rid of guns. Instead, we need to get rid of criminals.
People who are here ILLEGALLY ARE CRIMINALS.
people who support or shield them ARE CRIMINALS.
These people are the problem.
If you want to reduce gun related violence, get rid of the people committing those acts and the people who are harboring the ones committing them. THIS IS WHERE THE FOCUS SHOULD BE RIGHT NOW, BUT LIBERALS ARE STEERING THE NARRATIVE.
Some intresting history.

The Alien and Seditions Act
Reading through this, the article notes.
“The Acts’ unconstitutionality seems straightforward now, but at the time the nation was in an undeclared war with France, the so-called Quasi-War.”
If I comprehend this correctly, it is because it was only a quasi war that the act is deemed unconstitutional. War had not officially been declared.
From everything I can see, this is where America is at again. Let us hope illegals self deport like the article says the French did after the Revolution. LET IN ONLY THOSE WHO COME HERE LEGALLY INSTEAD.
h/t Osmium76