Can any one explain exactly what "sanctuary status" is and how it works within our country? It comes across to me something like this: We have a US law that says you can't do "whatever." The law is clear that it is against our law to do "whatever." Someone comes along and feels like "whatever" should not be a law and that those who commit "whatever" should have some sort of protection from those who are charged with the responsibility to enforce the "whatever" law, so they call themselves a "sanctuary" for those who have broken the "whatever" law and feel that doing so is perfectly within their right simply because they don't like the "whatever" law. Somehow they feel protected from setting up such a "sanctuary" to the extent that they cannot be prosecuted for harboring those who have broken the "whatever" law.

Is this basically correct in what is happening? Is it ok then to establish a "sanctuary" for those persons who have broken other laws that someone doesn't happen to like or agree with? How about this: I don't happen to feel our speeding laws should be enforced and that those who break those ridiculous laws should be not be subjected to enforcement of those laws, so I propose we establish a no enforcement "sanctuary" applicable for the entire state of WA.
Or how about this: husbands should be allowed to batter their wives, so we need to establish "sanctuaries" where those who have done so can feel safe and free from enforcement from such laws.

Surely I have misinterpreted the "sanctuary" concept, so please enlighten me as to why they are perfectly within their right to exist for the protection of those who have broken our laws.

What are sanctuary cities?

Yes, I've read about such cities, but I'm asking how they are allowed to exist if they are harboring/protecting/aiding and abetting fugitives who have broken our laws. That seems to me to be a criminal act in doing so. Our laws should be enforced or taken off the books.

Immigration laws are enforced by the federal government, not state and local police departments.
I don't think declining to inquire about a foreigner's immigration status rises to the level of "harboring/protecting/aiding and abetting." The police don't ask people if they've filed their income taxes and no one accuses them of "harboring/protecting/aiding and abetting" tax dodgers.

The effectiveness of Fed enforcement is at the very best questionable, and more realistically, is unbelievably weak. The current system is broken because it is not working. What do you think needs to happen to put a stop to persons entering our country without permission, and how should we go about finding those already in our country to begin the path to their deportation?
Seems to me the current idea is that the problem has gotten so huge that it's just too difficult to sort out, so we basically give lip service to enforcement and give up. This whole situation reminds me of just how ineffective our federal government has become.

Just because it is the law does not make it right. It would seem simple to me to choose to enforce it but only when it was shoved right in your face. Lip service.



Even if you chose to enforce it, think of the logistics and the expense. I think Sanctuary Cities are just dealing with reality with a splash of understanding the immoral nature of the law.

Stop them at the border but leave the good law abiding illegals already here alone.

"Even if you chose to enforce it, think of the logistics and the expense. I think Sanctuary Cities are just dealing with reality with a splash of understanding the immoral nature of the law.

Stop them at the border but leave the good law abiding illegals already here alone."


Enforcing our laws should not be a choice. If there is little to no enforcement or consequences for breaking our immigration laws, then we should expect more and more illegals because of the low or non-existing consequences would continue to be an encouragement to do so.

Here's a very good example of how ridiculous this "sanctuary" concept can get:

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=8485

"Students at George Washington University, site of a recent walkout to demand a "sanctuary campus" to protect illegal immigrant students, say they favor defiance of other federal laws, too.
Several students said they'd like to make the campus a "sanctuary" from student load debt, while others favored exemptions from under age drinking laws.
Some students even felt they should be given a pass on final exams due to the stress of the election, explaining that "It's really hard to focus on your studies when there's so much else going on."

"Stop them at the border but leave the good law abiding illegals already here alone."

Hahahah..."law abiding illegals".

Liberal logic: another oxymoron.