The people who are pro illegals either 1) face zero consequences for not enforcing the border laws, 2) illegals themselves, or 3) people who are anti-anything-Trump/Republican.
America isn't a town square that the world is somehow entitled to inhabit. It's a country with borders and laws.
It’s also a country of crops that need to be picked by hand, livestock to be slaughtered, and other dirty, dangerous professions that its citizens don’t aspire to careers in.
As recently as 30 years ago the pragmatic class understood this. I’m not sure where reality will take us now.
In literally every jurisdiction in America, failure to enforce a law is not itself unlawful. It is protected by sovereign immunity at the federal, state, and lower levels as well. Discretionary acts of government regarding how to enforce the law are not subject to judicial interference.
OK, but in the current situation, the laws are federal, and the feds are choosing to enforce them. A state or city preventing the feds from enforcing them is not protected by sovereign immunity.
It seems to me that the most that can legally be done is to require the feds to actually follow due process. (But I thought different yesterday, and I may think different tomorrow...)
I think you're misrepresenting the situation and the relationship between the federal and state and local governments. There certainly is not anything in the Constitution that compels a local government to allow a federal agency to house their prisoners in the local jail, or to have offices in the local police station, or to have keys to the coffee room in the local courthouse. For that matter, if the feds happen to have their own offices there's absolutely nothing that dictates that there has to be a local road to that place, that anyone is allowed to drive on.
If a state or local government reckons that their material support for federal activities is limited to a certain extent, that is well within that state's purview.
Not giving material support, sure. "We don't like your law. You have the right to enforce it, but we are not going to help you do so." Sure, that's fine.
Actively hindering is a whole additional step, though. I'm pretty sure at least some cities crossed it.
(How actively? Not to the point of arresting or shooting at ICE agents, but still further than "not helping". And if you're going to ask for references, I can't give them. This is my impression of several "sanctuary cities", but I can't point to a concrete incident.)
- the US has a history dealing very harshly with whoever goes (or is perceived to be) against the federal government
- I do not understand why would anyone be pro illegals and go against their country to support them
The world is going bonkers.