Sanctuaries & Filibusters

new-sactuary-city-mapThe mayors of twelve major cities have, since the election, announced that they will be “sanctuary cities” for illegal aliens and, in one form or another, refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of federal immigration law.  This is a direct challenge to our Constitutional system, and one no progressive would tolerate if, say, it were conservatives refusing to comply with homosexual marriage.  Actually, the twelve “sanctuary cities” are  the tip of the iceberg, as Victor Davis Hanson explained when opining on the nihilism of this “sanctuary” movement some months ago:

There are an estimated 300 or so jurisdictions — entire states, counties, cities, and municipalities — that since the early 1980s have enacted “sanctuary city” laws, forbidding full enforcement of federal immigration law within their jurisdictions.  Most of these entities are controlled by Democrats in general and liberals in particular. . . . .

If rule of law means anything, then this cannot be allowed to stand.  Unfortunately, while there are some acts that Trump can take unilaterally, his hands are surprisingly tied.  Democrats in the Senate, where Republicans do not hold a filibuster proof majority, have repeatedly refused to authorize the withholding of any funds from cities, etc., because of their failure to cooperate on matters of immigration law enforcement.

Personally, I would like to see the Senate do away with the filibuster.  Harry Reid already blew up the two hundred year old filibuster rule for nominations to the Appellate Courts.  Then he recently opined that it should be done away with for Supreme Court nominees as well.  Supposedly, the rule is there to protect the rights of small states, but such protection is already baked into the cake with the composition of the Senate.  The filibuster has no textual basis in the Constitution.  The Senate Rules did not allow for the potential of a filibuster until 1806, fourteen years after the Constitution was approved, and even then no filibuster was attempted until the 1830’s.  The fact that a rule is old does not mean that it is venerable.

The progressive left’s idea of bipartisan cooperation is to have the right do whatever it is they want or no deal.  And while it is one thing to argue about the composition of new legislation, it is another entirely to support lawlessness.

At a minimum, if Senate Majority leader McConnell won’t do away with the filibuster rule, he should reintstitute the requirement that all filibusters be “talking filibusters.”  Now, if a Senator invokes the filibuster rule, if there are not then sixty votes to invoke cloture, the filibuster is deemed effective and the legislation killed.  Bull.  Keep the Senators in their seats and make the opponents occupy the Senate floor the entire time that the filibuster is being attempted.

Lastly, there is a way to insure this does not become an issue ever again.  The individuals who are obstructing enforcement of federal immigration laws should be hit where it hurts.  Amend the laws to allow individuals who have suffered property loss, personal injury or death caused by the act of an illegal alien in a “sanctuary” area to bring a strict liability cause of action under the federal civil rights laws against the leaders of the sanctuary, whether it be the Mayor and his council, county executive and alderman, or College Presidents.  Require that the personal assets of the individuals sued be exhausted before any resort to insurance or the public treasury to satisfy any judgment.