{"id":17540,"date":"2018-08-24T15:36:09","date_gmt":"2018-08-24T19:36:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=17540"},"modified":"2018-12-28T10:07:13","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T15:07:13","slug":"the-open-borders-crowds-imaginary-constitution-says-everywhere-must-be-a-sanctuary-city","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2018\/08\/24\/the-open-borders-crowds-imaginary-constitution-says-everywhere-must-be-a-sanctuary-city\/","title":{"rendered":"The Open-Borders Crowd\u2019s \u201cImaginary Constitution\u201d Says Everywhere Must Be a Sanctuary City"},"content":{"rendered":"

In one lawsuit after another, the hypocritical and upside-down vision that the open-borders crowd has of the U.S. Constitution becomes clear.\u00a0 States and local governments, they assert, have an absolute choice to adopt sanctuary policies, but they have no choice not to.\u00a0 That\u2019s not much of a choice, is it?\u00a0 But it\u2019s the absurd inescapable logic of what\u2019s been called the \u201cImaginary Constitution.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0 Disregarding federal immigration law isn\u2019t just permitted\u2014it\u2019s actually mandatory.<\/p>\n

Under the Imaginary Constitution, the Tenth Amendment means California or Oregon can be sanctuary states, but Texas or Arizona can\u2019t be anti-sanctuary states.\u00a0 States are apparently absolutely free to ignore and even interfere with federal law, but absolutely not free to support or cooperate with it.<\/p>\n

Under the Imaginary Constitution, immigration detainers violate the Fourth Amendment.\u00a0 State and local law enforcement aren\u2019t just allowed but actually constitutionally required to ignore them.\u00a0 From suburban Long Island to South Florida and from rural Colorado to Nashville<\/a>, the anti-detainer suits are always essentially the same.\u00a0 They say someone can never be held in state or local custody except with probable cause of the commission of a crime.\u00a0 Never mind that even U.S. citizens are routinely held in custody for other civil matters, like non-payment of child support<\/a>.\u00a0 Never mind that the Fourth Amendment says nothing like this, but only that searches and seizures have to be \u201creasonable.\u201d\u00a0 And never mind that the only court to directly address this issue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in upholding Texas\u2019s anti-sanctuary law, specifically held that detainers do not<\/a> violate the Fourth Amendment.<\/p>\n

Under the Imaginary Constitution, sanctuary jurisdictions are entitled<\/a> to federal taxpayer money to subsidize their willfully breaking federal law.\u00a0 Never mind that the federal government put conditions on that money saying otherwise.\u00a0 And never mind that the Supreme Court has said for decades that such \u201cstrings\u201d can be attached to federal money.\u00a0 According to the Imaginary Constitution, that\u2019s outrageous \u201ccoercion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Under the Imaginary Constitution, we can probably only imagine what might be required next, but we can be pretty sure it will enshrine the policy preferences of the people pushing it.\u00a0 And that\u2019s despite little to no resemblance to the actual Constitution\u2019s text, history or intent.\u00a0 Curiously convenient how that works.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, not just open-borders activists but too many legislators and judges have themselves come to believe in the Imaginary Constitution, and done all they can to impose it on the rest of us.\u00a0 But as the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said<\/a> \u201c[t]he Constitution is not a living organism \u2026 It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”\u00a0 If he was right, the open-borders crowd should find themselves out of luck sooner rather than later.\u00a0 If he was wrong, then evidently the rule of law no longer means anything.