Yesterday, I had a little fun contrasting how liberals tend to prefer different ways to deal with skyrocketing costs in two fields near and dear to their hearts: health care and higher education. The common factor in them -- which several commenters pointed out -- was a preference for having government "fix" the problem.
It was so much fun I want to do it again.
Yesterday, the Boston Globe had an editorial denouncing the trend of towns and cities deciding to take upon themselves the responsibility for dealing with the illegal alien problem. In a nutshell, they're against it. They want Congress to deal with the matter -- preferably, by either passing an amnesty bill or, at least, not dealing with it. (They're happy with the status quo.)
The editorial is another example of the gross slur they like to perpetuate, conflating legal immigrants and illegal aliens. Note the line: "Meanwhile, in a move that embraces immigrants, the city of New Haven is issuing identification cards to residents, including undocumented immigrants."
But that's not my point here.
Communities expressing opinions and passing measures on national issues is nothing new. I recall a whole bunch of municipalities declaring themselves "nuclear-free zones" a couple of decades ago. Many have declared themselves as "sanctuary cities," proclaiming that they will not under any circumstance countenance the enforcement of immigration laws.
And recently, the city council of the resort city of Telluride, Colorado passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush.
So, that's my question: when is it appropriate for local governments to dabble in national politics? What sorts of criteria determine that "no nukes" and "impeach Bush" is good, while "arrest illegal aliens" is bad?
Permalink | E-mail This | Technorati Links | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Politics
Comments (6)
Some of those resolutions a... (Below threshold)1. Posted by BarneyG2000 | August 3, 2007 11:25 AM | Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Some of those resolutions are mere statements (impeach Bush) and have no legal authority, most are fine examples of local control such as no smoking or no alcohol which gives each community an identity.
Local boards can pass any law or resolution they want, but if the law does not adhere to existing Federal laws or the Constitution then the law will be struck down.
I have no problem with local officials or councils proposing new rules or resolutions. We have the right to petition the government and if we don't like what they do we have the right to vote them out.
1. Posted by BarneyG2000 | August 3, 2007 11:25 AM |
Score: -5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on August 3, 2007 11:25
2. Posted by yo | August 3, 2007 11:44 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Barney,
I agree with ya (go figure); however, don't you think that the local governments have better things to do with their time than pass meaningless resolutions?
I can't shake this image of Nero and his fiddle, for some reason.
2. Posted by yo | August 3, 2007 11:44 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on August 3, 2007 11:44
3. Posted by jhow66 | August 3, 2007 11:52 AM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Hey barn' you are begining to sound like Allen "eyebrow" Combs.
3. Posted by jhow66 | August 3, 2007 11:52 AM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 3, 2007 11:52
4. Posted by John F Not Kerry | August 3, 2007 12:03 PM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
The citizens who elect the politicians who pass these meaningless resolutions deserve what they get, a government that can't even manage its own affairs, but feel enough guts to make symbolic "statements" so that the history books will show them to be on the "right" side of history, at least according to them.
The politicians who pass laws in violation of federal laws should be prosecuted, and those cities should lose all federal money until the situation is remedied. Sanctuary cities are nothing more than an invitation to break every law, not just laws pertaining to immigration.
4. Posted by John F Not Kerry | August 3, 2007 12:03 PM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on August 3, 2007 12:03
5. Posted by WildWillie | August 3, 2007 12:22 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
I think it is all smoke and mirrors. If the local authority needed help with a drug enforcement issue, they would call ATF and DEA and visa versa. If there is EPA laws that need enforcing, the local government would do that. So this argument about immigration being a federal problem in regards to enforcement is just BS. ww
5. Posted by WildWillie | August 3, 2007 12:22 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 3, 2007 12:22
6. Posted by Francis W. Porretto | August 3, 2007 5:28 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Local governments are significant to leftists solely as convenient situational icons of their self-righteousness. When a local government puts up a stiff line against something like an influx of illegal aliens, it fails to fit the leftist line, and will be condemned. A local government that attempts to act like the federal government, but in consonance with leftist notions, is celebrated. It can't affect the issue, but as a symbol it can be rallied around and pointed to as a bastion of their notion of justice.
In other words, in the former case -- a local government that takes the law seriously -- it's merely one more cog in the Evil Machine; in the latter case, it's a brave beacon of resistance to the Machine.
6. Posted by Francis W. Porretto | August 3, 2007 5:28 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on August 3, 2007 17:28