« The Legacy of Daily Kos | Main | A Shameful Attempt at Gotcha Journalism From the WaPo »

A Second Brief Question

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?


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Second Brief Question:

» Maggie's Farm linked with A few Sunday Links

Comments (6)

Some of those resolutions a... (Below threshold)

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.

Barney,I agree wit... (Below threshold)


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.

Hey barn' you are begining ... (Below threshold)

Hey barn' you are begining to sound like Allen "eyebrow" Combs.

The citizens who elect the ... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

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.

I think it is all smoke and... (Below threshold)

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

Local governments are signi... (Below threshold)

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.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy