If the idea of “sanctuary cities” isn’t the poster child for 2setsofrules, I don’t know what else is. (The one thing about politicians and people in general and the way they behave, sooner or later there is always gonna be another poster child for 2setsofrules! )
If the notion of “sanctuary cities” is OK for your issue, then it has to be good for the other guys issue(s). Hence, 2setsofrules. If “sanctuary cities” is OK for illegal immigrants, then it would be OK for right-to-work and abortion protestors also. Right? We can’t have one set of rules for your favorite political issue and a different set of rules for other people’s political issue.
So if the politicians, folks in the media and people in general that are OK with the idea of “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants, then they should be Ok with say, “sanctuary cities” for right-to-work companies? Any unit of government, a city, county, state, can simply announce they are a “sanctuary city” for any company that wants to operate as a right-to-work company within the boundaries of that city/county/state? Right? That city/county/state can tell the unions or workers or politicians that may complain to go take a hike – they will not be enforcing any law that prohibits a company from operating as a right-to-work company. (Actually, there was a recent ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals as reported in the WSJ allowing local units of government in Kentucky to declare themselves right-to-work, even though sate law does not agree. )
Or I know, let’s say there is a conservative county in Texas that doesn’t agree with current federal law on the issue of protestors at abortion clinics. Is everyone OK with a city/county/state simply saying they are now a “sanctuary city” for abortion protestors? Any law enforcement effort will not be supported and in fact will be thwarted by the “sanctuary city” for abortion protestors who violate federal law in the process of protesting in front of an abortion clinic? It’s OK for any abortion protestors who break federal law to be protected in every way possible?
Unfortunately, we all know that those who currently support the idea of “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants will be the loudest in denouncing the idea of applying it to any political issue they don’t agree with. Politics and hypocrisy go hand-in-hand. After the election of Donald Trump, several big city mayors talked about not supporting the Trump administration’s policy on illegal immigrants. I doubt these same folks would support the idea of “sanctuary cities” for abortion protestors.
This idea of “sanctuary cities” can ultimately only lead to anarchy. We as a country either live by the rules and enforce the rules or we don’t. We can’t have 2setsofrules. If you didn’t like the rules, in the past people worked to change the rules through the political process. Our current president, who took an oath to uphold the rules of the Constitution, violates that oath all the time by selectively choosing to enforce only the rules with which he agrees. That is a slippery slope.
This same idea also currently applies to legalizing marijuana – in the 2016 national elections, several more states legalized the use of marijuana – which is still against federal law. More on this in a future post.