You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
Sanctuary, it said:
but only the road has meaning there. It leads
into the world's cities like a long fuse laid
You don't need a weather man
to know which way the wind blows
--Subterranean Homesick Blues,
Mending Fences, Pt. II:
In Iraq the Coalition Forces (i.e., the United States) built walls around cities to keep insurgents out. This implied that walls would lead to victory versus violence.
Street battles, as in Fallujah, were fought to isolate cities from the insurgents (both domestic and foreign). In our current fight against ISIS, the same winning (ahem) formula applies: fight for the cities and when the vermin have been eradicated, everything will be just fine.
Today, our 2017 Sanctuary City warriors are insurging against their President and federal authority. We (they) are insurgents when they burn images of their President in effigy, and wear shirt proclaiming, "No My President.
Immigration has become a point of contention in the United States, and the United States insurgents wish to keep criminal illegals inside the borders, rather than outside. It is a perverse inversion of the military fight abroad.
Do these sanctuary insurgents comprehend the nonsensical illegality what they are doing? If President Obama had the authority to address immigration, then so does President Trump have that same authority. Legality transcends our personal convictions.
Mayors do not have the authority to override Constitutional imperatives. However, it is obvious they are not above sucking up to their constituents, forward-looking as they are to their next election and their meal plate.
Social workers may inhabit the "Every sperm is sacred" zone, fighting for the "rights" of illegals to remain in place. But why are the rest of us so hot to keep in people who are double criminals (i.e., illegals + run of the mill criminals)?
Our country has problems enough ministering to our own citizens and blighted cities. What purpose can the whine du jour of the Democrats have other than being a convenient distraction from the problems of the indigenous?
Ah, but since the myriad of problems that beset our own citizens has proven to be intractable and obdurate, why not just look over there and drill down some illegal Muslims and Mexicans? The illegal fight to retain illegals is a clever bit of legerdemain.
Since the U.S. has been fighting a 14 year war to protect foreign cities from external threats, what argument can be made to not do the same for our own cities?
In the counterinsurgency (COIN) environment the concept of personnel and resource control (PRC) is that every citizen or legitimate resident must have official identification issued by a legal authority. How else can a government control its territory?
If we will not control our borders then it is obvious that the PWOT © and the War on Drugs have been farcical enterprises conducted by farceurs (i.e., politicians).
Logical endpoint: a restive population maintains perpetual battle against their duly elected leader, who then must do something to restore order. As the U.S. insurgents glumly and gleefully (a seeming oxymoron, but a Starbuck's espresso keeps it bearable) construct their insurgent safe zones against the order of law, they begin to feel more ostracized, more convinced that they are being persecuted and that they are on the side of right.
Ensconced in their "safety zones" pitted against the rule of law, they are transmuted into "The Deplorables" -- a term once reserved for the very people they are now opposing. They hunker down and draw to themselves their fellow travelers du jour (their token illegal pets).
What next for these illegals, and the people illegally harboring them?
Why does a nation have borders if they do not intend to enforce immigration law?