Trump is being attacked for obstruction of justice and rightly so. Democrats in congress are comparing that Trump has no regard for rule of law, obviously so.
What about constriction of the apprising of illegal immigrants who have had due process in court under the law who are helped by refusing to aid in apprehension? Where is the congressional democratic outrage on rule of law? The deportaions are based on law passed by congress.
Rule of law is what it says. If trump is gaily of obstruction, then so is Ca and sanctuary cities. So is law enforcement that refuse to assist feds. Is this not so?
All someone south of the border has to do is watch the Spanish South American CNN and think it is a safe bet to go illegally to the USA. The laws are not enforced.
This is a tough question, especially since those who are generally against states opposing the federal government are also the ones who are in this case supporting the states against the fed when it comes to sanctuary states.
Ironically:
A: Once a racist uses an position, it is therefore always tainted by racism and anyone who ever uses it must be racist
B: Racists once used states rights, therefore states rights and separation of powers is a racist position
C: Sanctuary states are states rights and separation of powers
Therefore:
D: Anyone advocating for a sanctuary state must be a racist.
Meanwhile, right after California declared itself to be a sanctuary state, several cities in Orange county declared that they would follow federal law. California had a court case against the federal government saying they had the right to override federal law, and another court case against those cities saying the cities had no right to override state law.
Okay, that bit of showing that mainstream parties are inconsistent and hypocritical out of the way, time to give your question a more serious answer. Pointing out mainstream hypocrisy is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel filled with nothing but fish.
It is true that the immigration law that Trump is trying to enforce is law that is already passed. His illegality is the means by which he intends to enforce currently existing law, given that the same congress that passed that law refuses to fund enforcement of that law. Congress controls the purse. It is interesting to me, because if they really did oppose the current law as written, they should actually try to come up with some other law to replace current law as written. It seems from my outside point of view that they want the current law but unenforced.
