What an insightful post. I do wonder, though, if more progressives should grapple with whether sanctuary cities are politically productive, whatever their constitutionality.
The response in MSP seems like a vital reaction to an armed occupation by the federal government, but the larger repudiation of all internal immigration enforcement -- which the sanctuary cities movement arose out of -- seems very out of step with the mood of the public as a whole. In fairness, blue cities are representing their constituents, not the broader public. Most residents of blue cities probably do want these policies. Still, it may be that sanctuary cities are perfectly constitutional *and* damaging to the project of center-left politics. They may raise the salience of immigration for the public. They may suggest that progressives do not wish to enforce *all* immigration laws, not just the unjust interpretations of the current administration. So long as ICE is occupying blue cities, Democrats probably have a winning hand here, but as soon as the current admin relents, that advantage may diminish.
There's actually an interesting post from Bryan Caplan this week (actual post is by a guest author) on why moderating political stances actually helps reform efforts (https://www.betonit.ai/). I don't disagree. There are ways to make sanctuary cities more palatable, including clarifying that cooperation is forthcoming for criminals (as just one example). I don't think the defund the police initiative helped with police reform either. My question was one of constitutionality, but you're also correct to point out that we need to pay close attention to efficacy too. I argued something similar last month in another context: https://radicalmoderatesguide.substack.com/p/is-trump-a-fascist
Of course the intent of some of the cities of "not assisting", in practice may have gone too far when ICE agents were attacked by irate people, but that doesn't change the narrative and reasoning you so eloquently posed. Unfortunately the participants in our political system, from the top on down, for various reasons, refuse to acknowledge there may not be clear answers to some of these questions. Or they do see in private, it but don't feel it is in their interest to publicly acknowledge there are no clear answers, especially if there is no political gain in doing so. So thank you for writing this and at least giving us the opportunity to reflect.
I am very grateful for your perspective. Thought provoking and genuine. You allowed me to see through other's eyes and appreciate the beautiful mess that was intentional in our system.
The notion that when federal power takes priority is an ongoing question, not a decided one, is refreshing to hear.
I loved this article. It made me think from various viewpoints to see the goodness and possibility of friction in public discourse. Thank you (from Minnesota).
This is so important! The brilliance of our constitutional system is that it tolerates--even celebrates--the messiness of contestation.
As you've pointed out before, the critical conflict now isn't between left and right. It's between people who see deeper truth as emerging from thoughtful argument, and people who insist on winning. It's between politicians who recognize that they need to accept when they've lost an election, and politicians who seek to undermine trust in the electoral system if they lose.
Two parallels occur to me, as a Jew and as a couples therapist.
First, a Jewish perspective. The Talmud tells of the spirited, sometimes violent arguments between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Finally, a voice from heaven provides commentary: both points of view are valid, but the law goes with Hillel. Why? Because the school of Hillel considers Shammai's views along with its own, while the school of Shammai only considers its own. That's why Judaism has survived millennia of attempts to suppress it--in fact, those attempts to suppress it are often precisely because Judaism insists on the importance of contestation, much as Madison did.
Second, as a couples therapist. Couples often try to keep things stable by suppressing difference--and it doesn't work. Rules, communication techniques, compromises are all about reducing anxiety for the sake of stability, and that's not a bad thing. But ultimately, actual multi-dimensional human relationships involve real differences, some of which will raise anxiety. Couples that can tolerate--even celebrate--the uncertainty are the couples that can grow and survive through crises.
The Jewish perspective is similar to what's often said about big tent liberalism broadly: liberalism can tolerate a range of more extreme views about social organization, but the reverse is not true. A liberal society can house Marxist communities and conservative religions and a range of other voluntary but somewhat illiberal institutions, but again, the reverse isn't true.
The couples example hits home too. Any relationship where a single partner dominates entirely stops being a relationship in the meaningful sense of the term.
Your examination of sanctuary cities raises a question that extends beyond the policy dispute itself: whether constitutional friction should be interpreted as failure, or as the visible sign of a federal structure functioning as designed. Much of the present debate assumes that uniformity is the natural condition of law, and that divergence between national and local authority represents disorder. Yet the American system has long relied upon overlapping jurisdictions precisely to prevent the consolidation of enforcement power into a single administrative will.
If local refusal to participate in federal enforcement appears inefficient, it may also reflect the deeper logic of divided sovereignty — a reminder that coordination in a republic is negotiated rather than imposed. The constitutional question, therefore, may not be whether sanctuary policies are prudent, but whether the public has grown impatient with the slower rhythms of federalism itself.
I am curious how you would distinguish between legitimate intergovernmental tension — the kind that preserves structural restraint — and the type of fragmentation that genuinely undermines constitutional order. At what point does friction cease to be a safeguard and become a structural weakness?
Occam’s razor. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the federal government holds plenary (near-absolute) authority over immigration as an inherent aspect of national sovereignty, foreign affairs, and specific enumerated powers. This authority is primarily vested in Congress, with the executive branch (President and agencies like DHS, ICE, USCIS) carrying out and enforcing those laws through delegated authority.The theory of interposition is byzantine.
I was clear that I'm talking about the political theory of the Constitution, not SCOTUS's interpretation of it. SCOTUS has changed its mind about things in the past and is likely to do so in the future. Even more relevant, I reject the idea that 9 unelected judges get to tell Americans what the Constitution means. They do that in individual cases as a way to resolve immediate conflicts, but that's it.
What an insightful post. I do wonder, though, if more progressives should grapple with whether sanctuary cities are politically productive, whatever their constitutionality.
The response in MSP seems like a vital reaction to an armed occupation by the federal government, but the larger repudiation of all internal immigration enforcement -- which the sanctuary cities movement arose out of -- seems very out of step with the mood of the public as a whole. In fairness, blue cities are representing their constituents, not the broader public. Most residents of blue cities probably do want these policies. Still, it may be that sanctuary cities are perfectly constitutional *and* damaging to the project of center-left politics. They may raise the salience of immigration for the public. They may suggest that progressives do not wish to enforce *all* immigration laws, not just the unjust interpretations of the current administration. So long as ICE is occupying blue cities, Democrats probably have a winning hand here, but as soon as the current admin relents, that advantage may diminish.
There's actually an interesting post from Bryan Caplan this week (actual post is by a guest author) on why moderating political stances actually helps reform efforts (https://www.betonit.ai/). I don't disagree. There are ways to make sanctuary cities more palatable, including clarifying that cooperation is forthcoming for criminals (as just one example). I don't think the defund the police initiative helped with police reform either. My question was one of constitutionality, but you're also correct to point out that we need to pay close attention to efficacy too. I argued something similar last month in another context: https://radicalmoderatesguide.substack.com/p/is-trump-a-fascist
A very thoughtful article
Of course the intent of some of the cities of "not assisting", in practice may have gone too far when ICE agents were attacked by irate people, but that doesn't change the narrative and reasoning you so eloquently posed. Unfortunately the participants in our political system, from the top on down, for various reasons, refuse to acknowledge there may not be clear answers to some of these questions. Or they do see in private, it but don't feel it is in their interest to publicly acknowledge there are no clear answers, especially if there is no political gain in doing so. So thank you for writing this and at least giving us the opportunity to reflect.
I am very grateful for your perspective. Thought provoking and genuine. You allowed me to see through other's eyes and appreciate the beautiful mess that was intentional in our system.
The notion that when federal power takes priority is an ongoing question, not a decided one, is refreshing to hear.
Thanks! Laying it out made it more clear to me that our quest for certainty sometimes (maybe often) actually harms our governance.
I loved this article. It made me think from various viewpoints to see the goodness and possibility of friction in public discourse. Thank you (from Minnesota).
This is so important! The brilliance of our constitutional system is that it tolerates--even celebrates--the messiness of contestation.
As you've pointed out before, the critical conflict now isn't between left and right. It's between people who see deeper truth as emerging from thoughtful argument, and people who insist on winning. It's between politicians who recognize that they need to accept when they've lost an election, and politicians who seek to undermine trust in the electoral system if they lose.
Two parallels occur to me, as a Jew and as a couples therapist.
First, a Jewish perspective. The Talmud tells of the spirited, sometimes violent arguments between the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Finally, a voice from heaven provides commentary: both points of view are valid, but the law goes with Hillel. Why? Because the school of Hillel considers Shammai's views along with its own, while the school of Shammai only considers its own. That's why Judaism has survived millennia of attempts to suppress it--in fact, those attempts to suppress it are often precisely because Judaism insists on the importance of contestation, much as Madison did.
Second, as a couples therapist. Couples often try to keep things stable by suppressing difference--and it doesn't work. Rules, communication techniques, compromises are all about reducing anxiety for the sake of stability, and that's not a bad thing. But ultimately, actual multi-dimensional human relationships involve real differences, some of which will raise anxiety. Couples that can tolerate--even celebrate--the uncertainty are the couples that can grow and survive through crises.
This is a really great perspective, Bruce!
The Jewish perspective is similar to what's often said about big tent liberalism broadly: liberalism can tolerate a range of more extreme views about social organization, but the reverse is not true. A liberal society can house Marxist communities and conservative religions and a range of other voluntary but somewhat illiberal institutions, but again, the reverse isn't true.
The couples example hits home too. Any relationship where a single partner dominates entirely stops being a relationship in the meaningful sense of the term.
Madam,
Your examination of sanctuary cities raises a question that extends beyond the policy dispute itself: whether constitutional friction should be interpreted as failure, or as the visible sign of a federal structure functioning as designed. Much of the present debate assumes that uniformity is the natural condition of law, and that divergence between national and local authority represents disorder. Yet the American system has long relied upon overlapping jurisdictions precisely to prevent the consolidation of enforcement power into a single administrative will.
If local refusal to participate in federal enforcement appears inefficient, it may also reflect the deeper logic of divided sovereignty — a reminder that coordination in a republic is negotiated rather than imposed. The constitutional question, therefore, may not be whether sanctuary policies are prudent, but whether the public has grown impatient with the slower rhythms of federalism itself.
I am curious how you would distinguish between legitimate intergovernmental tension — the kind that preserves structural restraint — and the type of fragmentation that genuinely undermines constitutional order. At what point does friction cease to be a safeguard and become a structural weakness?
— CIVIS AMERICANUS
Occam’s razor. The Supreme Court has long recognized that the federal government holds plenary (near-absolute) authority over immigration as an inherent aspect of national sovereignty, foreign affairs, and specific enumerated powers. This authority is primarily vested in Congress, with the executive branch (President and agencies like DHS, ICE, USCIS) carrying out and enforcing those laws through delegated authority.The theory of interposition is byzantine.
I was clear that I'm talking about the political theory of the Constitution, not SCOTUS's interpretation of it. SCOTUS has changed its mind about things in the past and is likely to do so in the future. Even more relevant, I reject the idea that 9 unelected judges get to tell Americans what the Constitution means. They do that in individual cases as a way to resolve immediate conflicts, but that's it.
Ok well that takes your opinions out of the realm of legal argument. Thank you for the clarification. :)