Illegal Aliens

433 days after the murder of Katie Steinle by Francisco Sanchez, an illegal alien due for his sixth deportation, sanctuary cities such as San Francisco continue to evade federal law. The continued existence of these municipalities violates numerous laws pertaining to and abiding by the United States Constitution under Article I, Section 8 and Article VI, Section 2, Clause 4. It cannot be dismissed that while the United States Constitution addresses immigration and the citizenship process, it does not directly address the processing of illegal aliens in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: “The Congress shall have Power [to]...establish [a] uniform Rule of Naturalization…” (US Constitution). This gray area may allow, to a degree, an openness for
§ 1324).
This excerpt could possibly operate outside the bounds of the Constitution and be declared non-pursuant as a federal law. Proponents of sanctuary cities also cite the right to asylum (I-589), in which an immigrant, legal or illegal, can attain status as a refugee provided that he or she can:
…prove having been persecuted, or that he or she likely will be persecuted in the future, by either the government of his or her home country or by a group beyond the government's control. Examples of persecution include torture, discrimination, threats of injury or death, or imprisonment.
Again, there is gray area due to the Constitution’s vagueness, which could possibly lead to a legitimate questioning of the validity of the aforementioned portion of the United States
In the 1989 landmark case United States v. Aguilar, appellants attempted to evade the Immigration and Naturalization Service by neglecting to inform it of their smuggling of illegal aliens. The policies of sanctuary cities bear a striking resemblance to the actions of the appellants in the previously mentioned court case, in that they both have and continue to conceal illegal aliens, spitting in the eye of federal