[youarentrightjr]

On the off chance you're sincere but not well educated on this topic:

> What are you talking about?

Kamala Harris was DA for SF during the early 2010s, where she explicitly backed the city's sanctuary policies.

As CA AG she opposed the "Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act", which was aimed at deterring sanctuary cities through withholding of federal funding.

In the 2024 presidential election she was the Democratic candidate.

This is all on her Wikipedia page.

Can you answer my question?

> Oh, so these Democrat sanctuary cities are in open rebellion against the party?

[raw_anon_1111]

Well, your original statement was “Let's not enforce any immigration law, and subsidize those here illegally” and then brought up sanctuary cities.

It’s not the city or states job to enforce federal immigration laws. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/07/supreme-court-denies-flor...

In other words your argument is prima facie irrelevant. The city or state is not responsible for “enforcing immigration laws”

Just on the off chance you don’t know this…

[youarentrightjr]

> It’s not the city or states job to enforce federal immigration laws.

This has never been claimed nor intimated in this entire thread.

I can tell you're having a difficult time understanding what I'm saying. Let me rephrase it for you:

- If the policy of the Democratic Party is that immigration laws should be enforced

- Why does the party tolerate Democratic sanctuary cities?

- Why does the Democratic party source presidential candidates who have in practice (not simply in word) opposed the immigration law enforcement policy?

[raw_anon_1111]

> Let's not enforce any immigration law, and subsidize those here illegally

And then sanctuary cities was mentioned.

Whether they supported or opposed anything on the state level is completely irrelevant - it’s not there job

Once you brought up sanctuary cities - you are making a completely irrelevant argument.