united-states california jurisdiction immigration medical-marijuana
Is the basis of California &#39;sanctuary&#39; the same, from cannabis to immigrants?
<p><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/07/30/doj-watchdog-issues-report-finding-sanctuary-cities-states-illegal/" rel="nofollow">In hearing news</a> about so-called "sanctuary jurisdictions," it occurred to me that the states-rights that protected CA cannabis users might provide the same basis to protect an immigrant.  </p>

<p>For the sake of discussion, let's reference the situation where someone is in the US without visa / allowed status, and they have committed assault. </p>

<p>Does CA have the same basis to protect such a person, as was done to protect cannabis dispensaries, and users?</p>

<p>Neutral politiking: please don't lambaste the matter of immigration in the comments.  This is not a politically-devise question.  Feel free to leave answers that reframe the issues involved.</p>

<p>It's important to note that in both cases the "protection" is of a particular limited kind: that <strong>state and local</strong> police and law enforcement will refrain from enforcing those federal laws (regarding marijuana or immigration).  There is nothing to stop <strong>federal</strong> law enforcement officers (DEA, FBI, ICE, etc) from enforcing those laws in California or anywhere else, if the federal government should decide to devote the resources to do so, though they may or may not get much assistance from local authorities.</p>

<p>As I understand it, the legal theory behind such policies is that since state/local police departments are run (and funded) by their corresponding state/local governments, those governments have the authority to dictate how those departments spend their time and resources.  Under this theory, if a state or local government doesn't think it's a worthwhile priority to enforce certain laws, or to assist federal law enforcement in doing so, they can set policies accordingly for their police departments.</p>

<p>Based on the article you cite, the DOJ obviously believes there are limits to this theory.  I don't know whether any courts have ruled on such questions.</p>
