Chaos, Collapse, and Control

"I can feel it!"
--Jack Godell (The China Syndrome)

People seem incredulous that leftists truly understand the consequences of the policies that they are enacting or trying to enact. "Don't they understand that they are creating economic and social chaos?" they ask.

Chaos is the natural endpoint to socialism, of course. But why invite it?

My answer is that leftists want chaos. They believe if the system collapses, then they can build back better.

A fair follow-up question is, "How can leftists be so sure that they will be able to gain control of a chaotic situation?"

There would need to be lots of players in the cast, of course. Increasingly, however, I think one cast member is essential. Without this player, the left could not gain control over a collapsing system.

That's why lovers of liberty must keep eyes on China.

Corrupt Motives Doctrine

"Sometimes, in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark."
--Dr Iris Handyman (Minority Report)

The Democrat's impeachment argument has withered into a 'corrupt motives' slant (not this first time corrupt motives doctrine has been tried against the president). President Trump broke no laws, they say, but his motives justify him being removed from office.

Aside from the problem of getting inside the president's head to identify his true motives for any action, motivation cannot be grounds for legitimate conviction. In this case, if the argument is that the president was wrong because he acted in his own self-interest (e.g., for his re-election), then all pelicans are guilty of 'wrongdoing', as is the public at large. All of us act in our own self interest.

Moreover, president surely equate their re-election with the 'national interest.'

The corrupt motives doctrine circulating among so-called 'impeachment managers' demonstrates once more the brazen political hypocrisy in Washington.

Tax Mex

And I've got such a long way to go
To make it to the border of Mexico
--Christopher Cross

Last night President Trump announced that tariffs will be imposed on goods coming from Mexico until the Mexican government gains better control over migration to the southern US border. There is nothing smart about using tariffs as a policy tool, as these pages have frequently discussed.

On June 10th, the United States will impose a 5% Tariff on all goods coming into our Country from Mexico, until such time as illegal migrants coming through Mexico, and into our Country, STOP. The Tariff will gradually increase until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied,..

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 30, 2019

However, complaints from many of Trump's detractors are likely to be muted. Although his enemies may not like it when Trump taxes economic activity, they are generally not opposed to the idea of taxes themselves. If they point out the negative economic consequences of tariffs, then Trump's opponents leave themselves open to future criticism when they themselves propose taxes of some sort.

On the other hand, hypocrisy does not seem to bother political partisans.

Of course, many Trump opponents may silently welcome tariffs for another insidious reason. They know that by taxing economic activity, the president weakens his re-election potential.

Spy Games

"What can I say? I'm a spy."
--Harry Tasker (True Lies)

When they face unpleasant situations, people on the left like to change the language associated with the problem to something that is friendlier to them. Governments don't spend. Rather, they 'invest.' Instead of global warming, it's 'climate change.' They are not illegal immigrants; they are 'dreamers.'

A popular one right now is that the Trump campaign was not spied upon. No, it was subject to 'unauthorized surveillance.'

I often wonder whether leftists truly believe that their use of positive substitute symbols, spin, propaganda, et al will actually alter viewpoints of others in their favor. Or whether these games are inwardly focused therapies to ease the pain of a collective psychosis.

Vacuuming Votes

Something in the way you love me
Won't let me be
I don't want to be your prisoner
So baby, won't you set me free?
--Madonna

Nice portrayal of underlying motivation of 'open border' policy of Democrats.

Secondary motivation, of course, is to deny Trump a political victory.

National Emergencies

"Tonight I will speak directly to these people and make the situation perfectly clear to them. The security of this nation depends on complete and total compliance."
--High Chancellor Adam Sutler (V for Vendetta)

President Trump's declaration of a national emergency to fund a $5+ billion wall across the southern border has partisans once again choosing sides. Those for it argue that it is necessary for national security. Those against it argue that it is beyond the president's legitimate authority to unilaterally fund government activities.

The latter argument is correct. Declaring a national emergency to fund a project for the executive branch is not just an end around Congress, but an end around the Constitution. Article 1 gives Congress sole power of the purse.

As Ron Paul observes, Trump's situation is hardly unprecedented, however. Many presidents, at least as far back as Lincoln, have used so-called national emergencies to expand their power. In fact, Congress itself has passed several statutes that provide for the president to bypass congressional authority by declaring emergency situations.

For example, the 1976 National Emergencies Act gives the president broad powers to declare emergencies for almost any reason. After informing Congress that an emergency has been declared, the president merely needs to renew the declaration once/yr. Since the act passed, 59 emergencies have been declared by nearly all presidents since the law's enactment (except for Reagan, I believe), with 31 of those still in effect.

Other laws that grant the president emergency powers include the Defense Production Act, the Communication Act, and the 2001 authorization for use of military force (AUMF).

Judge Nap argues that any presidential declaration of emergency cannot be contrary to the Constitution, and cannot authorize the president to spend money that Congress has declined to spend. Doing so now would be a dangerous precedent.

To be sure, but the counter to his argument is that the horse is already out of the barn. And many of those who oppose (support) Trump's move would surely support (oppose) a similar move from 'their' (the ‘other side’s) president.

Unless opponents of Trump's declaration are ready to rescind all past statutes that grant presidential powers associated with emergency declarations, then their objections can hardly be seen as sincere.

Si Si, Puede!

So don't tell anybody what I wanna do
If they find out you know they'll never let me though
--Genesis

Drawing heavily from this video, Prof Williams discusses the politics associated with illegal immigration and the border wall. The obvious take away from the data is the reversal among many on the left from being against illegal immigration to being for it.

What motivated the flip flop? Politics, pure and simple. Previously it paid politically to be against illegal immigration if your were a Democrat in order to kowtow to power labor groups in the U.S. who wanted protection from competition.

Today leftists see illegal immigrants as associated with a large voting bloc that could elevate the Democratic party into positions of power for some time to come.

Sprinkle in rancor for all things Donald Trump and it is easy to see why Democrats don't mind  their blatant hypocrisy on display.

Improving Immigration Policy

There I was at the immigration scene
Shining and feeling clean
--Crosby & Nash

Some interesting ideas here on how to improve immigration policy that are grounded in freedom of association and market exchange. They include:

1) Expedited entry to immigrants who agree to forfeit access to all publicly funded subsidies and amenities including public schools, public healthcare, and similar programs.

2) A sponsorship program where private individuals and organizations formally invite and vouch for immigrants that they sponsor. If these immigrants turn out to be criminals or users of public funds, then the sponsors would be held legally and financially liable.

3) Eliminate all immigration ceilings, but limit admission to those immigrants who are sponsored, who have agreed to forfeit access to public funding, or who can demonstrate financial independence.

Of course, a simpler policy would be to dismantle taxpayer-funded public programs to reduce incentive for immigrant free riders.

That said, the above ideas is thought provoking in that they provide for greater freedom among US citizens for engaging in trade and exchange with immigrants worldwide while limiting risk to taxpayers. Moreover, polices based on these ideas naturally limit immigration volume since sponsorships and bonding would be constrained by availability of private resources.

Invasion USA

Oh Rio, Rio
Hear them shout across the land
From mountains in the north
Down to the Rio Grande
--Duran Duran

Invasion: an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity. Synonyms: influx, inundation, flood, rush, torrent, deluge.

or, alternatively,

Invasion: an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain. Synonyms: violation, infringement, interruption, intrusion, encroachment, disturbance, disruption, breach.

An invasion is certainly taking place at our southern border. Bear in mind, however, that while today's events provide blatant images, this invasion has been going on for some time.

Judge Shopping

Jake Lo: What judge is going to believe that?
Agent Wesley: My judge
--Rapid Fire

After a US District judge in San Francisco issued a TRO to block a presidential proclamation that asylum requests would no longer be granted to those arriving the US illegally, President Trump criticized the decision of the Obama-appointed judge and added that he considered the rulings of the Ninth Circuit "a disgrace."

Subsequently, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts issued a rebuke of Trump's comments. "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, or Bush judges or Clinton judges, Roberts said. "What we have is a group of extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

He concluded, "The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Not only was openly commenting on a president's remarks an extraordinary measure for a chief justice, but Roberts is plainly wrong.

'Judge shopping' goes on all the time, with the Ninth Circuit being the frequent destination of leftist cases looking for friendly rulings--rulings that frequently get overturned in higher courts. Everyone knows it, including Trump, who responded to Roberts with a series of tweets:

Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have “Obama judges,” and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an “independent judiciary,” but if it is why......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018

.....are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security - these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018

There are a lot of CRIMINALS in the Caravan. We will stop them. Catch and Detain! Judicial Activism, by people who know nothing about security and the safety of our citizens, is putting our country in great danger. Not good!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018

“79% of these decisions have been overturned in the 9th Circuit.” @FoxNews A terrible, costly and dangerous disgrace. It has become a dumping ground for certain lawyers looking for easy wins and delays. Much talk over dividing up the 9th Circuit into 2 or 3 Circuits. Too big!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018

Trump is right. We do not have an independent judiciary. Instead we have judges motivated by political interest--as John Roberts himself has demonstrated.

Nation by Consent

Oh Rio, Rio
Hear them shout across the land
From mountains in the north
Down to the Rio Grande
--Duran Duran

Excerpted from this larger essay, Murray Rothbard considers the birthright citizenship problem as construed from the Fourteenth Amendment. The most visible problem is this: birthright citizenship, which, when automatically confers citizenship to every baby born in the US, invites 'welfare immigration' by expectant parents. Those babies-turned-citizens (and their parents) become entitled to permanent welfare payments and free health care. As such, birthright citizenship forcibly transfers resources from incumbent citizens to the incoming group.

Plainly, a policy of birthright citizenship is likely to erode the wealth as well as the common culture of the incumbents.

The less visible problem is that birthright citizenship increases the coercive power of the nation-state and decreases the voluntary union of a nation by consent. In a nation by consent, national boundaries are drawn by those who freely agree to become part of a particular nation--and by those in the extant nation who agree to take on newcomers. People are also free to leave that nation and change affiliations (i.e., secede) if they so choose.

The implication of a nation by consent is that immigrants would have to be invited. Only then could newcomers enter and be permitted to rent or purchase property. A nation by consent would therefore be as 'closed' as the current inhabitants desire.

Clearly, Rothbard concludes in the larger essay, the 'open borders' regime that exists de facto in the US "really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors."

A nation by consent requires complete privatization of land so that true 'border control' can be established. Moreover, voting rights would not be automatically conferred to new entrants. In a nation where property is completely privatized--meaning that government could no longer confiscate it by order of democratic majority--voting becomes less important.

Instead, the scope of private contract and of voluntary consent is enhanced as the repressive state is dissolved into a harmonious and increasingly prosperous social order.

Rarely Spontaneous

"You leave public opinion to me."
--James Taylor (Mr Smith Goes to Washington)

In the political arena, seemingly spontaneous events rarely are. They are scripted, organized, and funded with a purpose. From demonstrations to caravans to even death threats, those who consume such 'headline-makers' at face value are liable to be played.

Birthright Citizenship

Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took is when I hit the ground
--Bruce Springsteen

Several interesting points made here, including observations about birthright citizenship. In the United States, birthright citizenship refers to the notion that any child born on US soil is conferred American citizenship--regardless of whether the child's parents are US citizens or not.

The Fourteenth Amendment ratified in 1868 was intended to modify Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution pertaining to the Three Fifths Compromise. But the amendment contains five sections, and only Section 2 directly applies to the original Three Fifths language. The other sections of the fourteenth amendment must be construed as additions, not changes, to the Constitution because they do not supercede portions of the original legal document.

It is Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment that introduces the concept of birthright citizenship into the constitutional conversation via what now known as the Citizenship Clause:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The question posed by a portion of this article is whether birthright citizenship is what our founding ancestors intended. There is no explicit language concerning qualifications for citizenshipship in the original Constitution. The closest thing I can reference appears in Article II, Section 1 concerning eligibility for president:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President."

One train of thought argues that the framers adopted the English common law notion of birthright citizenship. But English common law focused on subjects, not citizens. Subjects born under the protection of the king owed 'perpetual allegiance' to the king in exchange. Birthright subjectship, not birthright citizenship, was inherited from the feudal system that defined relationships between master and servant.

The Declaration of Independence absolved the American people from feudal allegiance to the crown. This absolution represented a rejection of common law as a basis for citizenship. Instead of perpetual allegiance to a king, 'consent of the governed' is required. No individual can be ruled without his consent. As the author observed, "consent--not the accident of birth--is the basis for American citizenship." [emphasis mine]

The author asks, "Is it plausible--is it even remotely credible--that the Founders, after fighting a revolutionary war to reject the feudal relic of 'perpetual allegiance,' would have adopted that same feudal relic as the ground for citizenship for the new American regime?"

This is a reasonable question. If the answer is 'no,' then it calls into question the true constitutionality of the portion of the Fourteenth Amendment related to birthright citizenship

Education Indoctrination

We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control
--Pink Floyd

Prof Williams discusses the growing role of colleges as distribution channels for leftist ideologies. Collegiate level indoctrination provides icing on the cake of sorts for brainwashing that has been taking place since students' early grade school days.

By the time students reach me, many seem incapable of thinking critically about topics such as global warming, capitalism, child labor, freedom of speech, government's role in society, and immigration. Stated differently, they know only one side of the issue and have little interest in asking "What else can it be?" in the pursuit of truth.

What has me most concerned is the stranglehold that collegiate bureaucrats are gaining on activities that impact real learning. Classroom methods, faculty hiring decisions, on-campus speakers, and even research methods are under increased scrutiny by administrators interested in imposing ideological constraints on academic inquiry.

Sadly, truth and college campuses are increasingly at odds.

Immigration and the Trustee State

Let me in
Immigration man
Can I cross the line and pray
I can stay another day
--Crosby & Nash

Several interesting points on the immigration issue made here by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Leftists generally advocate unrestricted, 'free' immigration as a right. But on what grounds should there be such a right?

No one has a legitimate right to move onto someone else's property unless invited. If all places are already owned, then migration is by invitation only. Unrestricted immigration only holds for virgin land and the open frontier--of which little exists today.

Leftists sometimes counter that occupation of global real estate often took place through previous acts of force rather than through voluntary exchange. While certainly true, aggressive acts of previous generations do not give migrants license to tread uninvited on someone else's ground today.

Another common counter is that so-called 'public property' under the control of local, state, or federal government is akin to open frontier and thus available to migrants for open, unrestricted access. But this assertion is false as well. Just because government has illegitimately expropriated property from others does not mean that government property is unowned and available to all. Because it has been funded by tax payments, the payers of these taxes are the rightful owners of public property.

Hoppe is obviously correct. His conclusion suggests that the proper role of the State under such circumstances is one of trustee of tax-payer funded property. What should the shape of immigration look like if the State properly executed its trustee role like the manager of jointly owned community property funded by a housing association or gated community?

The answer in principle is straightforward. The trustee's guideline regarding immigration would be the 'full cost' principle. The immigrant (or inviting resident) should pay the full cost of the immigrant's use of public goods and services. The cost of community property funded by taxpayers should not rise due to the presence of immigrants. On the contrary, the presence of immigrants should ideally yield residents a profit--perhaps in the form of lower tax burdens or higher property values.

Under conditions of high immigration pressure, then the trustee's role is to secure the border to control admission to ensure that the full cost principle will be upheld.

This is not what the State generally does, of course. Rather than enforcing a full cost principle that keeps residents whole or makes them richer, the State subsidizes immigration, thereby making taxpaying residents poorer.

ECON 101 tells us that when behavior is subsidized, more of it should be expected. As they flock to countries where their behavior is subsidized, immigrants increasingly stress economic systems toward the point of collapse. Hoppe speculates that this result is precisely the goal of some groups, including the cultural Marxists.

Borderline Thoughts

Stop driving me away
I just want to stay
There's something I just got to say
--Madonna

Interesting questions raised by Pat Buchanan and other about US immigration policy have me thinking once again about the role of borders in society and government's role in maintaining them. Searching these pages for previous missives on the subject, I was surprised by how often, and how long ago, this topic has been on my mind.

This post serves as a lander page of sorts for these previous thoughts that might serve as a useful reference point in the future.

Role of borders in society. Boundaries have been drawn since the early days of civilized society--suggesting a natural tendency of human beings to do so. Possible reasons for doing so include selfishness (inappropriately possessive), security, economic (e.g., facilitate trade), or social (preference for living with similar individuals).

Desirability for borders as a means for creating political competition and choice. The idea is that differing political systems operating in each bordered society compete with each other for citizens. People will leave societies with less desirable political systems in favor of the better ones. Some believe this should benefit liberty over time.

An interesting thought experiment related to the 'borders as political competition' idea above is to imagine that the geography of the continental US is split at the Mississippi River into two countries. One side houses people who believe in liberty. On the other side are those who believe in state-sponsored 'equality.' Over time, the prosperity realized by Liberty will attract people who have become impoverished in Equality. At some point, Equality will have to erect exit barriers to stem the outflow--or, of course, throw off its totalitarian state. On the other hand, Liberty's destiny will depend on the extent to which its citizens can limit the scope of its government.

That conclusion--i.e., the success of a society founded on the principles of liberty is dependent on limiting scope of government--has led to several posts (here, here, here, here) that essentially consider the 'open border' problem. The central conclusion is this. When property rights are well respected and not confiscated to fund welfare programs available to all, then open borders are preferred. Open borders create competition and mobilize labor seeking opportunity. Prosperity will increase. However, if property is being confiscated to fund welfare programs, then borders cannot be open. People seeking a free ride, as well as those ideologically opposed to the notion of liberty, will cross borders (and/or encourage others to cross borders) to consume resources that they did not earn. If borders are not secured, then the welfare state grows ever larger under such circumstances until it collapses under its own weight.

This leads to an issue that has sparked much public debate recently: the erection of physical barriers such as walls as deterrents to unwanted border crossing. One camp likes to argue that 'wall don't work.' Because people can climb, tunnel, fly over, go around them, wall don't keep people out. What this camp conveniently omits from its argument are the words 'all' and 'some.' While walls certainly don't keep all out, they certainly keep some out. We can be sure that most of the very same people who argue against building border walls have fences around their yards, security systems in their houses, and locks on their doors. Few of these people are naive enough to expect these security measures to keep out the most hardened and dedicated criminals. But they will slow some down and deter others. The more formidable the wall, the greater the deterrent to illegal border crossing.

That said, there is a very good case to be made for alternatives to walls. Reduce trade barriers. Barriers such as tariffs increase cost of doing business and motivate locals to cross borders in search of better opportunity. Existing laws that restrain illegal immigration could also be more fully enforced. Finally, reduce welfare state incentives that attract immigrants seeking to live off the production of others.

Most recently, these pages have considered how orchestrated efforts have magnified the border problem. Politically motivated groups are using children as pawns and a complicit media to capture emotional support for conditions that, as noted above, are certain to sink the system: porous borders in tandem with an inclusive welfare state.

Orchestration

Borderline
Feels like I'm going to lose my mind
You just keep on pushing my love
Over the borderline
--Madonna

The recent hysteria involving separation of children from adults (not necessarily parents) seeking to cross the southern border illegally demonstrates once again that few social events with political overtones are random. Rather, they are premeditated. Planned and often funded by groups with political agendas to elicit a sympathetic response from onlookers--particularly those who vote.

Stated differently, most sociopolitical events that grab headlines are not spontaneous, but orchestrated. A primary goal of orchestration is emotional capture.

A complicit media fans the flames. And kids commonly serve as political pawns.

Open For Business

It may take a little time
A lonely path, an uphill climb
Success or failure will not alter it
--Howard Jones

Of his speeches thus far as president, Donald Trump's address at the World Economic Forum in Davos may have been his best. For those unaware, the Davos event is an annual gathering with a recurring theme of how to plan and control economic activity around the globe. As such, it attracts elitists and statists of all stripes.

Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, used the Davos platform to wax apologetically about America's economic capabilities and position, and to pledge his support for collectivist pet projects such as global warming. In fact, one has to go back several administrations to Ronald Reagan to find a US president who has taken an overtly pro-market stance at Davos.

That drought was broken yesterday when Trump took the podium. After sharing ways that his administration has removed stifling restrictions on US production and trade, he declared that, "America is open for business, and we are competitive once again."

At the outset Trump acknowledged that he was there to "represent the interests of the American people and to affirm America's friendship and partnership in building a better world." The US can do this best, he argued, through production and trade. Subsequently, he suggested that leaders in other countries who take similar stances will build a better world. He is correct, as it is production and trade done in axiomatic self-interest--not selfishness--that advances standard of living in a virtuous cycle.

Trump highlighted the virtues of cutting taxes and regulation ("Regulation is stealth taxation") in building economic momentum and shared empirical examples of its positive effects during his first year in office. He also spoke of lifting restrictions on energy production, thereby firing a shot across the bow of curtailed production in the name of 'climate change. He also spoke of securing a US immigration system that "is stuck in the past." In Trump-esque language the president promoted "lifting people from dependence to independence because we know the single best anti-poverty program is a very simple and very beautiful paycheck."

It is hard not to relish in the hand ringing among the Davos statists that must have coincided with these remarks...

Trump's speech was not without some warts. For instance, he said that the US "support[s] free trade but it must be fair." When presidents use the word 'fairness' it is almost always a code word for use of government force to advance a political agenda. By definition, free trade has no rules or restrictions. On the other hand, bilateral trade agreements such as those suggested by the president at Davos restrict trade rather than free it. Free trade requires no treaty.

There was also no mention of the burgeoning debt that envelops the US and the world. Unless quickly reversed, this debt will surely darken the light currently being generated by some positive domestic policies.

Still, it has been so long since the we have heard a pro-market, however imperfect, voice unapologetically projecting from the world stage that Trump's "Open For Business" remarks provide a source of inspiration.

Immigration and Welfare States

We come from the land
Of the ice and snow
From the midnight sun
Where the hot springs blow
--Led Zeppelin

In the wake of President Trump's rescinding of his predecessor's executive order aimed at keeping illegal immigrants in country, I am reminded of a principle attributed to several people. It says that you can't have open borders and a welfare state at the same time.

In unhampered markets, people are free to cross borders in search of opportunity. Those opportunities involve those related to production and trade. Those countries that offer the best opportunities attract the most productive people. Open border policies, then, create competition among various free states for productive people with capacity to increase standard of living for all.

If a welfare state is available, then some people cross borders into that country in search of a free ride. Rather than attracting producers, welfare states are magnets for those who would rather live on the backs of others. Consequently, standard of living is restrained as productive people are forced to work for others as well as for themselves. In addition, conditions of moral hazard encourage loafing over work.

It follows that, in a society of welfare states, unrestricted travel and immigration will face considerable resistance--much of it justified. Though counterintuitive to some freedom lovers, open borders in welfare states can compromise, rather than preserve, liberty.

Sanctuary Cities

The traffic roars
And the sirens scream
You look at the faces
It's just like a dream
--Glenn Frey

Over the past couple of years, the term 'sanctuary cities' has been applied to cities whose political officials have refused to enforce federal immigration laws. Why have they done so? Sanctuary cities are almost exclusively under the control of Democrats. Because Democrats generally view voter blocks sympathetic to immigrant causes as valuable sources of political capital, their creation of sanctuaries for illegal immigrants can be seen as a thinly veiled strategy for winning votes.

Are sanctuary cities legal? As Judge Nap argues, yes. Local authorities are not obligated to help the feds with manpower or other resources to enforce federal law in local jurisdictions. The Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases that the federal government cannot force local officials to enforce federal law; the feds must enforce it themselves.

The Court's rationale is that such compulsion would violate the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution which guarantees a representative form of government in every state. If the feds interfered with the will of elected state officials on how to spend state resources (read: tax dollars), then representative government would be constitutionally impaired in those states.

To get around this legal inconvenience, the federal government has frequently provided funding to states that is contingent on state cooperation in particular matters. During the Reagan administration, for instance, the feds dangled dollars in front of states for interstate highway repairs under the condition that states reduce speed limits to 55 miles/hr. If states didn't want to lower their speed limits, then they were free to reject the funds. Subsequent ruling by the Supreme Court validated the legitimacy of what resembles a contract.

In other cases, however, the federal government has threatened to pull funding from states who refuse to comply with a federal demand that was not specified when the monies were first sent to the states. For example, in a move designed to force states to expand Medicaid under Obamacare, the federal government threatened to cut Medicaid funding to states who didn't do so. In one of the few Supreme Court rulings related to Obamacare that made sense, this initiative was ruled invalid by the Court.

Not only does such a practice by the federal government violate the principle of federalism, but it is not good contracting practice.

A similar situation has arisen in the context of the sanctuary cities. Under the Obama administration, funds were offered to sanctuary cities with no strings attached related to federal immigration law enforcement. Now, the Department of Justice under the Trump administration wants to impose such strings retroactively. As Judge Nap notes, that won't fly in the courts and any legal challenge on withholding Obama era funding should favor the sanctuary cities.

What the Trump administration can do is work with Congress on future funding packages that do require state cooperation in immigration law enforcement if states want those funds.

In the case of sanctuary cities we are witnessing principles of federalism and nullification in action--both of which are healthy and favorable for liberty. Democrats and Republicans, of course, tend to like these principles when they work in their political favor and detest them when they don't.