Sanctuary State

No doubt you've heard about the murder of a woman by an illegal alien who was repeatedly repatriated to his own country but kept returning to San Francisco because he knew it was a so-called sanctuary city, a city that does not cooperate with immigration authorities where illegal aliens are concerned.

California is essentially a sanctuary state:

More than half of the driver’s licenses California has issued in 2015 have gone to residents living in the country illegally, reflecting the success of a new law extending licenses to people regardless of residency status.

I cannot go to Mexico and get a drivers license there. Neither can I get one in Britain, Italy, South Africa, or Argentina. I'd ask what possible reason there could be for giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens, but we all know the answer.

Supporters also argued the law would help a marginalized population step out of the shadows, although many worried that a population accustomed to avoiding scrutiny would be reluctant to reveal themselves to a government organization, even though the law prohibits the DMV from sharing information with other government agencies.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article27528796.html#storylink=cpy

I want lawbreakers to stay in the shadows.  They should be marginalized.

One-party rule has turned California into a lawless regime.

Update, 7/20/15:  Victor Davis Hanson on San Francisco:

What we won’t hear from quite liberal people is that their own policies of legal nullification are catalysts for tragedies. Municipal and state nullification of federal statutes also has a shameful American history. It was just such a principle — that local and regional lawmakers could decide that the law of land is not applicable to themselves — that was at the heart of the argument for the Old Confederacy.

If 19th-century South Carolina could unilaterally declare that U.S. law did not apply within its environs, why then not 21st century San Francisco as well? (Apparently San Francisco thinks South Carolina was on the winning side of the Civil War).

Such contemporary liberal nullification is predicated on the relativist premise that progressive and situational cancellation of law is noble — whereas other, less enlightened states or city rights movements have no business copying their model. Should Billings declare gay marriage illegal inside its city limits and thus its local officials would not sanction marriage between the same sexes, or should Fresno County decide to suspend the endangered species act inside its border, or should Provo announce that the city would summarily deport illegal aliens without notifying federal authorities, San Franciscans would be outraged. They would rightly equate such nullification with secessionism.

Picking and choosing which federal laws to follow — whether or not to file a tax return with the IRS? — leads where exactly? That those who are caught not filing tax returns statistically have no higher incidence of criminality? And if that were true, what exactly would it prove?

Update #2, 7/23/15: Why? Because they're all run by Democrats:

The Obama administration on Thursday threatened to veto a House bill that would strip federal law enforcement grants from "sanctuary cities."

The bill would deny cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws certain Justice Department grants, and is expected to get a House vote on Thursday. The bill is a response to the shooting death of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who had been deported several times.

An illegal immigrant, Francisco Sanchez, was a convicted felon but was released from custody by law enforcement in San Francisco in April, despite a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement order to hold him so he could again be deported. He has been charged with killing the 32-year-old Steinle.

But a White House statement indicated that the Obama administration doesn't see that event as a reason to pressure sanctuary cities to enforce federal laws.