Well here's a twist.
Anyone that tracks polyticks in the U.S. knows about 'Sanctuary Cities' that won't enforce federal law they don't agree with.
However whenever a new tactic is introduced, there is a downside. Whatever one side does will inevitably be adopted by the other. This leaves no moral high ground to protest and there's now precedent as well. To wit, the other side of the political spectrum is getting in on the sanctuary act [santafenewmexican.com].
The governor of New Mexico has signed a bill outlawing private gun sales without a background check in the state. In response
officials in 25 of New Mexico’s 33 counties have adopted “Second Amendment Sanctuary” declarations as of Wednesday, effectively refusing to enforce the new law.
The governor of course has railed against this in a copy-paste echo of the statements made against sanctuary cities, and with similar effectiveness.
It's a sticky wicket indeed. Preemption? Local control? Purview? Borders? 2nd Amendment?
If you root for Sanctuary cities? Then must you not root for sanctuary counties? If the sanctuary cities need to go, don't the sanctuary counties need to go?
Is it even possible to have a consistent position on this without significant cognitive dissonance?
Lets hear it!