Ruquix

The grounds for allowing immigration and tolerating illegal immigration is because they are fleeing war torn places, drug cartels, seeking a better life for their family and all that. It's for the betterment of the individuals and families that come. If it is equally or more important for the money they send home and those economies, then is it actually immigration or exploitation? I'm not trying to be an a$$ about this, but I'm looking fr clear cut legal reasons why we shouldn't follow the guidance from the administration. Is it only political points of view and compassion for other humans or is there actual legal ground to stand on when defending undocumented workers that is not based upon an appeal to emotion?

The money they send home is an integral part of those countries and their economies. The countries want this to continue as it is in their own self interest. So they setup help here in the us. Since the govt is providing legal counsel to it's citizens here, encouraging them to stay and send money home, could they be classified as "foregin agents" or whatever the term would be? Those countries also have made the claim that they have the "right" for their citizens to come here. Doesn't all of this provide a legal argument that they are being sent or encouraged to come here and send money home for their benefit regardless of the detriment to the us economy?

So the Federal govt couldn't use the supremacy clause to force states to comply? Could Trump classify undocumented people as "hostile" in some way since they are a) sending remittances home and b) Mexico setup help at their consulates to help them not get deported or if they do, provide legal counsel? I'm not against immigrants, I've just had these questions about what is exactly legal, what's gray, and what's illegal

Can you clarify what is considered the definition of sanctuary city, how far it's protections go, and how it affects federal law/their ability to follow the presidential guidance? Not too far into the weeds, just a general big picture explanation. Immigration, of any kind, obviously requires the crossing of state borders whether they are state to state or Mexico to state. Isn't anything/action that crosses state borders the purview of the Federal government?

Would the fed be with in it's rights to withhold funds is states don't comply? Is there any legal recourse for them (the states/cities)?