Third, cities are generally more liberal than the country at large. There are no political downsides for high-ranking city officials who choose to disregard law, but lots of advantages in appeasing liberal constituencies.
In the 19th century, the Supreme Court issued a number of rulings prohibiting particular states from ignoring federal laws — from unpopular tax policies to the establishment of Native American reservations. The most prominent nullificationist was Senator John C. Calhoun, a South Carolina states-rights advocate and the spiritual godfather of sanctuary cities. Calhoun declared, for example, that federal tariffs should not apply to his state. Sanctuary cities do not understand the illiberal pedigree of federal nullification. Apparently, sanctuary cities do not understand the illiberal pedigree of federal nullification, which was at the heart of the Confederate secessionist movement of 1861.
In the 1960s, segregationists declared that Supreme Court decisions and integration laws did not apply to their states. In some states, local law enforcement refused to cooperate with federal authorities to integrate schools. What would San Franciscans do if conservative counties and towns followed their lead? Perhaps a rural Wyoming sheriff can now look the other way when he spots a cattleman shooting a federally protected grizzly bear or predatory timber wolf — or at least shield the cattleman from federal officials. Should public schools in Provo, Utah, start the day with school-wide prayers?
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425564/sanctuary-cities-illegal-immigration-confederates-nullification