llllllllllllllllllll wrote:
OrthodoxEaster wrote: Fri Jan 09, 2026 5:38 pm
How is this a particularly bold or defiant stance? Nobody here is saying much of anything. (That's Twitter news for ya!)
NYC has been a sanctuary city since 1989. Even our most middling Dems and half of our Republicans publicly stand by that and support this policy. Jesus, even fucking Giuliani said as much when he was mayor!
New York City Bar Association wrote:
Since 1989, New York City mayors Ed Koch, David Dinkins, and Rudolph Giuliani have upheld the City's sanctuary city status.
What about Eric Adams?
Funny you mention him. Basically, nothing happened. Adams was never very clear on it. As far as I understood it...
I hated the guy from the start, but he was quite vocally supportive for the first two years of being mayor.
Then in 2024, Adams began making noises to "reexamine" the city's stance (for "violent criminals" only, supposedly [cough!]; after Trump returned, the feds in the DoJ wanted sanctuary laws struck completely, but even Adams claimed he'd uphold them for most other migrants). He never sought to actually strike down the sanctuary city laws, just to revert to an earlier, laxer iteration of them, prior to their 2014 and 2017 expansions. (I should note that the city council, not the mayor, expanded the sanctuary laws during those years.)
But you know what? Adams basically went nowhere in terms of policy. Got struck down by the courts and the city council. Which is what a lot of people fail to understand about NYC: The mayor can only do so much.
City & State New York wrote:
Mayor Adams has previously pointed to the City Council when talking about modifying sanctuary laws, saying that such a change would need to go through the legislative body. When asked whether the City Council had any intention to alter the city’s sanctuary status in early February, Speaker Adrienne Adams firmly shut down the possibility, telling reporters that she has “no plans” to reexamine the protections. It is very unlikely that the Democrat-dominated City Council will do anything to weaken the policies. Over the years, members have staunchly defended the present laws.
Now, Adams
might have been able to issue an emergency or executive order to bypass the city council. Which I think is what Koch did in '89? But Adams never bothered.
Basically, it's all fucking posturing.
Ironically, Mamdani has already made some moves to limit the city council's power on other issues (ie, housing). The very city council who kept Adams in check! I'm not fond of Mamdani's stance on this. It's shortsighted. B/c basically, if you end up w/a jerk of a mayor in the future—like a Giuliani, Bloomberg, or Adams—then your jerk of a mayor now has more power and your locals reps have less.
Part of why Noem is trying to engage Mamdani is b/c she ultimately got nowhere w/Adams.