No they are not related. One is at the local level and one is at the Federal level. If you live in a "sanctuary city" and you don't like it then lobby your local government, if you don't live in a "sanctuary city" then it's none of your business.
Labor policy at the national level is everybody's business.
So then your plan simply won’t work. All those farm communities will become “sanctuary towns”, allow illegal laborers in and pay them peanuts. Those south of the border will still flood in because sanctuary cities and communities will continue to allow businesses to employ and protect undocumented workers. Nothing changes, status quo remains.
There actually is a government program called E-Verify where employers can check the status of a potential employee. It is not the best, but it can be fixed and made better, instead of scrapping that and starting over again. But, it would cost more to scrap the current system and make a whole new one and expand government further, which both seem to be pillars of the Republican party.
Anyway, improve E-Verify and go after companies that do not use it. Enforce current laws.
Sanctuary cities and states have nothing to do with any of this. Educate yourself on sanctuary cities.
What about Republican's mantra of "state's rights"? When did they abandon that? Or is "state's rights" valid only when the states are doing exactly what Republicans demand?
I actually support the premise behind a sanctuary state/city given my personal view of the 10th amendment.
The problem I have is when you have active obstruction of federal officers performing a lawful duty. (Re: Oakland Mayor announcing on Twitter that ICE would be doing raids in the city) I agree that you can't force a city or state to allocate their own resources to support federal officials in their job function. However, it also behooves a city or state to involve themselves in an oversight role so that said officers aren't violating any rights of potential citizens of their city or state.
A very nuanced issue. Especially when officials may (rightly or wrongly) believe the actions of said officers are wrong, unlawful, immoral etc. You could arguably take it to an extreme and say that officials should actively obstruct at some point. a la civil war if you will.
Anyways, not really the point of my reply. I wanted to inquire about enforcement of E-Verify. If we enforce E-Verify, none of the people coming here, without legal status, will be able to work. So what are we going to do with them? In this regard, sanctuary cities and states are great, because maybe all of these non-working people without legal status will just go there. Let those states and cities deal with the massive homeless problem then. (I jest, only slightly, this is not a real solution to the problem as a whole, and I think most here can agree on that). E-Verify is only a part of the problem. It's step one in taking away one of the incentives of coming to America. But it doesn't solve the problem for those who are already here. And I think Seb, and others, know this, and will use this as a pathway to citizenship, or at least legal status. For the record, I don't think we have much of a choice in this matter, we have to provide some sort of legal status for those who are already here. But before we can do that we have to stop the influx of people already coming or it's just going to spike like it always does when we discuss such matters.