Sanctuary but Unsuitable: New Jersey Governor Comes Out Against Additional Federal Flights of Undocumented Migrants

New Jersey’s Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy is pushing back on a plan to fly undocumented immigrants to his state, suggesting that New Jersey is now effectively off-limits to planned federal flights dropping off undocumented immigrants. It was a striking reversal for a politician who campaigned for office on the pledge that New Jersey will always be a sanctuary state. In 2017, he declared “We’ll be a sanctuary – not just city – but state.” However, it was easier to become a sanctuary state than a closed state. President Joe Biden’s authority trumps that of Murphy in the expected flights.

Notably, neither Murphy nor the media are alleging that Biden is “kidnapping” or “trafficking” in immigrants as has been the case with flights and buses sent by the governors of Texas and Florida.

Instead, Murphy (like other Democratic leaders of sanctuary cities and states) are simply declaring themselves effectively closed or, in the case of New York, shipping the immigrants to other cities.

There is a key legal distinction at play in these moves. States and cities can make themselves into sanctuary areas by passing a variety of laws supplying resources and easing burdens for undocumented persons. However, these federal flights can only be blocked under federal law. Presidents have considerable leeway under immigration laws and the Supreme Court has swatted down efforts by states to even enforce existing federal law. This authority preempts state authority in the area.

Murphy’s declaration followed a Biden administration disclosure of  planned flights that include New Jersey’s Atlantic City International Airport among eleven facilities to receive undocumented persons.

Murphy said that he could not see how they could accept any such flights “in Atlantic City or frankly elsewhere in the state.”

Likewise, Republican Atlantic County Executive Dennis Levinson told Politico that “I will do my best to prevent this from happening. We can’t afford it. We’re a poor county. We’re one of the poorest counties in New Jersey. It’s not a burden I can put on our taxpayers.”

That opposition is a political rather than a legal matter short of some viable challenge under federal law. That seems highly unlikely since this is an ongoing federal programs as opposed to some new policy that might be subject to APA or other challenges. The Biden Administration could trigger even greater objections if it starts to ship these individuals to other states. In an election year, Biden may be leery of such political battles in purple states.

For the moment, the opposition of Murphy will likely have greater promise as a political rather than legal challenge.

151 thoughts on “Sanctuary but Unsuitable: New Jersey Governor Comes Out Against Additional Federal Flights of Undocumented Migrants”

  1. Well, Governor Murphy did declare NJ a sanctuary State. And now, NJ is a sanctuary state and has to provide sanctuary. Maybe he should have thought this one through before he opened his mouth for the camera op.

  2. The interesting thing is that when the actual cost of their ‘morals/values’ comes in to play you can see what happens. They realize that they can’t afford it.
    One illegal who happens to embed in community and make friends before being caught after years of being here…. oh the poor fella. Let him stay.

    10,000 illegal immigrants wanting a free handout? Ooops! My bad.

    There’s no consistency.

    This is proof positive that Libtards do not think beyond a single step. If they did, they wouldn’t take their original position.
    That’s the big difference. Socialized medicine works when your government is flush w cash and there are more resources available than demand.
    Yet when the SHTF and demand outstrips resources… you’re in trouble.

    Same thing for immigration.


  3. Know who’s the congressman from Atlantic City? Jeff van Drew. What’s his distinction? He had the nerve to switch parties from D to R. Coincidence?

    1. enigmainblack, the subject at hand is limiting the number of immigrants by sanctuary states because of the high cost of supporting them. Yours is the common practice of changing the subject when you don’t have the mental capacity to refute the argument as it is presented. Though you would like it to be so this is not junior high debate class. Surely you must have something intelligent to contribute to the question of the hypocrisy of the leaders of the sanctuary cities and states. Then again, your history provides no hope of any such intelligence.

      1. The subject Turley referred to as if it was the only issue was free speech. I just noted libel isn’t free, as Trump keeps finding out. It’s what happens when you lie about not raping someone.

        1. “when you lie about not raping someone.”

          Pot, meet kettle.

          Why do you insist on undermining your own arguments by lying?

          1. That’s exactly what he was found guilty of. No need to lie when the truth will suffice. It must be hard to have to keep defending one of the most vile persons on the planet. That’s life in a cult I guess.

            1. I’m not defending anyone, but nice try, slickster. Red herrings still dont swim here. What i’m doing is calling you a liar, and then you doubled down on your lie.
              I already posted the jury report that clearly shows that they found that he did NOT rape her.

              But you go on believing that somehow he stood face to face with her in the dressing room of a crowded department store and, with her leggings still around her knees, managed to get an erection and penetrate an unwilling victim. Try that sometime with a willing partner.

              “I reject your reality and substitute my own”—-enigma

              It must suck to be so bereft of intelligence as to have to blatantly lie to make a point. Sounds like a cult.

                1. And as if to prove my point, you link to a WaPo article where a columnist lies about what a judge says and quotes the judge as lying, LMAO
                  This is your argument in the face of a court document to the contrary???

                  It’s not subtle. You said he was found guilty of rape. In fact you said “EXACTLY” rape.

                  Dude, have you no shame at all?

                1. Enigma, You lost your credibility a long time ago. That is why so many do not consider what you say to be credible.

                  All your words are in black and white. For full context, I refer you to a couple of your recent comments. One doesn’t need to write very much when dealing with people who lie with ease. All one has to do is quote them.


                  “That’s exactly what he was found guilty of. “


                  ” It’s what happens when you lie about not raping someone.

                2. “He was never found not guilty of rape”

                  Idk how to respond to that jibberish.

                  The first question on the jury form says that the evidence did not support that he raped her. Because it was a bridge too far that he could have under the circumstances she described. So, if she lied about that….

                  1. ” It’s what happens when you lie about not raping someone.”

                    What are you arguing, that he wasn’t there, that he only assaulted her, or there was no penertation? Or are you ridiculously arguing we should take Trump at his word (a jury didn’t) because he’s always so truthful?

                    1. I am saying that if he was not found to have raped her (FACT), then he could NOT have been found to have lied about raping her. I dont care how you (or even some hack judge) characterize it.

                      Last week you argued that he was found guilty of rape and your basis was that same article. Both of your assertions are wrong, and that article does not change reality.

                    2. Is this just some clever attempt to get me to say he assaulted her? Ok i’ll play your silly game. A jury found that he assaulted her. And he was found to have defamed her by claiming he did not.

                      You used the word rape. They are not interchangeable. Since ostensibly you know the difference, it means your are not ignorant, but rather, a liar.

  4. My oh my. It’s gone missing. Where or where can it be found? Of what do I write you curiously ask? Why, I write of the compassion on the left for the tired masses sent to use care of the southern border. Where oh where has all the compassion disappeared to? I know where it has been hidden. It’s now being hidden underneath the ballot box in fear that the voters might see it and understand the true cost of sanctimonious sanctuary. They didn’t care much when it was biting Texas in the butt but now that their hinder part is feeling the pain of the fangs they scream woe is us woe is us. It was they who ate the crackers in bed and now they cry out in discomfort because they have to lie (as in not tell the truth) in it. You reap what you sow. And hear I am dancing without a tear in my eye observing their comeuppance.

  5. Reaction to a handful of immigrants by residents of Martha’s Vineyard told us all we need to know about Leftist Democrats, they could not care less about the causes they claim to champion. A Sanctuary City is a virtue signal for immigrants. Support for BLM, Affirmative Action, “Bail Reform”, Reparations, and “White Supremacy” are virtual signals to blacks. Everything the Leftist Democrats do is lip service rather than genuine efforts at finding solutions.

  6. ·

    May 18, 2020
    The Flynn case is fast becoming a case of gross judicial overreach as the court appears to assume both judicial and executive powers. Sullivan can disagree with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion, but he cannot substitute his own

    Have u banned me Jon?

    1. Brad, The spam filter for unknown reasons erroniously gobbled up a few of your comments. I restored them.

    1. Brad Markle,

      The spam filter grabbed a few of your comments. I restored them and they are now visible.

      1. It happens occasionally.
        I have had some of my comments never appear.
        Having worked as a WP sysadmin I know sometimes WP has a hic-cup and comments never appear.
        Most people just jump to conclusions and think they are being censored.
        I have seen some, if there comment did not post in 0.3 seconds they start screaming “censorship!”

    1. Your government is compelled by the fundamental concepts of communism to deny Americans their constitutional rights and freedoms and to provide the political emulsifiers to effect the impossible mixture of political oil and water and to function as a giant charitable organization, neither of which is constitutional, but then nothing has been constitutional since the termination of American freedom beginning in 1860 at the behest of Karl Marx.

      “They consider…that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln,…to lead his country through…the reconstruction of a social world.”

      – Letter From Karl Marx To Abraham Lincoln, 1865

      The entire unconstitutional welfare state exists as a giant amalgamation of political emulsifiers and charity to unconstitutionally deny the right and freedom of choice and discrimination and to compel government-ordered “integration” and to provide “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” under the ironfisted, total control of the unconstitutional “dictatorship of the proletariat,” understanding that dictatorship, that of the British monarchy, is what the American Founders terminated with extreme prejudice.

      The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

      Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for debt, defense and “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers, allows no further qualification and is, therefore, absolute, providing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over said private property.

      Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals, while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

  7. “Shapley said Wolf also let the younger Biden’s lawyers know that investigators had probable cause to search his North Virginia storage unit, a tip-off that would give him an opportunity to remove evidence ahead of the search.”

    Had this accusation been made with a conservative as President, the NYTs, WoPo, ABC, NBC, blah blah would shut down news coverage of everything else until they got the answer there were dreaming of, ain’t it so Joe?

    O, it be so.


    1. No. American citizens MUST support illegals (new Democrat voters), and YOU aren’t illegal…so PAY UP!!!

  8. “It was a striking reversal for a politician who campaigned for office on the pledge that New Jersey will always be a sanctuary state. In 2017, he declared “We’ll be a sanctuary – not just city – but state.”
    Seems the Spanish chickens have come home to New Jersey to roost and Farmer Murphy is none too glad. Sow the wind there Guv and necessarily reap the whirlwind.

    Don’t you love it when the bagman for the donor class gets testy.

  9. Undocumented immigrants.. Call them what they are, Illegal Aliens. Continue to ship them to the Sanctuary Cities they need a lot of Biden reality.

    1. ..NY Gov. wants to expedite getting work permits for all.. but.. we’ve already sent most of our jobs abroad..!!! we need to re-try Martha’s Vineyard as all there commend the mass illegal entries.. yet.. wasted no time sending the busload that arrived there out to a military base in MA…………. let’s give Martha’s Vineyard a second chance..!!

    2. The proper term is illegal immigrants. It is not illegal to be an alien in the United States. What is illegal is the manner of immigration. And by all means the government(s) experiencing this massive wave should take those who loudly trumpeted their welcome to illegal immigrants at their word, and send those unwelcome in their jurisdictions to those who said they wanted them.

    3. Most people in the world are abused and oppressed by their governments which make them fully eligible for “asylum” in America, of course, at the expense of American taxpayers.

      That is insane anti-American, pro-illegal alien invader, communist policy – policy for the benefit of illegal alien invaders – what country does that —-, conspires with and assists invaders?

      What kind of idiotic Americans go along with this self-destructive claptrap.

      You have been brainwashed, propagandized and suckered into giving everything you have away, no, giving other people’s money away – you may not even have any, which makes it real easy to spend the assets of others.

      This completely stupid policy of self-destruction is precluded by the Constitution.

      America drove right off the cliff when it stopped severely restricting and limiting the vote by each State – the whole American concept was self-governance through a severely limited and restricted vote – dependents, parasites and communists need not apply.

      Turnout was 11.6% by design in 1789 – the election of the Founders, the last true American election – it has been all downhill ever since.

  10. Here is a threefold solution:-

    1) Rescind Hart-Celler, and in its place reinstate Johnson-Reed.

    2) Revive Eisenhower’s policy: ‘Round them up, and throw them out.’

    3) Consider paying legal immigrants to leave.

Leave a Reply