An editorial in the New York Times, "Proud to be a Sanctuary City," cheered on New York City, applauding its efforts to protect illegal aliens while at the same time maintaining that it is not violating federal law:

The word “sanctuary” as Mr. Trump deploys it -- a place where immigrant criminals run amok, shielded from the long arm of federal law -- is grossly misleading, because cities with “sanctuary” policies cannot obstruct federal enforcement and do not try to. Instead, they do what they can to welcome and support immigrants, including the unauthorized, and choose not to participate in deportation crackdowns they see as unjust, self-defeating and harmful to public safety.

When cities do not obey federal law and do not cooperate with federal authorities on reporting illegal aliens, they are violating federal law. No amount of obfuscation can change that.

A groundbreaking City Council program has provided free legal representation for children who fled violence in Central America and arrived unaccompanied at the border. Of 1,265 cases accepted under the program, 72 children were granted asylum and 55 obtained lawful permanent residency. The Council has expanded health and legal services in immigrant communities. And it passed bills to keep federal immigration agents out of the Rikers Island jails, and to forbid city police and corrections officers from detaining suspects for deportation, unless there is a judge’s warrant.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, who signed both bills, has also promised since the election to defend immigrant residents from other possible threats, like a registry of Muslims and a roundup of unauthorized immigrants. 

Opposing a roundup of illegal aliens is a direct violation of federal law as well.  What the Times seems to be saying is that if a locality disapproves of a federal law, it can ignore it.

That also means federal laws requiring states to give gay marriage licenses can be ignored.  Federal laws requiring states to allow abortion providers to operate within their borders can be disregarded.  Federal regulations allowing boys in girls' bathrooms and locker rooms can also be ignored.

Having opened the door on nullification, liberals are inviting the rest of us to step through it.  This has been going on for a long time, not just in the area of illegal immigration, but also in the legalization of marijuana.  Marijuana is illegal under federal law.  States that legalize it are in violation of federal law.  Because these violations involve subjects that liberals approve of, no one objects or mentions that federal law is being violated.

How long will it be before red states take a cue from this and start nullifying laws they don't like requiring illegal aliens to get a free education in their schools, two men getting hooked up to be given a marriage license, and boys to be allowed in girls' bathrooms?

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.