Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

Hercules56 said:
Sanctuary cities/towns/villages/states are municipalities which have instructed their government employees and police to NOT cooperate with immigration officials.
Click to expand...
Republicans: "Respect states rights when it comes to setting abortion laws, so that a 10 year old sexual assault victim can be forced to give birth to the child of her attacker"

Also:

Republicans: "The federal government should ignore the desires of the states when it comes to how they police themselves".
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Laws? Sanctuary cities have been condemned by divine fatwa by The Great Dump, America's God and Führer! Es war eine Befehl!!
Click to expand...
Essentially yes. The picture of sanctuary jurisdictions that is being painted at the highest levels of the Trump administration is that of a lawless territory where local officials stand guard outside jails or enclaves of illegal aliens and make rude gestures at ICE agents waving American flags. Okay, hyperbole aside, the Trump administration very much accuses these jurisdictions of "defying federal law," by which they mean federal immigration law. All that is to distract from the very real Constitutional provisions that protect the rights and powers of states.

If a local policeman comes to you door and demands entry without a warrant, you are by no means "defying police authority" if you exercise your rights under the 4th amendment.

What must be understood about sanctuary jurisdictions is that they must absolutely bow to a judicial warrant. If an ICE agent presents a judicial arrest warrant to, say, the warden of a jail ordering him to release a prisoner only into ICE custody, then any action he would take to prevent that would be considered a violation of federal law and he could be arrested and charged for obstruction and/or criminal contempt of court.

Another ICE shenanigan is a so-called "detainer warrant." Again, unless issued by a judge, this is a pseudo-legal document that carries no authority and imposes no enforceable obligation. It purports to be an order to a jurisdiction to detain a person on behalf of ICE upon the assertion that the person is wanted in connection with an immigration inquiry. The jurisdiction is under no obligation to arrest or detain anyone for any reason simply because a federal officer asks them to. It doesn't matter that the request is on an impressively-formatted sheet of paper. A judicial warrant of detainer is a thing, and must be obeyed. But most ICE "requests" are simply these attempts to skirt the Constitution.

Now a jurisdiction may voluntarily allow their officers to be deputized under federal enforcement agencies. This happens, for example, when the Secret Service deputizes local law enforcement to augment security for an official's visit. And some states such as Texas have voluntarily deputized their state police forces to ICE. Republicans misrepresent this as the correct and lawful order, against which sanctuary jurisdictions are unlawfully militating.

Whether Utah is a sanctuary jurisdiction depends on who you ask. According to our newly-MAGA governor, we are not. According to nearly everyone else, we are. Here's where the Mormon church gets a rare thumbs-up from me. In their efforts to gather everyone to Zion, they have welcomed immigrants from all over the world. While the church doesn't officially sanction illegal immigration, they are informally quite sympathetic to people coming from the Spanish-speaking world that constitutes their biggest growth sector. And since quite a number of state officials and officers are Mormons, there's very much a wink-wink, nudge-nudge approach to cooperating with ICE.
 
gabeygoat said:
haha, to clarify, I didn't mean that it's weird for theprestige to make sense. I disagree with him a lot, but he's an intelligent dude who thinks things through. I mostly think it's weird that so many people who claim to want more states rights/local control end up wanting federal control on things like weed, death with dignity, California's environmental laws, etc.
Click to expand...
To be clear: I don't necessarily want federal control over any of those things.
 
theprestige said:
To be clear: I don't necessarily want federal control over any of those things.
Click to expand...
The play my avatar comes from illustrates why we might agree on this point.

To break Jefferson's melancholy, Adams sends for Martha, Jefferson's wife. When she arrives, Adams surprises Franklin by dancing elegantly with her. "Why, John," says Franklin. "You can dance!" Adams answers, "Not everyone's from Philadelphia, Franklin." A few minutes later Martha goes up to meet her husband and they close the door, insinuating there's "work to be done." Adams is aghast. "You mean they're going to ... in the middle of the day?" Franklin answers, "Not everyone's from Boston, John."

Somehow we have to figure out how to tolerate all the different expressions of life that fall under the label "American." We are not a homogenous people, and we weren't meant to be. The whole point of federalism is that you could probably find a state with like-minded people and be happy there.
 
JayUtah said:
The play my avatar comes from illustrates why we might agree on this point.

To break Jefferson's melancholy, Adams sends for Martha, Jefferson's wife. When she arrives, Adams surprises Franklin by dancing elegantly with her. "Why, John," says Franklin. "You can dance!" Adams answers, "Not everyone's from Philadelphia, Franklin." A few minutes later Martha goes up to meet her husband and they close the door, insinuating there's "work to be done." Adams is aghast. "You mean they're going to ... in the middle of the day?" Franklin answers, "Not everyone's from Boston, John."

Somehow we have to figure out how to tolerate all the different expressions of life that fall under the label "American." We are not a homogenous people, and we weren't meant to be. The whole point of federalism is that you could probably find a state with like-minded people and be happy there.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make any sense Franklin was originally from Boston
 
Safe-Keeper said:
.

This.
Click to expand...
Actively encouraging illegal immigration seems like a terrible idea.

Also I think it's hilariously dystopian that most sanctuary city policy boils down to running cover for people you're arresting for crimes.

These aren't the hard working, law abiding, undocumented fine upstanding members of your community.

You're intentionally offering protection to people who shouldn't be in any of our cities, who also like to commit crimes. These are people that any sane city would want to make someone else's problem as soon as possible.

So while I think they should be tolerated as a matter of federalist principle...

... In terms of morality and social responsibility, I think they are pants on head retarded, and should be repudiated at every turn.
 
theprestige said:
... In terms of morality and social responsibility, I think they are pants on head retarded, and should be repudiated at every turn.
Click to expand...
This only applies if you can demonstrate that the practice actually makes the community worse off, rather than better.
 
theprestige said:
Actively encouraging illegal immigration seems like a terrible idea.

Also I think it's hilariously dystopian that most sanctuary city policy boils down to running cover for people you're arresting for crimes.

These aren't the hard working, law abiding, undocumented fine upstanding members of your community.

You're intentionally offering protection to people who shouldn't be in any of our cities, who also like to commit crimes. These are people that any sane city would want to make someone else's problem as soon as possible.

So while I think they should be tolerated as a matter of federalist principle...

... In terms of morality and social responsibility, I think they are pants on head retarded, and should be repudiated at every turn.
Click to expand...
And it should be practically legal to do what ever you want to an illegal, as they have no rights and should fear reporting your crimes because it will get them deported. That is the ideal system apparently.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And it should be practically legal to do what ever you want to an illegal, as they have no rights and should fear reporting your crimes because it will get them deported. That is the ideal system apparently.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Fascism. Why would you support that?
 
Does most sanctuary city policy boil down to protecting people who are in the US illegally from facing deportation when they've been arrested by local police and/or convicted by local courts? Apparently not. David Hausman, a law professor at Berkeley, presented a paper in 2020, "Sanctuary policies reduce deportations without increasing crime," that argued the opposite.

Opponents of sanctuary policies, including the federal government, assert that they harm public safety. This report shows that that claim is not supported by the evidence. This report estimates the effect of sanctuary on deportations, finding that sanctuary policies reduce deportations by one-third, but that those policies do not reduce deportations of people with violent criminal convictions. It also finds that sanctuary has no measurable effect on crime. National Library of Medicine article link
Click to expand...

Why would a city like New York City act to protect violent offenders that are here illegally from being deported? That makes no sense. Anecdotally, when I've heard the subject raised -- and I've heard this from local police -- it often comes into play when someone who is here illegally has been the victim of a crime. They are afraid to seek help from the police because of the fear the police will look into their immigration status, discover they're here illegally, and then inform federal immigration officials.
 
States and local authorities dont have to cooperate with non-legally binding Federal actions, but they cannot encourage illegals to come to them and they cannot house an enable their settlement. DOJ can and should sue any such entity that does, just like they did to State and local authorities and private businesses that tried to circumvent and openly flaunt the Civil Rights Act.
 
Hercules56 said:
States and local authorities dont have to cooperate with non-legally binding Federal actions, but they cannot encourage illegals to come to them and they cannot house an enable their settlement. DOJ can and should sue any such entity that does, just like they did to State and local authorities and private businesses that tried to circumvent and openly flaunt the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...
says who?
Is there a Supreme Court Ruling?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom