Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

Hercules56

Penultimate Amazing
Hercules56
Joined
Aug 4, 2013
Messages
14,769
Sanctuary cities/towns/villages/states are municipalities which have instructed their government employees and police to NOT cooperate with immigration officials.

If they arrest an illegal, they will not hold them for ICE unless there is a warrant. Even then they may let them go.

Should we allow such sanctuary entities to do as they do without any repercussions?

I think Sanctuary Entities set a very bad precedent, even though their intention is clearly benevolent.

They want to help people. I get it. Its nice of them.

But what's the message they are sending?

"Its ok to ignore federal law and not cooperate with federal laws or orders, if we dont like them".

Does that mean that southern states can choose to NOT enforce the Civil Rights Act? They can simply ignore the law banning racial and sex discrimination?

Can they also ignore environmental law? Simply tell the Feds to handle it themselves?

What about Federal gun laws? Tell them to let the ATF go find gun stores that arent going background checks and selling guns to minors?

Again, I think its a very bad precedent to set.


Now, how should Sanctuary Entities be punished? Not sure.

Withholding federal highway funds seems to be the way to go. Or education funds. Or criminal justice funds.
 
Olmstead said:
What laws are they breaking?
Click to expand...
Depends. It is illegal to harbor a fugitive.

Can also be Obstruction of Justice if they do more than simply stand back and do nothing.

But also, what law is being broken if Birmingham, Alabama does nothing about a gas station that refuses to pump for blacks?
 
Last edited:
Hmm....it appears Sanctuary Entities may in fact be in violation of Federal law:

www.law.cornell.edu

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Any person who—
(i)
knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv)
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
 
Hercules56 said:
Sanctuary cities/towns/villages/states are municipalities which have instructed their government employees and police to NOT cooperate with immigration officials.

If they arrest an illegal, they will not hold them for ICE unless there is a warrant. Even then they may let them go.

Should we allow such sanctuary entities to do as they do without any repercussions?

I think Sanctuary Entities set a very bad precedent, even though their intention is clearly benevolent.

They want to help people. I get it. Its nice of them.

But what's the message they are sending?

"Its ok to ignore federal law and not cooperate with federal laws or orders, if we dont like them".

Does that mean that southern states can choose to NOT enforce the Civil Rights Act? They can simply ignore the law banning racial and sex discrimination?

Can they also ignore environmental law? Simply tell the Feds to handle it themselves?

What about Federal gun laws? Tell them to let the ATF go find gun stores that arent going background checks and selling guns to minors?

Again, I think its a very bad precedent to set.


Now, how should Sanctuary Entities be punished? Not sure.

Withholding federal highway funds seems to be the way to go. Or education funds. Or criminal justice funds.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with local jurisdictions that choose not to enforce federal laws, nor cooperate with federal agencies. I think these two principled choices are distinct from obstructing federal law enforcement, or breaking federal laws.

State governments and municipal governments aren't the federal government's goons. They're not obligated to enforce federal firearms laws; only their own.

Decriminalization of marijuana is a good example of this. Decriminalizing firearms ownership and transactions, and letting the ATF do their own dirty work if they care so much, would be another good example.

Same with civil rights legislation, "unfortunately". I use scare quotes because it's all part and parcel of the same separation of sovereignty that governs the relationship between the states and the federal government.
 
JayUtah said:
That didn't answer my question. Is a "detainment request" a judicial warrant?
Click to expand...
No, but it is illegal to harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection an illegal alien.
 
Hercules56 said:
Hmm....it appears Sanctuary Entities may in fact be in violation of Federal law:

www.law.cornell.edu

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Any person who—
(i)
knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv)
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
Click to expand...
I don't see anything in there that outlaws non-cooperation with ICE.
 
Don't worry, that idiot Homan is threatening to jail (or worse) offending mayors and governors.

So you got that going for you.
 
Hercules56 said:
If they arrest an illegal, they will not hold them for ICE unless there is a warrant. Even then they may let them go.
Click to expand...
In most cases this is purely practical. States and municipalities usually have limited detention facilities. Unless Congress provides funding for such detainment, Congress may not generally demand that state and local facilities expend their own funds to detain those wanted for federal law purposes.

Hercules56 said:
Should we allow such sanctuary entities to do as they do without any repercussions?
Click to expand...
Since the 10th Amendment guarantees their right to do so, what do you think?

Hercules56 said:
I think Sanctuary Entities set a very bad precedent, even though their intention is clearly benevolent.

They want to help people. I get it. Its nice of them.
Click to expand...
Or maybe they want to preserve the state's authority under Federalism, for the sake of political accountability. The legal doctrine of a sanctuary city is not people putting compassion before the rule of law. It's governments putting the rule of law first.

Hercules56 said:
But what's the message they are sending?

"Its ok to ignore federal law and not cooperate with federal laws or orders, if we dont like them".
Click to expand...
That may be the message you are receiving. The sanctuary city doctrine is a principle of constitutional law. It's disingenuous to insinuate that states are ignoring laws or acting unlawfully.

Hercules56 said:
Does that mean that southern states can choose to NOT enforce the Civil Rights Act?
Click to expand...
They did.

Hercules56 said:
Can they also ignore environmental law? Simply tell the Feds to handle it themselves?
Click to expand...
That's exactly how it is handled. States are not obliged to implement or enforce federal environmental law unless Congress appropriates to them funds to do so, and the states agree to cooperate in exchange for those funds.

Hercules56 said:
Now, how should Sanctuary Entities be punished? Not sure.
Click to expand...
At first you tell us that the sanctuary doctrine merely creates a bad image. Now you imply that a punishment is in order for a state that exercises its right under the Constitution. That escalated quickly.

Hercules56 said:
Withholding federal highway funds seems to be the way to go. Or education funds. Or criminal justice funds.
Click to expand...
Current funding law does not allow the withholding of funds unconnected with the policy, or contrary to the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Hmm....it appears Sanctuary Entities may in fact be in violation of Federal law:

www.law.cornell.edu

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Any person who—
(i)
knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv)
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
Click to expand...
So there is a law.

Are you saying it isn't being enforced in a satisfactory manner? Based on what?

Were you hoping for goons kicking down the doors of benevolent-looking houses or something?
 
Hercules56 said:
Hmm....it appears Sanctuary Entities may in fact be in violation of Federal law
Click to expand...
In your learned opinion? What part of that law compels local authorities to cooperate with ICE in ICE's attempts to enforce immigration law?

Hercules56 said:
If your harbor or conceal an illegal alien, you are breaking the law. If you move them you are breaking the law.
Click to expand...
Refusing to detain someone that you do not have the legal right to detain does not "harbor" them. Setting them free after your right to detain them has evaporated does not "move" them.

You keep skirting the judicial warrant requirement. That's an important part of knowing whether a person is known or reasonably suspected to be an illegal alien.
 
Hercules56 said:
If your harbor or conceal an illegal alien, you are breaking the law. If you move them you are breaking the law.
Click to expand...
Not turning over a detainee to a federal agency without a warrant isn't harboring them. Nor is it concealing them. Nor is releasing them once you no longer have a reason to detain them harboring, concealing, or moving them.

Now, if a sanctuary city created a safe neighborhood, and deployed municipal employees and volunteers to prevent ICE from getting into that neighborhood, that would be a different matter.
 
Hercules56 said:
Hmm....it appears Sanctuary Entities may in fact be in violation of Federal law:

www.law.cornell.edu

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Any person who—
(i)
knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv)
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
Click to expand...
Where did you go to law school?

If you have been scammed by such an institution you too could receive compensation! I’m offering 80% reduced fees to represent you in court. Hurry, this offer won’t last long!
 
theprestige said:
Not turning over a detainee to a federal agency without a warrant isn't harboring them. Nor is it concealing them. Nor is releasing them once you no longer have a reason to detain them harboring, concealing, or moving them.
Click to expand...
This comports to what I have heard from immigration attorneys. I agree. The principles of federalism are clear. If the federal government wishes to enforce a law, let them do it.

theprestige said:
Now, if a sanctuary city created a safe neighborhood, and deployed municipal employees and volunteers to prevent ICE from getting into that neighborhood, that would be a different matter.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You may not obstruct the enforcement of federal law. And that's not what's happening in any of the sanctuary jurisdictions I know of, including the one I live in. Naturally I fear the consequences of quibbling over what degree of non-cooperation might constitution obstruction, but the intent of the policy is clear.
 
JayUtah said:
He and I agree on some things and disagree on others. If you want to be believed when you criticize someone for being wrong in your view, you should also give them the credit when they are right in your view.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Trump administration may soon start deporting migrants to Libya, expanding its mass deportation campaign to the troubled North African country, two U.S. officials told CBS News Tuesday...The possibility of U.S. deportations to Libya, reported earlier Tuesday by Reuters, is a stunning proposition given the deep political and social turmoil the North African country finds itself in, as well as its human rights record...Libya has also gained infamy over its treatment of migrants seeking to reach Europe, with both advocates and U.S. officials finding that detainees in the North African country face brutal conditions, due process violations and even torture in immigration detention center. CBS News article link
Click to expand...

Detainees in Libya may face inhumane conditions including torture. It is not clear what nationalities would be sent and it may start today.

Should this be tolerated?
 
FYI- the law I cited also seems to criminalize the actions of Florida and Texas, and any other state who has been shipping illegal aliens to other states.
 
newyorkguy said:
Detainees in Libya may face inhumane conditions including torture. It is not clear what nationalities would be sent and it may start today.

Should this be tolerated?
Click to expand...
There is no law that gives Trump the authority to deport people to any nation OTHER than the country they are a citizen of.
 
Hercules56 said:
There is no law that gives Trump the authority to deport people to any nation OTHER than the country they are a citizen of.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. There are cascading criteria of appropriateness that include (not necessarily in order): the country of citizenship, the country of embarkation, a country with an expatriation agreement. The judge who issues the removal order says what country the detainee will be removed to, and may issue orders (such as in the cases of asylum, the possibility of torture, or the state of national relations) that prohibit removal to a designated country, This is why the case of Abrego Garcia is so acute, and why the government has admitted its error in violating a court order.
 
Darat said:
Requests? So they have no legal power to force compliance, they can only make requests?
Click to expand...
ICE (and many other LEAs) often use "administrative warrants" to authorize searches and seizures.

There's an episode of the American comedy Parks and Recreation in which Ron Swanson proposes to slaughter and butcher a pig in the park for a barbecue. When confronted, Ron says, "I have a permit." He reaches into his pocket and pulls out a paper that reads, "I can do what I want. Signed, Ron Swanson."

That's an administrative warrant. It's literally the agency attempting to give itself permission to carry out some action that would otherwise be barred by law or the Constitution. It's signed not by a judge, but by some official in the agency. It's usually printed up to look very much like a judicial (i.e., 4th amendment) warrant, but it has no legal force. It's meant to fool people into consenting to something they would otherwise have a right not to allow. This is the type of warrant the ICE agents had when they attempted to arrest the person who was appearing in court, after which the judge was later arrested for "obstruction."

Of course, obtaining a judicial warrant means going before a magistrate judge and convincing him or her that there is probable cause to arrest and detain a person. You know, all that gooey due process stuff that Republicans are whining about having to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom