Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

If local authorities have probable cause that such a person is in their custody, they are morally and legally obliged to detain such person until the feds can take custody.
Nope. Local authorities, as a general rule, cannot be compelled to enforce federal law.
 
As far as their authority reaches, yes. Or rather, at their discretion. Cops are under no obligation to detain every jaywalker they see, for example. They certainly have no Federal enforcement powers.

Get ya warrant if ya wants ya bad guy.
Interesting. States could argue that unless federal authorities provide funds and resources and space to properly and humanely house & care for illegal aliens, they have the discretion to choose not to detain illegals absent a warrant.

They could however provide info to ICE about the location of known illegals.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. States could argue that unless federal authorities provide funds and resources and space to properly and humanely house & care for illegal aliens, they have the discretion to choose not to detain illegals absent a warrant.
Not 'could': they shouldn't, with or without funds. Local popo ain't the G Men, and shouldn't be. Powers are kept in check for good reason.

Eta: your eta: marijuanna is legal/decriminalized at the state level in many states, but not at the federal. Can you see the problem with states enforcing federal law in that situation?

Keep 'em seperate and everyone doing their own jobs. Police state bad.
 
Last edited:
It is a crime to be in the USA illegally and failing to register with DHS after 30 days. If local authorities have probable cause that such a person is in their custody, they are morally and legally obliged to detain such person until the feds can take custody. Sanctuary entities are refusing to do this.
There is no such legal obligation.

And obviously the citizens of a sanctuary city have reached a consensus that their moral obligation is to *not* turn over detainees to the feds. That's the whole point.



It would be different if Congress passed laws obligating states and cities to enforce federal immigration law.

But currently no such law as you imagine exists. And if Congress tried to pass such a law?
  • States would fight it tooth and nail.
  • Federal judges would enjoin it.
  • The Supreme Court would almost certainly find it unconstitutional.
  • And Congress wouldn't even try anyway, because the federal government is jealous of its constituent enforcement powers, and is not interested in diluting their authority with the inclusion of local governments.
  • I mean, look what happens when states try to do their own border control.
 
I apologize if this has been brought up. I haven't read the whole thread. I don't understand the point of announcing that you're a sanctuary city, and besides, it has no legal meaning that I know of.

Where I live there are quite a few illegal immigrants. Law enforcement wants them to know they can come forward if they have evidence of a serious crime. A murderer or rapist for example. Perhaps the murderer preys on illegal immigrants, believing they're more likely to get away with crimes. I used to cover city government - it's been a long time - but I think it's still policy that cops simply don't ask people about their immigration status if they are reporting crime. And the immigrants know this, so they can share their information without fear. Local cops have enough on their plates without having to be immigration cops.

There is also special visa for witnesses in criminal cases.
 
I apologize if this has been brought up. I haven't read the whole thread. I don't understand the point of announcing that you're a sanctuary city, and besides, it has no legal meaning that I know of.

Where I live there are quite a few illegal immigrants. Law enforcement wants them to know they can come forward if they have evidence of a serious crime. A murderer or rapist for example. Perhaps the murderer preys on illegal immigrants, believing they're more likely to get away with crimes. I used to cover city government - it's been a long time - but I think it's still policy that cops simply don't ask people about their immigration status if they are reporting crime. And the immigrants know this, so they can share their information without fear. Local cops have enough on their plates without having to be immigration cops.

There is also special visa for witnesses in criminal cases.
I think that's a very important point, one I believe has been stressed here in Vermont, where there are many undocumented immigrants, because their status makes them particularly vulnerable to crime if they believe they cannot obtain basic social and law enforcement services without deportation. I would like to think that the confusion here is accidental, but fear that it is not - that our current administration and its sympathizers, while officially standing against crime of all sorts, has no concern for the safety and protection of the people they so publicly despise and whose suffering they so publicly savor.

One of the other things, though, that I think Hercules56 misses here is just what probable cause constitutes. One thing that many these days think it does constitute, which it sure as hell does not constitute, is profiling. Immigration status is not a visible crime. Most of us can report a crime without having to prove our citizenship or immigration status. Nor, for that matter, is immigration status a usual criterion when one commits a crime or an offense. The police are not obligated to vet us for crimes or offenses before they protect us from the crimes and offenses of others. Most of what sanctuary cities and states do is simply to codify the principle that most of us live by, and to tell local authorities that it is not their business to require evidence of immigration status when it is not a part of their duty.
 

Back
Top Bottom