Should sanctuary cities be tolerated?

[Hercules56]

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]

What laws are they breaking?

 

[JayUtah]

Wow, you're just the master of Fox News talking points these days.

 

[Hercules56]

What laws are they breaking?

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?

 

[JayUtah]

Depends. It is illegal to harbor a fugitive.

Is a person a fugitive if there is no judicial warrant for their arrest?

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

Is this what sanctuary cities do?

 

[Olmstead]

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.

Why are you proposing some strange extrajudicial punishments if laws are actually being broken?

 

[Hercules56]

Is a person a fugitive if there is no judicial warrant for their arrest?


Is this what sanctuary cities do?

They also refuse to cooperate with ICE detainment requests.

 

[JayUtah]

They also refuse to cooperate with ICE detainment requests.

That didn't answer my question. Is a "detainment request" a judicial warrant?

 

[angrysoba]

They also refuse to cooperate with ICE detainment requests.

Well that’s what “request” means. A request can be refused. An order less so.

 

[Hercules56]

Hmm....it appears Sanctuary Entities may in fact be in violation of Federal law:

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

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

 

[theprestige]

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.

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.

 

[Hercules56]

That didn't answer my question. Is a "detainment request" a judicial warrant?

No, but it is illegal to harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection an illegal alien.

 

[theprestige]

Hmm....it appears Sanctuary Entities may in fact be in violation of Federal law:

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

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

I don't see anything in there that outlaws non-cooperation with ICE.

 

[theprestige]

No, but it is illegal to harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection an illegal alien.

None of which are necessary, for sanctuary non-cooperation.

 

[Resume]

Don't worry, that idiot Homan is threatening to jail (or worse) offending mayors and governors.

So you got that going for you.

 

[Hercules56]

I don't see anything in there that outlaws non-cooperation with ICE.

If your harbor or conceal an illegal alien, you are breaking the law. If you move them you are breaking the law.

 

[JayUtah]

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

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.

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

Since the 10th Amendment guarantees their right to do so, what do you think?

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.

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.

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".

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.

Does that mean that southern states can choose to NOT enforce the Civil Rights Act?

They did.

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

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.

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

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.

Withholding federal highway funds seems to be the way to go. Or education funds. Or criminal justice funds.

Current funding law does not allow the withholding of funds unconnected with the policy, or contrary to the Constitution.

 

[Olmstead]

Hmm....it appears Sanctuary Entities may in fact be in violation of Federal law:

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

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

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?

 

[JayUtah]

Hmm....it appears Sanctuary Entities may in fact be in violation of Federal law

In your learned opinion? What part of that law compels local authorities to cooperate with ICE in ICE's attempts to enforce immigration law?

If your harbor or conceal an illegal alien, you are breaking the law. If you move them you are breaking the law.

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.

 

[theprestige]

If your harbor or conceal an illegal alien, you are breaking the law. If you move them you are breaking the law.

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.