Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-28-2017, 09:58 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
"Sanctuary cities" and federal laws

Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324

"...any person who... 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"

or

" ...engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts..."

is guilty of a felony.

Seems pretty clear that the local government officials of "sanctuary cities" are violating this law. Apparently we're not a country of laws, since willful and blatant violation of laws is completely ignored.

Last edited by Okrahoma; 07-28-2017 at 09:58 AM.
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:11 AM
manson1972 manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,518
I'm pretty sure the fact that they don't ask about immigration status prevents them from "knowing" whether or not the person is an illegal immigrant.
  #3  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:26 AM
Chronos Chronos is online now
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 72,179
Can you name any city at all where the local government is doing what you describe? All that so-called "sanctuary cities" are doing is not butting their nose into the federal government's business.
  #4  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:41 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Seems pretty clear that the local government officials of "sanctuary cities" are violating this law. Apparently we're not a country of laws, since willful and blatant violation of laws is completely ignored.
As I read the statute, it seems abundantly clear that the law is intended to punish people like coyotes or shady business owners who hire illegal immigrants in order to pay them shitty wages. Your reading of the law, that local police officers should be imprisoned if they are not actively searching out illegal immigrants and reporting their suspicions, seems to be an awfully broad reading of the statute.

Should all laws be read so broadly?
  #5  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:47 AM
Bricker Bricker is offline
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 54,834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Should all laws be read so broadly?
In this Pit thread the OP inveighs against an attempt to charge the boys that laughed at (and filmed) a drowning man and never called for help; the man's body was later pulled from the water. There is no general law that mandates assistance, but authorities are contemplating charging the onlookers with violation of a Florida statute that mandates anyone who encounters a dead body reporting such body to the district medical examiner.

Thoughts?

Last edited by Bricker; 07-28-2017 at 10:47 AM.
  #6  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:49 AM
DrFidelius DrFidelius is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 11,909
I would hate to hear your interpretation of the tax code, since constant daily audits by local authorities is clearly the only way to ensure that they are not harboring or abetting tax evaders.
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #7  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:50 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
As I read the statute, it seems abundantly clear that the law is intended to punish people like coyotes or shady business owners who hire illegal immigrants in order to pay them shitty wages. Your reading of the law, that local police officers should be imprisoned if they are not actively searching out illegal immigrants and reporting their suspicions, seems to be an awfully broad reading of the statute.

Should all laws be read so broadly?
Here's a case: Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez

Murdered Kate Steinle in San Francisco.

Was an illegal immigrant. Had been deported five times from the United States in the past. Was in federal custody. Was returned to San Francisco on a drug charge.

That charge was dropped and Lopez-Sanchez was released onto the streets of San Francisco without notifying immigration officials.

Would you say that falls under: "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"?
  #8  
Old 07-28-2017, 10:53 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
In this Pit thread the OP inveighs against an attempt to charge the boys that laughed at (and filmed) a drowning man and never called for help; the man's body was later pulled from the water. There is no general law that mandates assistance, but authorities are contemplating charging the onlookers with violation of a Florida statute that mandates anyone who encounters a dead body reporting such body to the district medical examiner.

Thoughts?
The invocation of that "dead body reporting" law is clearly done because they could not find anything else to charge them with, and they really, really wanted to punish their behavior. Not the "not reporting the dead body" behavior. But the behavior that was not illegal.

In the case of the OP here, the law directly applies to the behavior of the sanctuary cities officials. It would not be punishing them for something else they did. It would be punishing them for the exact behavior described in the law.

Last edited by Okrahoma; 07-28-2017 at 10:54 AM.
  #9  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:17 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bricker View Post
In this Pit thread the OP inveighs against an attempt to charge the boys that laughed at (and filmed) a drowning man and never called for help; the man's body was later pulled from the water. There is no general law that mandates assistance, but authorities are contemplating charging the onlookers with violation of a Florida statute that mandates anyone who encounters a dead body reporting such body to the district medical examiner.

Thoughts?
By Okrahoma's standard, they are clearly guilty. I'm more curious as to his thoughts on that matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Here's a case: Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez

Murdered Kate Steinle in San Francisco.

Was an illegal immigrant. Had been deported five times from the United States in the past. Was in federal custody. Was returned to San Francisco on a drug charge.

That charge was dropped and Lopez-Sanchez was released onto the streets of San Francisco without notifying immigration officials.

Would you say that falls under: "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"?
Did immigration officials ask for Lopez-Sanchez to be turned over, and the police lied to the immigration authorities? That would be my common understanding of the words "conceal" or "shield from detection."
  #10  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:22 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Did immigration officials ask for Lopez-Sanchez to be turned over, and the police lied to the immigration authorities? That would be my common understanding of the words "conceal" or "shield from detection."
Yes. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had issued a detainer for Sanchez requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. San Francisco ignore that and released him.
  #11  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:26 AM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Yes. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had issued a detainer for Sanchez requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. San Francisco ignore that and released him.
If it's merely a "request", than it's not mandated by law, is it?
  #12  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:27 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Human Action View Post
If it's merely a "request", than it's not mandated by law, is it?
My argument is that ignoring an explicit detainer request from ICE falls squarely under: "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".

Last edited by Okrahoma; 07-28-2017 at 11:27 AM.
  #13  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:28 AM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Seems pretty clear that the local government officials of "sanctuary cities" are violating this law. Apparently we're not a country of laws, since willful and blatant violation of laws is completely ignored.

Well, that's a shame to hear. Are there any other laws which, if not strictly enforced, render the whole of American jurisprudence meaningless, or is it just this one?

Just wondering, because I saw a guy make a rolling stop at a stop sign recently, and it would be a lot of fun to get loaded and drive a stolen car 120mph through a playground.
  #14  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:31 AM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
My argument is that ignoring an explicit detainer request from ICE falls squarely under: "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".
How so? The local gov't neither concealed Lopez-Sanchez, nor harbored him, nor shielded him from detection.
  #15  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:31 AM
Clothahump Clothahump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 13,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324

"...any person who... 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"

or

" ...engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts..."

is guilty of a felony.

Seems pretty clear that the local government officials of "sanctuary cities" are violating this law. Apparently we're not a country of laws, since willful and blatant violation of laws is completely ignored.
Agreed. Every mayor and every councilman who votes for their city to be a sanctuary city, and every public official who issues orders to not follow immigration laws should be arrested for violation of those immigration laws.
  #16  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:31 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Yes. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had issued a detainer for Sanchez requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. San Francisco ignore that and released him.
So I just googled it, and it sounds like ICE's request was for San Francisco to continue holding him until ICE could decided if they wanted to come get him or not. I think that is slightly different than ICE saying, "We're on the way to pick him up!"

Is your issue that San Francisco didn't want to continue holding a person on behalf of a Federal agency? Seems like ICE knew where he was, and wasn't coming to get him, which makes it hard for me to see that San Francisco was "concealing" him.
  #17  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:38 AM
Human Action Human Action is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 7,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump View Post
Agreed. Every mayor and every councilman who votes for their city to be a sanctuary city, and every public official who issues orders to not follow immigration laws should be arrested for violation of those immigration laws.
Can you explain what the violation is?
  #18  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:42 AM
Skywatcher Skywatcher is online now
Uncharted
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 31,630
Relevant ordinance of the City of San Francisco (PDF):
Quote:
Why was the SF Due Process for All Ordinance passed? Individuals who are arrested should be treated equally in the criminal justice system. When immigrants are held by local law enforcement for extra time for ICE, when they should otherwise be released in the criminal matter, it undercuts due process and leads to a disproportionately severe double punishment. Individuals are separated from families when transferred to immigration detention centers, often across the country, and then permanently torn apart through deportation.

When can an ICE hold still be used to turn people over to ICE? San Francisco law enforcement is prohibited from responding to ICE hold requests except in the following, limited circumstances. Even if the following circumstances apply, the ICE hold will not automatically be responded to. Law enforcement still may decide NOT to respond to the ICE hold after considering evidence of rehabilitation, described below.

Local law enforcement may respond to an ICE hold request only if:

1. The individual has been convicted of a violent felony or three additional crimes in the last seven years
AND;
2. The individual has a present charge for a violent felony, and a judge made a finding that there is probable cause to move forward with the charge (pursuant to CA Penal Code 827).

In these circumstances, an ICE hold may be responded to for 48 hours after the individual is otherwise eligible for release in their criminal case. Note that if the District Attorney decides not to file charges or if the judge doesn’t find probable cause to move forward with the charge, it can NOT be used to hold someone on an ICE hold.

What is a violent felony? For purposes of this policy, a violent felony is any of the following: murder or voluntary manslaughter; mayhem; rape; sodomy; oral copulation; lewd or lascivious acts; any felony punishable by death or state imprisonment for life; any felony in which the defendant inflicts great bodily injury on any person other than an accomplice which has been charged and proved as such; any robbery; arson; sexual penetration; attempted murder; exploding or attempting to explode a device with intent to commit murder; kidnapping; assault with intent to commit a specified felony; continuous sexual abuse of a child; carjacking; rape, spousal rape, or sexual penetration; extortion; threats to victims or witnesses; any first degree burglary; any of these violent crimes when committed with a firearm; and use of a weapon of mass destruction.
Was López-Sánchez a known "violent felon" prior to the shooting?
  #19  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:52 AM
Falchion Falchion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
My argument is that ignoring an explicit detainer request from ICE falls squarely under: "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".
Where is the "place" they concealed him? The entire city?
  #20  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:52 AM
Skywatcher Skywatcher is online now
Uncharted
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 31,630
BTW: San Francisco has been a "sanctuary city" for nearly 30 years. Funny how that suddenly became a problem.
  #21  
Old 07-28-2017, 11:56 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 4,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
Well, that's a shame to hear. Are there any other laws which, if not strictly enforced, render the whole of American jurisprudence meaningless, or is it just this one?

Just wondering, because I saw a guy make a rolling stop at a stop sign recently, and it would be a lot of fun to get loaded and drive a stolen car 120mph through a playground.
Sounds fine, just as long as jay-walking's not involved.
  #22  
Old 07-28-2017, 12:55 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Yes. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had issued a detainer for Sanchez requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. San Francisco ignore that and released him.
The Supreme Court case Prigg v Pennsylvania held (among other things) that states are not obliged to aid the federal government in enforcing federal law. That case was decided in 1842 so this is not exactly a new thing.

The case regarded the Fugitive Slave Act which this immigration stuff seems to have some parallels to.

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 07-28-2017 at 12:57 PM.
  #23  
Old 07-28-2017, 01:08 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 20,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Yes. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had issued a detainer for Sanchez requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. San Francisco ignore that and released him.
If ICE wanted this guy they could have picked him up. They didn't pick him up, they just requested for San Francisco to detain him indefinitely. Are you in favor of indefinite detention without trial?

They didn't conceal him. They didn't harbor him. They didn't shield him from detection. And they didn't attempt to do any of those things.

All they did was not detain him.

Therefore, they didn't violate the law. Case closed.

Last edited by Lemur866; 07-28-2017 at 01:08 PM.
  #24  
Old 07-28-2017, 01:36 PM
Skywatcher Skywatcher is online now
Uncharted
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 31,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
All they did was not detain him.
And if they had detained him without any prior felonies, they would have been in violation of a city ordinance established in 2013.
  #25  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:13 PM
rat avatar rat avatar is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Seattle, Wa
Posts: 3,115
I love how parts of the right claims to support "states rights" while simultaneously supporting the absolute destruction of states sovereignty. Which this subject is a case of.

Last edited by rat avatar; 07-28-2017 at 03:13 PM.
  #26  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:18 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
And if they had detained him without any prior felonies, they would have been in violation of a city ordinance established in 2013.
The man had been convicted of five felonies prior to his being released by San Francisco.
  #27  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:22 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
The man had been convicted of five felonies prior to his being released by San Francisco.
So why did the federal government keep releasing him?

Trump during his campaign.
Quote:
In recent days, he has said he would instead focus deportations on those with criminal records. On his first day in office, Trump said, he plans to sign orders to speed up the removal of “criminal illegal immigrants” from the U.S.
Even Trump is in favor of deporting them so they can come back.
  #28  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:34 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
My argument is that ignoring an explicit detainer request from ICE falls squarely under: "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".
Your argument is wrong, because:
1) Nobody concealed, harbored, nor shielded him from detection, nor attempted to do so. Releasing someone doesn't qualify as any of those actions.
2) It isn't City of San Franscisco's job to know who is violating immigration law. An ICE detainer notice in itself does not confer knowledge of someone's immigration status, since an ICE detains people for all sorts of reasons unrelated to their immigration status. You'd be pretty shocked if you knew the extent of ICE powers over legal US residents and citizens.

This is another case where we just have to laugh while the right proves its fetish over states' rights and the rule of law to be a total sham. If anyone broke the law, it's ICE. It's their job to keep this from happening, and they released him to an agency who has no such mandate.
  #29  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:37 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
since an ICE detains people for all sorts of reasons unrelated to their immigration status. You'd be pretty shocked if you knew the extent of ICE powers over legal US residents and citizens.
Cite that ICE detainers were issued against people that ICE did not consider illegal immigrants?
  #30  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:40 PM
Richard Parker Richard Parker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manhattan
Posts: 11,529
It is not a crime for a city or state to decline a detainer request. Indeed, it would be unconstitutional to require them to follow the request, which is why the Trump Administration is trying to achieve that with spending conditions instead of by mandating it.
  #31  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:43 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Cite that ICE detainers were issued against people that ICE did not consider illegal immigrants?
Why would you think that ICE has no jurisdiction over legal residents?
  #32  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:47 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 20,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Cite that ICE detainers were issued against people that ICE did not consider illegal immigrants?
Cite that San Francisco concealed, harbored, or shielded him from detection, or attempted to do so?

They didn't hide him from ICE. They didn't refuse to hand him over to ICE. They didn't stop ICE from finding him. They didn't attempt to do any of those things.

ICE knew where he was: in jail. They knew when he was going to be released. They could have been waiting at the jailhouse door with a set of handcuffs. ICE didn't do any of those things.

So why are you upset about San Francisco releasing this guy, but not ICE for not detaining him?
  #33  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:47 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Cite that ICE detainers were issued against people that ICE did not consider illegal immigrants?
Presumably he's paid his debt to society for those crimes.

Regardless the state has zero obligation to help the feds with this. If they do help it is a courtesy only.

Imagine the feds tell the state you live in that they have to go arrest Okrahoma because he has an "assault rifle" as they define "assault rifle" which they deem illegal. Your local police have zero problem with you owning that gun which is 100% legal in your state.

Should the local police be obliged to arrest you because the feds said so? If they pulled you over for a traffic violation and then let you go have they abetted your crime for not detaining you on behalf of the feds?

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 07-28-2017 at 03:49 PM.
  #34  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:49 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Why would you think that ICE has no jurisdiction over legal residents?
I didn't ask that. I asked if ICE has ever issued a "detainer" for someone they did not consider an illegal alien, since the poster claimed that "ICE detainer notice in itself does not confer knowledge of someone's immigration status".
  #35  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:50 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
ICE knew where he was: in jail. They knew when he was going to be released.
No, they didn't. I repeat: Lopes-Sanchez was released onto the streets of San Francisco without notifying immigration officials.
  #36  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:52 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 20,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
No, they didn't. I repeat: Lopes-Sanchez was released onto the streets of San Francisco without notifying immigration officials.
OK then.

Cite that San Francisco concealed, harbored, or shielded him from detection, or attempted to do so?
  #37  
Old 07-28-2017, 03:59 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
OK then.

Cite that San Francisco concealed, harbored, or shielded him from detection, or attempted to do so?
Knowing that the detainee is an illegal immigrant and releasing him into the streets without notifying ICE obviously conceals him in the general population and shields him from detection. Quite obviously.
  #38  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:00 PM
Whack-a-Mole Whack-a-Mole is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 18,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Knowing that the detainee is an illegal immigrant and releasing him into the streets without notifying ICE obviously conceals him in the general population and shields him from detection. Quite obviously.
It really does not matter if they knew he was an illegal alien. They are under no obligation to detain him for the feds (see supreme court case cited above in post #22).

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 07-28-2017 at 04:02 PM.
  #39  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:01 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
No, they didn't. I repeat: Lopes-Sanchez was released onto the streets of San Francisco without notifying immigration officials.
They already knew he was there.
Quote:
The lapse in the case of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez — also known as José Inez García Zarate and several other names — did not occur at the border, legal records show. After being deported in June 2009, he tried to return three months later but was stopped by agents at the crossing in Eagle Pass, Tex. He was then prosecuted for a felony of illegal entry and served almost four years in a federal prison in California.


When he finished his sentence, the prison sent him to San Francisco on March 27, based on a warrant for a 20-year-old felony marijuana charge. Within a day, a local court dismissed the charges. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi of San Francisco said Mr. Lopez-Sanchez stayed in jail for three weeks so the authorities could verify that he was eligible for release. He was freed April 15.

At that point, communications between San Francisco and federal authorities broke down.

Federal officials say that as soon as they learned of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s transfer from federal prison to San Francisco, they issued a request to Sheriff Mirkarimi to notify them when he would be released. An order for his deportation was ready.
The Feds knew where he was and waited 3 weeks when 48 hours is all a detain request covers.
From here.
Quote:
Detainers instruct federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies (LEA) to hold individuals for up to 48 business hours beyond the time they otherwise would have been released (i.e., when charges have been disposed of through a finding of guilt or innocence; when charges have been dropped; when bail has been secured; or when convicted individuals have served out their sentence).
  #41  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:07 PM
Skywatcher Skywatcher is online now
Uncharted
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 31,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
The man had been convicted of five felonies prior to his being released by San Francisco.
How many violent felonies since 26 March 2008? Drug charges don't count.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 07-28-2017 at 04:11 PM.
  #42  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:08 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
I asked you for a cite that ICE detainers were issued against people that ICE did not consider illegal immigrants. You didn't provide one.
  #43  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:09 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Your post to which I was responding:

"And if they had detained him without any prior felonies, they would have been in violation of a city ordinance established in 2013."

Where is "violent felonies" in your post?
  #44  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:11 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
They already knew he was there.

The Feds knew where he was and waited 3 weeks when 48 hours is all a detain request covers.
From here.
Which part of this is not clear in that article?

"Federal officials say that as soon as they learned of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s transfer from federal prison to San Francisco, they issued a request to Sheriff Mirkarimi to notify them when he would be released. An order for his deportation was ready.

“We are just asking for a heads-up, a phone call,” said Gillian Christensen, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. “We did not hear anything until the day this young woman was killed.”
  #45  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:12 PM
running coach running coach is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
I asked you for a cite that ICE detainers were issued against people that ICE did not consider illegal immigrants. You didn't provide one.
What part of U.S. citizens do you not understand?
  #46  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:13 PM
Skywatcher Skywatcher is online now
Uncharted
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 31,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Where is "violent felonies" in your post?
It's in post #18, the one about that 2013 city ordinance, which is what that link would direct you to.
  #47  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:20 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 20,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Knowing that the detainee is an illegal immigrant and releasing him into the streets without notifying ICE obviously conceals him in the general population and shields him from detection. Quite obviously.
No it doesn't, quite obviously.
  #48  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:20 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Knowing that the detainee is an illegal immigrant and releasing him into the streets without notifying ICE obviously conceals him in the general population and shields him from detection. Quite obviously.
I'm going to respond to this, but first I have to go conceal my cat. She's been scratching at the door all day wanting to get out, so I might as well shield her from detection.
  #49  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:32 PM
HMS Irruncible HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,921
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
I asked you for a cite that ICE detainers were issued against people that ICE did not consider illegal immigrants. You didn't provide one.
I can only give you cites; I can't understand them for you.

How about you provide a cite that San Francisco conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place?
  #50  
Old 07-28-2017, 04:33 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I can only give you cites; I can't understand them for you.

How about you provide a cite that San Francisco conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place?
I can only give you cites; I can't understand them for you.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017