# "Sanctuary cities" and federal laws **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 28, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327 "2017-07-28T14:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/1 "2017-07-28T14:58:01Z")
[Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324) “…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. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/2 "2017-07-28T15:11:30Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/3 "2017-07-28T15:26:59Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/4 "2017-07-28T15:41:41Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/5 "2017-07-28T15:47:28Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Should all laws be read so broadly? In [this Pit thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=832046) 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? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/6 "2017-07-28T15:49:28Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/7 "2017-07-28T15:50:11Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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”? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/8 "2017-07-28T15:53:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In [this Pit thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=832046) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/9 "2017-07-28T16:17:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In [this Pit thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=832046) 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. > [@Okrahoma](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/10 "2017-07-28T16:22:24Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/11 "2017-07-28T16:26:11Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/12 "2017-07-28T16:27:39Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > 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”. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/13 "2017-07-28T16:28:36Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/14 "2017-07-28T16:31:02Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/15 "2017-07-28T16:31:03Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > [Title 8 U.S. Code § 1324](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324) > > “…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. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/16 "2017-07-28T16:31:05Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/17 "2017-07-28T16:38:13Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/18 "2017-07-28T16:42:26Z")
[Relevant ordinance of the City of San Francisco](http://www.cuav.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SF-DP-for-All-Ordinance_Factsheet-for-Community-Education_11_8_13.pdf) (PDF): > [@](#): > > **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? ---
**Author:** ![Falchion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Falchion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Falchion)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/19 "2017-07-28T16:52:28Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2017, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/20 "2017-07-28T16:52:29Z")
BTW: San Francisco has been a “sanctuary city” for nearly 30 years. Funny how that suddenly became a problem. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=2)