# "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:** 11
**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 30, 2017, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/201 "2017-07-30T04:05:17Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Ya kinda left out some important details from your cite Not to mention that the _mayor_ evidently doesn’t know [what’s on his city’s books](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20378637#post20378637). ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/202 "2017-07-30T04:06:21Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > Not to mention that the _mayor_ evidently doesn’t know [what’s on his city’s books](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20378637#post20378637). As I pointed out before, no city ordinance can override federal law. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/203 "2017-07-30T04:06:36Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > They KNEW they were going to release him for three weeks. During those three weeks they could have picked up the phone and called ICE. As the mayor (quoted in the cite I gave) clearly says. Cite that they “knew” they were releasing him in “three weeks” or that “they knew they were going to release him for three weeks” - the cite you have provided says they “held him” for three weeks and then legal came back that they had no basis to detain him and he was released on the 15th. Cite that they knew before the 15th that the information/relese was going to happen on the 15th? ---
**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 30, 2017, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/204 "2017-07-30T04:07:43Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > They KNEW they were going to release him for three weeks. During those three weeks they could have picked up the phone and called ICE. As the mayor (quoted in the cite I gave) clearly says. “[Department employees acting in their official capacities may not use City funds or resources to … give out information regarding the release status or personal information of any individual, except as permitted under Administrative Code Section 12I.3.](https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/election/Post-Election-4-SanctuaryCity-2-1-17.pdf)” ---
**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 30, 2017, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/205 "2017-07-30T04:08:44Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > As I pointed out before, no city ordinance can override federal law. As I pointed out before, this has been on the books for nearly 30 years without being challenged. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/206 "2017-07-30T04:10:17Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Cite that they “knew” they were releasing him in “three weeks” - it says they “held him” for three weeks and then legal came back that they had no basis to detain him and he was released on the 15th. It’s in the article I cited. “Lopez-Sanchez arrived in San Francisco on March 26, and the marijuana case against him was discharged the following day.” Note: this is where they knew he’d be released. “For the next three weeks, sources with knowledge of the matter told The Chronicle, sheriff’s deputies sought clarification from the department’s legal division on whether to hold Lopez-Sanchez so Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials could pick him up for possible deportation.” This is the three weeks that the knew he’d be released but didn’t notify ICE. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/207 "2017-07-30T04:11:19Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > As I pointed out before, this has been on the books for nearly 30 years without being challenged. Not being challenged is not a valid argument for it not being illegal. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/208 "2017-07-30T04:12:21Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It’s in the article I cited. > > “Lopez-Sanchez arrived in San Francisco on March 26, and the marijuana case against him was discharged the following day.” > > Note: this is where they knew he’d be released. > > “For the next three weeks, sources with knowledge of the matter told The Chronicle, sheriff’s deputies sought clarification from the department’s legal division on whether to hold Lopez-Sanchez so Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials could pick him up for possible deportation.” > > This is the three weeks that the knew he’d be released but didn’t notify ICE. How does “sought clarification with the legal division” == “knew he was going to be released” ?? Legal could have just as easily came back and said “detain and notifiy ICE”. If they truly knew he was going to be released - they would not have sought clarification on what to do and they would have released him on the 26th. doing otherwise would actually suggest they were violating his civil rights. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/209 "2017-07-30T04:13:23Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Not being challenged is not a valid argument for it not being illegal. Nobody’s challenging it now - specifically FEDERAL AUTHORITIES with the power to challenge it are not doing so. That alone should tell you something. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/210 "2017-07-30T04:14:11Z")
> [@simster](#): > > How does “sought clarification with the legal division” == “knew he was going to be released” ?? “marijuana case against him was discharged”. There was no other case against him. They knew he’d be released. The only question was whether to get ICE to deport him. They refused, for three weeks, to call ICE. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/211 "2017-07-30T04:15:43Z")
> [@simster](#): > > Nobody’s challenging it now - specifically FEDERAL AUTHORITIES with the power to challenge it are not doing so. > > That alone should tell you something. It tells me that Feds do not enforce their own immigration laws. That’s not news. But that doesn’t mean that those laws don’t exist, or that these SF actions were not in violation of those laws. ---
**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 30, 2017, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/212 "2017-07-30T04:17:49Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Not being challenged is not a valid argument for it not being illegal. You seriously believe that this ordinance has been on the books without anyone in Reagan’s or either Bush’s Judicial Branch noticing it “violates federal law” and acting to get it removed? ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/213 "2017-07-30T04:18:57Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > “marijuana case against him was discharged”. > > There was no other case against him. They knew he’d be released. The only question was whether to get ICE to deport him. They refused, for three weeks, to call ICE. Which by local law,etcc they were forbidden to do - this has been told to you countless times. Since they did have a question (apparently) on wether or not to call ICE - and they sought clarification - they did not “know” he was going to be released - they may have assumed it, etc - but they did not “know” it. They only “knew” it when the clarification came back. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. ---
**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 30, 2017, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/214 "2017-07-30T04:19:13Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It tells me that Feds do not enforce their own immigration laws. That’s not news. But that doesn’t mean that those laws don’t exist, or that these SF actions were not in violation of those laws. You repeatedly claiming that federal laws were violated does not make it so. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/215 "2017-07-30T05:26:54Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > You repeatedly claiming that federal laws were violated does not make it so. Oh, I think it does. Well, actually not just yet. But the very next time he says the same thing again, it will be so. Or the time after that. But if not, sometime in the next five or six times he asserts the same thing, it will magically become true. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/216 "2017-07-30T11:41:38Z")
Sanctuary Cities as an issue, per se, is, IMHO, really parlaying RO into a political stunt. I mean it’s a stunt by those who are condemning city governments for being sanctuary cities. Immigration is a federal issue in the United States. That means that the federal government needs to deal with it, not farm out the responsibility (mind you, without any monetary assistance to the local governments) nor the blame for failing to have a coherent and effective policy on immigration. And, of course, the current crew in Congress and supposedly in charge of the federal executive department are blaming not only those cities, but also the immigrants themselves for the feds’ inability to get the feds’ act together. Check out [this story in _The Korea Times_](http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2017/07/251_233843.html). Here’s a nifty factoid: South Korea does not have local police forces and is a unitary state. That means the police who investigated this case, involving undocumented immigrant victims, so happen to be national police. The key thing is they are not immigration agents and thus do not report the victims’ immigration status. And the courts? Well, the courts slammed the offenders for picking on undocumented immigrants. Another positive: the courts, you know national courts as South Korea is a unitary state, do not report the victims’ undocumented status to immigration. Wow. South Korea has their act together on this issue. Why doesn’t the United States? ---
**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 30, 2017, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/217 "2017-07-30T18:15:56Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Not being challenged is not a valid argument for it not being illegal. Sure it is. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/218 "2017-07-30T20:08:33Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Not being challenged is not a valid argument for it not being illegal. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Sure it is. Is it? I’m not seeing it. There are lots of “blue laws” and archaic laws, stuff that’s still on the books but which nobody bothers with any more. Nobody challenges anybody on it, but it’s still (technically) illegal. (I’m not arguing that this is the case here, only that **Okrahoma** ’s claim is not intrinsically invalid. I have absolutely no agreement at all with the main thrust of his debate here, which I think is massively misguided.) ---
**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 30, 2017, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/219 "2017-07-30T21:02:03Z")
It isn’t conclusive, of course. But if someone has an interpretation of law that both has never been brought to a court, nor anyone prosecuted under that interpretation, then there is a lack of evidence to support that interpretation. Again, that does not disprove the interpretation in question, but it is a point to seriously consider. Let’s take a different example: if PETA argues that a legal person includes animals, and then argues that ranchers are literally murders subject to criminal penalties including the death penalty, the absence of criminal prosecutions of ranchers under murder statutes is a useful point in judging PETA’s claim. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/220 "2017-07-30T21:55:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It isn’t conclusive, of course. But if someone has an interpretation of law that both has never been brought to a court, nor anyone prosecuted under that interpretation, then there is a lack of evidence to support that interpretation. Again, that does not disprove the interpretation in question, but it is a point to seriously consider. > > Let’s take a different example: if PETA argues that a legal person includes animals, and then argues that ranchers are literally murders subject to criminal penalties including the death penalty, the absence of criminal prosecutions of ranchers under murder statutes is a useful point in judging PETA’s claim. Case law exists that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to compel states to enforce their laws. It doesn’t matter that this particular line hasn’t been tested, we can infer from the caselaw that this wouldn’t be enforceable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=12)