# "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:** 12
**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, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/221 "2017-07-30T22:12:30Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Case law exists that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to compel states to enforce their laws. Except what I am discussing is not “enforcing federal laws” but “following federal laws”. The phone call to ICE would not be “enforcing a federal law”, since there is no corresponding federal law that would be “enforced”. But NOT making the phone call that ICE requested, then releasing the alien into the general population, is very clearly “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally”, which is prosecutable (as I showed, with cites) under the federal law. The local officials are not asked to enforce federal law. They are asked to follow it. There is a difference. ---
**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, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/222 "2017-07-30T22:13:53Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > You repeatedly claiming that federal laws were violated does not make it so. … ---
**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, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/223 "2017-07-30T22:44:37Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Except what I am discussing is not “enforcing federal laws” but “following federal laws”. The phone call to ICE would not be “enforcing a federal law”, since there is no corresponding federal law that would be “enforced”. But NOT making the phone call that ICE requested, then releasing the alien into the general population, is very clearly “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally”, which is prosecutable (as I showed, with cites) under the federal law. > > The local officials are not asked to enforce federal law. They are asked to follow it. There is a difference. [ > [@](#): > > A law enforcement officer is a government employee who is responsible for the prevention, investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws, including an employee engaged in this activity who is transferred to a supervisory or administrative position; … ]([https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/law-enforcement-officer/](https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/law-enforcement-officer/)) While it doesn’t meet your definition, explain to me how detaining, calling and investigation of ICEs intended actions doesn’t meet the “investigation or apprehension” portion of above. The effect and the intent is the same. Lets be realistic, police and court resources are limited, and they can’t perform an exhaustive legal review, even if they did try in this case for every single non-violent offender. Should they have also contacted the IRS to check for tax violations, or the FAA to see if the man had violated regulations? The reason that “Sanctuary cities” even exist is because these areas have limited resources and more pressing community needs. Obviously this event was traumatic for you, but it was also an insanely rare event. There are far more pressing concerns that are negative factors for citizens of this area. As an example in my city of Seattle, each Detective has about 20min time TOTAL for all cases due to the case load. This means that home robberies, crimes of violence etc… are ignored. The only tool the Feds have to try and get the local government to ignore it’s core responsibilities is to remove federal funds, and this will make this problem worse and not better. Once again, ignoring the initial act of entering the country unlawfully, these groups are some of the most law abiding groups in the area. While you are focusing on a murder by an individual who had NO prior violent history, what you are advocating for is for citizens who are raped, robbed or assaulted to have resources pulled from their needs. This is exactly why there is this bisection of responsibilities, the Feds are responsible and should fund a department to track these cases if it is important to them. The answer is not to hamper local departments abilities to meet local needs just to fit what to be honest is a non-fact based political rhetorical device. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/224 "2017-07-30T23:00:28Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > Lets be realistic, police and court resources are limited, and they can’t perform an exhaustive legal review, even if they did try in this case for every single non-violent offender. > > Should they have also contacted the IRS to check for tax violations, or the FAA to see if the man had violated regulations? ICE specifically requested that when the man is released, they be notified. This was not to be an initiative by the local officials, it would be fulfilling a request by ICE. NOT fulfilling this specific request violates the federal law, since it harbors the illegal alien as I documented, with cites. > [@](#): > > The reason that “Sanctuary cities” even exist is because these areas have limited resources and more pressing community needs. They had **three weeks** during which they knew they were going to be releasing him and could call ICE, as ICE requested. The phone call takes 1-2 minutes. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/225 "2017-07-30T23:03:00Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > ICE specifically requested that when the man is released, they be notified. This was not to be an initiative by the local officials, it would be fulfilling a request by ICE. NOT fulfilling this specific request violates the federal law, since it harbors the illegal alien as I documented, with cites. > They had **three weeks** during which they knew they were going to be releasing him and could call ICE, as ICE requested. The phone call takes 1-2 minutes. There’s nothing in your cites that required such a phone call. No one has ever been prosecuted for what you claim is a violation of the law. Your arguments by assertion are unconvincing. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2017, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/226 "2017-07-30T23:10:21Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > ICE specifically requested that when the man is released, they be notified. This was not to be an initiative by the local officials, it would be fulfilling a request by ICE. NOT fulfilling this specific request violates the federal law, since it harbors the illegal alien as I documented, with cites. > They had **three weeks** during which they knew they were going to be releasing him and could call ICE, as ICE requested. The phone call takes 1-2 minutes. How about this? If this is so important to ICE, they can take on the watchdog duties. Station an agent to follow the inmate/suspect from cell to court back to cell until he’s released then grab him. They have time to break up families and haul in grandparents rather than actual criminals so they seem to have loads of free time. Or they could could have sent him back to Mexico after he finished his sentence in federal prison. ---
**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, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/227 "2017-07-30T23:15:06Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > . . . The reason that “Sanctuary cities” even exist is because these areas have limited resources and more pressing community needs. . . . Another really important reason is to protect victims and witnesses of crimes. If they think they’re going to be deported, they are far less likely to come forward, and this gives a free pass to criminals who prey upon them. So it serves some valid purposes…and isn’t against the law anyway! ---
**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 31, 2017, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/228 "2017-07-31T01:53:59Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > ICE specifically requested that when the man is released, they be notified. How many “requests” can you think of that, if not followed, carry criminal penalties? Sort of undermines the plain meaning of the word “request.” ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/229 "2017-07-31T02:13:09Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > How many “requests” can you think of that, if not followed, carry criminal penalties? Sort of undermines the plain meaning of the word “request.” The government requests that you pay your taxes. As Harry Reid told us, [taxes are voluntary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6q0slMhDw8). ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/230 "2017-07-31T02:22:04Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > The government requests that you pay your taxes. As Harry Reid told us, [taxes are voluntary](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6q0slMhDw8). Go ahead and test it out. We’ll be waiting here for the results. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/231 "2017-07-31T02:35:38Z")
From [this article.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/sanctuary-cities/) > [@](#): > > The Department of Homeland Security has said **that complying with these requests is voluntary** because keeping someone in jail without a warrant violates the 4th Amendment. So, what happens next depends on county policy. [From here.](https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/sanctuary-cities-and-immigration-detainers-a-primer/) > [@](#): > > Are states and cities required to comply with detainers? > > The short answer is no. The Department of Homeland Security’s own interpretation of the nature of detainers and four recent court decisions have provided guidance to that end. First, federal regulation states the following about detainers (emphasis added): > > (a) Detainers in general. Any authorized immigration officer may at any time issue a Form I-247, Immigration Detainer-Notice of Action, to any other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency…The detainer is a request that such agency advise the Department, prior to release of the alien, in order for the Department to arrange to assume custody, in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible. > (d) Temporary detention at Department request. Upon a determination by the Department to issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise detained by a criminal justice agency, such agency shall maintain custody of the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays in order to permit assumption of custody by the Department. So there’s your answer as to whether or not it’s legal to ignore the requests. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/232 "2017-07-31T02:45:09Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > From [this article.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/sanctuary-cities/) > " because keeping someone in jail without a warrant violates the 4th Amendment. So, what happens next depends on county policy." Once again, for the nth time, I am not talking “keeping someone in jail”, I am talking about notifying ICE about releasing the illegal alien into general population, after ICE specifically asked you to do that. Which amendment does that violate? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/233 "2017-07-31T02:51:07Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Once again, for the nth time, I am not talking “keeping someone in jail”, I am talking about notifying ICE about releasing the illegal alien into general population, after ICE specifically asked you to do that. Which amendment does that violate? You gotta keep them there until ICE shows up. And again, it’s voluntary. There’s no obligation or requirement to notify ICE of shit. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/234 "2017-07-31T02:55:24Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > You gotta keep them there until ICE shows up. No. You gotta keep them until you release them. You know when you’re going to release them, in advance. In fact, in the case of the SF murderer, the SF police knew for three weeks they were going to release him, and didn’t bother calling ICE to tell them about it. ---
**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 31, 2017, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/235 "2017-07-31T03:01:00Z")
In fact, the SF police could not call ICE to tell them about it because doing so have violated city ordinances. Go ahead, tell me again that those ordinances violate federal law. Still doesn’t make it so. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/236 "2017-07-31T03:01:37Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > No. You gotta keep them until you release them. You know when you’re going to release them, in advance. In fact, in the case of the SF murderer, the SF police knew for three weeks they were going to release him, and didn’t bother calling ICE to tell them about it. Again, he wasn’t a murderer at the time this happened. There was nothing about his past record to think he was a danger. I fail to see why you keep hammering that point. And they weren’t required to tell them. Why should they? Why is ICE not at fault for not booting him over the border when he left federal prison? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/237 "2017-07-31T03:10:41Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > And they weren’t required to tell them. Why should they? Because not doing so harbors the illegal alien, which violates the federal law. Local officials are not allowed to violate federal law. They don’t have to enforce it, but they are not allowed to violate it. > [@](#): > > Why is ICE not at fault for not booting him over the border when he left federal prison? San Francisco requested him to be transferred to them to prosecute him for the drug violation. As I already cited. Then, one day after receiving him in custody, they decided to release him. Then they did not call ICE for three weeks until they released him. After ICE specifically requested it. So it’s not like they didn’t know he was an illegal alien, already deported multiple times, and they knew that if ICE gets him he will be deported again. You (plural) keep avoiding answering this: does the behavior above fall under “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally”? Explain your reasoning for the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/238 "2017-07-31T03:11:33Z")
There are lots of prosecutions for not paying taxes, yet none for not cooperating with ICE, phone calls or not. Strange. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/239 "2017-07-31T03:18:31Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > You (plural) keep avoiding answering this: does the behavior above fall under “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally”? Explain your reasoning for the answer. No because there is no evidence that this behavior falls under the definition of harboring. It has never been held to be this way, despite many local governments operating the way SF does. Do you have any evidence that your interpretation has ever been held in a court of law? Calling ICE would not be unconstitutional. Of course, no one has ever said that it would be so you continue to argue against a strawman. Not calling is not harboring, and no court has ever held that it was. Your arguments by assertion are unpersuasive, and bad. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/240 "2017-07-31T03:22:21Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Because not doing so harbors the illegal alien, which violates the federal law. Local officials are not allowed to violate federal law. They don’t have to enforce it, but they are not allowed to violate it. > San Francisco requested him to be transferred to them to prosecute him for the drug violation. As I already cited. Then, one day after receiving him in custody, they decided to release him. Then they did not call ICE for three weeks until they released him. After ICE specifically requested it. So it’s not like they didn’t know he was an illegal alien, already deported multiple times, and they knew that if ICE gets him he will be deported again. > > **You (plural) keep avoiding answering this: does the behavior above fall under “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally”? Explain your reasoning for the answer.** First, a judge dropped the charges, not the SFPD. Sate and local law enforcement has no authority to hold someone for a violation of immigration law. That’s strictly a federal matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=13)