# "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:** 15
**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, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/281 "2017-07-31T17:31:21Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > But you have proposed earlier than given options A or B that produce outcomes X or Y, that doing B constitutes helping an illegal alien. How are the parishioners not helping illegal aliens? They know damn well what their church is doing. Because it is not a direct causation. In abstract terms - doing B does not directly produce outcome Y. Earmarking the donation would definitely be a direct causation. Just like releasing the illegal alien without calling ICE at ICE’s request is a direct causation. ---
**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, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/282 "2017-07-31T17:33:00Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Again, for the Nth time, I am expecting them to call ICE, if ICE asks them to do that, in advance before they release the illegal alien. Again, for the Nth time, San Francisco city ordinances do not allow them to contact ICE without a judicial order. ---
**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, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/283 "2017-07-31T17:36:19Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Because it is not a direct causation. In abstract terms - doing B does not directly produce outcome Y. > > Earmarking the donation would definitely be a direct causation. Just like releasing the illegal alien without calling ICE at ICE’s request is a direct causation. > [@Skywatcher](#): > > Again, for the Nth time, San Francisco city ordinances do not allow them to contact ICE without a judicial order. Why couldn’t ICE have had a warrant ready when they turned him over to the SFPD? ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/284 "2017-07-31T17:38:21Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > Again, for the Nth time, San Francisco city ordinances do not allow them to contact ICE without a judicial order. This is true, but not on point for Okra’s criticism. He is claiming that the SF ordinance is violative of the federal law. Stating the existence of the ordinance doesn’t speak to that. The ordinance is fine, because it doesn’t violate the federal law, but simply saying they couldn’t do it because of the ordinance doesn’t address the criticism. ---
**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, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/285 "2017-07-31T17:38:25Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Why couldn’t ICE have had a warrant ready when they turned him over to the SFPD? Or at any time during the three weeks that he was in SF? ---
**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, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/286 "2017-07-31T17:43:47Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > This is true, but not on point for Okra’s criticism. He is claiming that the SF ordinance is violative of the federal law. Stating the existence of the ordinance doesn’t speak to that. The ordinance is fine, because it doesn’t violate the federal law, but simply saying they couldn’t do it because of the ordinance doesn’t address the criticism. His point lies in the wrong place. The criticism should be targeting ICE for not taking proper action rather than a city which would be violating its own laws had they done what he suggests. ---
**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, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/287 "2017-07-31T17:45:13Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Because it is not a direct causation. In abstract terms - doing B does not directly produce outcome Y. > > Earmarking the donation would definitely be a direct causation. Just like releasing the illegal alien without calling ICE at ICE’s request is a direct causation. Does intent matter? ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/288 "2017-07-31T17:49:59Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > Or at any time during the three weeks that he was in SF? > **[S.F. sheriff's deputies call lack of communication with ICE 'reckless' after...](https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sf-deputy-sheriffs-20150717-story.html)** > > Turning up the political heat on San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi in an election cycle, the union that represents the department's deputies charges in a labor grievance that his policy to limit communication with U.S. “He issued the memo as departments across the state and nation also implemented policies barring the honoring of detainers absent a judicial warrant. ICE has said it cannot obtain such probable cause warrants because there is not a process readily available for such a purpose.” Also, from ICE spokeswoman: “obtaining judicial warrants is not only unnecessary, it would place an immense burden on both ICE and the federal courts.” ---
**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, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/289 "2017-07-31T17:50:59Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Does intent matter? Earmarking documents intent. ---
**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, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/290 "2017-07-31T17:55:31Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > His point lies in the wrong place. The criticism should be targeting ICE for not taking proper action rather than a city which would be violating its own laws had they done what he suggests. That also is shifting the argument. What ICE does is irrelevant to whether SF practice or policy is illegal. The statute in question identifies shielding, concealing, or harboring as illegal. ICE’s actions are not germane to whether the city did any of those things. If the city did any of those things which are deemed to be illegal, then the ordinance will not make that action legal. That is why the ordinance is irrelevant to the statute. That is why ICE’s actions are irrelevant to the statute. ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/291 "2017-07-31T17:57:14Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That also is shifting the argument. What ICE does is irrelevant to whether SF practice or policy is illegal. The statute in question identifies shielding, concealing, or harboring as illegal. ICE’s actions are not germane to whether the city did any of those things. > > If the city did any of those things which are deemed to be illegal, then the ordinance will not make that action legal. That is why the ordinance is irrelevant to the statute. That is why ICE’s actions are irrelevant to the statute. It is so refreshing to see that someone actually understands that. ---
**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, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/292 "2017-07-31T17:58:05Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Earmarking documents intent. I agree. But if someone has some other reason for taking an action, other than to conceal an illegal immigrant, does that matter? Like, for example, a tithe that is primarily given because Leviticus commands people to do so. ---
**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, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/293 "2017-07-31T18:00:15Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I agree. But if someone has some other reason for taking an action, other than to conceal an illegal immigrant, does that matter? Like, for example, a tithe that is primarily given because Leviticus commands people to do so. I thought I already said that if someone is just tithing, that does not constitute the “facilitation” because of the indirectness of the action. Of course, if all the money that the church gets is known to the donor to go to concealment of illegal aliens, then yes, such a tithe would be “facilitation”. ---
**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, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/294 "2017-07-31T18:02:44Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I thought I already said that if someone is just tithing, that does not constitute the “facilitation” because of the indirectness of the action. Of course, if all the money that the church gets is known to the donor to go to concealment of illegal aliens, then yes, such a tithe would be “facilitation”. I’m not asking about indirectness. I’m asking about intent. If someone does something without intent to conceal an illegal alien, even if such an action does indeed further the interests of an illegal alien in not being caught, does the lack of intent matter? ---
**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, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/295 "2017-07-31T18:09:28Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If the city did any of those things which are deemed to be illegal As has been repeatedly been pointed out for nearly 300 posts now by people more qualified than I, the city did not act illegally. Repeatedly making the claim that they did act illegally doesn’t make _that_ true, either. ---
**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, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/296 "2017-07-31T18:11:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I’m not asking about indirectness. I’m asking about intent. If someone does something without intent to conceal an illegal alien, even if such an action does indeed further the interests of an illegal alien in not being caught, does the lack of intent matter? Since the federal law does say “knowing or in reckless disregard”, yes I presume it does. The law in question also makes the harboring itself illegal. As in: those who actually harbor bear the responsibility for the crime and should be prosecuted. After that we may look at those who helped them, but that would not be necessary, since the main problem is removed. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/297 "2017-07-31T18:13:53Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It is so refreshing to see that someone actually understands that. Do you understand this part of the LA Times article you linked? > [@](#): > > The crackdown on cooperation with ICE came after federal courts last year deemed the detainers unconstitutional absent some kind of judicial review. ---
**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, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/298 "2017-07-31T18:25:36Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Do you understand this part of the LA Times article you linked? And yet again, for the N+1th time, I am talking about the phone call to ICE about the upcoming release of the illegal alien, not the detainer request. The courts did not rule that calling ICE without some kind of judicial review is unconstitutional. ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/299 "2017-07-31T18:27:12Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Since the federal law does say “knowing or in reckless disregard”, yes I presume it does. The law in question also makes the harboring itself illegal. As in: those who actually harbor bear the responsibility for the crime and should be prosecuted. After that we may look at those who helped them, but that would not be necessary, since the main problem is removed. It is “knowing or in reckless disregard” for the status of the person, not in relation to their actions. Agreed? So let’s say that East Bumfuck, New Jersey, catches a graffiti artist who readily admits he is an illegal alien. The cops do not wish to hold him on the graffiti charges. ICE has no knowledge that this man has been arrested, so they have not asked or demanded that EBPD do anything at all. Is East Bumfuck Police Department free to release this person under 18 USC 1324? ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/300 "2017-07-31T18:29:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It is “knowing or in reckless disregard” for the status of the person, not in relation to their actions. Agreed? Which the donor doesn’t know. > [@](#): > > So let’s say that East Bumfuck, New Jersey, catches a graffiti artist who readily admits he is an illegal alien. The cops do not wish to hold him on the graffiti charges. ICE has no knowledge that this man has been arrested, so they have not asked or demanded that EBPD do anything at all. > > Is East Bumfuck Police Department free to release this person under 18 USC 1324? Yes, since ICE didn’t request anything from them, they are free to release this person. The fact that ICE requested that the San Francisco authorities notify them and were ignored is crucial to the illegality of the SF actions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=16)