# "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:** 17
**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 31, 2017, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/321 "2017-07-31T19:14:19Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > The statute prohibits “harboring”. Which the court defined as “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally”. Which not calling ICE to warn them of the impending illegal alien’s release in spite of ICE request clearly did. As in (and I quote): “Had ICE been notified as requested, the agency would have taken this individual into custody and removed him from the country, as dictated by federal law and ICE’s enforcement priorities”. In which case the 3 weeks he sat in the jail cell were just as much ‘harboring’ as was the release - What you fail to get here is that the actions of “harboring” or “facilitating” are overt actions by the person ( as aptly shown in your cite ). ---
**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, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/322 "2017-07-31T19:14:46Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Yes, taking the action of releasing someone out into the public instead of, as requested by the ICE, notifying the ICE about his release so that they could come, pick him up, and deport him, clearly and unequivocally facilitates the alien’s remaining in the United States illegally. > > Which is what the court’s definition of “harboring” was. This doesn’t answer my question: which element of the crime did East Bumfuck not violate that you contend that SF did violate? ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/323 "2017-07-31T19:15:27Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You know what also would be conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the US illegally? SF also didn’t transport the person out of the country themselves. They also didn’t simply kill him. Not doing those things would also fall under the definition you are using. ICE did not request them to kill him. ICE didn’t request them to transport the person out of the country themselves. ICE did not request that they enforce federal law. ICE didn’t ask them to do anything unconstitutional. ICE requested them to notify ICE about the release. ---
**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, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/324 "2017-07-31T19:16:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > This doesn’t answer my question: which element of the crime did East Bumfuck not violate that you contend that SF did violate? The part where they did not refuse ICE request that ICE be notified so that he could be deported. ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/325 "2017-07-31T19:17:53Z")
> [@simster](#): > > In which case the 3 weeks he sat in the jail cell were just as much ‘harboring’ as was the release - > > What you fail to get here is that the actions of “harboring” or “facilitating” are overt actions by the person ( as aptly shown in your cite ). We already went through it in this thread and I showed that “facilitating” does not require overt action. ---
**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, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/326 "2017-07-31T19:18:15Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > The part where they did not refuse ICE request that ICE be notified so that he could be deported. To be guilty of a crime, one must commit all the elements of the crime. Here are the elements as I see it: 1. 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 2. conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, 3. such alien 4. in any place, including any building or any means of transportation Where do you see “notification” in any of those elements? Where do you see “refusal” in any of those elements? Again, which SPECIFIC element of the crime do you believe East Bumfuck is not violating, that SF did? You can just type a number, if you wish. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/327 "2017-07-31T19:19:28Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > If they were perfectly ready to arrest and deport him, I fail to understand why a warrant can’t be obtained. “The Sheriff’s assertion that ICE is required to provide some form of “judicial” order in order to receive the requested notification reflects a manifest misunderstanding of federal immigration law . **There is no such document, nor is there any federal court with the authority to issue one**. Neither is there a legal requirement that ICE provide a judicial warrant to law enforcement agencies in order to receive such notifications.” ---
**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, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/328 "2017-07-31T19:20:02Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > ICE did not request them to kill him. ICE didn’t request them to transport the person out of the country themselves. ICE did not request that they enforce federal law. ICE didn’t ask them to do anything unconstitutional. ICE requested them to notify ICE about the release. Again, ICE requests are irrelevant to the question of whether SF violated the statute. You acknowledged this in post #291. ---
**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, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/329 "2017-07-31T19:22:15Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > ICE did not request them to kill him. ICE didn’t request them to transport the person out of the country themselves. ICE did not request that they enforce federal law. ICE didn’t ask them to do anything unconstitutional. ICE requested them to notify ICE about the release. ICE requests don’t have the force of law. So who cares what they requested? And if they have the force of law, as you seem to imply, then what are the limits? ---
**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, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/330 "2017-07-31T19:26:49Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Again, ICE requests are irrelevant to the question of whether SF violated the statute. You acknowledged this in post #291. It is relevant to the question of whether the city is covered by the “we’re not required to enforce federal law” thing. If there was no request, initiating the call to ICE would be “enforcing federal law”. Since there was such a request, that excuse is not there. ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/331 "2017-07-31T19:28:15Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > ICE requests don’t have the force of law. So who cares what they requested? And if they have the force of law, as you seem to imply, then what are the limits? The limits are what the courts set. The courts already set the limit at detainers. They didn’t set the limit at requests to call ICE to warn them of the alien’s release. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/332 "2017-07-31T19:32:51Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It is relevant to the question of whether the city is covered by the “we’re not required to enforce federal law” thing. **If there was no request, initiating the call to ICE would be “enforcing federal law”**. Since there was such a request, that excuse is not there. Is that true, though? Isn’t ICE asking the city to be a participating agency along with ICE in making sure they could enforce federal law? SF couldn’t stop ICE from waiting outside and picking up the individual when released. But asking the city to initiate a call in order for ICE to enforce it’s own laws is making the city a co-participant in enforcing said law, right? ---
**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, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/333 "2017-07-31T19:34:31Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > “The Sheriff’s assertion that ICE is required to provide some form of “judicial” order in order to receive the requested notification reflects a manifest misunderstanding of federal immigration law . **There is no such document, nor is there any federal court with the authority to issue one**. Neither is there a legal requirement that ICE provide a judicial warrant to law enforcement agencies in order to receive such notifications.” Of course there’s no legal requirement. There’s no legal requirement that Facebook sends me birthday reminders nor that I require them. What you’ve steadfastly refused to acknowledge is that there is also no legal requirement for SFPD to provide notifications. That’s really the end of it, absent some major legal changes. Remember way back when the Senate refused to vote on Garland and Dems were howling that they are shirking their job? And how the Repubs’ response was “that’s not what the law says”? You may be sure that the law implies something but tough shit. We go by what the law actually says and how it’s been interpreted to date. ---
**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, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/334 "2017-07-31T19:36:19Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It is relevant to the question of whether the city is covered by the “we’re not required to enforce federal law” thing. If there was no request, initiating the call to ICE would be “enforcing federal law”. Since there was such a request, that excuse is not there. You’re kind of all over the place here. There is nothing wrong with initiating a call to ICE. It’s a voluntary thing, and they can do so or not. Doing so does not count as enforcing federal law. The prohibition against forcing state and local governments to enforce federal law is when the feds require a specific thing. The request from ICE cannot transform an action from legal to illegal because the actions of ICE are not contemplated in the statute. ICE actions are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether SF violated the law in question. ICE calls, requests, detainers, etc. are a red herring. ICE could have literally told SF they would be there in 5 minutes via certified mail, notarized by the President himself, and SF could still release the person in 3 minutes with nary a word offered. SF did not violate the law in question by releasing the person. ---
**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, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/335 "2017-07-31T19:37:05Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > SF couldn’t stop ICE from waiting outside and picking up the individual when released. But asking the city to initiate a call in order for ICE to enforce it’s own laws is making the city a co-participant in enforcing said law, right? It is not initiating the action, it is responding to the request. Initiating the action would be “enforcing the law” - it would be notifying ICE that there is an illegal alien where ICE didn’t know there was one. Responding to the request wouldn’t be. The mayor of SF in his statements agreed, IIRC. ---
**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, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/336 "2017-07-31T19:39:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You’re kind of all over the place here. There is nothing wrong with initiating a call to ICE. It’s a voluntary thing, and they can do so or not. Doing so does not count as enforcing federal law. Yes, it does. And “enforcing federal law” is a voluntary thing - that is, they can do it, but they don’t have to. > [@](#): > > The request from ICE cannot transform an action from legal to illegal because the actions of ICE are not contemplated in the statute. But the actions of SF officials are. Refusing ICE request is facilitating the illegal aliens’ remaining in the United States - thus makes the SF actions illegal. ---
**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, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/337 "2017-07-31T19:41:37Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Refusing ICE request is facilitating the illegal aliens’ remaining in the United States - thus makes the SF actions illegal. Then it isn’t a request, it is a demand upon penalty of law. Which ICE cannot do. I see you can’t answer my question about elements of a crime. Surprise, surprise, surprise. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/338 "2017-07-31T19:41:45Z")
Your position is “they can do it, but they don’t have to” and if they don’t, then they are committing a crime. Do you see a tiny problem there? ---
**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, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/339 "2017-07-31T19:43:58Z")
Re-reading the last page of this thread, I find myself wondering: “What the fuck happened to all that conservative masturbation over Scalia’s genius for emphasizing textualism, rather than relying on what we feeeeeeeel the law should mean?” ---
**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, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/340 "2017-07-31T19:44:35Z")
Point of order, not all conservative leaning folks speak for all others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=18)