# "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:** 18
**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, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/341 "2017-07-31T19:45:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Surprise, surprise, surprise. Golly! 😃 ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/342 "2017-07-31T19:46:01Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Point of order, not all conservative leaning folks speak for all others. Rant withdrawn, Your Honor! ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/343 "2017-07-31T19:46:50Z")
Okrahoma, if a cop tells me “We might have more questions. Don’t leave town”, would leaving town constitute a crime? ---
**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, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/344 "2017-07-31T19:51:07Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You’re kind of all over the place here. It’s those rotating goalposts. Very unusual to have them remain in one thread, normally they’re carried from thread to thread by some conspiracy theorist. Not that I’m saying comrade **Okra** is a CTist. ---
**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, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/345 "2017-07-31T19:52:58Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 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. Ignore the initiating part then (I meant initiating not in creating the request, but being the ones who called ICE. As opposed to answering a call that ICE made to them. Doesn’t matter though). ICE effectively makes the city a subcontractor in enforcing Federal law by having them make the call to them, so ICE can do their own job. ---
**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, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/346 "2017-07-31T20:32:44Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > 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? No. They obviously can’t do it if it’s a crime. ---
**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, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/347 "2017-07-31T20:33:52Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Okrahoma, if a cop tells me “We might have more questions. Don’t leave town”, would leaving town constitute a crime? If there is a law that would make such behavior illegal, yes. ---
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/348 "2017-07-31T20:35:21Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > No. They obviously can’t do it if it’s a crime. So…you don’t yet see the contradiction in your position? ---
**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, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/349 "2017-07-31T20:44:52Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > So…you don’t yet see the contradiction in your position? No. My position is that such behavior (that is, refusing ICE request to notify them when the illegal alien is released onto the streets) is against the law. The law that has not been prosecuted in this case (yet, I hope). Where is the contradiction? ---
**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, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/350 "2017-07-31T20:58:13Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > No. My position is that such behavior (that is, refusing ICE request to notify them when the illegal alien is released onto the streets) is against the law. The law that has not been prosecuted in this case (yet, I hope). Where is the contradiction? For the Nth time, ICE requests simply do not have the force of law. You can’t just keep saying that they do. Well, I guess you can - it’s just getting ridiculous is all. ---
**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, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/351 "2017-07-31T21:09:38Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > For the Nth time, ICE requests simply do not have the force of law. You can’t just keep saying that they do. Well, I guess you can - it’s just getting ridiculous is all. I quoted the law. I quoted the definition of “harboring” in the court’s decisions on that law. I showed that SF’s actions in refusing the ICE request fit that definition. In response, all you have is “no, it isn’t so”. ---
**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 31, 2017, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/352 "2017-07-31T21:11:18Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I quoted the law. I quoted the definition of “harboring” in the court’s decisions on that law. I showed that SF’s actions in refusing the ICE request fit that definition. > > In response, all you have is “no, it isn’t so”. I’ll take the assessment of multiple lawyers, liberal and conservative, over random internet non lawyer. ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/353 "2017-07-31T21:21:12Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I quoted the law. I quoted the definition of “harboring” in the court’s decisions on that law. I showed that SF’s actions in refusing the ICE request fit that definition. > > In response, all you have is “no, it isn’t so”. Actually, you haven’t shown which element of the crime that San Francisco violated that in my hypothetical, you say that East Bumfuck did not violate. If you can’t state which element of the crime applies differently to the two cases, then there’s only two possible conclusions: first, that both violated the law, which is fairly absurd; or two, that neither violated the law at all. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2017, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/354 "2017-07-31T21:26:24Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > We already went through it in this thread and I showed that “facilitating” does not require overt action. What, you mean your analogy to someone who doesn’t report a wife beater? Because no, I don’t think that they would be in violation of a statute which prohibited “facilitating spousal abuse”. If the statute said they had a _duty to report_ abuse (as some people, e.g., social workers, do have), then yes, they’d be in violation. I am not a lawyer, so maybe I’m wrong about the legal meaning of “facilitating”. Do you have _any_ example where a court found someone “facilitated” a crime by not reporting it? That is, where the portion of the statute they were found to have violated specifically said “facilitating”? If not, then I think your whole claim doesn’t hold up, because your basis for saying this was “harboring” was based on “harboring” including “facilitating”. ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/355 "2017-07-31T21:27:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Actually, you haven’t shown which element of the crime that San Francisco violated that in my hypothetical, you say that East Bumfuck did not violate. I did. You just ignored it. The EB violated the law in exactly the same way as SF did, but EB is covered by the fact that the courts decided that it is not required to enforce federal law, so it was not required to initiate the call to ICE to inform it that it is holding the alien. SF isn’t covered by that - because calling ICE in response to ICE’s request that they would notify it in advance of the alien’s release is not enforcing the federal law. ---
**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, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/356 "2017-07-31T21:29:27Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I quoted the law. I quoted the definition of “harboring” in the court’s decisions on that law.\*\* I showed that SF’s actions in refusing the ICE request fit that definition.\*\* > > In response, all you have is “no, it isn’t so”. (my bold) No, you did not show the bolded part. Even if it is accepted that the definition of harboring you’ve cited is applicable, you haven’t shown how what SF did meets that definition. No court has ever adopted the reasoning you are advancing, there is no legal support for your position, and the cases you’ve cited are not remotely analogous. The only way you’ve been able to push this idea is by equivocating on the word “facilitate”. This is a completely novel and unsupported position. In addition, the court case you cited for the definition was in the 2nd circuit. SF is in the 9th. The 2nd circuit’s adoption of the language you’ve quoted, the “facilitating” part, that’s not from the statute so the 2nd circuit’s adoption of that language in some limited contexts does not mean that is the definition that would be adopted in the 9th. The Ye case you cited in the 7th circuit rejected that language in some instances. Not only is the action that you focus on of not calling ICE not violative of the statute, the definition you are using for the statute comes from a jurisdiction that SF doesn’t belong to. ---
**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 31, 2017, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/357 "2017-07-31T21:38:59Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I quoted the law. I quoted the definition of “harboring” in the court’s decisions on that law. I showed that SF’s actions in refusing the ICE request fit that definition. > > In response, all you have is “no, it isn’t so”. Not sure why I’m even bothering, but: According to your info, SF did not refuse the request. They just didn’t answer. They were under no legal obligation to answer. ---
**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, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/358 "2017-07-31T21:42:05Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > (my bold) > > No, you did not show the bolded part. Even if it is accepted that the definition of harboring you’ve cited is applicable, you haven’t shown how what SF did meets that definition. No court has ever adopted the reasoning you are advancing, there is no legal support for your position, and the cases you’ve cited are not remotely analogous. The only way you’ve been able to push this idea is by equivocating on the word “facilitate”. This is a completely novel and unsupported position. > > In addition, the court case you cited for the definition was in the 2nd circuit. SF is in the 9th. The 2nd circuit’s adoption of the language you’ve quoted, the “facilitating” part, that’s not from the statute so the 2nd circuit’s adoption of that language in some limited contexts does not mean that is the definition that would be adopted in the 9th. The Ye case you cited in the 7th circuit rejected that language in some instances. > > Not only is the action that you focus on of not calling ICE not violative of the statute, the definition you are using for the statute comes from a jurisdiction that SF doesn’t belong to. No court has ever decided against my interpretation either. I have few hopes that the Federal wimpy immigration-laws-enforcement authority would ever robustly prosecute that law, but until the court decides, I will stick to my obvious and common-sense stance that releasing the illegal alien onto the streets vs. turning him over to ICE as ICE requested facilitates his staying in the United States. ---
**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, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/359 "2017-07-31T21:43:24Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Not sure why I’m even bothering, but: > > According to your info, SF did not refuse the request. They just didn’t answer. They were under no legal obligation to answer. Since not answering the request violates that federal law, yes, they were. ---
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/360 "2017-07-31T21:48:03Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > No court has ever decided against my interpretation either. I have few hopes that the Federal wimpy immigration-laws-enforcement authority would ever robustly prosecute that law, but until the court decides, I will stick to my obvious and common-sense stance that releasing the illegal alien onto the streets vs. turning him over to ICE as ICE requested facilitates his staying in the United States. Your interpretation of the law flies in the face of the very language it was written in. Describing your stance as obvious and common sense is so outrageous that I can’t imagine a purpose in further discussion. Enjoy your windmills. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=19)