# "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:** 20
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/381 "2017-07-31T22:27:33Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Why do you ask? Because for some weird reason you emphasized the “who is not being charged with anything” in San Francisco case. ---
**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, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/382 "2017-07-31T22:30:18Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Because for some weird reason you emphasized the “who is not being charged with anything” in San Francisco case. What’s weird about it? ---
**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, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/383 "2017-07-31T22:32:32Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > The case was not based on them being employees, but on Cantu releasing them in the streets, refusing access to the aliens’ by the immigration agents. Which “tended to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally”. First, Cantu didn’t run afoul of any law by refusing access without a warrant. He has a right to do that. Second, Cantu didn’t “release” these two men in any sense of the word. He was never holding them and therefore could not release them. Third, [here are details of the two substantive counts](http://openjurist.org/557/f2d/1173/united-states-v-cantu) that Cantu was convicted of: > [@](#): > > 3 > One of the illegal aliens employed by Cantu on June 18 was Lucio Hernandez. Hernandez had worked for Cantu during a previous illegal visit to the United States. When the INS agents arrived on the morning of the 18th, Hernandez took a seat in the dining room of the restaurant. \*\*Cantu approached a patron, Billy Morton, and asked him to give a ride to one of the employees. \*\*Morton agreed, and Cantu then pointed Morton out to Hernandez. Morton joined Hernandez, but the two could not converse due to the language barrier. **A witness testified that Cantu made the arrangements with Morton. As Morton prepared to leave he indicated to Hernandez to join Morton’s sons in a group.** They left by the front door in single file. The agents approached Hernandez in the restaurant parking lot, ascertained his illegal status, and arrested him. > > 4 > Another illegal alien employed by Cantu on June 18 was Armando Bustamante-Hernandez (referred to herein as Bustamante). Bustamante also had been employed by Cantu during a previous illegal visit to the United States. When the agents arrived on the 18th Bustamante changed from his waiter’s costume into street clothing, and attempted to hide within the restaurant. Bustamante testified that **Cantu told him not to hide, but to take a seat in the restaurant dining room. Bustamante further testified that Cantu then approached a patron, Ignacio Perez, and asked Perez to give Bustamante a ride into town.** Perez testified that he was aware of the presence of the INS agents, aware that Bustamante was Cantu’s employee, that he was aware that Cantu was reputed to employ illegals, and that it occurred to him that Bustamante might be illegal. Perez joined Bustamante and indicated that Bustamante was to leave with him. \*\*Bustamante testified that this was confirmed by a gesture from Cantu. \*\*As Bustamante and Perez passed the cashier’s booth Perez obtained a toothpick which he gave to Bustamante, and Bustamante put the toothpick in his mouth. The two then left the restaurant together. In the restaurant parking lot agents approached Bustamante, ascertained his illegal status, and arrested him. (my bold in the above) In both instances, Cantu took actions designed to shield Hernandez and Bustamante and Cantu was convicted for shielding. A few points: [ul] [li]Actions taken are different than lack of action.[/li][li]This is in the 5th circuit.[/li][li]This case was about shielding, and the definition you have been discussing is about harboring.[/li][li]This is not even close to the criminal activity you are alleging, namely not calling ICE.[/li][/ul] ---
**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, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/384 "2017-07-31T22:43:23Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > In both instances, Cantu took actions designed to shield Hernandez and Bustamante and Cantu was convicted for shielding. A few points: > > Actions taken are different than lack of action. If Cantu’s “action” was sending the employees outside the restaurant without giving access to them by immigration agents, then SF’s “action” was releasing the illegal alien without calling ICE (that is, without giving access to him by immigration agents). In both cases the **action** was designed, deliberately, to prevent the immigration agents from arresting and deporting the illegal aliens. I don’t see the difference. > [@](#): > > This case was about shielding, and the definition you have been discussing is about harboring. The court cites, approvingly, the “tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.’” definition. ---
**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, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/385 "2017-07-31T22:56:14Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > If Cantu’s “action” was sending the employees outside the restaurant without giving access to them by immigration agents, then SF’s “action” was releasing the illegal alien without calling ICE (that is, without giving access to him by immigration agents). No. The two people did not merely leave the restaurant. Cantu arranged for them to leave by means he chose, in a way designed to obfuscate their identity. If Cantu did nothing, and the two people left, that may be more analogous but it’s not. There is nothing about “giving access”. That’s your addition but it has no place in the statute. Of course, employing a person doesn’t count as harboring either. > [@](#): > > In both cases the **action** was designed, deliberately, to prevent the immigration agents from arresting and deporting the illegal aliens. I don’t see the difference. In SF, they merely cease detaining the person. They don’t arrange their transportation, give them advice on how to evade authorities, or provide them resources, etc. They no longer have a basis for detention, so they cease detaining. That’s the difference. In every case you’ve found, the person convicted took action to do something. SF did not. You’ve also said that SF was required to call ICE or else they would be in violation of the statute. The law doesn’t require that. The law typically criminalizes actions taken. You’ve flipped it, advancing the idea that the law would criminalize actions not taken (phone call not made). None of your examples are even close to this. Again, you’ve presented no evidence that the rationale you are advancing has ever been used. And again, Cantu is in the 5th. Not binding on SF. ---
**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, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/386 "2017-07-31T23:00:56Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > If Cantu’s “action” was sending the employees outside the restaurant without giving access to them by immigration agents, then SF’s “action” was releasing the illegal alien without calling ICE (that is, without giving access to him by immigration agents). Not even remotely. The restaurant owner was specifically trying to deceive immigration officers, not just letting illegal employees leave work. Your attempts at obfuscation are rather comical, fyi. ---
**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, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/387 "2017-07-31T23:09:58Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Cite that the Constitution “requires” that the SF officials’ acceding to the ICE request that they be notified would be “optional”. That’s Printz. Cited earlier. ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/388 "2017-07-31T23:28:21Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 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. No, you have never once answered the question I asked. I listed the elements of the crime, and you keep talking about “notification” which is not an element of the crime, nor of the statute. It is like if I asked you if OJ Simpson fulfilled each element of the theft statute – 1. The unlawful 2. Taking and 3. Carrying away 4. Of another’s 5. Personal property And instead of talking about the elements of the crime, you respond with details of when OJ got his ring and whatnot. Are you familiar with what I mean by “elements of a crime?” Like, have you ever been on a jury? Anything? ---
**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, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/389 "2017-07-31T23:39:30Z")
**Okrahoma** , “harboring” someone you know to have committed a felony is one way you can be an accessory after the fact. ([§ 32 PC - Accessory After The Fact - California Penal Code](http://www.shouselaw.com/accessory-after-fact.html)) And yet, failure to report a crime is (in most states) not a crime ([Failure to Report a Crime - FindLaw](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/failure-to-report-a-crime.html)). How do you reconcile this with your contention that “harboring” as a legal term includes failure to report? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2017, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/390 "2017-08-01T00:15:44Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That’s Printz. Cited earlier. Cite - specifically about calling ICE in response to their request. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2017, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/391 "2017-08-01T00:17:08Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > **Okrahoma** , “harboring” someone you know to have committed a felony is one way you can be an accessory after the fact. ([Penal Code § 32 PC - Accessory After the Fact](http://www.shouselaw.com/accessory-after-fact.html)) And yet, failure to report a crime is (in most states) not a crime ([http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/failure-to-report-a-crime.html](http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/failure-to-report-a-crime.html)). > > How do you reconcile this with your contention that “harboring” as a legal term includes failure to report? “Facilitating an alien’s 'remaining in the United States illegally.”. Which releasing him onto the streets without calling ICE about it as ICE requested does. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2017, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/392 "2017-08-01T00:21:21Z")
You keep selectively reading the law. It requires that someone harbors or conceals someone in a place, such as a building or means of transportation. Again, you think the SFPD is guilty of concealing an alien on Earth? Did the SFPD start driving him around in the trunk of a car? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2017, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/393 "2017-08-01T00:27:23Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > The case was not based on them being employees, but on Cantu releasing them in the streets, refusing access to the aliens’ by the immigration agents. Which “tended to facilitate the immigrants remaining in the U.S. illegally”. Unless Cantu was imprisoning his workers, what’s the relevance? He can’t “release” people that weren’t in his custody. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2017, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/394 "2017-08-01T00:30:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You keep selectively reading the law. It requires that someone harbors or conceals someone in a place, such as a building or means of transportation. Again, you think the SFPD is guilty of concealing an alien on Earth? Did the SFPD start driving him around in the trunk of a car? Releasing him onto the streets of San Francisco (a place) very effectively harbors him, compared to calling ICE to pick him up as he is released. And no, the language in the law is not “such as a building or a means of transportation”. I think you misquoted it on purpose. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2017, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/395 "2017-08-01T00:32:06Z")
Effectively doing something is not the same as actually doing something. Harboring/concealing doesn’t come into play only in comparison with something else. Either releasing a known illegal immigrant is harboring/concealing or it is not. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2017, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/396 "2017-08-01T00:33:18Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > Effectively doing something is not the same as actually doing something. Effectively as in “successfully”. ---
**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:** [August 1, 2017, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/397 "2017-08-01T00:50:08Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Releasing him onto the streets of San Francisco (a place) very effectively harbors him, compared to calling ICE to pick him up as he is released. > > And no, the language in the law is not “such as a building or a means of transportation”. I think you misquoted it on purpose. “…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, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, **such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation**.” I was quoting from memory. So you think the SFPD was harboring an alien in the whole world? They were taking no action to keep him from leaving San Francisco, they were providing no location for him to sleep or work, so it must be that the alien was being hidden in any place that he chose to go. As in, the SFPD was horboring an alien in the whole world. That’s absurd. Can you answer my question as to whether you know what an “element of a crime” is? ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2017, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/398 "2017-08-01T00:54:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I was quoting from memory. So you think the SFPD was harboring an alien in the whole world? No, in San Francisco. You admit it is a lot harder to apprehend the alien in San Francisco than in a jailhouse, right? ---
**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:** [August 1, 2017, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/399 "2017-08-01T01:04:45Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > No, in San Francisco. You admit it is a lot harder to apprehend the alien in San Francisco than in a jailhouse, right? How does the SFPD know where a person goes when released from jail? Were they following him and telling him where to hide? Did they tell him to stay in San Francisco to be safe from ICE? ---
**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:** [August 1, 2017, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/400 "2017-08-01T01:55:05Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Releasing him onto the streets of San Francisco (a place) very effectively harbors him, compared to calling ICE to pick him up as he is released. Not if you’re an English speaker. In English, harboring usually includes knowing where someone is just by the very nature of harboring. You should curl up with a nice dictionary sometime. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=21)