# "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:** 5
**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 29, 2017, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/81 "2017-07-29T03:47:04Z")
Why was López-Sánchez in San Francisco in the first place? [The Feds sent him there!](https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/what-went-wrong-case-francisco-lopez-sanchez) > [@](#): > > Until late March, Lopez-Sanchez was in federal custody, serving a prison sentence that normally would have ended with deportation. His sentence apparently should have ended in July 2013, but for reasons we don’t yet understand, ICE did not deport him — then or at any time over the next year and 8 months, when Lopez-Sanchez inexplicably remained in federal custody. Finally, in March 2015, the federal Bureau of Prisons sent him to San Francisco based on a 20-year-old warrant for a marijuana charge — a charge that San Francisco predictably decided not to pursue because it was a low-level offense from two decades ago. > > :snip: > > If ICE had presented the Sheriff’s Department with a judicial order authorizing detention, San Francisco could legally have kept Lopez-Sanchez in custody temporarily for ICE—and it would have done so, under its policies. But ICE didn’t do that. > > So the question remains: Why did ICE use a detainer form that it knew San Francisco would not enforce — indeed a form that ICE itself has announced it will no longer use? ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/82 "2017-07-29T04:03:03Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Releasing someone, or something, has never in human history been treated as equivalent to hiding it or them. That’s a novel construction. If you wish to pursue this avenue, please cite the relevant legal precedent. Doesn’t that depend on the reason someone was released? e.g. I’m releasing them because I have no justification for holding them, vs. I’m releasing them because I have no justification for holding them yet I know that someone else does, but fuck them because I don’t agree with their reasons. The latter is pretty obvious in its 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 29, 2017, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/83 "2017-07-29T04:11:23Z")
Any talk of ICE detainers, felonies, etc. misses the mark. None of that matters one bit in the matter of violating the Fed code in the OP. SF could tell the head of ICE and Trump himself to go pound sand and that would not be violative of the code either. If the feds want him, they could go get him themselves, otherwise tough shit. **ICE** : please hold that guy, I’m coming down in 5 minutes. **SF** : pound sand, we’re releasing him in 2 minutes. **ICE** : Foiled again! States and local government are under no obligation to enforce or assist federal law enforcement. They can choose to, or not. I note again that there has been zero evidence to support the claims made by the OP. Zero. The same level of support exists for requiring everyone named Jim to pay me $10. Because of Fed code: nevergonnahappen. ---
**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 29, 2017, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/84 "2017-07-29T05:07:07Z")
> [@Uzi](#): > > Doesn’t that depend on the reason someone was released? e.g. I’m releasing them because I have no justification for holding them, vs. I’m releasing them because I have no justification for holding them yet I know that someone else does, but fuck them because I don’t agree with their reasons. The latter is pretty obvious in its intent. No, there was no official, legal request to hold him. But feel free to demonstrate how there was any legal, due process held to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/85 "2017-07-29T05:29:22Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > No, there was no official, legal request to hold him. > > But feel free to demonstrate how there was any legal, due process held to do so. I thought that was right in the OP. ---
**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:** [July 29, 2017, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/86 "2017-07-29T06:20:34Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > From the article already cited above, once again: > > "Federal officials say that as soon as they learned of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s transfer from federal prison to San Francisco, they issued a request to Sheriff Mirkarimi to notify them when he would be released. An order for his deportation was ready. > > **“We are just asking for a heads-up, a phone call,” said Gillian Christensen, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. “We did not hear anything until the day this young woman was killed.”** I’m a tad curious what ICE was prepared to actually _do_ if they got that phone call. Swoop in to take custody of Lopez-Sanchez? ---
**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 29, 2017, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/87 "2017-07-29T07:29:45Z")
> [@rat\_avatar](#): > > No, there was no official, legal request to hold him. > > But feel free to demonstrate how there was any legal, due process held to do so. > [@Uzi](#): > > I thought that was right in the OP. Without a judicial order (see post #81) holding him would have been illegal per a 2013 city ordinance (see post #18). ---
**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 29, 2017, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/88 "2017-07-29T12:36:46Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > From the article already cited above, once again: > > "Federal officials say that as soon as they learned of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s transfer from federal prison to San Francisco, they issued a request to Sheriff Mirkarimi to notify them when he would be released. An order for his deportation was ready. > > **“We are just asking for a heads-up, a phone call,” said Gillian Christensen, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. “We did not hear anything until the day this young woman was killed.”** Then they need to pass a law requiring a phone call. Right now there’s no such law. ---
**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 29, 2017, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/89 "2017-07-29T12:43:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Then they need to pass a law requiring a phone call. Right now there’s no such law. Such a law would be unconstitutional. See: [Printz v. United States - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States) ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/90 "2017-07-29T13:00:08Z")
The funniest thing about this thread to me is that State’s Rights are so very important to Republicans. Until, of course, they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/91 "2017-07-29T13:16:20Z")
Here’s some clarification from the ACLU that pretty much destroys the OP. Short version: 1. Local governments aren’t legally required to comply with ICE detainers. ICE detainers aren’t warrants or issued by a judge. 2. In addition to the flimsy legal grounds of an ICE detainers, they are also procedurally flimsy because ICE routinely detains people who turn out to be US citizens or legal permanent residents. In short: Sanctuary cities are breaking no law. On the contrary they are likely preventing illegal detentions by ICE. Full text: [What ICE isn’t telling you about detainers:](https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/issue_brief_-_what_ice_isnt_telling_you_about_detainers.pdf) (edited for brevity, bolding mine) > [@](#): > > [ul] > [li]An ICE detainer request is just that: a request. There is no legal requirement for your department to comply. The federal government has no legal right to force your department to hold anyone beyond the time when they are eligible for release from state or local custody.[/li][li]And ICE detainer is issued by an ICE officer, not a judge, and is frequently issued simply because ICE has “initiated an investigation” into a person’s status. **The fact that ICE issues a detainer does not mean that the individual is actually a non-citizen subject to deportation, or even that ICE has probable cause to think so.** [/li][li]An ICE detainer is also not a criminal detainer. [/li][li]Holding people at ICE’s request is expensive for the state or local community. ICE has stated that it “does not reimburse localities for detaining any individual until ICE has assumed actual custody of the individual.” [/li][li]ICE issues erroneous detainers with disturbing regularity. [/li][/ul] So again: Total OP fail. ---
**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 29, 2017, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/92 "2017-07-29T13:37:26Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Such a law would be unconstitutional. > > See: [Printz v. United States - Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States) Sorry **Okrahoma** ; seems like what you’re advocating is unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/93 "2017-07-29T13:43:46Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Sorry **Okrahoma** ; seems like what you’re advocating is unconstitutional. Bull. Point out which part of that decision makes it “unconstitutional” for a local authority to make a phone call to the ICE to tell them they will be releasing the illegal alien. ---
**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 29, 2017, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/94 "2017-07-29T13:48:48Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Bull. Point out which part of that decision makes it “unconstitutional” for a local authority to make a phone call to the ICE to tell them they will be releasing the illegal alien. Nothing. But they’re not required by law to do so, either, and trying to put such a law into place would be unconstitutional. So they can make that phone call. But they don’t have to. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/95 "2017-07-29T14:22:02Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Definitely not. Compare someone in a holding cell to someone out free in San Francisco. A a great way to conceal/shield someone so he is not caught by ICE is to hide him in the general population. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Sorry **Okrahoma** ; seems like what you’re advocating is unconstitutional. **Okrahoma** … I do appreciate your arguments here … I’m absolutely sure that every SFPD employee wishes the young woman was still alive … this was a regrettable incident … everybody in the City and County of San Francisco is feeling bad about it … the problem with your line of reasoning is as of yet you’ve not even tried to make the case that the SFPD acted dishonestly, with intent to cause harm to the general population … Grievous mistakes were made by both sides, _La Megra_ and SFPD … and I agree that both sides need to review their procedures and make corrections to prevent this horrible incident from re-occurring … I don’t understand why you just simply point the finger at SFPD, because that implies _La Megra_ is blameless in this matter … mind you, we’re talking about a government agency that’s chronically under-staffed to the point where immigration law enforcement is a complete joke … Your err starts with accepting written law at face value, without considering the jurisprudence … please do some homework and find the case law where State and Local officials are allowed to hold someone in jail without conviction, without probable cause and without arraignment … without a court order … ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/96 "2017-07-29T14:42:18Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Bull. Point out which part of that decision makes it “unconstitutional” for a local authority to make a phone call to the ICE to tell them they will be releasing the illegal alien. Sorry, you don’t get to move the goal posts like that. LLE may, at their pleasure, notify ICE if they’re in the mood. But they are not legally required to do jack shit for the federal government as far as detainer holds. States’ rights and all, y’know. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/97 "2017-07-29T14:45:30Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Sorry, you don’t get to move the goal posts like that. LLE may, at their pleasure, notify ICE if they’re in the mood. But they are not legally required to do jack shit for the federal government as far as detainer holds. States’ rights and all, y’know. 🙂 Hey now, let’s not cheapen the whole States’ Rights thing. That’s only important for things like abortions and healthcare. ---
**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 29, 2017, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/98 "2017-07-29T15:00:04Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Bull. Point out which part of that decision makes it “unconstitutional” for a local authority to make a phone call to the ICE to tell them they will be releasing the illegal alien. An issue I see is that what you’re advocating is not clear. First I thought it was criminal penalties, but since that’s so obviously not applicable, have you now shifted to a phone call? Sure, ICE can ask for the courtesy of a phone call. They can ask for cupcakes, rainbiws, and unicorns too! The local government can still tell them to pound sand. As a matter of law. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/99 "2017-07-29T16:13:59Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > **Okrahoma** … I do appreciate your arguments here … I’m absolutely sure that every SFPD employee wishes the young woman was still alive … this was a regrettable incident … everybody in the City and County of San Francisco is feeling bad about it … the problem with your line of reasoning is as of yet you’ve not even tried to make the case that the SFPD acted dishonestly, with intent to cause harm to the general population … That was not the point. The point is SFPD acted in order to prevent the deportation of the murderer. Deliberately. On purpose. > [@](#): > > Your err starts with accepting written law at face value, without considering the jurisprudence … please do some homework and find the case law where State and Local officials are allowed to hold someone in jail without conviction, without probable cause and without arraignment … without a court order … You (plural) keep harping on that. The SFPD refused to make a telephone call to ICE to tell them they were releasing the murderer. Not hold him in jail without conviction. To make a freaking telephone call. ---
**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 29, 2017, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/100 "2017-07-29T16:33:24Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > That was not the point. The point is SFPD acted in order to prevent the deportation of the murderer. Deliberately. On purpose. > > You (plural) keep harping on that. The SFPD refused to make a telephone call to ICE to tell them they were releasing the murderer. Not hold him in jail without conviction. To make a freaking telephone call. This was before the murder, wasn’t it? Is the SFPD supposed to consult psychics? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=6)