# "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:** 6
**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 29, 2017, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/101 "2017-07-29T17:20:38Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > That was not the point. The point is SFPD acted in order to prevent the deportation of the murderer. Deliberately. On purpose. We can all agree that it is a fact that the person was released by local law enforcement. However, your statement here goes to intent: that the police specifically wanted to save a person from possible deportation. What is your evidence for this? I don’t know what the intent of the police was, but my assumption was that the main intent was to follow the laws of San Francisco. Since it is abundantly clear that local police are not obligated to enforce Federal laws, whether for immigration enforcement or gun control, your assumption that the police intended to subvert Federal law fails on several counts. If you want to argue that San Francisco has an unwise law, I can see pros and cons to that position. But you really seem to be arguing a different point, that local police are legally obligated to do certain things. Would you be okay if BATF issued instructions to local police to enforce Federal gun laws on their behalf? ---
**Author:** ![chaika](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chaika/32/405_2.png) [@chaika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaika)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/102 "2017-07-29T17:29:27Z")
It seems to me that ICE wasn’t overly interested in this guy or they would have deported him when he was in federal custody. Why didn’t they deport him? As **Skywatcher** posted above, if ICE had a genuine interest in maintaining custody of Lopez-Sanchez, they would have issued a judicial order. Certainly nobody knew he would kill anybody. SF didn’t release “a murderer.” They released a man whom they had no legal reason to detain. ---
**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, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/103 "2017-07-29T18:07:55Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > That was not the point. The point is SFPD acted in order to prevent the deportation of the murderer. Deliberately. On purpose. Cite that SFPD intended to prevent a deportation. Cite that this person was a murderer when SFPD had them in custody. Cite that SFPD “deliberately on purpose” acted with any of the intent that you ascribe. > [@](#): > > 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. Again, cite that this person was a murderer when SFPD held them. And finally, cite that SFPD broke any law by following their own internal rules and procedures. ---
**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, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/104 "2017-07-29T18:20:37Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > SFPD acted in order to prevent the deportation of the murderer. Deliberately. On purpose. > [@](#): > > The SFPD refused to make a … freaking telephone call. [ICE did not present them with a judicial order](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20377799#post20377799) so [a freaking telephone call would have been illegal](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20377761#post20377761) under [that 2013 ordinance](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20376480#post20376480). ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/105 "2017-07-29T18:24:10Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Can you explain what the violation is? 8 U.S. Code § 1324 -[Bringing in and harboring certain aliens](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324) ---
**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, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/106 "2017-07-29T18:27:48Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > Cite that SFPD intended to prevent a deportation. Cite that this person was a murderer when SFPD had them in custody. Cite that SFPD “deliberately on purpose” acted with any of the intent that you ascribe. “Intent” is clear from their actions. If you are asking if they ever stated “we did it to prevent him from being deported” - no, they didn’t. I didn’t say he was a murderer when SFPD had him in custody. But he is a murderer, and they released him. As in “they released a murderer”. > [@](#): > > And finally, cite that SFPD broke any law by following their own internal rules and procedures. I already cited the federal law, in the OP. “Shielding from detection” illegal aliens is violating it. Releasing him into general population without notifying ICE about it shields him from detection. QED. ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/107 "2017-07-29T18:29:21Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > [ICE did not present them with a judicial order](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20377799#post20377799) so [a freaking telephone call would have been illegal](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20377761#post20377761) under [that 2013 ordinance](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20376480#post20376480). You keep citing that ordinance. It talks about holds. It has nothing in it about phone calls. ---
**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, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/108 "2017-07-29T18:29:45Z")
Is there any particular reason you’re not addressing all the posts pointing out why what you’re saying is unconstitutional, **Okrahoma**? ---
**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, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/109 "2017-07-29T18:31:39Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Is there any particular reason you’re not addressing all the posts pointing out why what you’re saying is unconstitutional, **Okrahoma**? Not one post pointed out that it is unconstitutional to give a call to ICE when you’re releasing an illegal alien into general population, when ICE specifically asked you to do so. ---
**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, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/110 "2017-07-29T18:34:43Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > You keep citing that ordinance. It talks about holds. It has nothing in it about phone calls. ["Sheriff Mirkarimi said the city’s ordinance allowed him to respond to the federal authorities only when he had a court order or warrant.](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/san-francisco-murder-case-exposes-lapses-in-immigration-enforcement.html)" How else would he respond to the federal authorities? Open a window and yell? ---
**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, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/111 "2017-07-29T18:38:26Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Not one post pointed out that it is unconstitutional to give a call to ICE when you’re releasing an illegal alien into general population, when ICE specifically asked you to do so. That’s true, but you seem to be missing the fact that making it a crime to fail to do so would also be 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, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/112 "2017-07-29T18:39:12Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > ["Sheriff Mirkarimi said the city’s ordinance allowed him to respond to the federal authorities only when he had a court order or warrant.](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/san-francisco-murder-case-exposes-lapses-in-immigration-enforcement.html)" How else would he respond to the federal authorities? Open a window and yell? Read the ordnance you keep citing (I don’t think you ever did). Does it say anything about phone calls? Anything? At all? ---
**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, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/113 "2017-07-29T18:41:13Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > I already cited the federal law, in the OP. “Shielding from detection” illegal aliens is violating it. Releasing him into general population without notifying ICE about it shields him from detection. QED. You’ve provided no evidence that freeing someone counts as “shielding from detection”. Logic and language demonstrate that this makes no sense whatsoever. Just face it – they weren’t violating the law by not making that phonecall. If you’re so pissed off about this, advocate for changing the law. But the law doesn’t require a phonecall. ---
**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, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/114 "2017-07-29T18:41:21Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That’s true, but you seem to be missing the fact that making it a crime to fail to do so would also be unconstitutional. But it is a crime to “shield from detection” an illegal alien. When not notifying ICE while you release the illegal alien into general population shields him from detection (as it clearly does, compared to having him in a jail cell), that violates the 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, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/115 "2017-07-29T18:42:38Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > You’ve provided no evidence that freeing someone counts as “shielding from detection”. Logic and language demonstrate that this makes no sense whatsoever. 1. The illegal alien is in a jail cell. How easy is it to “detect” him? 2. The illegal alien is released into general population. Without notifying ICE about it. Is it easier or harder to “detect” him compared to (1)? QED. (2) shields the illegal alien from detection. ---
**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, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/116 "2017-07-29T18:45:01Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 1. The illegal alien is in a jail cell. How easy is it to “detect” him? > 2. The illegal alien is released into general population. Is it easier or harder to “detect” him compared to (1)? > > QED. (2) shields the illegal alien from detection. That’s utterly ridiculous, and you’ve cited absolutely zero precedent to consider freeing someone “shielding” them. You’ll need more than just assertion to prove this. Since it’s about the law, you’ll need legal precedent. It’s trivially easy to argue that freeing someone (after due process) is fundamentally different than shielding them from detection. “Shielding from detection” implies control over someone – freeing someone is the opposite, relinquishing control over them. Why not just advocate to make a new law with clear language? I’d oppose such a law, but at least you’d have an argument that made sense. ---
**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, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/117 "2017-07-29T18:47:48Z")
And here is another case: [http://www.kgw.com/news/woman-65-in-ne-portland-reports-sex-assault-break-in-and-car-burglary/459231264](http://www.kgw.com/news/woman-65-in-ne-portland-reports-sex-assault-break-in-and-car-burglary/459231264) Portland officials must feel so proud. ---
**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, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/118 "2017-07-29T18:50:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “Shielding from detection” implies control over someone – freeing someone is the opposite, relinquishing control over them. No, it definitely doesn’t. Just as an example, if I give someone a mask so that he is not recognized, I am “shielding him from detection”, without any “control” issues. If I give someone a new identity/IDs/credit cards, I am “shielding him from detection”, without having any “control over them”. ---
**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, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/119 "2017-07-29T18:51:24Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > ["Sheriff Mirkarimi said the city’s ordinance allowed him to respond to the federal authorities only when he had a court order or warrant.](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/san-francisco-murder-case-exposes-lapses-in-immigration-enforcement.html)" How else would he respond to the federal authorities? Open a window and yell? My mistake. The city ordinance that Sheriff Mikarimi refers to is [the one from 1989, establishing San Francisco as a “sanctuary city”](https://www.sfdph.org/dph/files/election/Post-Election-4-SanctuaryCity-2-1-17.pdf). Of note: > [@](#): > > **Department employees acting in their official capacities may not use City funds or resources to:** > > :snip: > > give out information regarding the release status or personal information of any individual, except as permitted under Administrative Code Section 12I.3. How do you supposed they’d be giving out information? Smoke signals? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/120 "2017-07-29T18:52:11Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. The illegal alien is in a jail cell. How easy is it to “detect” him? So you admit that San Francisco did not shield him from detection, because they did indeed have him in a jail cell, and for all the time he was in the cell, ICE would have a very easy time indeed detecting him. Why didn’t they? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=7)