# "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:** 7
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/121 "2017-07-29T18:54:46Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > 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: . And, since that shields the illegal alien from detection, that ordinance violates federal 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, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/122 "2017-07-29T18:56:01Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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. They shielded him from detection when they released him without notifying ICE. ---
**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, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/123 "2017-07-29T19:02:15Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 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 was not a sanctuary city at the time.](http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/city_council_to_declare_portla.html) ---
**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, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/124 "2017-07-29T19:03:54Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > [Portland was not a sanctuary city at the time.](http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/03/city_council_to_declare_portla.html) And yet they released a **violent felon** (because THAT was a sticking point with you before) illegal alien without notifying ICE. ---
**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, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/125 "2017-07-29T19:04:02Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > They shielded him from detection when they released him without notifying ICE. If ICE was so interested in him, [why didn’t they act while he was in Federal custody](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20377799#post20377799)? ---
**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, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/126 "2017-07-29T19:06:15Z")
> [@Skywatcher](#): > > If ICE was so interested in him, [why didn’t they act while he was in Federal custody](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20377799#post20377799)? Because they sent him for prosecution to SF, intending to deport him after he that case was resolved there. ---
**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, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/127 "2017-07-29T19:08:11Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Because they sent him for prosecution to SF, intending to deport him after he that case was resolved there. So they were going to deport him when he’s come back so many times? You don’t have a problem with that? ---
**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, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/128 "2017-07-29T19:08:45Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > And yet they released a **violent felon** (because THAT was a sticking point with you before) illegal alien without notifying ICE. What, you think a San Francisco city ordinance applies to Portland, Oregon? Besides, this thread is about **“Sanctuary cities” and federal laws**. Portland prior to March of this year is irrelevant. ---
**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, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/129 "2017-07-29T19:11:16Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > And yet they released a **violent felon** (because THAT was a sticking point with you before) illegal alien without notifying ICE. His felony conviction was for burglary. ---
**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, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/130 "2017-07-29T19:14:22Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Because they sent him for prosecution to SF, intending to deport him after he that case was resolved there. SF didn’t want him! ---
**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, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/131 "2017-07-29T19:14:23Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > So they were going to deport him when he’s come back so many times? > You don’t have a problem with that? What else other than a deportation would you do? Stick him in jail and spend $50K/year for that? Yes, deportation and strict border control. ---
**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, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/132 "2017-07-29T19:17:59Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > What else other than a deportation would you do? Stick him in jail and spend $50K/year for that? > > Yes, deportation and strict border control. Like that worked 20 times before? At what point do you try something else? ---
**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, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/133 "2017-07-29T19:18:02Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > His felony conviction was for burglary. Which is a [violent felony](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0887403416684594?journalCode=cjpa). ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/134 "2017-07-29T19:19:04Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Like that worked 20 times before? At what point do you try something else? Deportation and **strict border control**. ---
**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, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/135 "2017-07-29T19:19:30Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > 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”. Do you have a cite with legal precedent for any of this? I am utterly unconvinced by the argument “ **Okrahoma** says freeing someone is shielding them”. You’ve provided no support for your argument. ---
**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, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/136 "2017-07-29T19:23:03Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Which is a [violent felony](http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0887403416684594?journalCode=cjpa). Only as a third strike under **Federal** law. From your link which you should read before citing. > [@](#): > > Traditionally considered a non-violent property offense, burglary is nonetheless classified as a violent crime under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The ACCA, a three-strikes law that provides a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years, is triggered when an offender, who has been previously convicted for a crime **classified under the ACCA as either a “violent felony” or “serious drug offense,” is convicted at the federal level for any felony committed while in possession of a firearm.** ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/137 "2017-07-29T19:25:26Z")
This has got to be the first time anyone’s tried _revolving_ goalposts. > [@Okrahoma](#): > > And, since that shields the illegal alien from detection, that ordinance violates federal law. > [@Okrahoma](#): > > They shielded him from detection when they released him without notifying ICE. > [@Bone](#): > > There is zero support for the idea that releasing this person is equivalent to meet the definition of “conceal” or “shield” as contemplated by the statue you cited in the OP. > > You may wish it to be so, but it is not the case. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion? I don’t think you do. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2017, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/138 "2017-07-29T19:26:11Z")
Chicago is a sanctuary city, and I’m proud of Chicago for it. [https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/supp\_info/office-of-new-americans/sanctuary-city-supportive-resources.html](https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/supp_info/office-of-new-americans/sanctuary-city-supportive-resources.html) Mayor Emanuel: “Chicago has been a city of immigrants since it was founded. We have always welcomed people of all faiths and backgrounds, and while the administration will change, our values and our commitment to inclusion will not." > **[WelcomeCityOrdinance.pdf](https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/mayor/Office%20of%20New%20Americans/PDFs/WelcomeCityOrdinance.pdf)** > > 110.37 KB ---
**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, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/139 "2017-07-29T19:28:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Do you have a cite with legal precedent for any of this? I am utterly unconvinced by the argument “ **Okrahoma** says freeing someone is shielding them”. You’ve provided no support for your argument. [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1498751.html](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1498751.html) “shielding from detection”, in jury instructions, was defined as "the use of any means to prevent the detection of illegal aliens in the United States by the Government”. The means of releasing the illegal alien without notifying ICE about it was employed to prevent the detection of the said illegal alien - since it is much harder to “detect” such an alien in general population than in a jail cell. In fact, the same decision also says that "harbor” means “conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.’”. Which is exactly what releasing the illegal alien without notifying ICE “tends substantially” to facilitate. ---
**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, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327/140 "2017-07-29T19:30:04Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1498751.html](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1498751.html) > > “shielding from detection”, in jury instructions, was defined as "the use of any means to prevent **the detection of illegal aliens in the United States by the Government”.** > > The means of releasing the illegal alien without notifying ICE about it was employed to prevent the detection of the said illegal alien - since it is much harder to “detect” such an alien in general population than in a jail cell. > > In fact, the same decision also says that "harbor” means “conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.’”. > > Which is exactly what releasing the illegal alien without notifying ICE “tends substantially” to facilitate. He had already been detected by the Federal Government. He had already served time in Federal prison. The Federal Government let him go. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sanctuary-cities-and-federal-laws/792327.md?page=8)