Huh? I didn’t ask you about “harboring”. I asked you about “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally”. You’re trying to avoid that because that clearly does fall under it.
No court has ever held that it wasn’t. But the court did hold that “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally” violates the federal law. And the conduct of SF in this case clearly fits that definition. Unless you somehow manage to explain how it doesn’t.
Why did you bold something in my post when you didn’t answer it? I was not asking about “holding someone”. I was talking about refusing to notify ICE about the impending release of the illegal alien. The local law enforcement definitely has the authority to make phone calls.
I did answer. State and local law enforcement has no authority to hold on immigration matters. Therefore, they are not facilitating the alien remaining in the States.
There is no requirement to make that call.
Because what you keep putting in quotes is about harboring. There are three aspects to the law in question, shielding, harboring, and concealing. When you quote the ‘conduct tending…’ part, which of the three are you asseryi g that declining to make a phone call runs afoul of? The “conduct” language has been added by some federal appellate courts, but not all. The statute itself doesn’t include this language, and where the appellate court does, it does so with respect to harboring.
Again, no court has ever adopted your reasoning. Do you have any evidence otherwise? Simply saying it does is worthless. You who have made the assertion must provide the evidence. The status quo is that you are wrong.
That was the definition of “harboring” that the court adopted. As you answered yourself. So why are you asking? The law prohibits shielding, harboring and concealing - and does not require that all three are present to violate the law.
No court ever rejected it. But I am asking a simple question - that you refuse to answer.
What SF did - did it fall, in your opinion, under “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally”. Your and others’ refusal to answer makes it pretty clear what you think about it. You do think it does. But then you try to twist yourself in pretzels about how that does not mean they were “harboring” even though the court decision I cited clearly says it does.
I’ve said it multiple times. No, refusing to call ICE, refusing to cooperate with ICE, neither of those are violative of the statute. Not shielding, not concealing, not harboring. You are wrong. I can’t be more clear than that. No court has ever adopted your reasoning and there is no evidence to support your assertions. You keep saying that SF violated the law, but without indictment, without conviction, and without any efforts made by those who could do those things, your claims are hollow and without basis or support.
The only thing the Trump administration has attempted to do is cut off funding, and even that has been blocked. That should tell you something - they have no more cards to play in this matter.
This is what I think your question is, despite the lack of question mark. The answer, is no.
No court has ever held that this type of action meets this criteria, and there is no evidence that it would. Your assertion has the same level of support that believing in Unicorns does. Could be true, but no evidence has ever existed to support that it is.
So - you don’t think that refusing to call ICE to warn them about releasing the illegal alien into general population after ICE specifically requested you to do so - that does not “facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally”?
Again, answer that question, please. It now has a question mark. Do not go into “court has held” thing. No court held otherwise either. I am asking your opinion. About a plain English question.
If SF called ICE and warned them they were going to release the alien into general population, they knew he most probably would have been arrested at release and deported. Instead, they refused to do so, and he was released onto the streets.
Did SF’s conduct described above facilitate that alien’s remaining in the United States illegally?
If you don’t think SF actions facilitated an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally, then we live in different universes and there is nothing to discuss, really.
Perhaps. I’m comfortable with my position as it is consistent with all of US history and jurisprudence. I grant a court at a later date may adopt your view, but none have done so to date. I would say the chance of that happening is slim, but stranger things have happened.
You have an out though, you could easily shift your argument to say SF is being unwise and should change their policy. That may be true. I personally hate the politics of SF in general. The immigration aspects I’m mostly meh on. I live close by and try to avoid the city as much as possible, think all sorts of unkind thoughts, etc. But that being said, I think in any argument about the law it’s critically important to understand what the law actually is. Only then can a discussion about its merits or demerits be had. Right now we’re still at step one.
My question was about SF actions, not about the law. It is a step towards discussion of the law, but the question is in the context of simple logic. So - without taking the law into account and without your conviction that the law doesn’t apply:
Did SF actions as I described them facilitate an alien’s remaining in the United States illegally? In my understanding of logic, if you have a choice of action A or B, where you know that A leads to outcome X and B leads to outcome Y (and X is the opposite of Y), choosing B “facilitates” Y.
As I said, if your understanding of logic is so alien to mine as not to agree with the above, then discussion is simply impossible.
I see someone dying of thirst on the street. If I do not give them water, do not call for aid, do nothing different as if I had not seen this person, have I committed murder? Answer is no. Did I facilitate their imminent death? No. I could give them water, or aid, or something. But I don’t have to and not doing something is different than doing something.
If you had water, and you knew that he was dying of thirst, then yes, your refusal to give him water facilitated his imminent death. Various religious branches’ (Christian Science, True Followers of Christ, Faith Assembly etc.) adherents have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter when they did not provide medical treatment to their dying children and did not notify medical authorities of their conditions. Note that it was not “child endangerment”. It was manslaughter. They were “not doing something” and that “not doing something” facilitated the children’s deaths.
And at least in those cases, there is some faith on the part of the perpetrators that what they are doing will heal the dying kids. In the case you describe, you know that without your water the man will die.
As I said above, if you don’t agree with that, your logic basics are so alien to mine that discussion is impossible.
“General population” is a segment of prison inmates. Stop using that term to mean “the general public” if you don’t want to look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Both federal and state constitutions require government agencies, such as a jail, to not violate a person’s rights. This is not Minority Report, so local governments cannot lock someone up because you freaked out about undocumented status and are afraid they are the rei carnation of Jack the Ripper. Keeping someone incarcerated still costs money. If the feds aren’t going to pony up the funds and personnel, then why should local governments which, by the way, are busy dealing with people who actually committed an offense. And try to remember that you cannot use a future crime as a reason to hold someone, And tbe courts which decided that even undocumented immigrants have rights just so hapoen to be federal courts. One poster here is batting zero on accuracy. It might behoove that poster to examine the issue factually.