You and he are both factually wrong. See point number one below on tax protesters. Got anything else that isn’t so easily disprovable?
I am compelled to suggest, with no agenda or trying to score a point, that you must decide whether you are debating the application of a law (and whether SF is exposed in a civil or criminal manner) or you are debating a matter of logic and policy.
If you are debating logic, then a huge, huge number of Americans have done something to facilitate an undocumented worker staying in the United States. Hiring a day laborer from Home Depot parking lots for a few hours of grunt work. Donating to churches that help orphaned kids coming over the border alone. Continuing to eat at the restaurant when you find out the kitchen staff is not here legally. Staying at Trump hotels when you know it was built using illegal immigrant labor. All of that is choosing B to “facilitate” in some small way Y. I don’t think anyone would suggest that such minor actions are subject to twenty year prison terms, as opposed to the people who are doing things like hiring people to come over the border to work agricultural jobs, the coyotes who get them over the border, etc.
Quite. When one refuses to acknowledge any counter-argument and will only accept total agreement with a dubious assertion he has repeated literally dozens of times, then indeed discussion is impossible. 
Facilitating means helping, not allowing something to happen. Your example is about people not living up to a responsibility they are held to and it’s been repeatedly pointed out to you that States are not responsible for enforcing federal laws. If your logic is going to fly in the face of word definitions and the law, you’ll find discussion impossible with most people not just Bone.
Because in that case, the parent has a mandated duty to provide medical care for their children.
There was a huge deal when I lived in Phoenix about “Fightin’ Joe” Arpaio doing immigration raids and Arizona passing laws regarding citizenship and billing the Federal government for imprisoning illegal immigrants in state prisons*. The Feds were discussing how that was legally wrong since immigration is under Federal jurisdiction and Supremacy Clause and all that. So NOW the Feds want the stats and cities to help them enforce immigration laws? Fuck that - do it yourself.
*Prime example of political hypocrisy is Janet Napolitano speaking to this issue qua Governor of Arizona and Secretary of Homeland Security.
“To make easy or less difficult, to free from difficulty or impediment. Cellino v U.S., (C.A.Cal.) 276 F.2d941.”
Exactly what SF did. ICE being there at release would have definitely made it more difficult for that illegal alien to remain in the US. SF removed that difficulty.
And yet the charge was manslaughter, not “child endangerment” or “dereliction of duty” of any kind.
“make easy…” and “free from difficulty…” implies positive action, not the lack of action. Further, without any actual court interpreting law the way non-lawyer random-internet-person Okrahoma says it should be interpreted, your assertion has no more credibility than any other random assertion from random internet people.
Are you ESL? That cite shows me correct. Facilitating is helping. Releasing prisoners who have no outstanding warrants or charges is the normal practice. Kind of an important practice in a free country. You are expecting them to perform a certain action, holding them, to help ICE.
You have a neighbor that regularly beats his wife. You see it and she tells you about it. You don’t do anything about it (lack of action), not even tell her to report it to the police. Are you facilitating his abuse? Your inaction is definitely making it easier for him to abuse his wife. And note once again, I am not asking about any legal requirements for you to act. There may not be any. Just whether you’re facilitating the abuse.
Your point is about requirements by law. If you’re not asking about any legal requirement, this question is irrelevant to the discussion.
Again, you can’t possibly expect people to take seriously the opinion of a non-lawyer random-internet-person with no court case cites to back him up.
In my opinion, in a moral sense, maybe. Some people may think that inserting themselves into such a situation may make it worse, and I think that’s a concern worth thinking about. Others may be compelled to act, and I think that is admirable.
But in a legal sense, I don’t think they are facilitators.
Let me ask you about a separate hypothetical: there are several hundred to maybe even a thousand-plus “sanctuary churches” around the country, who are explicitly helping illegal immigrants. I think it is very likely that the ministers in these churches are violating the law by housing illegal immigrants, etc. But here’s the question: do you think that the people who are supporting these churches with their regular tithes, etc. are breaking the law, knowing full well that some of the funds will go to these activities? I’m not talking about someone writing a check to the church for $5,000 with a memo stating: “Screw Trump! Here’s money for their food!” I’m talking the average family who puts in $20 each Sunday at the collection plate. Are they facilitators, in your opinion?
Again, for the Nth time, I am expecting them to call ICE, if ICE asks them to do that, in advance before they release the illegal alien. Is that a problem to do that in a “free country”?
In the case of abuse there may not be any law, that is why I said that about legal requirements. In the case of not calling ICE there is law that explicitly makes facilitating illegal.
Expect all you want. Your expectations probably have very little to do with actual law or common practice, though, in this case.
Not unless they earmark the money specifically for hiding the illegal aliens. It would take me a while to look around for case law for this, and I really don’t feel like it, but I am pretty sure there is case law that would exempt general donations like these.
You’ve provided no legal citation that the actions of the locals qualify as “facilitating”. Opinion of random non-lawyers are not convincing when no court has used this reasoning.
Why not just quote case law that doesn’t really prove your point like you’ve been doing?
Don’t you think ICE getting a warrant or a court order is a little more in keeping with a free country? SF doesn’t have a “always let the illegals go” policy. They really just won’t go out of their way to hold someone on suspicion of being in the country illegally.
But you have proposed earlier than given options A or B that produce outcomes X or Y, that doing B constitutes helping an illegal alien. How are the parishioners not helping illegal aliens? They know damn well what their church is doing.