"Sanctuary cities" and federal laws

[simster]

@Ravenman

It is “knowing or in reckless disregard” for the status of the person, not in relation to their actions. Agreed?

So let’s say that East Bumfuck, New Jersey, catches a graffiti artist who readily admits he is an illegal alien. The cops do not wish to hold him on the graffiti charges. ICE has no knowledge that this man has been arrested, so they have not asked or demanded that EBPD do anything at all.

Is East Bumfuck Police Department free to release this person under 18 USC 1324?

And if they refused to release him (holding him on the Graffiti charges to the max allowed) - and did not notify ICE - would that then be harboring?

[Okrahoma]

@simster

And if they refused to release him (holding him on the Graffiti charges to the max allowed) - and did not notify ICE - would that then be harboring?

As was already mentioned, several times, the local officials are not responsible for enforcing federal laws. Calling ICE and notifying them that they are holding an illegal alien would be enforcement of federal laws, which they don’t have to do.

Calling ICE after ICE specifically requested them to notify them of the release of that specific illegal alien, that ICE transferred to them in the first place, is not “enforcement of federal laws”. And not doing so, according to the definitions of “harboring” in the cites I gave, falls under the “harboring” and this violates the federal law.

There is a difference between “enforcing federal laws” and “following federal laws”.

[CarnalK]

@Okrahoma

And yet again, for the N+1th time, I am talking about the phone call to ICE about the upcoming release of the illegal alien, not the detainer request. The courts did not rule that calling ICE without some kind of judicial review is unconstitutional.

What’s the use of a phone call absent a federal warrant or court order?

[Okrahoma]

@CarnalK

What’s the use of a phone call absent a federal warrant or court order?

AFAIU, ICE could pick him up at release without a federal warrant or court order. As I quoted from ICE spokeswoman: “obtaining judicial warrants is not only unnecessary, it would place an immense burden on both ICE and the federal courts”.

[El_Kabong]

@Okrahoma

As was already mentioned, several times, the local officials are not responsible for enforcing federal laws. Calling ICE and notifying them that they are holding an illegal alien would be enforcement of federal laws, which they don’t have to do.

Calling ICE after ICE specifically requested them to notify them of the release of that specific illegal alien, that ICE transferred to them in the first place, is not “enforcement of federal laws”. And not doing so, according to the definitions of “harboring” in the cites I gave, falls under the “harboring” and this violates the federal law.

There is a difference between “enforcing federal laws” and “following federal laws”.

There is a difference between some guy on the Internet saying “this is what I think the law requires” and what is accepted as legal precedent in a proceeding. Just sayin’.

Look, you can say the same thing again and again for all eternity and it will forever remain what it is: your own questionable opinion.

If this is such an important issue for you, you really should search out a legal professional and get their advice.

[simster]

@Okrahoma

As was already mentioned, several times, the local officials are not responsible for enforcing federal laws. Calling ICE and notifying them that they are holding an illegal alien would be enforcement of federal laws, which they don’t have to do.

Calling ICE after ICE specifically requested them to notify them of the release of that specific illegal alien, that ICE transferred to them in the first place, is not “enforcement of federal laws”. And not doing so, according to the definitions of “harboring” in the cites I gave, falls under the “harboring” and this violates the federal law.

There is a difference between “enforcing federal laws” and “following federal laws”.

You really don’t understand what ‘harboring’ or ‘concealing’ means, do you?

[Okrahoma]

@simster

You really don’t understand what ‘harboring’ or ‘concealing’ means, do you?

I already gave the definition of “harboring” that the court deciding a case using that federal law used. You can look it up upthread, it has only been repeated a few dozen times.

[Okrahoma]

@CarnalK

What’s the use of a phone call absent a federal warrant or court order?

This is from the ICE statement on the matter:

"…In fact, despite a formal request from ICE to the Sheriff’s Department seeking notification of his impending release, the individual was released without notifying ICE. Had ICE been notified as requested, the agency would have taken this individual into custody and removed him from the country, as dictated by federal law and ICE’s enforcement priorities.
…
The individual in question was convicted multiple times and served criminal sentences for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 18 USC 1326. To be convicted of that crime – which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher standard that probable cause that would allow for the issuance of a warrant – it was proven to a judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual in question was illegally present in the United States.

The Sheriff’s assertion that ICE is required to provide some form of “judicial” order in order to receive the requested notification reflects a manifest misunderstanding of federal immigration law . There is no such document, nor is there any federal court with the authority to issue one. Neither is there a legal requirement that ICE provide a judicial warrant to law enforcement agencies in order to receive such notifications."

[simster]

@Okrahoma

I already gave the definition of “harboring” that the court deciding a case using that federal law used. You can look it up upthread, it has only been repeated a few dozen times.

yeah - but you also said that releasing him was harboring him - or atleast concealing him - so you’ll have to understand that I don’t trust your definitions.

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

I already gave the definition of “harboring” that the court deciding a case using that federal law used. You can look it up upthread, it has only been repeated a few dozen times.

You mean the private citizen who hired illegal aliens, falsified paperwork and physically hid them on premises?
Totally the same.

Xiang Hui Ye was part-owner and manager of Buffet City, a restaurant in Springfield, Illinois.   In 2005, government officials began an investigation of Buffet City’s hiring practices after receiving a tip from a former restaurant employee that illegal aliens might be working there.   Ye eventually was indicted under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) and (a)(1)(B)(i)** for concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection persons he knew were illegal aliens for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain** (a felony), and under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A) for hiring persons he knew were illegal aliens (a misdemeanor).

At trial, the jury was presented with the following evidence.   Investigators visited Buffet City in April 2005 and observed numerous Chinese and Hispanic workers.   Ye did not have I-9 forms for any of the employees.1  An agent advised Ye that I-9 forms and certain other employment documents were required by law.   He eventually submitted I-9 forms for some of the Chinese workers, but not for any of the Hispanic employees.   The Hispanic workers were paid $1000 monthly salaries in cash, without taxes withheld.   Ye later met with the Hispanic employees and informed them that they were fired from their jobs, but that they would be rehired if they could produce immigration documents.   **Ye advised them that they could purchase fake documents in Chicago, which he would accept. **  One Hispanic worker was rehired, even though the documents he produced were not in his name.

In August 2005, immigration officials visited Buffet City again and observed four Hispanic workers.   Ye said he did not have I-9 forms or payroll records for them because they did not have Social Security numbers.  ** Ye also told agents the Hispanic workers were living in an apartment that he was leasing.**   In December 2005, agents arrested five Hispanic illegal aliens who were working at Buffet City. Ye said he did not have I-9 forms for those illegal aliens because they did not have any immigration documents.

[Ravenman]

@Okrahoma

Yes, since ICE didn’t request anything from them, they are free to release this person. The fact that ICE requested that the San Francisco authorities notify them and were ignored is crucial to the illegality of the SF actions.

Why? The statute doesn’t say anything about ICE requests.

[Okrahoma]

@simster

yeah - but you also said that releasing him was harboring him - or atleast concealing him - so you’ll have to understand that I don’t trust your definitions.

They are not “my” definitions. They are the court’s definitions. I gave the cite for it.

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

You mean the private citizen who hired illegal aliens, falsified paperwork and physically hid them on premises?
Totally the same.

The definition of “harboring” that the court gives is irrespective of the particular case and is applicable in future cases.

[Richard_Parker]

8 pages huh?

Does Okrahoma understand yet that you cannot punish the failure to take some action if you cannot constitutionally order that same action?

[CarnalK]

@Okrahoma

This is from the ICE statement on the matter:

"…In fact, despite a formal request from ICE to the Sheriff’s Department seeking notification of his impending release, the individual was released without notifying ICE. Had ICE been notified as requested, the agency would have taken this individual into custody and removed him from the country, as dictated by federal law and ICE’s enforcement priorities.
…
The individual in question was convicted multiple times and served criminal sentences for illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 18 USC 1326. To be convicted of that crime – which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a higher standard that probable cause that would allow for the issuance of a warrant – it was proven to a judge or jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual in question was illegally present in the United States.

The Sheriff’s assertion that ICE is required to provide some form of “judicial” order in order to receive the requested notification reflects a manifest misunderstanding of federal immigration law . There is no such document, nor is there any federal court with the authority to issue one. Neither is there a legal requirement that ICE provide a judicial warrant to law enforcement agencies in order to receive such notifications."

Nor is there any requirement for giving ICE a phone call.

[Okrahoma]

@Ravenman

Why? The statute doesn’t say anything about ICE requests.

The statute prohibits “harboring”. Which the court defined as “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally”. Which not calling ICE to warn them of the impending illegal alien’s release in spite of ICE request clearly did. As in (and I quote): “Had ICE been notified as requested, the agency would have taken this individual into custody and removed him from the country, as dictated by federal law and ICE’s enforcement priorities”.

[Ravenman]

But you’re saying that “harboring” includes releasing someone out into the public.

By the way, have you actually read all the way through that paragraph? The elements of the crime would seem to be:

1. knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law
2. conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection,
3. such alien
4. in any place, including any building or any means of transportation

Are you contending that Earth constitutes the place that San Francisco is harboring the alien?

And if that is the case, which element of the crime is East Bumfuck, New Jersey, not violating, that San Francisco is?

[CarnalK]

@Okrahoma

The statute prohibits “harboring”. Which the court defined as “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally”. Which not calling ICE to warn them of the impending illegal alien’s release in spite of ICE request clearly did. As in (and I quote): “Had ICE been notified as requested, the agency would have taken this individual into custody and removed him from the country, as dictated by federal law and ICE’s enforcement priorities”.

If they were perfectly ready to arrest and deport him, I fail to understand why a warrant can’t be obtained.

[Bone]

@Okrahoma

The statute prohibits “harboring”. Which the court defined as “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally”. Which not calling ICE to warn them of the impending illegal alien’s release in spite of ICE request clearly did. As in (and I quote): “Had ICE been notified as requested, the agency would have taken this individual into custody and removed him from the country, as dictated by federal law and ICE’s enforcement priorities”.

You know what also would be conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s remaining in the US illegally? SF also didn’t transport the person out of the country themselves. They also didn’t simply kill him. Not doing those things would also fall under the definition you are using.

[Okrahoma]

@Ravenman

But you’re saying that “harboring” includes releasing someone out into the public.

Yes, taking the action of releasing someone out into the public instead of, as requested by the ICE, notifying the ICE about his release so that they could come, pick him up, and deport him, clearly and unequivocally facilitates the alien’s remaining in the United States illegally.

Which is what the court’s definition of “harboring” was.