In which case the 3 weeks he sat in the jail cell were just as much ‘harboring’ as was the release -
What you fail to get here is that the actions of “harboring” or “facilitating” are overt actions by the person ( as aptly shown in your cite ).
This doesn’t answer my question: which element of the crime did East Bumfuck not violate that you contend that SF did violate?
ICE did not request them to kill him. ICE didn’t request them to transport the person out of the country themselves. ICE did not request that they enforce federal law. ICE didn’t ask them to do anything unconstitutional. ICE requested them to notify ICE about the release.
The part where they did not refuse ICE request that ICE be notified so that he could be deported.
We already went through it in this thread and I showed that “facilitating” does not require overt action.
To be guilty of a crime, one must commit all the elements of the crime. Here are the elements as I see it:
- 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
- conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection,
- such alien
- in any place, including any building or any means of transportation
Where do you see “notification” in any of those elements? Where do you see “refusal” in any of those elements?
Again, which SPECIFIC element of the crime do you believe East Bumfuck is not violating, that SF did? You can just type a number, if you wish.
“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.”
Again, ICE requests are irrelevant to the question of whether SF violated the statute. You acknowledged this in post #291.
ICE requests don’t have the force of law. So who cares what they requested? And if they have the force of law, as you seem to imply, then what are the limits?
It is relevant to the question of whether the city is covered by the “we’re not required to enforce federal law” thing. If there was no request, initiating the call to ICE would be “enforcing federal law”. Since there was such a request, that excuse is not there.
The limits are what the courts set. The courts already set the limit at detainers. They didn’t set the limit at requests to call ICE to warn them of the alien’s release.
Is that true, though? Isn’t ICE asking the city to be a participating agency along with ICE in making sure they could enforce federal law?
SF couldn’t stop ICE from waiting outside and picking up the individual when released. But asking the city to initiate a call in order for ICE to enforce it’s own laws is making the city a co-participant in enforcing said law, right?
Of course there’s no legal requirement. There’s no legal requirement that Facebook sends me birthday reminders nor that I require them. What you’ve steadfastly refused to acknowledge is that there is also no legal requirement for SFPD to provide notifications.
That’s really the end of it, absent some major legal changes. Remember way back when the Senate refused to vote on Garland and Dems were howling that they are shirking their job? And how the Repubs’ response was “that’s not what the law says”? You may be sure that the law implies something but tough shit. We go by what the law actually says and how it’s been interpreted to date.
You’re kind of all over the place here. There is nothing wrong with initiating a call to ICE. It’s a voluntary thing, and they can do so or not. Doing so does not count as enforcing federal law. The prohibition against forcing state and local governments to enforce federal law is when the feds require a specific thing.
The request from ICE cannot transform an action from legal to illegal because the actions of ICE are not contemplated in the statute. ICE actions are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether SF violated the law in question. ICE calls, requests, detainers, etc. are a red herring. ICE could have literally told SF they would be there in 5 minutes via certified mail, notarized by the President himself, and SF could still release the person in 3 minutes with nary a word offered.
SF did not violate the law in question by releasing the person.
It is not initiating the action, it is responding to the request. Initiating the action would be “enforcing the law” - it would be notifying ICE that there is an illegal alien where ICE didn’t know there was one. Responding to the request wouldn’t be. The mayor of SF in his statements agreed, IIRC.
Yes, it does. And “enforcing federal law” is a voluntary thing - that is, they can do it, but they don’t have to.
But the actions of SF officials are. Refusing ICE request is facilitating the illegal aliens’ remaining in the United States - thus makes the SF actions illegal.
Then it isn’t a request, it is a demand upon penalty of law.
Which ICE cannot do.
I see you can’t answer my question about elements of a crime. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Your position is “they can do it, but they don’t have to” and if they don’t, then they are committing a crime. Do you see a tiny problem there?
Re-reading the last page of this thread, I find myself wondering: “What the fuck happened to all that conservative masturbation over Scalia’s genius for emphasizing textualism, rather than relying on what we feeeeeeeel the law should mean?”
Point of order, not all conservative leaning folks speak for all others.