Golly! 
Rant withdrawn, Your Honor!
Okrahoma, if a cop tells me “We might have more questions. Don’t leave town”, would leaving town constitute a crime?
It’s those rotating goalposts. Very unusual to have them remain in one thread, normally they’re carried from thread to thread by some conspiracy theorist.
Not that I’m saying comrade Okra is a CTist.
Ignore the initiating part then (I meant initiating not in creating the request, but being the ones who called ICE. As opposed to answering a call that ICE made to them. Doesn’t matter though). ICE effectively makes the city a subcontractor in enforcing Federal law by having them make the call to them, so ICE can do their own job.
No. They obviously can’t do it if it’s a crime.
If there is a law that would make such behavior illegal, yes.
So…you don’t yet see the contradiction in your position?
No. My position is that such behavior (that is, refusing ICE request to notify them when the illegal alien is released onto the streets) is against the law. The law that has not been prosecuted in this case (yet, I hope). Where is the contradiction?
For the Nth time, ICE requests simply do not have the force of law. You can’t just keep saying that they do. Well, I guess you can - it’s just getting ridiculous is all.
I quoted the law. I quoted the definition of “harboring” in the court’s decisions on that law. I showed that SF’s actions in refusing the ICE request fit that definition.
In response, all you have is “no, it isn’t so”.
I’ll take the assessment of multiple lawyers, liberal and conservative, over random internet non lawyer.
Actually, you haven’t shown which element of the crime that San Francisco violated that in my hypothetical, you say that East Bumfuck did not violate.
If you can’t state which element of the crime applies differently to the two cases, then there’s only two possible conclusions: first, that both violated the law, which is fairly absurd; or two, that neither violated the law at all.
What, you mean your analogy to someone who doesn’t report a wife beater? Because no, I don’t think that they would be in violation of a statute which prohibited “facilitating spousal abuse”. If the statute said they had a duty to report abuse (as some people, e.g., social workers, do have), then yes, they’d be in violation.
I am not a lawyer, so maybe I’m wrong about the legal meaning of “facilitating”. Do you have any example where a court found someone “facilitated” a crime by not reporting it? That is, where the portion of the statute they were found to have violated specifically said “facilitating”?
If not, then I think your whole claim doesn’t hold up, because your basis for saying this was “harboring” was based on “harboring” including “facilitating”.
I did. You just ignored it. The EB violated the law in exactly the same way as SF did, but EB is covered by the fact that the courts decided that it is not required to enforce federal law, so it was not required to initiate the call to ICE to inform it that it is holding the alien.
SF isn’t covered by that - because calling ICE in response to ICE’s request that they would notify it in advance of the alien’s release is not enforcing the federal law.
(my bold)
No, you did not show the bolded part. Even if it is accepted that the definition of harboring you’ve cited is applicable, you haven’t shown how what SF did meets that definition. No court has ever adopted the reasoning you are advancing, there is no legal support for your position, and the cases you’ve cited are not remotely analogous. The only way you’ve been able to push this idea is by equivocating on the word “facilitate”. This is a completely novel and unsupported position.
In addition, the court case you cited for the definition was in the 2nd circuit. SF is in the 9th. The 2nd circuit’s adoption of the language you’ve quoted, the “facilitating” part, that’s not from the statute so the 2nd circuit’s adoption of that language in some limited contexts does not mean that is the definition that would be adopted in the 9th. The Ye case you cited in the 7th circuit rejected that language in some instances.
Not only is the action that you focus on of not calling ICE not violative of the statute, the definition you are using for the statute comes from a jurisdiction that SF doesn’t belong to.
Not sure why I’m even bothering, but:
According to your info, SF did not refuse the request. They just didn’t answer. They were under no legal obligation to answer.
No court has ever decided against my interpretation either. I have few hopes that the Federal wimpy immigration-laws-enforcement authority would ever robustly prosecute that law, but until the court decides, I will stick to my obvious and common-sense stance that releasing the illegal alien onto the streets vs. turning him over to ICE as ICE requested facilitates his staying in the United States.
Since not answering the request violates that federal law, yes, they were.
Your interpretation of the law flies in the face of the very language it was written in. Describing your stance as obvious and common sense is so outrageous that I can’t imagine a purpose in further discussion. Enjoy your windmills.