Sounds fine, just as long as jay-walking’s not involved.
The Supreme Court case Prigg v Pennsylvania held (among other things) that states are not obliged to aid the federal government in enforcing federal law. That case was decided in 1842 so this is not exactly a new thing.
The case regarded the Fugitive Slave Act which this immigration stuff seems to have some parallels to.
If ICE wanted this guy they could have picked him up. They didn’t pick him up, they just requested for San Francisco to detain him indefinitely. Are you in favor of indefinite detention without trial?
They didn’t conceal him. They didn’t harbor him. They didn’t shield him from detection. And they didn’t attempt to do any of those things.
All they did was not detain him.
Therefore, they didn’t violate the law. Case closed.
And if they had detained him without any prior felonies, they would have been in violation of a city ordinance established in 2013.
I love how parts of the right claims to support “states rights” while simultaneously supporting the absolute destruction of states sovereignty. Which this subject is a case of.
The man had been convicted of five felonies prior to his being released by San Francisco.
So why did the federal government keep releasing him?
Even Trump is in favor of deporting them so they can come back.
Your argument is wrong, because:
- Nobody concealed, harbored, nor shielded him from detection, nor attempted to do so. Releasing someone doesn’t qualify as any of those actions.
- It isn’t City of San Franscisco’s job to know who is violating immigration law. An ICE detainer notice in itself does not confer knowledge of someone’s immigration status, since an ICE detains people for all sorts of reasons unrelated to their immigration status. You’d be pretty shocked if you knew the extent of ICE powers over legal US residents and citizens.
This is another case where we just have to laugh while the right proves its fetish over states’ rights and the rule of law to be a total sham. If anyone broke the law, it’s ICE. It’s their job to keep this from happening, and they released him to an agency who has no such mandate.
Cite that ICE detainers were issued against people that ICE did not consider illegal immigrants?
It is not a crime for a city or state to decline a detainer request. Indeed, it would be unconstitutional to require them to follow the request, which is why the Trump Administration is trying to achieve that with spending conditions instead of by mandating it.
Why would you think that ICE has no jurisdiction over legal residents?
Cite that San Francisco concealed, harbored, or shielded him from detection, or attempted to do so?
They didn’t hide him from ICE. They didn’t refuse to hand him over to ICE. They didn’t stop ICE from finding him. They didn’t attempt to do any of those things.
ICE knew where he was: in jail. They knew when he was going to be released. They could have been waiting at the jailhouse door with a set of handcuffs. ICE didn’t do any of those things.
So why are you upset about San Francisco releasing this guy, but not ICE for not detaining him?
Presumably he’s paid his debt to society for those crimes.
Regardless the state has zero obligation to help the feds with this. If they do help it is a courtesy only.
Imagine the feds tell the state you live in that they have to go arrest Okrahoma because he has an “assault rifle” as they define “assault rifle” which they deem illegal. Your local police have zero problem with you owning that gun which is 100% legal in your state.
Should the local police be obliged to arrest you because the feds said so? If they pulled you over for a traffic violation and then let you go have they abetted your crime for not detaining you on behalf of the feds?
I didn’t ask that. I asked if ICE has ever issued a “detainer” for someone they did not consider an illegal alien, since the poster claimed that “ICE detainer notice in itself does not confer knowledge of someone’s immigration status”.
No, they didn’t. I repeat: Lopes-Sanchez was released onto the streets of San Francisco without notifying immigration officials.
OK then.
Cite that San Francisco concealed, harbored, or shielded him from detection, or attempted to do so?
Knowing that the detainee is an illegal immigrant and releasing him into the streets without notifying ICE obviously conceals him in the general population and shields him from detection. Quite obviously.
It really does not matter if they knew he was an illegal alien. They are under no obligation to detain him for the feds (see supreme court case cited above in post #22).
They already knew he was there.
The Feds knew where he was and waited 3 weeks when 48 hours is all a detain request covers.
From here.
As far as evidence that someone is in the country illegally, an ICE detainer doesn’t amount to jack shit, hence your argument amounts to the same.