Because for some weird reason you emphasized the “who is not being charged with anything” in San Francisco case.
What’s weird about it?
First, Cantu didn’t run afoul of any law by refusing access without a warrant. He has a right to do that.
Second, Cantu didn’t “release” these two men in any sense of the word. He was never holding them and therefore could not release them.
Third, here are details of the two substantive counts that Cantu was convicted of:
(my bold in the above)
In both instances, Cantu took actions designed to shield Hernandez and Bustamante and Cantu was convicted for shielding. A few points:
[ul]
[li]Actions taken are different than lack of action.[/li][li]This is in the 5th circuit.[/li][li]This case was about shielding, and the definition you have been discussing is about harboring.[/li][li]This is not even close to the criminal activity you are alleging, namely not calling ICE.[/li][/ul]
If Cantu’s “action” was sending the employees outside the restaurant without giving access to them by immigration agents, then SF’s “action” was releasing the illegal alien without calling ICE (that is, without giving access to him by immigration agents).
In both cases the action was designed, deliberately, to prevent the immigration agents from arresting and deporting the illegal aliens. I don’t see the difference.
The court cites, approvingly, the “tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.’” definition.
No. The two people did not merely leave the restaurant. Cantu arranged for them to leave by means he chose, in a way designed to obfuscate their identity. If Cantu did nothing, and the two people left, that may be more analogous but it’s not. There is nothing about “giving access”. That’s your addition but it has no place in the statute. Of course, employing a person doesn’t count as harboring either.
In SF, they merely cease detaining the person. They don’t arrange their transportation, give them advice on how to evade authorities, or provide them resources, etc. They no longer have a basis for detention, so they cease detaining. That’s the difference. In every case you’ve found, the person convicted took action to do something. SF did not.
You’ve also said that SF was required to call ICE or else they would be in violation of the statute. The law doesn’t require that. The law typically criminalizes actions taken. You’ve flipped it, advancing the idea that the law would criminalize actions not taken (phone call not made). None of your examples are even close to this. Again, you’ve presented no evidence that the rationale you are advancing has ever been used. And again, Cantu is in the 5th. Not binding on SF.
Not even remotely. The restaurant owner was specifically trying to deceive immigration officers, not just letting illegal employees leave work. Your attempts at obfuscation are rather comical, fyi.
That’s Printz. Cited earlier.
No, you have never once answered the question I asked. I listed the elements of the crime, and you keep talking about “notification” which is not an element of the crime, nor of the statute.
It is like if I asked you if OJ Simpson fulfilled each element of the theft statute –
- The unlawful
- Taking and
- Carrying away
- Of another’s
- Personal property
And instead of talking about the elements of the crime, you respond with details of when OJ got his ring and whatnot.
Are you familiar with what I mean by “elements of a crime?” Like, have you ever been on a jury? Anything?
Okrahoma, “harboring” someone you know to have committed a felony is one way you can be an accessory after the fact. (§ 32 PC - Accessory After The Fact - California Penal Code) And yet, failure to report a crime is (in most states) not a crime (Failure to Report a Crime - FindLaw).
How do you reconcile this with your contention that “harboring” as a legal term includes failure to report?
Cite - specifically about calling ICE in response to their request.
“Facilitating an alien’s 'remaining in the United States illegally.”. Which releasing him onto the streets without calling ICE about it as ICE requested does.
You keep selectively reading the law. It requires that someone harbors or conceals someone in a place, such as a building or means of transportation. Again, you think the SFPD is guilty of concealing an alien on Earth? Did the SFPD start driving him around in the trunk of a car?
Unless Cantu was imprisoning his workers, what’s the relevance? He can’t “release” people that weren’t in his custody.
Releasing him onto the streets of San Francisco (a place) very effectively harbors him, compared to calling ICE to pick him up as he is released.
And no, the language in the law is not “such as a building or a means of transportation”. I think you misquoted it on purpose.
Effectively doing something is not the same as actually doing something.
Harboring/concealing doesn’t come into play only in comparison with something else. Either releasing a known illegal immigrant is harboring/concealing or it is not.
Effectively as in “successfully”.
“…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.”
I was quoting from memory. So you think the SFPD was harboring an alien in the whole world? They were taking no action to keep him from leaving San Francisco, they were providing no location for him to sleep or work, so it must be that the alien was being hidden in any place that he chose to go. As in, the SFPD was horboring an alien in the whole world. That’s absurd.
Can you answer my question as to whether you know what an “element of a crime” is?
No, in San Francisco. You admit it is a lot harder to apprehend the alien in San Francisco than in a jailhouse, right?
How does the SFPD know where a person goes when released from jail? Were they following him and telling him where to hide? Did they tell him to stay in San Francisco to be safe from ICE?
Not if you’re an English speaker. In English, harboring usually includes knowing where someone is just by the very nature of harboring. You should curl up with a nice dictionary sometime.