Not a problem when you allow them to get identification, drivers licences and insurance.
I live in a “Sanctuary city” and we have found that allowing people to obtain Drivers Licences and insurance reduces the number of hit and runs, and reducing the fear of deportation increases the likelihood that undocumented victims will come forward.
Our state has no power over immigration law, but we do have a need to address more immediate concerns.
Outside of the immigration violation this population tends to be far more law abiding than the general population, and uncompensated property damage from uninsured drivers or unreported rape/assaults and other violent crimes are far more of an issue.
The fact that the Federal government wants us to break core civil rights, enforce their laws without compensation and force us into putting the entire population at greater risk for what amounts to a witch hunt is a problem.
The anti-immigration policies of the Federal Government created this problem, and due to preemption they are the only ones that can fix the issue.
What they are asking “Sanctuary cities” to do is to directly ignore the best interests of their citizens, and to endanger their lives and income to try and impose counter productive policies.
If someone has a drivers licence, and can pay taxes and their friends and families and don’t have to hide their location out of fear it is easy to use the constitutional and correct thing to only lawfully detain individuals. And because they are documented it is easier to pick them up if there is a need by a federal agency.
It is a direct affront to states rights and sovereignty for the Federal government to insist that states violate the rights of individuals to enforce laws that same federal government is unwilling to fun enough enforcement for.
Doesn’t it come down to the money, essentially? ICE are asking those cities to imprison someone - with all the costs that entails - instead of coming in promptly and taking them in themselves. They are, in essence, asking those cities to do their job for them. Even if they eventually pay the cities back (do they?) that’s a lot of money.
I get that state and local law enforcement don’t need to cooperate in enforcing laws outside their jurisdiction (although playing nice together would seem to be a prudent practice), but that doesn’t mean they are not subject to those laws.
Okrahoma, you’re part of the general population, aren’t you? If releasing someone is “concealing them among the general population”, then that means that you helped conceal Lopez-Sanchez, too.
Holding individuals until ICE decides to show up is often unconstitutional or illegal based on state laws and takes up time and facilities which is expensive.
But the higher costs are small compared to the socialistic costs of not punishing rapists.
Definitely not. Compare someone in a holding cell to someone out free in San Francisco. A a great way to conceal/shield someone so he is not caught by ICE is to hide him in the general population.
Releasing someone, or something, has never in human history been treated as equivalent to hiding it or them. That’s a novel construction. If you wish to pursue this avenue, please cite the relevant legal precedent.
Lets be clear, in the case you were mentioning the Federal government didn’t ask for a phone call, they asked that these individuals should be held PAST the legal length of time in violation of the Due Process clause of the constitution.
ICE detainers are “not a legal document”, and they do not authorize the government to imprison people without due process.
What you are suggesting, was to hold a individual in custody without due process on a no-extradition bench warrant.
Please provide justifications for discarding the 4th Amendment protections in this case.
"Federal officials say that as soon as they learned of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s transfer from federal prison to San Francisco, they issued a request to Sheriff Mirkarimi to notify them when he would be released. An order for his deportation was ready.
“We are just asking for a heads-up, a phone call,” said Gillian Christensen, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, also known as ICE. “We did not hear anything until the day this young woman was killed.”
"But he said he won’t be chased out of “sanctuaries” and pointedly raised a section of federal code — 8 U.S.C. 1324 — that outlaws attempts to “conceal, harbor or shield” illegal immigrants.
“I think these sanctuary cities need to make sure they’re on the right side of the law. They need to look at this. Because I am,” he said."
“Federal officials say that as soon as they learned of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez’s transfer from federal prison to San Francisco,** they issued a request to Sheriff Mirkarimi to notify them when he would be released**.”
See bolded. How that in your mind translates to “DID NOT ask for a call in this particular case” I have no idea.
Yes, they asked for a call. And they didn’t get one. Not until Mr. Lopez-Sanchez killed the young woman.
That is fine, I issue a request for a call before you use the restroom next time…
Of course I won’t pay you for it, nor codify it…
But also notice how you forgot about the long history of ICE asking the states to violate the constitution, and illegally hold individuals?
The dates for all prisoners in California are online, and in databases. Why do you blame the State and not the Feds for not setting a reminder or filing an actionable warrant?
They could have done either, and note this part:
And once again this man had not been charged with violent actions before, he was not a known violent offender.