We can all agree that it is a fact that the person was released by local law enforcement. However, your statement here goes to intent: that the police specifically wanted to save a person from possible deportation.
What is your evidence for this? I don’t know what the intent of the police was, but my assumption was that the main intent was to follow the laws of San Francisco. Since it is abundantly clear that local police are not obligated to enforce Federal laws, whether for immigration enforcement or gun control, your assumption that the police intended to subvert Federal law fails on several counts.
If you want to argue that San Francisco has an unwise law, I can see pros and cons to that position. But you really seem to be arguing a different point, that local police are legally obligated to do certain things.
Would you be okay if BATF issued instructions to local police to enforce Federal gun laws on their behalf?
It seems to me that ICE wasn’t overly interested in this guy or they would have deported him when he was in federal custody. Why didn’t they deport him? As Skywatcher posted above, if ICE had a genuine interest in maintaining custody of Lopez-Sanchez, they would have issued a judicial order.
Certainly nobody knew he would kill anybody. SF didn’t release “a murderer.” They released a man whom they had no legal reason to detain.
Cite that SFPD intended to prevent a deportation. Cite that this person was a murderer when SFPD had them in custody. Cite that SFPD “deliberately on purpose” acted with any of the intent that you ascribe.
Again, cite that this person was a murderer when SFPD held them. And finally, cite that SFPD broke any law by following their own internal rules and procedures.
“Intent” is clear from their actions. If you are asking if they ever stated “we did it to prevent him from being deported” - no, they didn’t.
I didn’t say he was a murderer when SFPD had him in custody. But he is a murderer, and they released him. As in “they released a murderer”.
I already cited the federal law, in the OP. “Shielding from detection” illegal aliens is violating it. Releasing him into general population without notifying ICE about it shields him from detection. QED.
Not one post pointed out that it is unconstitutional to give a call to ICE when you’re releasing an illegal alien into general population, when ICE specifically asked you to do so.
You’ve provided no evidence that freeing someone counts as “shielding from detection”. Logic and language demonstrate that this makes no sense whatsoever.
Just face it – they weren’t violating the law by not making that phonecall. If you’re so pissed off about this, advocate for changing the law. But the law doesn’t require a phonecall.
But it is a crime to “shield from detection” an illegal alien. When not notifying ICE while you release the illegal alien into general population shields him from detection (as it clearly does, compared to having him in a jail cell), that violates the law.
That’s utterly ridiculous, and you’ve cited absolutely zero precedent to consider freeing someone “shielding” them.
You’ll need more than just assertion to prove this. Since it’s about the law, you’ll need legal precedent. It’s trivially easy to argue that freeing someone (after due process) is fundamentally different than shielding them from detection. “Shielding from detection” implies control over someone – freeing someone is the opposite, relinquishing control over them.
Why not just advocate to make a new law with clear language? I’d oppose such a law, but at least you’d have an argument that made sense.
No, it definitely doesn’t. Just as an example, if I give someone a mask so that he is not recognized, I am “shielding him from detection”, without any “control” issues. If I give someone a new identity/IDs/credit cards, I am “shielding him from detection”, without having any “control over them”.
So you admit that San Francisco did not shield him from detection, because they did indeed have him in a jail cell, and for all the time he was in the cell, ICE would have a very easy time indeed detecting him.