And, since that shields the illegal alien from detection, that ordinance violates federal law.
They shielded him from detection when they released him without notifying ICE.
And yet they released a violent felon (because THAT was a sticking point with you before) illegal alien without notifying ICE.
If ICE was so interested in him, why didn’t they act while he was in Federal custody?
Because they sent him for prosecution to SF, intending to deport him after he that case was resolved there.
So they were going to deport him when he’s come back so many times?
You don’t have a problem with that?
What, you think a San Francisco city ordinance applies to Portland, Oregon?
Besides, this thread is about “Sanctuary cities” and federal laws. Portland prior to March of this year is irrelevant.
His felony conviction was for burglary.
SF didn’t want him!
What else other than a deportation would you do? Stick him in jail and spend $50K/year for that?
Yes, deportation and strict border control.
Like that worked 20 times before? At what point do you try something else?
Which is a violent felony.
Deportation and strict border control.
Do you have a cite with legal precedent for any of this? I am utterly unconvinced by the argument “Okrahoma says freeing someone is shielding them”. You’ve provided no support for your argument.
Only as a third strike under Federal law.
From your link which you should read before citing.
This has got to be the first time anyone’s tried revolving goalposts.
Chicago is a sanctuary city, and I’m proud of Chicago for it.
https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/mayor/supp_info/office-of-new-americans/sanctuary-city-supportive-resources.html
Mayor Emanuel: “Chicago has been a city of immigrants since it was founded. We have always welcomed people of all faiths and backgrounds, and while the administration will change, our values and our commitment to inclusion will not."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1498751.html
“shielding from detection”, in jury instructions, was defined as "the use of any means to prevent the detection of illegal aliens in the United States by the Government”.
The means of releasing the illegal alien without notifying ICE about it was employed to prevent the detection of the said illegal alien - since it is much harder to “detect” such an alien in general population than in a jail cell.
In fact, the same decision also says that "harbor” means “conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.’”.
Which is exactly what releasing the illegal alien without notifying ICE “tends substantially” to facilitate.
He had already been detected by the Federal Government. He had already served time in Federal prison. The Federal Government let him go.