"Sanctuary cities" and federal laws

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

He had already been detected by the Federal Government. He had already served time in Federal prison. The Federal Government let him go.

1. The fact that he was already “detected” once does not detract from subsequent “detection”.

2. No, it didn’t “let him go”. It transferred him to San Francisco jail, intending to deport him after San Francisco was done with it.

3. As I said already, what San Francisco officials did releasing him without notifying ICE falls squarely under “conduct tending … to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.’”. (I omitted “substantially” because the court decision I cited says that word is not necessary). Which is against the federal law.

[GIGObuster]

@Okrahoma

And, since that shields the illegal alien from detection, that ordinance violates federal law.

That BTW does not mean that they shield a criminal.

I read the ordinance, if other cities are like that then in reality they must send fingerprints and information about the guy in jail to the FBI and they then to ICE. I have to conclude that some official did drop the ball (If from Portland, it is clear that they should had passed the information even if it is a sanctuary city. If the official was from ICE: they could had sent the retainer but it looks to me that they did not bother to follow up on that) and is trying to cover his/her butt.

[Ravenman]

@Okrahoma

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.

So if the case is as clear as you think it is, when can we expect a criminal indictment of a SF law enforcement official by the DOJ under Trump?

How about a $100 bet. If there is a criminal indictment in the next six months, you win. No indictment, I win. Deal?

[Okrahoma]

@Ravenman

So if the case is as clear as you think it is, when can we expect a criminal indictment of a SF law enforcement official by the DOJ under Trump?

How about a $100 bet. If there is a criminal indictment in the next six months, you win. No indictment, I win. Deal?

I don’t have enough faith in this admin’s enforcement of immigration laws to make that bet. They are not much better at it than the previous administrations. Which still doesn’t mean that SF’s (and other cities’) actions are legal under federal law.

But I am glad you dropped your “it’s not illegal” objection and now moved the goalposts to “why are they not prosecuting?”.

[Bone]

It’s not illegal and you have shown no evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

[Okrahoma]

@Bone

It’s not illegal and you have shown no evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

Post #139. San Francisco’s releasing the illegal alien without notifying ICE was clearly “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.’”. Thus illegal under the federal law cited in the OP.

[Richard_Parker]

@Okrahoma

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.

There’s some fundamental disconnect in your understanding of how laws work.

You cannot apply a criminal statute in a way that violates the Constitution even if that reading of the statute were perfectly accurate.

[jayjay]

Boy, for people who usually really, really like federalism, righties get really upset about the sanctuary city thing, which is inherently a federalism situation.

[Okrahoma]

@Richard_Parker

There’s some fundamental disconnect in your understanding of how laws work.

You cannot apply a criminal statute in a way that violates the Constitution even if that reading of the statute were perfectly accurate.

Except that’s not the case here. There is a difference between “not enforcing Federal law” and “violating Federal law”.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Skywatcher

SF didn’t want him!

Yeah, just like George Foster!

Anyway, as best I can tell Okrahoma’s argument is little more than Trump apologetics. Good luck arguing him out of it.

[iiandyiiii]

@Okrahoma

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.

That does not compute. Unless you actually have a cite that, specifically, the act of local law enforcement releasing someone qualifies as “shielding from detection”, you’ve got nothing.

These vague references are nothing. The law requires specifics – and specifically, releasing someone in concordance with due process has nothing to with shielding from detection or doing the opposite. Letting him go to the bathroom might have made him slightly harder to detect than if he remained in a toilet-less cell, but it’s not credible to consider every mundane act of law enforcement as either “shielding” or not.

Why not just advocate for a clearly written law? As written, the law doesn’t support your argument.

[jayjay]

@Bryan_Ekers

Anyway, as best I can tell Okrahoma’s argument is little more than Trump apologetics.

Such a shock!

[Chronos]

Okrahoma, you still haven’t come clean. Why didn’t you notify the Feds of this guy’s release? By refusing to notify them, you have helped to conceal him. Why do you want to conceal felons?

[Okrahoma]

@Chronos

Okrahoma, you still haven’t come clean. Why didn’t you notify the Feds of this guy’s release? By refusing to notify them, you have helped to conceal him. Why do you want to conceal felons?

“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”

I didn’t release him without notifying ICE. I didn’t know him. They did. They knew he was an alien who remains in the United States in violation of law. And they harbored him (as in: “conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.’”).

They violated that federal law.

[Skywatcher]

@Bryan_Ekers

Anyway, as best I can tell Okrahoma’s argument is little more than Trump apologetics.

Yeah, evidence suggests it’s only a problem because Trump says it is. Best as I can tell, nobody said a peep about the San Francisco “sanctuary city” ordinance violating federal law since it went on the books in 1989. Until this thread.

[rat_avatar]

@Okrahoma

“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”

I didn’t release him without notifying ICE. I didn’t know him. They did. They knew he was an alien who remains in the United States in violation of law. And they harbored him (as in: “conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.’”).

They violated that federal law.

No they exercised their constitutional rights.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1478.ZS.html

Printz v. United States in which the Supreme Court held that state officials could refuse to implement a federal background check requirement for the purchase of new firearms. Under Printz and New York v. United States it is well established that the federal government cannot force state officials to implement federal laws.

The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States.

[Okrahoma]

@rat_avatar

No they exercised their constitutional rights.

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Your reference is about state officials implementing federal laws. My post is about state officials violating federal laws. Do you understand the difference?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Okrahoma

Your reference is about state officials implementing federal laws. My post is about state officials violating federal laws. Do you understand the difference?

It’s not been established that any federal laws were violated.

[rat_avatar]

@Okrahoma

Your reference is about state officials implementing federal laws. My post is about state officials violating federal laws. Do you understand the difference?

He was already in the US, and was delivered to the state BY THE FEDS.

Immigration laws are Federal laws and the case I linked to directly relates.

State and local Police cannot even enforce federal law without direct permission, and they are not compelled to do so even if that permission is granted.

This is based on the CORE fundamentals of us being a republic of states.
Plus no one could have guessed he was going to commit a murder, and even if they could have they couldn’t arbitrarily detain a subject without probable cause.

You are asking the states to throw out core rights and protections.

What you are are arguing for is fundamentally unconstitutional and unAmerican.

[Okrahoma]

@rat_avatar

You are asking the states to throw out core rights and protections.

No, I am asking the local officials not to violate the federal law that makes “conduct tending substantially to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.’” illegal.