"Sanctuary cities" and federal laws

[rat_avatar]

@Okrahoma

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.

Immigration law is Federal LAW, it is enforced by the Federal government, not the states.

We are a collection of sovereign states with limitations of power, this is pretty much the core concepts of what is the United States.

Look at the second quote again in my above link.

In no part of our body of laws can local police arbitrarily detain someone with action by a court of law. Had the Federal government initiated deportation proceedings when they delivered him to the State things would have been different.

But the man only had a bench warrant from Texas.

[Bone]

@Okrahoma

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.

At least this is trying for a cite to support your claim, though this is also not successful. I’ll try to clarify why you are wrong. Post #139 you cite UNITED STATES v. YE. Ye only deals with the “shield” component of the law you cited in the OP, and was about jury instructions:

As our sister circuits have recognized, “conceal,” “harbor,” and “shield from detection” have independent meanings, and thus a conviction can result from committing (or attempting to commit) any one of the three acts. … The only term at issue here is “shield from detection.”

(my bold)
In addition the Ye court rejects the language of “tending to facilitate”:

Nevertheless, the Second and Fifth Circuits, as well as several other courts of appeals subsequently have employed “conduct tending substantially” in analyzing § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), explicitly stating or implicitly suggesting that language is a separate element necessary for conviction under the statute.   See, e.g., United States v. Ozcelik, 527 F.3d 88, 100 (3d Cir.2008);  United States v. Tipton, 518 F.3d 591, 595 (8th Cir.2008);  United States v. DeJesus-Batres, 410 F.3d 154, 160 (5th Cir.2005);  United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 574 (2d Cir.1999).   In our opinion, however, that phrase should not be adopted in this Circuit.

Ye makes two claims. The first was about jury instruction, and the second was about sufficiency of evidence to convict. Here is what the court said:

Ye claims the district court’s instruction on the meaning of “shielding” was erroneous because it was too vague and too broad.   The usual standard of review for whether a jury instruction accurately states the law is de novo.  United States v. Thornton, 539 F.3d 741, 745 (7th Cir.2008).   But under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 30(d), when a party disagrees with a jury instruction it “must inform the court of the specific objection and the grounds for the objection․ Failure to object in accordance with this rule precludes appellate review, except as permitted under [plain error review].”   Because Ye likely did not comply with Rule 30(d), our review perhaps should be for plain error only.2  United States v. Wheeler, 540 F.3d 683, 689 (7th Cir.2008).   And under that standard of review, we rarely reverse a conviction because of an improper jury instruction to which no objection was offered.  Id.

And in discussing sufficiency of evidence:

Ye also argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove he intended to prevent government authorities from detecting the presence of the illegal aliens.6  “A defendant attacking the sufficiency of the evidence used to convict him faces a nearly insurmountable hurdle.”  United States v. Morris, 576 F.3d 661, 665-66 (7th Cir.2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted).   Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we will reverse a conviction only if no rational jury could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Id. at 666.

Their conclusion:

The district court did not misstate the law when it defined the term “shielding” in the supplemental jury instruction.   In addition, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ye’s actions were done with an intent to prevent the government from detecting illegal aliens.   Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Suffice to say, Ye is not about releasing illegal aliens at all. It does establish the definition of “shield” as used by the statute to be consistent with the jury instruction of “the use of any means to prevent the detection of illegal aliens in the United States by the Government”. All that being said, your contention seems to be that releasing a person that the SFPD had no basis to detain is sufficient to sustain the charge of “shielding”. Good luck with that.

Separately as I quote above in post #146, you bring in language regarding “harboring”. Specifically, the description of “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.” That is from US. v. Lopez., which you didn’t cite.

But in both Ye and Lopez, the defendants actively did something. Ye knowingly hired illegal aliens, did not collect proper required I-9 documentation, advised them where they could purchase fake documents, paid them in cash, and accepted documents that were under a different name than the people he hired. In Lopez, he operated several single family houses as havens for aliens who illegally entered the country, provided the address of these houses to the individuals prior to them entering the country, filled out employment applications, shuttled them to and from work, arranged fake marriages, etc. Ye was found to have “shielded” and Lopez was found to have “harbored”. Those are vastly different than the SFPD releasing a person from jail that was no longer wanted for any outstanding warrants, even if they knew he was an illegal alien because they are not obligated to do anything with that knowledge as immigration is a federal matter.

In Prince, it’s clearly established that state and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. There is a reason the ICE detainer requests do not carry force of law. If that were all it took, then showing violations under 1324 would be trivially easy. But since there is no instance of a sanctuary city who decided to not cooperate with federal immigration law being cited under that statute, the overwhelming evidence is against your position. In fact, in light of the disparity of circumstances in the cases you cite, I’d say those do not even qualify as a cite.

Added as a point of information, the two cited cases above are from the 2nd circuit. SF is in the 9th so those cases are also not binding. Printz is SCOTUS, and binding across the nation.

[iiandyiiii]

@Okrahoma

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.

The lawyers in the thread, conservative or not, disagree with you that they violated the law. Their arguments have much more support and make much more sense than yours.

[simster]

@Okrahoma

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

and yet - you have to ask yourself -

If this is such a clear violation of the law - why have there been no charges filed, no arrests made and the ‘best’ that the Administration can attempt (and fail) to do is withhold money from these cities?

It also begs the question that you think you (and others like you) know the law better than those that are charged with administering it at the local, state and federal levels.

Citing a statute and saying “see - here! here!” does not a lawyer make.

[Okrahoma]

@Bone

In Prince, it’s clearly established that state and local governments cannot be forced to enforce federal laws. There is a reason the ICE detainer requests do not carry force of law.

But we’re not talking about “detainer requests”. We’re talking about notifying ICE when you’re about to release the illegal alien. NOT doing that is, clearly, “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.” Unless you twist yourself into pretzels trying to deny it.

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

Yes. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had issued a detainer for Sanchez requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. San Francisco ignore that and released him.

@Okrahoma

But we’re not talking about “detainer requests”. We’re talking about notifying ICE when you’re about to release the illegal alien. NOT doing that is, clearly, “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.” Unless you twist yourself into pretzels trying to deny it.

Mighty short memory you have there.

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

Mighty short memory you have there.

The discussion evolved. We found out that it was not a detainer request in that case. ICE actually merely asked the SFPD to call them to tell them when the illegal alien was about to be released. Go ahead and try to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to explain how calling ICE is “enforcing federal law” and how NOT calling ICE differs from “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.”

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

The discussion evolved. We found out that it was not a detainer request in that case. ICE actually merely asked the SFPD to call them to tell them when the illegal alien was about to be released. Go ahead and try to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to explain how calling ICE is “enforcing federal law” and how NOT calling ICE differs from “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.”

So you posted something that wasn’t true?

[Bone]

@Okrahoma

But we’re not talking about “detainer requests”. We’re talking about notifying ICE when you’re about to release the illegal alien. NOT doing that is, clearly, “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.” Unless you twist yourself into pretzels trying to deny it.

Are you asserting there is a positive requirement to notify ICE in the given example?

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

The discussion evolved. We found out that it was not a detainer request in that case. ICE actually merely asked the SFPD to call them to tell them when the illegal alien was about to be released. Go ahead and try to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to explain how calling ICE is “enforcing federal law” and how NOT calling ICE differs from “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.”

ICE Detainer Policy

ICE places detainers on aliens who have been arrested on local criminal charges and for whom ICE possesses probable cause to believe that they are removable from the United States, so that ICE can take custody of the alien when he or she is released from local custody. When law enforcement agencies** fail to honor** immigration detainers and release serious criminal offenders, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.

Can you explain why no one is arrested for “failing to honor”? Could it be because there is no law requiring the request be honored?

Or could it be because a detainer is illegal without a warrant.

In a decision late last week, the federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois invalidated the practice of issuing immigration detainers by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The court found that detainers violate federal law because they exceed the government’s warrantless arrest authority and made it clear that federal immigration authorities will have to get a warrant if they want to take custody of an immigrant who is held in local custody.

The decision was in response to a class action lawsuit, Jimenez Moreno et al v. Napolitano brought by two plaintiffs, Jose Jimenez Moreno, who was subject to an immigration detainer even though** he was a U.S. citizen, **and Maria Jose Lopez is a lawful permanent resident whose was subject to a detainer even though his criminal conviction was not grounds for deportation under U.S. immigration law.

[Ravenman]

@Okrahoma

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?”.

What? Travel Ban Trump is too weak on immigration? Cut off funds to sanctuary cities Trump? (That’s unconstitutional too, BTW.)

And the reason I suggested indictment is that it requires only probable cause, as opposed to conviction. So what we have here is a situation in which you insist the law was broken, but you don’t think anyone will ever be indicted for it. Laaaaaaame.

[Okrahoma]

@Bone

Are you asserting there is a positive requirement to notify ICE in the given example?

I am asserting that there is a positive requirement to follow federal laws. “Conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally” is against federal law. Releasing the alien without notifying ICE is such conduct.

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

ICE Detainer Policy

Once again - detainers vs a phone call to ICE. See post #167.

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

Once again - detainers vs a phone call to ICE. See post #167.

And on what basis can the person be held while waiting for ICE to pick them up?

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

And on what basis can the person be held while waiting for ICE to pick them up?

The phone call would be before the release, notifying ICE when the release will happen.

[Bone]

@Okrahoma

I am asserting that there is a positive requirement to follow federal laws. “Conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally” is against federal law. Releasing the alien without notifying ICE is such conduct.

I find this argument by assertion unpersuasive. I assert that release without notifying ICE does not run afoul of the federal law in question. My evidence is the complete lack of prosecution across the nation based on anything resembling the fact pattern in question. Do you have any evidence that is superior to that?

[Okrahoma]

@Bone

I find this argument by assertion unpersuasive. I assert that release without notifying ICE does not run afoul of the federal law in question. My evidence is the complete lack of prosecution across the nation based on anything resembling the fact pattern in question. Do you have any evidence that is superior to that?

Does releasing the illegal alien into general population without calling ICE to warn them about it as ICE requested tend to facilitate the alien’s remaining in the United States illegally?

I have no doubt that anyone who is not agenda-driven would answer in the affirmative.

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

The discussion evolved. We found out that it was not a detainer request in that case. ICE actually merely asked the SFPD to call them to tell them when the illegal alien was about to be released. Go ahead and try to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to explain how calling ICE is “enforcing federal law” and how NOT calling ICE differs from “conduct tending to facilitate an alien’s ‘remaining in the United States illegally.”

I just went through the thread. At what point did this happen?

[Okrahoma]

@running_coach

I just went through the thread. At what point did this happen?

When you posted an article that contained this:

"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.”
Which part of “a request … to notify them when he would be released” do you think asks the local authorities to illegally detain someone?

[running_coach]

@Okrahoma

When you posted an article that contained this:

"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.”
Which part of “a request … to notify them when he would be released” do you think asks the local authorities to illegally detain someone?

And yet the discussion of detainers continued with you making no mention of the fact that you felt there was no detainer request made.