Did I say that?
Only federal officers can enforce federal law. Period.
If you really want to get rid of illegal immigrants, start coming down on the job creators that hire them.
And your opinion on sanctuary cities?
Like John Mace you’re missing the point. Your opinion on sanctuary cities and/or our limits on immigration? The disregard of laws that’s taking place?
Good? Bad?
What are the laws that require police to hold someone on immigration charges?
Why are you so concerned about immigration laws being broken but have no concern on the laws regarding hiring illegal aliens being broken?
Can you just answer the question whether you think sanctuary cities are right or wrong?
Why or why not.
We’re not missing any point. You, OTOH, seem to be changing what you consider “the point” to be. Let us know once you have it figured out for sure.
Sanctuary cities are right because they are following the law.
And that law is… what?
You have no law to stand behind.
That’s one of the problems.
Which specific law is it that you think sanctuary cities are violating? Is it federal law? What federal law requires local police to enforce federal immigration laws? How about a cite?
Ummm… the law against illegal immigration?
Or am I missing something from your point.
Yeah. You are missing that I asked for a cite. Please cite the law that requires local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal law. There must be one because you seem to think they are breaking it.
Seriously? You don’t understand why someone here without permission is considered illegal?
We really have to go back to that?
You’re missing basic logic. Laws against illegal immigration apply to individuals. Cities are not immigrating illegally, so they are not breaking any laws against illegal immigration.
The laws against illegal immigration are federal laws, which local police are not supposed to be the ones enforcing. Many police departments further find that enacting policies such as checking immigration status of anyone they come into contact with, as witnesses or suspects, hinder their work while taking up resources. Local governments therefore, well within the laws of the US, refuse to enact policies requiring their police to do ICEs job for them.
Now here’s a chance to try again. What laws are being broken when a local police department do not check the immigration status of a random Joe Schmoe who’s suspected of shoplifting, or who’s a witness to a murder of a neighbour? And do say “But immigrating illegally is illegal” again, because it’s just not relevant.
You said that. Not me.
I understand perfectly what the federal government says about immigration. I’m trying to understand what you are saying. It seems pretty obvious that you’re trying avoid defending your claim, though. I can understand why.
You say that sanctuary cities are breaking the law. What law? How are they breaking that law? Are you trying to say that they are breaking immigration laws that apply to non-U.S. citizens? How could they be doing that if you accept that sanctuary cities are not non-U.S. citizens?
I think I have the logic just right - we can’t deny anyone who seeks asylum or wants to immigrate here because we are the best country in the world and have to accept anyone and everyone.
Wrong?
Fuck me. Can we have a discussion outside of semantic bullshit?
I agree with what you’re saying but it’s not addressing the current issue at hand - do countries, cities, disregard laws because they “feel like it”?
Is that really how we should go forward?
Again which laws are countries, cities disregarding? You seem to be having trouble establishing the premise of your question.
It’s not semantic bullshit. You were asked what laws sanctuary cities are breaking and answered “the law against illegal immigration”.
Now you’re asking again ‘do countries, cities, disregard laws because they “feel like it”?’ and you still haven’t showed that any countries or cities are disregarding any laws.
Are you suffering from a delusion where “sanctuary city” means “We don’t think immigration law applies to our inhabitants”? Then you need to grasp that it actually means “Enforcing immigration law on behalf of the federal government hinders our local law enforcement in doing their jobs, so we’re going to leave that responsibility to ICE, where it belongs.”
Or are you playing this as a philosophical semantic game where we’re supposed to guess that what you actually mean is: “I consider sanctuary cities to be a de facto support of illegal immigration and as such support of illegal activities and a ‘crime’ even if the practice doesn’t break any actual laws.”?
Well… No. Not when the semantic bullshit is “the core of your argument rests on a flawed foundation because of how the law works”. And really, when you’re expanding “semantic bullshit” to that extent, “semantic bullshit” becomes incredibly important.
They aren’t disregarding any laws.
You want “laws to be followed”? Okay, then before you demand that these cities follow a law which does not exist, pass a bill that makes it clear that federal immigration crimes must be prosecuted by local police departments, or go to these individual cities and have them pass local laws that criminalize being an illegal immigrant.
You’re not likely to get much progress with that second option, though, because the reason “sanctuary cities” do what they do (and let’s be clear, what they do is entirely legal) is because doing otherwise is expensive, dangerous, and has a chilling effect on law enforcement.
As for the laws, well we can start with the U.S Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
The most pertinent federal law on this point is 8 US Ss 1324.
The relevant section would be 1A(iii)
So local or state officials who oversea sanctuary cities certainly can be found in violation of this statute. Now, it is an arguable point whether it applies to officials in their official capacity or sanctuary city programmes amount to “shield” or “harbour” (what do Americans have against the letter “u” incidentally) under the section.
However, to claim that the law is settled as some seem to be, is disingenuous, at best.