It’s also an arguable point whether or not checking immigration status on every suspect and witness means they’re acting “knowing or in reckless disregard” of an individual being in the country illegally. (They seem to be fine with the “u” in “country”.)
And making immigrants afraid of the police doesn’t only affect those which are in the country illegally: it also affects those who are there legally but who know they can get kicked out because a customs officer or a traffic cop had a bad breakfast day. It also affects people who have already immigrated fully but who fear that if a cop gets a bug up his ass they can be deported or thrown in jail for God knows how long, and even if they can prove that they’re now citizens the cost in time and money will be horrible.
La Migra shouldn’t be something that even citizens are terrified of.
So what constitutes “knowing” or “reckless disregard”?
If you don’t as a matter of policy check immigration status, then thats one thing. However, what about when you incidentally discover that during investigations and fail to report?
Or when you report for some but not for all?
Its not, excuse me, black and white.
Is there any chance at all you will be telling us who exactly should be charged with the crime of being a “Sanctuary City” and what law they will be charged with violating? Today, this morning, there is absolutely nothing any mayor or police chief is doing to hide or conceal any illegal immigrants from ICE arrest and deportation. They just aren’t doing ICE’s job for them, which is not a crime.
IMO, Immigration law as a whole is a huge mess, largely due to decades of directly and indirectly racist attitudes and beliefs, so there is some reasoning for the argument that this is a civil rights battle that needs to be waged, a la Rosa Parks, etc. But that is an entirely different topic for another thread, as these mayors aren’t preventing ICE from doing their job inside their cities as some sort of moral protest or resistance.
So far you haven’t presented any evidence to support whatever claim you are hoping to make but allow me to give you some evidence on why sanctuary cities aren’t such a bad thing.
First, sanctuary cities tend to be safer than other cities based on a greater cooperation between the immigrant population and the local police.
Secondly, it appears increasingly likely that ICE detainers are unconstitutional under the 4th amendment. If the federal government wants to arrest those it suspects of violating immigration law, then it needs to follow due process, not force local governments to simply detain people due an extra two days sans charges.
Personally, I think the entire sanctuary city debate is created whole cloth by the right wing as just another xenophobic dog whistle. People like the sheriff in the OP, who is obviously ignorant of the real dangers to Americans, or the OP themselves, who don’t even seem to understand what constitutes a sanctuary city, aren’t making a compelling case for arresting mayors, police commissioners or the city of San Francisco, since their arguments seem to boil down to “I don’t like the brownies who make the funny sounds”. Historically, we could could all band together as Americans to hate on whatever was the immigrant group de jour, but now in Great America you also have tie your political opponents as directly supporting America’s ‘enemies’ to the detriment of the nation. Thus sanctuary cities and the godless heathens who enable them.
Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Refusing to follow, and refusing to enforce are not the same thing. Once in a while cops engage in a civil disobedience type of “refuse to enforce” to make a point. As mentioned above, feds can enforce federal law if they’d like.
I don’t think so. European nations have been much more welcoming of Syrian refugees, while many Americans are scared shitless of them because they might practice a different religion.
Back to topic, local governments have no obligation to turn people over to the immigration authorities. Non-cooperation with an unjust law is different than lawbreaking.
No. The feds cannot force the states to enforce federal laws. You just cited a federal law. The feds can enforce it, but the states needn’t.
There are also laws that protect the rights of illegal immigrants. For example, the courts have held that undocumented children have a constitutional right to attend public school. As an extension of that, any activity ( such as laws requiring public schools to turn over records of undocumented children) that might deter such children from attending school are unconstitutional.
Very well. Do you have case!aw which suggests that this does not apply to local and state officials who know about a particular illegal and don’t report?
Should local authorities do a background check on individuals for every violation of Federal law or just immigration policies? If not, why not?
Because law isn’t an end in itself. It’s a means to an end, that end being creating a better society. When law actively gets in the way of making a better society, we should ignore it.
Were conductors on the Underground Railroad scoundrels or heroes?
So you don’t actually know what you’re talking about?
Because there’s no federal law requiring municipalities to cooperate in immigration enforcement.
Its akin to asking federal U.S. Marshalls to detain or ticket someone they knowingly see Jaywalk in a state or city that has laws against jaywalking. NOT MY JOB.
States pay into the federal coffer so it can do its own job and enforce its own laws.
It’s not as if we are hiding people in basements and attics. The feds and the custom and border agents cant even enforce their own federal law why should municipalities be forced to make up for their slack? States can’t deport, so why waste our resources on holding and detaining someone who’s only crime might be staying here a little longer than their VISA allowed, after they helped you solve a crime by standing as a witness? And then on top of that face lawsuits from their lawyers, which is bound to happen and is happening. The feds surely will not reimburse the states for the extra money they spend of their own budget to enforce federal laws.
States like Massachusetts that don’t have a border with any other country should enforce border laws? Are border states like Arizona or Texas or New Mexico actively sending their local and state police forces to the border to help the border agents? They receive more money in federal aid than they pay in federal taxes.
Its a stress on time and money that quite frankly our police departments are not able to spend, due to the fact that they’re enforcing state and city laws and chasing and solving murders, rapist, burglars, etc.
To have an intelligent conversation we need the semantics; we need to what the terms mean.
The Federal law in question appears to be 8 U.S.C. 1373 which apparently states “a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from [maintaining,] sending to, or receiving from, [federal immigration authorities] information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
So let’s be clear.
The first issues are not disregarding law but in this regard under which precise circumstances the Federal level has the ability to command cities and states regarding which laws they pass and with what level of coerciveness can they use to get cities and states to comply with Federal rules over what those laws should be.
The second set will be for individual cities if the letter of their laws that set them up as so-called “sanctuary cities” are in violation of the Federal law. San Francisco for example claims that their sanctuary city law is not out of line with a plain reading of that text.
IANAL but the first set seem more interesting to me.
It was, I believe, a large portion of the basis of the initial Federal court’s blocking the Obama administration’s attempted involvement re transgender bathroom rights as a Federal overreach, specifically citing the implied threats of removing funding as part of the reason to rule against it.
The SC’s ruling allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion of Obamacare is also pertinent (and is discussed in this article about SF’s case):
I’m unsure of your point but yes they do.
Texas:
My point was simply to ask a question I honestly did not know the answer to. As those states receive more federal aid and have the actual border and border communities to worry about I was curious as to the role of their local law enforcement. I was able to find this interesting article on the effects of communities on the border.
Quoted from the piece
“The uniqueness and importance of local law enforcement in the border region should
warrant adequate funding for local agencies. However, the number of full-time equivalent
officers per 100,000 residents for agencies in border counties is 62% of the national
average. In all but New Mexico, border county law-enforcement agencies average less
than 90% of what the non-border agencies in that state receive. 22”
While this is slightly dated (2008) I wonder if the states have done a better job of disseminating funds to ensure the very complicated task of enforcing immigration policy isn’t done half assed and open to multiple expensive lawsuits.
Very interesting read for anyone interested in how this could apply to other municipalities
A letter from about 300 law professors discussing the questionable constitutionality of the EO.
It’s a good read. I personally have no expertise.
My guess is that the Trump administration will not attempt to follow through on EO as they do not want another embarrassment of being told that they are breaking the law (the Constitution).
Neither slavery nor segregaton would have ended when they did if the only efforts were via the courts (Dredd Scott, Plessy) or legislature(Fugitive Slave Laws, Jim Crow). There is always a threshold beyond which laws must be passively resisted, or even actively opposed. Where those thresholds are up to individual people to set for themselves.
If 76% of the country went crazy and pushed through an Amendment/law similar to China’s one child policy requiring any second children to be immediately euthanized, would you inform on your neighbors, even if the law required you to?
I think the big difference is how the control is done. Laws set up disincentives for doing something. As a progressive, I would say that laws to curb illegal immigration should focus on employers. If employing undocumented workers becomes more costly than not, the problem will largely go away. If, on the other hand, you focus on punishing the workers who come over, in some ways you make employing them even more attractive. Now, once they are here, an employer can exploit them and mistreat them with very little fear of reprisal. If they get too far out line, just call in the feds and they get jailed and deported and the employer just has to hire some more.
Liberals believe immigrants contribute to the economy and cite various studies for support. If you want them to become anti-immigrant you’ll need to show immigrants harm the country more than they help. Good luck with that.
Lots of things are illegal, like smoking weed, torrenting TV shows, jaywalking, or sharing prescription medication. There’s so many laws that if the authorities really wanted to bust you for something they could find something.
Where does the law you cited say anything about “failure to report”? I see “conceal”, “harbor”, and “shield from detection”. Those are prohibitions against certain actions, not against inaction.