Sanctuary Cities

[Slash1972]

@DrFidelius

Should local authorities do a background check on individuals for every violation of Federal law or just immigration policies? If not, why not?

What are some Federal laws that are also not State laws? Are there any other ones? Counterfeiting? Bank Robbery? Serious question.

[steronz]

@Slash1972

What are some Federal laws that are also not State laws? Are there any other ones? Counterfeiting? Bank Robbery? Serious question.

Weed, in some states.

[DrCube]

@HeweyLogan

Illegal is illegal.

No, it isn’t. State and municipal police aren’t obligated to enforce federal law just like you and I aren’t obligated to participate in UN peacekeeping missions.

If the UN wants something done, it can do it. If the Feds want something done, they can do it. No reason to demand other organizations work for you for free.

The FBI doesn’t help local cops bust repeat parking offenders, why should Bodunk P.D. do ICE’s work for them? We separate powers for a reason.

[CarnalK]

@DrCube

No, it isn’t. State and municipal police aren’t obligated to enforce federal law just like you and I aren’t obligated to participate in UN peacekeeping .

You know, linking to the general wiki article on “jurisdiction” is pretty obnoxious and doubly so since the article is entirely about judicial jurisdiction and doesn’t discuss law enforcement cooperation at all.

The real defense of most sanctuary cities is that all they are doing is refusing a possibly unconstitutional favour to ICE when they politely request the state to hold onto a suspect until ICE decides whether he’s an illegal immigrant or not. I doubt any sanctuary cities are releasing people who have an actual federal warrant on record.

[Trinopus]

Wasn’t there a court case taking on a reverse case of this? Some jurisdiction (was it not in Florida) tried to insist that local police enforce immigration laws, and the court said no, they aren’t allowed to.

If I haven’t totally botched that – I heard it on the radio, but can’t find a reference – then sanctuary cities are obeying the law.

Some have compared it to the Federal Government taking away highway funds from those states that didn’t implement a 55 mph speed limit. But at least those funds were only highway funds. They didn’t try to take away school funds, or pollution clean-up funds. CBS News has said that the current effort is to take away funds from schools, as well as from police departments.

[DrFidelius]

@Slash1972

What are some Federal laws that are also not State laws? Are there any other ones? Counterfeiting? Bank Robbery? Serious question.

I was thinking about tax evasion n actually.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

[CarnalK]

@Trinopus

Wasn’t there a court case taking on a reverse case of this? Some jurisdiction (was it not in Florida) tried to insist that local police enforce immigration laws, and the court said no, they aren’t allowed to.

If I haven’t totally botched that – I heard it on the radio, but can’t find a reference – then sanctuary cities are obeying the law.

Some have compared it to the Federal Government taking away highway funds from those states that didn’t implement a 55 mph speed limit. But at least those funds were only highway funds. They didn’t try to take away school funds, or pollution clean-up funds. CBS News has said that the current effort is to take away funds from schools, as well as from police departments.

Yes, it was in Florida:
Extended Immigrant Hold Ruled Unconstitutional But Fight Far From Over

IIRC, the ruling on the drinking age/highway funding fight only allowed it because there was at least some connection to the policy being enforced, in that case young drunk drivers. I doubt cutting school funds would pass muster on an immigration argument.

[Bone]

Printz v. United States - SCOTUS ruled that the federal government could not compel state officers to execute Federal law.

New York vs. U.S. (1992) - SCOTUS ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact certain waste disposal regs.

Immigration law is generally fully occupied by the federal government. State and local governments can choose to cooperate, but they don’t have to.

[CarnalK]

@Bone

Printz v. United States - SCOTUS ruled that the federal government could not compel state officers to execute Federal law.

heh. Never let it be said that the gun nuts don’t do the lefties some favours.

[DSeid]

@CarnalK

Yes, it was in Florida:
Extended Immigrant Hold Ruled Unconstitutional But Fight Far From Over

IIRC, the ruling on the drinking age/highway funding fight only allowed it because there was at least some connection to the policy being enforced, in that case young drunk drivers. I doubt cutting school funds would pass muster on an immigration argument.

Also in FL a House bill that would have attempted to force localities to detain died in the FL Senate.

I again advise reading that lawyers’ letter I linked to. It is a brief and clear read that explains the issues well enough that even a very non-legal mind like mine can understand.

[Bone]

@CarnalK

heh. Never let it be said that the gun nuts don’t do the lefties some favours.

I resemble that remark!

[Bricker]

@tim314

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.

+1

Exactly.

“Shield from detection,” might be close, but event that fails: as used there, the phrase means essentially “to protect from or to ward off discovery.” Here there is no allegation that the city officials are protecting anyone; they are simply failing to assist the federal government’s efforts.

Equally, they are not concealing or harboring.

So, AK84, specifically what law is being violated by the city officials’ actions?

And when I say “specifically,” I mean that if you think the city officials have a duty to report illegal aliens, then explain what law you think says that.

[Bricker]

@Slash1972

What are some Federal laws that are also not State laws? Are there any other ones? Counterfeiting? Bank Robbery? Serious question.

Good grief, there’s a boatload.

Not bank robbery, though – that’s a state crime as well as a federal crime.

Apart from classic examples like piracy, federal law outlaws possession of weapon-related items like silencers without licenses that state law does not address. I’d be surprised to find a state criminalizing espionage. Possession of items like feathers from birds protected by federal law is typically not replicated at the state level. Title III of the Patriot Act creates criminal penalties for money transactions that would be legal under state law. The Foreign Agents Registration Act is a federal criminal act requiring people representing foreign powers to register their affiliation and has no analog under state laws.

How much more do you want ?

[AK84]

@Bricker

+1

Exactly.

“Shield from detection,” might be close, but event that fails: as used there, the phrase means essentially “to protect from or to ward off discovery.” Here there is no allegation that the city officials are protecting anyone; they are simply failing to assist the federal government’s efforts.

Equally, they are not concealing or harboring.

So, AK84, specifically what law is being violated by the city officials’ actions?

And when I say “specifically,” I mean that if you think the city officials have a duty to report illegal aliens, then explain what law you think says that.

Bricker, I specifically said it was a statute that might apply, not that it would. The first question is whether the word “person” embraces people acting in an official capacity under direction (as I said above).

Secondly, from what I have read, different cities have different policies and procedures. If I was to guess, I don’t think on its own sanctury city policies would run foul of it, but certain action might. Refusing to give information generally? Not caught. An active refusal to give information on specific cases? More likely to be.

Of course case law would settle this question, case law on this section

[Bricker]

@AK84

Bricker, I specifically said it was a statute that might apply, not that it would. The first question is whether the word “person” embraces people acting in an official capacity under direction (as I said above).

The answer to this is yes. A city mayor is a “person,” within the meaning of this statute even if acting as mayor.

Secondly, from what I have read, different cities have different policies and procedures. If I was to guess, I don’t think on its own sanctury city policies would run foul of it, but certain action might. Refusing to give information generally? Not caught. An active refusal to give information on specific cases? More likely to be.

No, because the law does not compel giving information on specific cases either. So there’s no greater likelihood.

Of course case law would settle this question, case law on this section

i’m not sure where to begin. Do you want case law that construes “shield from detection?” Quoting US v. Ye, 588 F. 3d 411 (7th Cir 2009):

Thus defined, the term “shield from detection” essentially means “to protect from or to ward off discovery.”

Both of these reformulations maintain the active requirement – this statute cannot be violated by passive refusal to assist the discovery or detection; some active action must be taken.

To show an example of the high bar necessary, consider US v. Ozcelik, 527 F. 3d 88 (3rd Cir 2008) and how they handled a Customs and Border Protection Officer charged with accepting bribes and attempting to conceal, harbor, and shield from detection an illegal alien after he advised the alien on tactics to avoid capture and deportation:

Ozcelik raises the same issue on appeal, arguing that his conduct, i.e., telling Tuncer to keep a low profile and not draw attention to himself, and stating that it was good that he lived at a different address than that on file with the INS, does not constitute harboring, concealing, or shielding under 8 U.S.C. § 1324. The government responds that Ozcelik’s general advice to Tuncer substantially facilitated Tuncer’s remaining in the United States illegally, and therefore constitutes shielding, harboring, and concealing under § 1324.
.
.
.
Convictions under § 1324 generally involve defendants who provide illegal aliens with affirmative assistance, such as shelter, transportation, direction about how to obtain false documentation, or warnings about impending investigations. See generally id. at 1175-76, 1180; United States v. Acosta de Evans, 531 F.2d 428 (9th Cir.1976); Lopez, 521 F.2d at 437. In contrast, we have found no cases in which a defendant has been convicted under this statute for merely giving an alien advice to lay low and to stay away from the address on file with the INS, obvious information that any fugitive would know.
.
.
.
The government argues that because Ozcelik gave Tuncer many instructions, including telling Tuncer to hide, how to hide, and to use multiple addresses to avoid detection by the authorities, Ozcelik provided “counseling” that violates the statute. We disagree. Instead, we view Ozcelik’s comments as general advice to, in effect, keep a low profile and not do anything illegal. Ozcelik suggested that Tuncer stay out of trouble. Telling an illegal alien to stay out of trouble does not tend substantially to facilitate the alien remaining in the country; rather, it simply states an obvious proposition that anyone would know or could easily ascertain from almost any source.
.
.
.
Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the government we conclude that no reasonable juror could find that Ozcelik’s conduct tended to substantially facilitate Tuncer’s remaining in the United States illegally. We therefore reverse Ozcelik’s conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (Count Two of the Indictment) and will remand for resentencing.

So, again, what specific law are you talking about? What specific city policy do you contend would violate that law?

[AK84]

Thats what I am talking about. Thanks. So you need active assistance, not just passive acts.
I take it SCOTUS has not ruled on this? Is interpretation consistent around the Circuits?

[Bryan_Ekers]

Meh, if you don’t like it, call for the Federal government to “federalize” all state law-enforcement, the way they might federalize a state’s national guard.
Interesting how support for “state’s rights” is fluid when convenient.

[Bone]

I’m typically a proponent of state’s rights. I have no problem with states and cities deciding to not cooperate with federal law enforcement.

[CarnalK]

@Bryan_Ekers

Meh, if you don’t like it, call for the Federal government to “federalize” all state law-enforcement, the way they might federalize a state’s national guard.
Interesting how support for “state’s rights” is fluid when convenient.

The way they federalize state national guards is through Artcle 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. It does not mention police.

[Bricker]

@AK84

Thats what I am talking about. Thanks. So you need active assistance, not just passive acts.
I take it SCOTUS has not ruled on this? Is interpretation consistent around the Circuits?

Yes. Most circuits that have construed the statute use the “conduct tending substantially” standard I discuss above from the Third Circuit’s Ozcelik: US v. Tipton (8th); US v. DeJesus-Batres (5th Cir); US v. Kim (2nd). Ye (7th) also quoted above, is the least forgiving, and regards any conduct that actively assists the alien, “regardless of how effective a defendant’s efforts to help the alien might tend to be,” as violative.

But note that even then, the conduct must be active, not passive.