I completely support states rights. There’s no fluidity from me. In fact, I just put in the time to summarize relevant case law across the circuits supporting the lack of federal criminal law that might compel cities or their personnel to cooperate with ICE.
Although is no real definition of what is a “sanctuary city”, there are usually two issues. The first is compliance with USC 1373. There was a case in Texas federal court that tested this… The plaintiff was asking the court to require the chief of the Houston police department to comply with USC 1373.
Here is what the judge said:
*
Under Title 28, United States Code § 1361, this Court has “original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Chief McClelland is not an officer or employee of the United States, or any agency thereof; thus, he is not subject to the mandamus authority granted to this Court. See id. Moreover, federal courts lack the general power “to direct [or compel] state officials in the performance of their duties and functions.” Noble v. Cain, 123 Fed.Appx. 151, 152 (5th Cir.2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1361 and Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb Cnty. Superior Court, 474 F.2d 1275, 1275–76 (5th Cir.1973)). Therefore, because this Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the mandamus relief Plaintiff seeks, her claim for such relief against Chief McClelland must be dismissed.*
The second issue is usually the honoring of detainer requests from ICE. Perhaps the best explanation is the DOJ’s own filing just last week in an amicus brief to the Massachusetts supreme court.
From page 22 of the amicus brief:
*A. Detainers Are Voluntary.
Although the parties and other amici devote much of
their briefing to the question of whether detainers are
mandatory or voluntary, the Court need not dwell on that
issue. The United States agrees that immigration detainers
are not mandatory. Rather, as the governing regulation and
case law indicate, they are “requests” upon State law
enforcement to voluntarily assist Federal immigration
authorities. The regulation provides that a detainer “serves
to advise another law enforcement agency that the Department
seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that
agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the
alien.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.7{a) (emphasis added) .13 In light of
this language, courts have construed immigration detainers
to be no more than a request. See, e.g., Galarza, 745 F.3d
at 644 (“[R]eading § 287.7 to mean that a federal detainer
filed with a state or local [agency] is a command to detain
an individual on behalf of the federal government, would
violate the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth
Amendment.”); see supra n.4; cf. Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S.
78, 80 n.2 ( 1976) (noting in the context of criminal
detainers that where, as here, “two autonomous jurisdictions
are involved, … a detainer is a matter of comity”). *
The administration is going to have a very, very tough time in court with its current approach to cites/counties that have these policies. The law has been in place for over 20 years and there is ample precedence.
The last issue is regarding federal funding sanctions for these cities. There is some precedence for this (federal highway funds, EPA sanctions, etc.) but these are specifically outlined in the law passed by congress. It’s a pretty unique argument for the executive branch to be making that they can allocate funds using a scheme not in the original law. I would guess the odds of this getting a favorable ruling in court as very, very small.
I’m coming back to this late, apologize.
The gist I’m seeing out of the posts above is that illegals here and otherswise should be welcome.
To those arguing sanctuary cities, illegal immigrants coming in, setting up, etc… do you believe all are welcome? The laws now, currently, are unjust (and in some ways, immoral)?
What I’ve always asked and never had an answer to, is, what is the limit, if any?
If you have a limit, what is it?
** like I said, I’m getting back to this late. The comments above I’ll comment on later.
For the most part they seem to be finding jobs, so I’d say someone is welcoming them.
To me the limit question is better approached from the other direction: immigration laws are fair to have and to attempt to enforce but what is the limit to what is worth doing in enforcing those immigration rules, in terms of costs at various governmental levels, in terms of function within communities, and in terms of humanity?
What we know is that the net flow of illegal immigration, especially from and to Mexico, peaked toward the end of the GW Bush years and decreased during the Obama administration. That many illegal immigrants have been here many years, have children who are American citizens, and have been paying into the system and are key members of the economy. That illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes (other than the crime of being an illegal immigrant) than citizens are.
The costs, in real dollars, in impact to communities, to families, and in terms of loss of the resource many of these people represent, of draconian enforcement would be very significant.
The limit IMHO is based on the balance between the costs and benefits of various levels of enforcement vs an immigration reform approach that creates a path to legal status.
The Right in general understands that the cost of deporting millions would be astronomical. Thus the concept is “self-deportation” by making life here intolerable. The funny bit is that self-deportation has occurred over the last eight years with a net outflow to Mexico, not because life here became intolerable but because of improving economic conditions in Mexico.
Don’t many of them pay into the system using stolen SS numbers?
I believe Social Security fraud is also enforced on the Federal level.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk
Most of the posts above are merely arguing that you’re starting from the wrong premise. The actions of state and local governments establishing “sanctuary cities” are not illegal.
That’s too much a jumbled mess of supposition for me to bother engaging with.
I can’t speak for other contributors in this thread, but my posts here have been in service of rebutting the claim that city officials in sanctuary cities are violating some unspecified law by their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement.
I certainly haven’t made any comment that allows the inference I believe current laws are either just or in just, moral or immoral, or that illegal immigrants are welcome or unwelcome.
I will answer the last thought, though, by plagiarizing Bryan Ekers: they are certainly welcomed by some portion of the populace. Some employers are hiring them. The reason they come here is that there are jobs here that pay better than what they could find in their home countries, and the difference is not trivial.
Every illegal immigrant’s story is different, to be sure, but I don’t believe it’s unfair to point out that many Central Americans come to the United States overland, through Mexico. Interestingly, Mexico, whose government takes the position that the United States should ease their treatment of illegal immigrants, itself treats illegal Central American immigrants to a trip through hell, sanctioning government officials who steal possessions and at times literally clothes from their back before sending them home, often with a physical beating to communicate their message. The trip is often accomplished by swinging aboard a northbound Mexican freight train and riding the cargo car roof; passengers tie themselves down in order to avoid slipping off and falling between rail cars to a gruesome death by amputation, or, perhaps worse, an amputation that does not bring death.
You might want to ask yourself what kind of disparity in living conditions would motivate people to endure such a trip – and not, for most of them, only once. Being caught and sent back halfway though the trip doesn’t deter many. Why do you suppose they accept the costs of such a journey?
I just invite you to consider that side of the equation.
Yes.
Borders are a crime against humanity.
Sanctuary cities are doing God’s work.
These are good. So if someone was walking around carrying these silencers, people wouldn’t expect state and/or local police to arrest them? What about a car-load of illegal feathers? Would the local/state police just say “Sorry, not my problem”?
I’ve seen it with pot.
Suppressors are not illegal at the federal level, just highly restricted.
States are free to make suppressors illegal.
Pot is the reverse situation.
I have no idea what people would expect. Not clear at all on why “what people expect” is a relevant question.
In the absence of a specific contrary federal statute, the validity of a warrantless arrest for violation of federal law by local law enforcement officers is decided by whether it’s either permitted or restricted by state law. Accord Miller v. US.
So tell me what state, and I’ll tell you if such arrests appear to be legal. Federal law does not forbid them (except in some immigration law contexts; see Arizona v. US.)
In no event would state or local police be required to arrest the silencer or feathers guys on federal charges, and could indeed say, “Sorry, not my problem.”
Excellent point. Why just the other day I was reading an article about a border guard being charge with crimes against humanity. Happens all the time. Well, perhaps in your imagination it does!
In addition to the things mentioned above, it’s my understanding that this isn’t so much “guys walking around with car loads of feathers”. It’s more “Hey, if you arrest someone that seems like a feather-having sort, could you let us know, and then hold him without a warrant for 3 days or so while we look into it?”
And note that for a lot of jurisdictions, complaining about the cost isn’t being disingenuous: chronic overcrowding of city jails is a constant issue.
Fair enough.
OK. I’m just wondering, even though it is not required, if local or state police help federal agents arrest people for these federal crimes. Most news stories don’t go into the detail of who actually participated in the arrest.
Lots of different answers. I’m sure that a major raid on a counterfeiting or drug operation might include assistance from local law enforcement. I doubt that when the FBI arrests a hacker they need the SWAT team. The best thing I can say is that situations vary.
How do you feel about property lines?
Slavery is a crime against humanity, but it, too, was accepted for a long time (and in some places or among some people still is).