Maybe I just need to stop listening to the radio on my way home from work, but it seems like the various radio show hosts are all het up about “sanctuary” cities that supposedly flout U.S. immigration laws.
So, a couple of questions have I in regards to these cities:
Wouldn’t federal agents charged with enforcing immigration rules have the necessary jurisdiction to enter the cities anyway, and deport anyone who had overstayed? The city governments cannot prohibit federal immigration agents from entering, can they?
If that be the case, then what is a sanctuary city, in actuality?
And a question related to immigration law as a whole. Is it true that most immigration violations are not actually criminal offenses, but rather civil, like a traffic violation?
Some cities have policies that police are explicitly not allowed to look into the immigration status of someone who is arrested or otherwise interacts with the police. In addition, they do not cooperate with the Feds when asked to detain people they feds suspect of immigration violations (the feds cannot compel state agencies to do their jobs).
The idea is that folks here illegally will be more willing to cooperate with the police if they know they won’t be subject to deportation.
Of course, no one seems to complain about “sanctuary companies” who hire the illegal aliens. There must be some vetting of social security numbers, I’d assume.
There are probably as many different policies as there are “sanctuary cities” , but generally speaking , it means that the city has policies that prevent city agencies (not just the police but also hospitals and schools) from asking about immigration status and that they do not detain people based on a simple request from the Feds , although as far as I know they will all detain people based on an actual warrant signed by a judge.
This was the argument I heard on the news. People are more likely to cooperate with police, to report crimes, to be witnesses etc. if they know it won’t result in their coming to the attention of INS and then deportation - or even the risk. Plus, one mayor was mentioning that a first DUI, for example, might be considered a felony. But how serious should an offense be, is it sufficient ground to rip apart a family after 20 years of quiet and private behavior? Is a few ounces of pot sufficient grounds to destroy someone’s life? Some cities put a bigger premium on maintaining law and order than on kicking in doors in the night for trivial reasons.
**Oldguy **has it right. The problem is, as long as rich businessmen can hire illegals with impunity, the problem will not go away. People in poverty unwilling to report workplace safety violations or labor and minimum wage violations don’t contribute to a healthy city.
Worse yet, the USA like much of the western world is on the verge of a demographic collapse that will mean workers will command a premium pay rate; the difference is, the USA is flooded with people willing to undercut any wage offers to legal citizens. This drags everyone down, in the lowest pay echelons of industry.
In practice, I believe it comes down to a notion that unless you’re breaking the laws of the city (or the State, I suppose), they’ll arrest and detain you for that, but they’re not going out looking for illegals, and if they happen to run across one in the course of say… a traffic accident, they’re not going to haul the illegal in merely for being illegal. They may do so for driving without a license, or violations of other laws, but the status of being an illegal alien is not enough to cause the city police to detain people.
So it doesn’t mean sanctuary in the medieval sense then, that fugitives given sanctuary would be sheltered and those pursuing them would not be allowed access to them? I wondered about that. (Although the laws of sanctuary were ignored many times by authorities, who would often invade the most sacred places to arrest fugitives.)
If the feds turned up in a sanctuary city and tried to arrest illegal immigrants (do the feds have power to do this?) I assume the local authorities would offer no help but would not actively resist the feds. Is that correct?
Oh, the Feds show up and do immigration-related stuff all the time. It’s just that if some illegal immigrant is ticketed for speeding, they’re not going to haul him into jail and detain him because he’s an illegal alien. They’ll just fine him and let the Feds go about trying to catch him for being in the country illegally. Although I think if they’re arrested for some reason, they can and do turn them over to the Feds after they’re done prosecuting them. They’re just not out hauling people in to the pokey because they are here illegally. That’s what the “sanctuary” part means, not that they can come to that city and live without fear of interference or molestation by the Feds.
Part of it is a civil liberties issue- what lengths do the Feds expect the local cops to go to if a Hispanic person has no identification? In a lot of states, there’s a better chance the person is a legal citizen than not, and it’s onerous to the cops, a violation to the person, and is perceived as a waste of better-used police time and resources to track that person’s immigration status down merely based on their ethnicity.
Part of it is a self-preservation issue- some states and cities have huge Hispanic populations and within them, huge illegal immigrant populations, and if cops were to try and enforce Federal immigration law, on top of all the other police activities they engage in, they wouldn’t have the manpower.
Is it not true that even if hauled into jail and processed further they will not inform Federal authorities? Point being that the infraction/crime could be significantly more than a speeding ticket.
But nobody gets “hauled off to jail” for a speeding ticket or any other traffic violation. They have to have an outstanding warrant or, say, be found with pot in the car or act like a real douche. If it’s strictly a traffic stop, I imagine in a sanctuary city, handing over your Sonoran drivers license is no cause for comment. In a non-sanc city, you’d be asked for your visa/green card as well.
If someone gets processed into jail, even in a sanctuary city all bets would be off.
Everywhere, if you get processed into jail, your fingerprints get sent to the feds, and will eventually make its way to ICE. That agency then has the option of asking the jail to hold the individual while ICE asks for a warrant to begin deportation.
If/when that warrant is issued, then the feds can come pick up the individual, or pay the county to keep him/her detained. Up until the warrant exists, however, ICE is only asking–it’s a request, not a demand, and the jail can say no.
In a sanctuary city, the jail has the policy of saying no to some or all requests. They will release an individual when he/she makes bail, has charges dropped, or serves their time, even if the feds want that individual detained. Some cities refuse all requests as a blanket policy; others say yes only when the individual is charged with a felony, has previous criminal convictions, has gang affiliations, or meets some other criterion.
If ICE wants to get a warrant to begin deportation, ICE usually doesn’t have any problem obtaining it, and then the jail must comply. The jail doesn’t have to comply for free, though: ICE has to pay for continued detention, or pay for somebody to go pick up the inmate and stick them in a federal lockup. Also, if the individual made bail before the federal warrant issued, then it is the feds’ problem to go round up the individual again–the locals may choose to cooperate or they may choose not to.
Sure ICE agents make arrests in sanctuary cities. In Portland, OR they were recently reported to just find the people that they are looking for when they show up at the courthouse for whatever offense they are currently up for. But the Feds are limited to the public areas. And they get no help from the local authorities. Because these people need protection from the evils of immigration policy.
While Portland was aghast that this was happening in their weird enclave, here is what these 5 guys were sought for, and that Portland was giving them sanctuary from:
Note that there is not a hard working family man being ripped out of his home anywhere on the list.
Your argument, though, ignores one big point: if the ICE agents have free access to the correctional facilities and the courthouse areas, then they have free access to ANYBODY detained there, be they a 16-time drug felon or a hardworking family man arrested by accident or somewhere in between.
The ICE agents chose to devote resources to arresting these particular five people at the courthouse. If they had more resources at their disposal (such as all of Multnomah County’s officers), would they have settled on just these five, or would they have picked up hardworking family men who were at the courthouse on non-criminal business? Multnomah County gave sanctuary to all illegal aliens who had courthouse or jail business, not just these five; these five were only the ones the feds singled out as worthy of special attention.
To be clear there are lots of reasons to be a sanctuary city and the benefits typically are higher for a city to do so outside of federal penalties.
[ul]
[li]Immigrants tend to commit less crimes than the native population outside of their potentially illegal status. There is little benefit for focusing efforts on this task for Cities.[/li][li]Cities and States are not compelled to enforce federal laws it is a courtesy.[/li][li]Enforcing immigration law can lead to profiling which can negatively effect the lawful immigrants.[/li][li]If they do enforce these laws they are not compensated for law enforcement time, housing etc.[/li][li]Enforcing these laws uses police time, which means that they are not working on other areas that may be higher priority.[/li][/ul]
As stated in posts above the federal government is not blocked from coming in and enforcing these rules.
Make that passport/visa/green card. So it’s not just hassling possible illegals but **everyone **because they don’t know who is illegal without checking the documentation. Same thing for hospitals and schools, as Doreen pointed out. Imagine having to show your passport at every doctor’s office, school, emergency room admittance, traffic stop… and where does it stop?
And of course the larger issue with this whole thing isn’t so much the immigration problem. The larger issue is the current administration stomping down rebellion.