Sanctuary Cities are Stupid

[Anonymous]

Standford Law:

Undocumented Immigrants, Sanctuary Jurisdictions, and the Law

Can you remind us what it means to be a “sanctuary” state like California or city like Oakland or San Francisco?

The term sanctuary has no uniform legal meaning, but in general it refers to integrationist policies—that is, policies that serve to integrate immigrants regardless of their status. So called “sanctuary” laws might include prohibition of use of county funds to initiate an inquiry or enforcement based solely on immigration status, or the refusal to hold ICE detainees (in county jails, for instance, until ICE arrives), or the refusal to let ICE agents into public spaces without a judicial warrant. So, it can take many forms. But it is not a protective blanket that prevents ICE from doing its work. They can do their job, but it’s a matter of how much assistance they get from localities.

Of note, county funds are not supposed to be used to replace federal funds. People are not supposed to be held without a warrant -- ad if they are legally held temporarily without a warrant, it is supposed to be only for certain specific and limited reasons.

The term "sanctuary" was adapted from the "sanctuary movement" of the 1980s. That was a collaboration between some communities and churches to protect Central American refugees of civil war from being detained or apprehended without legal justification.

[Anonymous]

Multiple courts, including some federal appellate courts, have held that federal agencies like ICES cannot require local agencies to detain people just on the suspicion of not having entered the country illegally. That is not under their scope of jurisdiction.

However, they can do that if there is a judicial warrant to back it up. That makes it legal.

Here is an example of one such ruling, although you can google many more for yourself:

On Wednesday, a three-judge appellate court panel found this violated state law because the Suffolk police went beyond their authority. ICE detainers ask police to hold someone already in custody for 48 hours, to facilitate a transfer. By putting Francis back in jail, the court found Suffolk went too far. "[L]ocal law enforcement officers are not authorized to effectuate arrests for civil law immigration violations," the ruling said.

[b]The court found they could, however, if ICE showed them a warrant signed by a judge.[b]

[i.e., it's not that getting into a sanctuary city means "nobody can touch them." It means that you have to follow the legal protocols to do so.]

The case was brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, which says ICE issued about 800 detainer requests to the Nassau and Suffolk county sheriffs last year. Associate Legal Director Chris Dunn said the ruling set a precedent because it applies to all local police, statewide.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/15/668374307/local-police-cant-detain-immigrants-for-ice-ny-court-finds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you are against “sanctuary cities” then you are pro government over reach and against states rights. Hypocrital Republicans.

If you’re here without documents, you’ve broken Fedral law

Yes, and so it's up to the Federal law enforcement to enforce that law, not local law enforcement. Maybe we should have ICE giving out speeding tickets.

Depending on what is meant by "breaking the law" (most people think that means a crime is committed)--when the Supreme Court shot down Arizona's attempts to take over federal jurisdiction regarding suspected undocumented immigrants, Justice Kennedy pointed out in his opinion that just being in the country without authorization does NOT necessarily mean a crime has been committed.

Anyway, "sanctuary" does not (as a pp has pointed out) mean that a person is immune from ICE action.

[Anonymous]

I'm fine with sanctuary cities. Since immigration agents still have to go after illegal immigrants now they not only pick up the person they're looking for but also pick up everyone else who is illegal in their house, workplace, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sanctuary Cities are dumb because they are saying open borders are fine. All you have to do is cross the border and make it to a sanctuary city and noone can touch you. Lower class people should be the most pissed about this driving down wages for everyone else.

This is flat out ignorance. Sorry dude, you have been lied to about what a "sanctuary city" is.

PP takes great pride in her ignorance! She welcomes the lies and deceit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea behind sanctuary cities seems incredibly stupid to me. I’ve never understood its purpose, or how it actually helps the legal citizens in its city. I’ve read too many stories of undocumented immigrants committing acts of violence against legal citizens, and how ICE wasn’t able to detain or deport them. If you think there are good reasons for a sanctuary city please share your thoughts.

Ten minutes of research should easily clarify this for you. Police departments need help from the community, not opposition, to solve crimes. That’s also why almost no local police departments participate in ICE’s 287(g) program. And most departments that have tried it, dropped out. Immigration is a federal matter. Cities and towns don’t have authority over immigration, so why should they get involved? It only leads to problems.

Would you prefer federal agents in your town then? How else will ICE know unless they're notified by state or local?

Every time someone is booked, their fingerprints and record are processed through the NCIC. If there is a hit on the DHS database, ICE is directly notified.

Now you know...

According to ICE, local agencies must notify them as soon as possible or 48 hours in advance of releasing someone who has a detainer. But local officials can release immediately or ignore detainers all together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you are against “sanctuary cities” then you are pro government over reach and against states rights. Hypocrital Republicans.

If you’re here without documents, you’ve broken Fedral law

Yes, and so it's up to the Federal law enforcement to enforce that law, not local law enforcement. Maybe we should have ICE giving out speeding tickets.

States are supposed to obey Federal law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you are against “sanctuary cities” then you are pro government over reach and against states rights. Hypocrital Republicans.

If you’re here without documents, you’ve broken Fedral law

Yes, and so it's up to the Federal law enforcement to enforce that law, not local law enforcement. Maybe we should have ICE giving out speeding tickets.

States are supposed to obey Federal law

Obeying Federal law =/= doing the work of enforcing Federal law

In fact, as mentioned above, federal appellate courts have ruled that state and local law enforcement overreaches their authority when they detain suspects for ICES without a judicial warrant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The idea behind sanctuary cities seems incredibly stupid to me. I’ve never understood its purpose, or how it actually helps the legal citizens in its city. I’ve read too many stories of undocumented immigrants committing acts of violence against legal citizens, and how ICE wasn’t able to detain or deport them. If you think there are good reasons for a sanctuary city please share your thoughts.

Ten minutes of research should easily clarify this for you. Police departments need help from the community, not opposition, to solve crimes. That’s also why almost no local police departments participate in ICE’s 287(g) program. And most departments that have tried it, dropped out. Immigration is a federal matter. Cities and towns don’t have authority over immigration, so why should they get involved? It only leads to problems.

Would you prefer federal agents in your town then? How else will ICE know unless they're notified by state or local?

Every time someone is booked, their fingerprints and record are processed through the NCIC. If there is a hit on the DHS database, ICE is directly notified.

Now you know...

According to ICE, local agencies must notify them as soon as possible or 48 hours in advance of releasing someone who has a detainer. But local officials can release immediately or ignore detainers all together.

Ignore detainers? Cite please to what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you are against “sanctuary cities” then you are pro government over reach and against states rights. Hypocrital Republicans.

If you’re here without documents, you’ve broken Fedral law

Yes, and so it's up to the Federal law enforcement to enforce that law, not local law enforcement. Maybe we should have ICE giving out speeding tickets.

States are supposed to obey Federal law

Obeying Federal law =/= doing the work of enforcing Federal law

In fact, as mentioned above, federal appellate courts have ruled that state and local law enforcement overreaches their authority when they detain suspects for ICES without a judicial warrant.

Yep, these Republicans don’t understand the country they “love”. This is a federal system. The states have state laws they enforce with local police. Immigration law is enforced by the federal government and its an unfounded mandate to expect states to house people that have committed no state crimes and heavy no federal warrant.

[Anonymous]

Unfunded mandates are not good and I cannot believe anyone who professes to be in favor of local and states rights would be ok with them.

[Anonymous]

We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Not only that, but in large metro areas, there aren't enough jail space to house people for minor offenses like being here without papers. They like to reserve what little space they have for violent criminals, be they legal or not. And as someone who has lived in two big metro areas, I totally agree with this approach.

[Anonymous]

OP, first learn about what a sanctuary city is and the real reason why they exist. It clearly isn't what you think it is. Then come and offer your educated opinion on why you think they shouldn't exist and how you propose to solve the financial and LE resource problems at the heart of the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job. They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration. How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.