The Sanctuary City fight (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

I am also betting that if you polled the public and asked what a sanctuary city actually means, less than 20% would be able to explain it correctly. 

Based on President Trunp's rhetoric on this issue, he would not be part of the 20%. 

 

[timschochet]

It doesn't really matter. I think Trump is talking tough on this issue, but really will not be able to do anything about this issue. 

That remains to be seen. RHE made a good argument in here as to how it's unconstitutional (per a Supreme Court decision about Obamacare) but other legal experts I've seen on TV have suggested that Trump CAN cut funding with congressional support. 

 

[HellToupee]

HellToupee, if you think that IVN is a legitimate news source, then why didn't you cite them? 

C&p from my phone while working. Sorry I don't have a crew of bandidos at my disposal so I can take my time for a thorough post

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Eh I'm pretty sure Trump's gambit won't hold up in court.

I might add we had a murder here by an illegal alien a few years back and.... the GOP didn't seem to care.... maybe because the victim wasn't as pretty as Kate Steinle and maybe because it was in a GOP suburb in a GOP state...

 

[mr roboto]

I am also betting that if you polled the public and asked what a sanctuary city actually means, less than 20% would be able to explain it correctly. 

Based on President Trunp's rhetoric on this issue, he would not be part of the 20%. 

This is exactly it. You get a poll question that says something like...

"do you support Cities being sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants?"

The MURICA crowd is gonna read that very differently than what it actually means. 

 

[HellToupee]

This will be a huge loss if this is the hill the D party is going to rally on. Yuuge loss.

Walsh is under fire in Boston for his antics yesterday. I wonder what Padma from Top Chef thinks about the compassionate Walsh

 

[glvsav37]

 What a fear-mongering snake.

As a long Islander, I despise Cuomo beyond belief

 

[tdoss]

This is exactly it. You get a poll question that says something like...

"do you support Cities being sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants?"

The MURICA crowd is gonna read that very differently than what it actually means. 

Might make for a decent poll here...

 

[BowieMercs]

Might make for a decent poll here...

Need to add "MURICA" as one of the options.

 

[HellToupee]

Might make for a decent poll here...

I'll guess here it will be 70-30 for

 

[mr roboto]

I'll guess here it will be 70-30 for

Question for you - do these 'sanctuary' policies bother you?  The more I've read on them the more they make sense. And I'm actually for a stronger boarder and better immigration control. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I notice you didn't source this. Why is that? 

HellToupee, if you think that IVN is a legitimate news source, then why didn't you cite them? 

C&p from my phone while working. Sorry I don't have a crew of bandidos at my disposal so I can take my time for a thorough post

Tim it's a UC Berkeley Poll, totally legit:

Californians strongly oppose “sanctuary city” policies under which local authorities ignore federal requests to detain undocumented immigrants who have been arrested but are about to be released, according to a new poll released today by the Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) at UC Berkeley.

That opposition comes from strong majorities in both major political parties and among independent voters, and crosses other demographic categories. Almost two out of three Latinos said they oppose such policies.

The online survey, which polled 1,098 California residents from Aug. 11-26, found that 74 percent of respondents said local authorities should not be able to ignore a federal request to hold a detained person who is in the country illegally. Only 26 percent of respondents said local authorities should have that right.

Opposition to the sanctuary city policies crossed the political spectrum, and included 73 percent of Democrats, 82 percent of Republicans and 71 percent of independents.

“We found very broad-based opposition to the idea of sanctuary cities,” said IGS Director Jack Citrin, a professor of political science at UC-Berkeley who has studied immigration for years. “Californians want their local officials to abide by the requests of federal authorities.” ...

 

[HellToupee]

Question for you - do these 'sanctuary' policies bother you?  The more I've read on them the more they make sense. And I'm actually for a stronger boarder and better immigration control. 

This article bothers me


Sanctuary cities free more than 2,000 illegals rather than cooperate with feds


By Stephen Dinan
The Obama administration has made significant headway in cutting down the number of sanctuary cities, but 279 municipalities are still holding out, refusing to cooperate with federal authorities on at least some cases involving illegal immigrants, Homeland Security officials said as they detailed year-end enforcement numbers last week.

Those sanctuary communities released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants back onto the streets rather than turn them over to federal authorities in fiscal year 2016, and were on pace for even more in the first two months of fiscal year 2017, which began Oct. 1.

The numbers were part of Homeland Security’s year-end immigration enforcement update, which said border agents and officers are reporting more illegal immigrants attempting to cross into the U.S., in what has been dubbed a new surge of migration.

Yet fewer are being caught in the interior by ICE, as President Obama continued to make good on his vow to stop deporting all but the most serious of illegal immigrants.

Last year, ICE caught 114,000 illegal immigrants, the lowest number in Mr. Obama’s tenure. That represented only 1 percent of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants believed to be at large in the U.S.

More than 90 percent of those ICE apprehended had criminal convictions, had gang ties, were deemed national security risks, were new illegal arrivals or were defying active orders of deportation.

Security analysts say that makes the number of people released by uncooperative sanctuary cities even more troubling. The Obama administration wouldn’t be asking for them unless they were priorities for deportation, either as convicted criminals, national security risks or people who are ignoring recent orders of deportation.

Led by Philadelphia and Cook County in Illinois, which refuse all cooperation with the federal government, sanctuaries are likely to be one of the thorniest issues confronting Donald Trump as president. He has vowed penalties for defying immigration laws.

Mr. Trump’s selection to be attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, has also expressed support for blocking some federal funds from sanctuary cities — and even suggested bringing criminal charges against them.

The Obama administration has also called for sanctuary cities and localities to cooperate, saying communities that refuse to turn over illegal immigrants wanted by federal agents are making the streets less safe and causing more hassle for immigration agents.

“Declined detainers result in convicted criminals being released back into U.S. communities with the potential to re-offend,” U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in its 2016 review released Friday.

“Detainer” is the term ICE uses when it asks a local police or sheriff’s department to hold an illegal immigrant for pickup by federal agents. A declined detainer means the locals refused, and instead released the person onto the streets.

Fewer sanctuaries

ICE has been making some progress. In fiscal year 2015, there were 395 jurisdictions that acted as sanctuaries, refusing to turn over a total of 8,546 illegal immigrants that were being sought by ICE agents. In 2016, the number of jurisdictions dropped to 279, and the total number of illegal immigrants shielded was down by more than three-quarters to 2,008. It’s not a straight 1-to-1 comparison, however, because ICE likely stopped asking in 2016 for detainers on some illegal immigrants in communities that have gained reputations for refusing to cooperate.

Of the 25 largest jurisdictions that offered sanctuary a few years ago, 21 of them have started to work with ICE in some capacity since Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson made a major push to establish better cooperation. Still, even those 21 municipalities don’t fully cooperate, officials acknowledged.

Some, such as Philadelphia and Cook County, home of Chicago, balk at most requests.

Asked over the summer, Philadelphia officials insisted that they attempt to cooperate on “violent criminals or suspected terrorists,” but they didn’t answer specific Justice Department allegations that the city refused cooperation. Cook County, meanwhile, didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

On broader measures of overall immigration enforcement, the numbers show continued struggles both at the border and inside the U.S.

Just five years ago, ICE agents apprehended 338,000 people in the interior of the U.S. — nearly three times the 114,000 captured in 2016.

“That’s where we’ve really seen changes,” said one Homeland Security official who briefed reporters on the numbers Friday afternoon on the condition that he not be named publicly.

Stung by criticism from immigrant rights advocates who dub Mr. Obama the “deporter in chief,” the administration has made a concerted effort to start kicking out fewer migrants from inside the U.S. The president and Mr. Johnson laid out a series of priorities and ordered agents to drop other cases.

Those priorities include serious felons and national security risks, those with multiple misdemeanors, recent border crossers and those who have been ordered deported since 2014, but who are refusing to go.

Of those ICE kicked out in 2016, nearly 84 percent were serious felons, national security risks or gang members, or were caught at the border. Another 13 percent had repeat misdemeanors or were caught in the interior after sneaking in after 2013.

Even as interior agents catch fewer immigrants, Border Patrol agents and U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers who man the ports of entry are reporting a spike in migrants attempting to enter illegally.

Homeland Security officials say the number caught at the border is an indicator of the number getting through it, so it signals an overall increase in the flow.

Border Patrol agents caught 415,816 people trying to enter illegally over the last fiscal year, which was up 23 percent from 2015. Still, it was far fewer than the 1.5 million regularly caught each year in the late 1990s.

CBP officers, meanwhile, encountered nearly 275,000 other migrants who showed up at the ports of entry but didn’t have permission to be in the U.S.

 

[The Commish]

I edited because Printz was not founded upon the 11th Amendment (which I had miscited anyway, I meant to cite the 10th).  In any case, under current SCOTUS precedent, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to "commandeer" state government officials and force them to perform a federal role.  Enforcing the federal immigration laws is a federal role.  And while the government could condition some new benefit on enforcing federal laws (such as new highway funding for enforcing federal speed limits), it cannot yank existing or non-related funding for refusing to enforce federal laws (If South Dakota wants a 90MPH speed limit, the feds can't deny them FEMA funds).

Is it true that if the cities don't cooperate with the Feds (in terms of information) during a Fed initiated and run "search" (for lack of a better term), then the cities could be in trouble?  I.E.  If the federal government decided to spend the time, money and boots on the ground to round up all illegal aliens and requested the demographic data of all known illegal immigrants, the cities would be forced to give them such information or face a lawsuit etc?

My understanding from an NPR piece is what you said above, but it also mentioned this caveat of information flow that the cities could not impede if the request was made.  Cities are under no obligation to help corral them, detain them, etc.

 

[jonessed]

Question for you - do these 'sanctuary' policies bother you?  The more I've read on them the more they make sense. And I'm actually for a stronger boarder and better immigration control. 

The policies vary.  San Francisco won't cooperate on anything but violent felonies.  That seems absurd to me.  Why protect felons here illegally at all?  What benefit is there to that?

 

[timschochet]

Tim it's a UC Berkeley Poll, totally legit:

Well if it's true, it's depressing. But again, it's up to the cities themselves.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

279 municipalities are still holding out, refusing to cooperate with federal authorities on at least some cases involving illegal immigrants, Homeland Security officials said as they detailed year-end enforcement numbers last week.

Those sanctuary communities released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants back onto the streets rather than turn them over to federal authorities in fiscal year 2016, and were on pace for even more in the first two months of fiscal year 2017, which began Oct. 1.

Any federalists in here? Constitutional types? Is there really a problem with a city or state saying they don't want to expend resources on gathering up illegal aliens?

When President Obama refused to assist AZ in deporting illegal aliens back to the state lines and changed some rules, did anyone have a problem with TX, AZ & NM increasing their own border patrols and doing it themselves? We have a great federal system, let the states be. It's up to the feds to handle the border control. Why are these illegal aliens in 280 cities like this anyway?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well if it's true, it's depressing. But again, it's up to the cities themselves.

In which Tim becomes a States Righter.

But hey I agree. I live in one. And really we don't have the police force to maintain crime in our city or run a safe jail. We are under 2 federal consent decrees... or were... and we need illegal aliens to work here, and they were freakin' HEROES after Katrina.

 

[timschochet]

The policies vary.  San Francisco won't cooperate on anything but violent felonies.  That seems absurd to me.  Why protect felons here illegally at all?  What benefit is there to that?

Because in almost every one of these cities, including San Francisco,local law enforcement has requested that they not be involved in determining whether people are here legally. They're busy enough trying to fight crime. They don't have the resources, and it's not their job.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Any federealists in here? Constitutional types? Is there really a problem with a city or state saying they don't want to expend resources on gathering up illegal aliens?

When President Obama refused to assist AZ in deporting illegal aliens back to the state lines and changed some rules, did anyone have a problem with TX, AZ & NM increasing their own border patrols and doing it themselves? We have a great federal system, let the states be. It's up to the feds to handle the border control. Why are these illegal aliens in 280 cities like this anyway?

Not a great example because the Constitution clearly allocates responsibility for enforcing immigration laws on the federal government.  So I did have a problem with AZ trying to do it.  Because Arizona has no authority to enforce the federal immigration laws on its own.  It would be like New Mexico trying to arrest someone for treason. 

 

[mr roboto]

The policies vary.  San Francisco won't cooperate on anything but violent felonies.  That seems absurd to me.  Why protect felons here illegally at all?  What benefit is there to that?

Yeah it seems there's a very wide range of 'sanctuary' cities. 

Miami's mayor was on CNN last night. He's been writing letters to the Feds requesting financial reimbursement for any illegal being held on Miami's dime at the behest of the Feds (which isn't only a reasonable request, but also seems simply fair). By him removing this request the city has gone from a 'sanctuary' city to not a sanctuary. Which is an incredibly minor change in policy yet Trump and Co will herald Miami as a positive example. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Not a great example because the Constitution clearly allocates responsibility for enforcing immigration laws on the federal government.  So I did have a problem with AZ trying to do it.  Because Arizona has no authority to enforce the federal immigration laws on its own.  It would be like New Mexico trying to arrest someone for treason. 

Except in the absence of federal action and abdication of its federal responsibility....

 

[mr roboto]

We can't deport our way out of our current illegal population issue either. 

 

[The Commish]

That remains to be seen. RHE made a good argument in here as to how it's unconstitutional (per a Supreme Court decision about Obamacare) but other legal experts I've seen on TV have suggested that Trump CAN cut funding with congressional support. 

Well, of course.  They can cut funding from the budget...congress controls that.  Trump can't do it via executive order all by himself.

 

[jonessed]

Because in almost every one of these cities, including San Francisco,local law enforcement has requested that they not be involved in determining whether people are here legally. They're busy enough trying to fight crime. They don't have the resources, and it's not their job.

They release felons because they don't have the time to cooperate with ICE to deport them? That time is better spent fighting crime?  What about the felon they just released?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The federalism issue reminds me a little of Pres. Obama saying a hundred times it was up to Congress....... then one day saying that hey Congress won't act, so I will. He just got frustrated, so he did what he said was unconstitutional. And it may have been.

So what are states/cities to do? Wait for the feds to handle a problem that can no longer be handled? No they're handling it.  The Constitution works... when the players play their roles, things break down with federal actors don't do their jobs. The states were never intended to just become neutered parties completely unable to act when the feds don't do their assigned roles. See the 9th-10th Amendments.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Except in the absence of federal action and abdication of its federal responsibility....

There is no provision in the Constitution that addresses "the abdication of federal responsibility."  It's a federal function subject to federal discretion.  Texas doesn't get to start to run the Navy because they think DC isn't ordering enough battleships. 

 

[HellToupee]

We can't deport our way out of our current illegal population issue either. 

Absolutely not but we can when they run afoul with the law

 

[The Commish]

Curious to know if those "bothered" by this sanctuary city thing, are you also "bothered" by states ignoring federal drug laws and allowing the selling of the Sticky Icky?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There is no provision in the Constitution that addresses "the abdication of federal responsibility."  It's a federal function subject to federal discretion.  Texas doesn't get to start to run the Navy because they think DC isn't ordering enough battleships. 

10th Amendment. If (in the bizarre hypo) the US doesn't defend Texas' borders from a Naval invasion - which say is actually happening - it is patently absurd to argue that the Founders intended that Texas should not form a navy and army to defend itself against invasion.

- btw I'm talking CA & SF here, not NM and the borders, though to me they are one in the same.

 

[Buzzbait]

I would say a majority. I doubt an overwhelming majority. 

But I would also suggest that it really doesn't matter. It's the cities themselves that matter. If they want to refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration, that's their call. I think it's a good call for several reasons. 

Is this really the case? Serious question and no hidden agenda. I'm not sure that cities/states have the right to dictate this issue.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Is this really the case? Serious question and no hidden agenda. I'm not sure that cities/states have the right to dictate this issue.

I don't know what you're actually asking.  As has been covered in this thread, from a legal perspective, that is absolutely the case.  The federal government can't commandeer state and city resources.

Are you asking whether that should be the case? 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Is this really the case? Serious question and no hidden agenda. I'm not sure that cities/states have the right to dictate this issue.

What is the basis for State officials to enforce federal laws?

 

[jon_mx]

Well if it's true, it's depressing. But again, it's up to the cities themselves.

You support illegal activity when it suits your agenda.  Kind of a dangerous position to take.  Of course you never have any qualms about taking hypocritical stances, so there is that. 

 

[mrip541]

O'Reilly claimed that sanctuary cities "promote anarchy." This just gets better and better.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Amendment X


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

RHE, I guess what I'm saying here, strictly to CA & SF, is that yes the power of naturalization is clearly delegated to the Feds.

But is the power of policing illegal aliens who are on our shores and well inland really prohibited to the States? I mean, technically the Feds have not naturalized anyone here, with regards to this particular 'problem' and it is 'a problem' for CA and other states. If CA (or SF, which is basically a state entity) choose to police and enforce the movement of these people, that seems outside federal bounds. The Feds can naturalize them or not, the Feds can stop them at the borders and enforce our borders (and they have a duty to), but failing that - and they have failed - once an illegal alien is in SF or Boise or Burlington or Dubuque it is up to the local state and city police how to handle the freedom of these people's movement. If ICE wants to arrest on the streets, I suppose that is their prerogative as well.

eta - Are Republicans and conservatives really going to argue that the Feds have power over city police absent some Constitutional mandate like the 14th Amendment and CRA? The state CA and the city of SF are not naturalizing and they are not deporting themselves. Their decisions to not arrest and hand over illegal aliens are also not prohibited to them.

 

[mr roboto]

O'Reilly claimed that sanctuary cities "promote anarchy." This just gets better and better.

This #### is read meat for the MURICA crowd. 

 

[BowieMercs]

Nothing a good purge won't solve

 

[tri-man 47]

I work at a small, Catholic university in a near-west suburb of Chicago.  We have a large Hispanic population, many from Chicago, and quite a number of undocumented individuals.  Many students are very concerned.  Our Board has affirmed our campus as a sanctuary site, although I don't think we'll know the implication of that unless things get ugly.  The intent is essentially to potentially protect our (law abiding) students if Trump goes nuclear on all illegal immigrants.  And I told my students yesterday that I've got their back as well. Rather sad that Trump is disrupting so many lives with his bluster. 

 

[Buzzbait]

I don't know what you're actually asking.  As has been covered in this thread, from a legal perspective, that is absolutely the case.  The federal government can't commandeer state and city resources.

Are you asking whether that should be the case? 

I may be misinterpreting but it seems to me the question being discussed in this thread is can the Fed Govt commandeer state and city resources as a result of the city declaring themselves a sanctuary city. I'm going back one step and asking the question is it even legal for a city to provide sanctuary to illegals.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I may be misinterpreting but it seems to me the question being discussed in this thread is can the Fed Govt commandeer state and city resources as a result of the city declaring themselves a sanctuary city. I'm going back one step and asking the question is it even legal for a city to provide sanctuary to illegals.

What acts would be illegal?  

What do you ascribe to "provid[ing] sanctuary"?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I may be misinterpreting but it seems to me the question being discussed in this thread is can the Fed Govt commandeer state and city resources as a result of the city declaring themselves a sanctuary city. I'm going back one step and asking the question is it even legal for a city to provide sanctuary to illegals.

Yeah, I don't think you're accurately describing the issue.

One problem is the term "sanctuary cities."  A sanctuary city doesn't ensure that an undocumented immigrant can't be picked up by ICE.  All it means is that those cities don't have policies for researching the immigration status of someone who is detained and automatically informing ICE.  Any city or state could institute a policy to do those things on its own volition, but it cannot be coerced by the federal government to do so.  Because then the federal government would be violating the anti-commandeering doctrine.  When cities declare themselves "sanctuary cities" they are simply saying that city employees are declining to perform a federal function. 

 

[whoknew]

You support illegal activity when it suits your agenda.  Kind of a dangerous position to take.  Of course you never have any qualms about taking hypocritical stances, so there is that. 

Everyone does. Hell, without it, the US wouldn't exist.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yeah, I don't think you're accurately describing the issue.

One problem is the term "sanctuary cities."  A sanctuary city doesn't ensure that an undocumented immigrant can't be picked up by ICE.  All it means is that those cities don't have policies for researching the immigration status of someone who is detained and automatically informing ICE.  Any city or state could institute a policy to do those things on its own volition, but it cannot be coerced by the federal government to do so.  Because then the federal government would be violating the anti-commandeering doctrine.  When cities declare themselves "sanctuary cities" they are simply saying that city employees are declining to perform a federal function. 

So: Federalism.

eta - I think the problem here is that liberals and progs are by and large supporting the sanctuary cities but they're not very comfortable relying on the federalist / states powers argument necessary to justify it.

 

[mr roboto]

Yeah, I don't think you're accurately describing the issue.

One problem is the term "sanctuary cities."  A sanctuary city doesn't ensure that an undocumented immigrant can't be picked up by ICE.  All it means is that those cities don't have policies for researching the immigration status of someone who is detained and automatically informing ICE.  Any city or state could institute a policy to do those things on its own volition, but it cannot be coerced by the federal government to do so.  Because then the federal government would be violating the anti-commandeering doctrine.  When cities declare themselves "sanctuary cities" they are simply saying that city employees are declining to perform a federal function. 

And 7% of the people on either side of this issue will ever get to this level of understanding unfortunately. 

 

[Black Box]

If a city or state actively subverted federal function (say, by knowing through a course of an investigation that someone was here illegally, and did not inform whomever was federally responsible), is that legal?

Say they took it a step further, and actively relocated or hid from those who are supposed to federally enforce immigration laws. Legal?

 

[timschochet]

You support illegal activity when it suits your agenda.  

It's rare, but sure of course you're correct. If I were living in 1850, I'd support the abolitionists who helped slaves on the Underground Railroad, and I'd applaud cities who refused to help the federal government catch those slaves and return them to their owners. Wouldn't you? 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's rare, but sure of course you're correct. If I were living in 1850, I'd support the abolitionists who helped slaves on the Underground Railroad, and I'd applaud cities who refused to help the federal government catch those slaves and return them to their owners. Wouldn't you? 

Different situation, Tim, it is.

 

[CGRdrJoe]

So could these same rules be applied to the sale of marijuana? I mean, marijuana is now legal in California for recreational use but it's still illegal in the eyes of the Feds.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So could these same rules be applied to the sale of marijuana? I mean, marijuana is now legal in California for recreational use but it's still illegal in the eyes of the Feds.

Yes. I think it's possible that the pro MJ movement is really a libertarian argument not a liberal one.