Several towns, cities and counties around the nation are caving to President Trump’s threat to pull funding, and abandoning their “sanctuary” pledges to shield illegal immigrants from federal authorities.
Good. Individuals in this country do not have the luxury to decide which laws they will and won’t obey; why should city municipalities?
Nice. I hope the DC area will follow suit. All of the inner suburbs and the district are sanctuary.
And in Texas, they are losing state grant money too. 
I don’t think most people understand what a “sanctuary city” is, and the way this Fox story describes it doesn’t help. So here goes: a sanctuary city does NOT mean a city that refuses to follow federal law or turn over undocumented immigrants to the Feds. Section 287g is an optional provision whereby a city can if it so chooses enter into an agreement to essentially deputize officers of the law to act as federal immigration authorities and essentially arrest persons on federal immigration violations. There are a bunch of really good reasons why many cities would not choose to enter into such an agreement, including: local police have zero immigration training and as such would frequently arrest people who actually do have a legal status (this is actually hard to always determine as there are literally dozens of different documents that do not resemble each other that may evidence legal status), also police need the trust of the community in order to do their jobs (finding criminals, catching the bad guys, that sort of thing) and if the community is afraid of being arrested or have by family arrested due to immigration status they will not go to police even when victimized by crime, other issues as well but these alone are significant. Basically, the federal government needs to do its job and not try to coerce municipalities into doing its job for them.
Please keep in mind that an alien here illegally who commits a crime and is arrested as such is tried, convicted and serves their prison sentence, and then is referred to immigration authorities for potential removal proceedings always. Hope this has been enlightening.
They should be. Harbouring illegals is illegal.
Who should be what? If you mean the cites, they are not “harbouring illegals” in the sense you mean. They are doing nothing illegal in not taking on the job of federal immigration authorities.
Successful city law enforcement relies heavily on positive community relations for information, etc… If any portion of the community is fearful that the city officers are not to be trusted, the city looses this vital resource. It is an entirely practical non-ideological reason for so-called sanctuary cities.
Quite correct, I explained the actual facts of this up above in what I thought was fairly straightforward and plain terminology. I’m not sure if there still remains some confusion about this…:shrug:
Not quite. The term “sanctuary city” is not a legal term. It’s meaning varies. In most of the “sanctuary” cities in Texas, ,the directive from the mayor or city council is for local authorities to refuse cooperation with ICE. Sometimes, that means ignoring or denying a request to hold a criminal alien for a max of 48 hours so that ICE can pick him/her up. In other cases, it means that the local authorities will fail to even notify ICE that a criminal alien in in their custody.
No one is asking local authorities to “take on the job of the federal immigration authorities.” But they shouldn’t be throwing obstacles up either. In most cases, the only thing being asked of them is a phone call.
What do you mean by “criminal alien”? I explained 287g up above and how deputizing police as de facto federal immigration authorities is part of that optional program, and the lack of willingness to do this is frequently what results in a municipality being labeled a sanctuary city. And again, it is a fact that if an alien is sentenced to a prison term they are referred to ICE for subsequent potential removal proceedings, what are you referring to by the term “criminal alien”?
If you are referring to detainer policy specifically, the local authorities are not under obligation to comply with federal detainer, and frequently doing so can result in liability for due process rights violations. See below for more info on this, thanks!
aila.org/infonet/backgrounder-sanctuary-cities-and-detainers
No they aren’t; that’s the whole point of sanctuary cities. Local officials are forbidden from notifying or cooperating with federal officials whenever they have arrested or are releasing a criminal illegal who legally should be deported. I don’t know where you are getting your “facts;” this isn’t anything new.
Yes they are please read my post and the link I gave. I was talking about prison, as in, actual serving of prison terms. Aliens in prison are referred for removal, this is how many removal cases against aliens on criminal grounds actually begin. Local jails, however, are not the same thing.
It also appears that you want local authorities to actually hold such aliens after completion of prison sentences, which is a different matter altogether. Again, as the link I gave explains and references with court cases, doing this can actually be itself illegal, a violation of Constitutional rights including due process. Frequently federal detainers do not even themselves issue under constitutionally mandated requirements, so the issue is a good deal more complicated than it first appears.
Yes, that is all that is wanted and which is not happening. All it takes is one phone call to federal ICE agents when a criminal illegal is being released. It doesn’t matter if it is from state prison or the county jail. Sanctuary cities prohibit any such cooperation.
Sigh, did you read the link? It’s not that simple, and on this particular point municipalities have been sued and lost based on constitutional violations when they did actually continue to hold someone beyond the legal time for release. The Feds, if they want them, need to do their job and get them at the time of release. Instead they are asking local authorities to continue to hold someone when legally they are not able to until the Feds get around to showing up.
A criminal alien is a non-citizen that has committed a crime. It can be an immigration offense or another type of crime.
Cities are not “labled” as Sanctuary cities. They formally choose to be that by some official act, usually either a resolution by the city council or an executive order by the mayor.
You are right, a local authority is not under any legal obligation to comply with a federal agency’s request. But then neither is the federal or state government under any obligation to fulfill requests for funds or to share information in the other direction.
Cooperation goes both ways.
The specific “cooperation” you speak of is not required of city police, and in some cases it runs contrary to the conditions of good community relations I described earlier. It is not illegal to refuse such request by the feds.
It’s like banging my head against the wall. Before commenting just read the link I gave huh?! First, an immigration offense, like being here without status, is NOT a crime and does not make one a criminal. It is a civil offense against federal law, not a criminal offense. Second, there’s a difference between someone who commits a lesser crime like jaywalking, or even a simple DUI, and someone who is charged with a violent felony, in that the former doesn’t end up in prison obviously and the latter, if convicted, will.
Third, yes a city is labelled a sanctuary city, by Fox News or some restrictionist politician or commentator, when the municipality refuses to enter into agreement with the Feds on 287g participation and generally will not embark upon doing the feds’ job for them. It’s not a legally defined term, but I was it, saying it was, such locales end up gettting labeled as such all the time. Lastly, again, the Constitution (remember that pesky little thing?) PREVENTS local officials from actually holding people for the Feds to come collect them. Read the link and understand municipalities will be and have been sued and lost for doing this because it violates Due Process rights (yep even “criminal aliens” have them just like everyone else) to do so. What is your suggestion for dealing with this? I think people believe it’s a simple matter “of a phone call”, it isn’t. The Feds frequently just don’t bother coming until many hours or days after a convict is set for release. They need to do their job and be there at the time the person is being released to nab them.