San Francisco's policy of sanctuary leads to murder

[Elok]

I was referring to the overall INS policy of dragging them back to the Mexican border so they can just sneak back in again in less than a week. That, and I like to harass DF about his WalMart-conning ways.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The obvious problem with "Sanctuary Cities" is that they make US law seem irrelevant. After all, if it's OK to violate immigration law, why isn't it OK to violate other laws, too? It's utterly inconsistent. I'm all for changing US law to allow for unfettered immigration - provided they speak ****ing English, of course - but until that's the case, the INS should be aggressive in going after violations of immigration law, and they should disproportionately target cities that declare themselves to be "sanctuaries". Funny how many of those sanctuary cities have Latino mayors, and majority Latino City Councils, isn't it? Or, in San Francisco's case, the city happens to be one of the most psycho-left wing cities in the country (not to mention a very international city). Let's be honest - "sanctuary cities" are simply pandering for Hispanic votes. Simple as that. And it works, because the federal government is too *****-ass to enforce the law.

SF's murder rank is 36th in the nation despite being the 16th largest city. I'll take "psycho-left" any day of the week.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No policy is perfect ...

I don't really care about the policy being perfect or not but I've really yet to hear what governmental need is being satisfied in the City by giving a criminal population such protections.

[Kidlicious]

DD won't be satisfied unless we deport or execute everyone who he thinks will commit a crime. The santuary policy was implemented to prevent crime, it was implemented treat illegal immigrants justly.

[David Floyd]

Here's an interesting question, though - why do you imagine illegal immigrants, who willfully and arrogantly violate US law, deserve judicial protection?

I read a story in the paper the other day about how hospitals often deport illegal immigrants. Rather than shelling out hundreds of thousands of $$ in caregiving, after the patient is stabilized, they simply charter a plane back to wherever and get them out of here. That seems perfectly fair to me, yet the gist of the article was that lot's of people were upset about that policy? Why?

[David Floyd]

Here's an interesting question, though - why do you imagine illegal immigrants, who willfully and arrogantly violate US law, deserve judicial protection?

I read a story in the paper the other day about how hospitals often deport illegal immigrants. Rather than shelling out hundreds of thousands of $$ in caregiving, after the patient is stabilized, they simply charter a plane back to wherever and get them out of here. That seems perfectly fair to me, yet the gist of the article was that lot's of people were upset about that policy? Why?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Well how hard would it be to withhold Federal monies from sanctuary cities until they change policy wrt thier protection of criminal aliens such as the one in the OP? Or would that not be cost effective as well?

There is currently no federal law requiring local law enforcement to investigate whether persons arrested are citizens, legal immigrants or illegal immigrants and AFAIK no federal law requiring local law enforcement to turn over persons they know or suspect is an illegal to the INS.

Thus, the SF police are not violating any federal law.

If there were such laws, they would be unfunded mandates, i.e. requiring local cops to do the work of federal cops -- for free.

[David Floyd]

Not that enforcing such a mandate would be difficult.

Booking Officer: "Let's see, your ID is fake, you can't give me a valid SSN, and you can't really speak English. Hmmm, looks like you're probably an illegal immigrant."

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
There is currently no federal law requiring local law enforcement to investigate...

What Floyd said wrt investigation. Regarding federal law, I would look up the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which outlawed outright city bans on reporting immigration status to federal officials.

[David Floyd]

Also, "Sanctuary Cities" actively hinder the operations of federal cops by refusing to cooperate with the INS, from what I understand. Since when is it acceptable for municipal government and law enforcement to refuse to cooperate with federal government and law enforcement in the area of, well, law enforcement?

Is it acceptable when the people who run said municipal government don't want to be voted out of office by (mainly) Hispanic voters for following the law? Or is it acceptable when it's Hispanics who actually think punishing illegal immigrants is unfair are the ones running the city?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
What Floyd said wrt investigation. Regarding federal law, I would look up the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 which outlawed outright city bans on reporting immigration status to federal officials.

Looking stuff up on the Internet is fun and easy!

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) was made law in the United States in 1996 as a result of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Section 287(g) authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. Under 287(g), ICE provides state and local law enforcement with the training and subsequent authorization to identify, process, and when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity.

Also, "Sanctuary Cities" actively hinder the operations of federal cops by refusing to cooperate with the INS, from what I understand. Since when is it acceptable for municipal government and law enforcement to refuse to cooperate with federal government and law enforcement in the area of, well, law enforcement?

Define "co-operate." Does it mean do the feds jobs for them?

[David Floyd]

No, it means that when they identify a likely illegal immigrant, using my very simple and effective method outlined above, the local police station picks up the phone and informs ICE.

To recap, cooperation would involve a)asking questions, b)using logic, and c)picking up the phone. Remember, these people are only in jail to begin with because they committed a crime or at least are suspected of doing so. If you can tack a federal crime on there as well, and get these criminals out of the country, so much the better. As for illegal immigrants who are picked up by local cops, and it turns out they're innocent of whatever they were picked up for, well, they're still in violation of federal immigration law and I still don't feel sorry for them.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Since when is it acceptable for municipal government and law enforcement to refuse to cooperate with federal government and law enforcement in the area of, well, law enforcement?

At the very least since Printz v. United States was handed down (if not New York v. United States - the 1992 one). That's where Justice Scalia, writing for the court, said the federal government could not commandeer state officials to enforce federal law.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
Looking stuff up on the Internet is fun and easy!

Your google-fu is weak.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation. [4] Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal workers' reporting persons' immigration status to federal authorities. [5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

Giuliani in his capacity as mayor of NYC challenged that provision in court and lost.

[Zkribbler]

You're right and wrong:

In 1996, the Republican Congress outlawed outright city bans on reporting immigration status to federal officials. Giuliani challenged the law in court and lost. Under Giuliani and his successor, Michael Bloomberg, New York then evolved toward a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, in which city officials are no longer forbidden from sharing information with Washington but are barred from inquiring about the immigration status of people using city services, except when it's relevant to assess eligibility. That usually leaves local officials with no information to share except, again, in criminal cases. (Los Angeles follows similar rules.)