Sanctuary State Question (San Francisco, Oakland, Concord: fingerprints, safer, licenses)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

And he federal government doesn't have to provide money to those organization who refuse to make a phone call.

Make a call??? Are you aware of what the law is?
"the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act — established that local governments are not mandated to provide information to the federal government, but also that they cannot block ICE’s access to records they maintain, or from preventing individual employees from cooperating with federal immigration authorities." There is no mandate for local law enforcement to "pick up a phone" How is he going to cut off money when they are not violating the law? And SCOTUS would probably not agree with his efforts to require to do something that the immigration reform act specifically states they don't have to do. SCOTUS has not been inclined to force states to do the work of feds, or implement policies ordered by the federal government look at the Burwell decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that the feds could not force states to accept expanded medicaid and Printz in which SCOTUS ruled that states could not be ordered by the feds to do brady background checks.

Originally Posted by shooting4life

The question is which you prefer: 1. Local police notify ICE of illegal aliens that have been arrested and are in custody or 2. ICE spends its time enforcing immigration laws in neighborhoods instead of jails.

Once again, I am not sure how/why you came up with this "local LE must call ICE" idea but that's not required and ICE agents never work too hard, trust me...they have lots of spare time, please don't lose any sleep worrying about how hard they have to work just because they can't camp outside the jail and play candy crush while they wait for calls from the jail staff.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Make a call??? Are you aware of what the law is?
"the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act — established that local governments are not mandated to provide information to the federal government, but also that they cannot block ICE’s access to records they maintain, or from preventing individual employees from cooperating with federal immigration authorities." There is no mandate for local law enforcement to "pick up a phone" How is he going to cut off money when they are not violating the law? And SCOTUS would probably not agree with his efforts to require to do something that the immigration reform act specifically states they don't have to do. SCOTUS has not been inclined to force states to do the work of feds, or implement policies ordered by the federal government look at the Burwell decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that the feds could not force states to accept expanded medicaid and Printz in which SCOTUS ruled that states could not be ordered by the feds to do brady background checks.

Once again, I am not sure how/why you came up with this "local LE must call ICE" idea but that's not required and ICE agents never work too hard, trust me...they have lots of spare time, please don't lose any sleep worrying about how hard they have to work just because they can't camp outside the jail and play candy crush while they wait for calls from the jail staff.

Where did I say it was required? I didn't. I just said if they choose not to do something that the federal government can choose not to provide financial resources to local police agencies.

So my point stands. Ice can either spend their time in the jails or in the communities. In the jails they will only find repeat criminals. In the communities they will find both repeat criminals and other illegals who haven't been law abiding sans the illegal status. California has chosen the later as the better option.

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Make a call??? Are you aware of what the law is?
"the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act — established that local governments are not mandated to provide information to the federal government, but also that they cannot block ICE’s access to records they maintain, or from preventing individual employees from cooperating with federal immigration authorities." There is no mandate for local law enforcement to "pick up a phone" How is he going to cut off money when they are not violating the law? And SCOTUS would probably not agree with his efforts to require to do something that the immigration reform act specifically states they don't have to do. SCOTUS has not been inclined to force states to do the work of feds, or implement policies ordered by the federal government look at the Burwell decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that the feds could not force states to accept expanded medicaid and Printz in which SCOTUS ruled that states could not be ordered by the feds to do brady background checks.

Once again, I am not sure how/why you came up with this "local LE must call ICE" idea but that's not required and ICE agents never work too hard, trust me...they have lots of spare time, please don't lose any sleep worrying about how hard they have to work just because they can't camp outside the jail and play candy crush while they wait for calls from the jail staff.

Up until this point local leo was working with ICE. Now suddenly it's a burden?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Where did I say it was required? I didn't. I just said if they choose not to do something that the federal government can choose not to provide financial resources to local police agencies.

So my point stands. Ice can either spend their time in the jails or in the communities. In the jails they will only find repeat criminals. In the communities they will find both repeat criminals and other illegals who haven't been law abiding sans the illegal status. California has chosen the later as the better option.

You seemed to be stating it was required when you claimed that Trump could withhold funding if they refused to do it, why else would you say that? It would be a little bizarre to attempt to withhold funding because a local agency did not do something that they were not mandated to do, don't you think?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by max210

Up until this point local leo was working with ICE. Now suddenly it's a burden?

Were they, are you absolutely sure of that? For several years hundreds of LE agencies across the US have refused to notify ICE when they suspect they have an illegal in custody. But why should they need to? ICE has access to the same databases that the local agency has, so why can't ICE fire up the computer and see if they find someone they want to arrest who is in custody and do the right thing and go have a judge sign a warrant and arrest them?

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Were they, are you absolutely sure of that? For several years hundreds of LE agencies across the US have refused to notify ICE when they suspect they have an illegal in custody. But why should they need to? ICE has access to the same databases that the local agency has, so why can't ICE fire up the computer and see if they find someone they want to arrest who is in custody and do the right thing and go have a judge sign a warrant and arrest them?

Why should any LE not call ICE?

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Were they, are you absolutely sure of that? For several years hundreds of LE agencies across the US have refused to notify ICE when they suspect they have an illegal in custody.

I'm sure hundreds of agencies have never seen an Illegal. Or they are too small to hold them. Or are you implying that they were standing up against the fed to show their stance on Illegal immigration like these sanctuary laws? "Hundreds" is a nice to throw out there and most likely be correct, but the reality is you don't actually know.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

But why should they need to? ICE has access to the same databases that the local agency has, so why can't ICE fire up the computer and see if they find someone they want to arrest who is in custody and do the right thing and go have a judge sign a warrant and arrest them?

Because they all took the same oath and hold the same interest? To protect our country and it's citizens. Up until this point local leo and ICE had a relationship and suddenly it's a burden. But local LEO can still have relationships with other fed agencies. Can we stop pretending this is purely not political and have a frank conversation about it? Police and sheriffs initially didn't agree and then it was tweaked enough (and most likely some behind the scenes dealings) that police agreed, sheriffs still don't. I don't get how someone could viciously defend this, when it's so specific and so obviously politically motivated. Why?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Why should any LE not call ICE?

Why should they? Do you think people who are arrested admit to the jail that they are in the US illegally? Should jails call ICE on everyone who speaks Spanish and doesn't have an ID card on them? Maybe you should go visit the booking center at the LA county jail and then tell me how much time the staff has to interrogate prisoners about their immigration status and make phone calls to ICE.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by max210

I'm sure hundreds of agencies have never seen an Illegal. Or they are too small to hold them. Or are you implying that they were standing up against the fed to show their stance on Illegal immigration like these sanctuary laws? "Hundreds" is a nice to throw out there and most likely be correct, but the reality is you don't actually know.



Because they all took the same oath and hold the same interest? To protect our country and it's citizens. Up until this point local leo and ICE had a relationship and suddenly it's a burden. But local LEO can still have relationships with other fed agencies. Can we stop pretending this is purely not political and have a frank conversation about it? Police and sheriffs initially didn't agree and then it was tweaked enough (and most likely some behind the scenes dealings) that police agreed, sheriffs still don't. I don't get how someone could viciously defend this, when it's so specific and so obviously politically motivated. Why?

I took that oath and it never had anything in it about enforcing federal immigration law and it still doesn't

I, ___________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.

"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

You seemed to be stating it was required when you claimed that Trump could withhold funding if they refused to do it, why else would you say that? It would be a little bizarre to attempt to withhold funding because a local agency did not do something that they were not mandated to do, don't you think?

That is what the Feds do. They want states to do certain things and with hold funds until the states do it. Why do you think drinking age is mostly 21? Why do you think speed limits are pretty consistent across states? Same with seat belt laws? Federal government held back funds until the states did what the Feds wanted.

It is the same thing the Feds have threatened in re sanctuary cities.