Are "Sanctuary cities" constitutional?

[TroglocratsRdumb]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

American citizens are not allowed to break our laws.
Only Democrats and illegal aliens are allowed to break our laws.

 

[Vandalshandle]

An honest question. I am no legal scholar, but since this is still a nation of laws, and NOBODY is above the laws (Look at the Trump Impeachment kerfuffle) then it begs the question. When local authorities give illegal aliens sanctuary from federal law without consent of the voter and ignore our wishes, doesn't that violate our compact with our elected government?

American citizens are not allowed to break our laws.
Only Democrats and illegal aliens are allowed to break our laws.

I am a democrat. What law have I broken? I mean, other than the law that forbids me to put a bumper sticker on my car reading, "Not my president".

 

[MaryL]

If there any legal scholars out there: I would like to know in your opinion, what you think about of the legality and constitutionality so called "sanctuary cities". From my plebeian perspective, it seems questionable. On so many levels. I don't know what part of this to start this off with. Lets go with:
1) We were not clearly openly asked nor were we informed of the adoption of these policies. The policies that created sanctuary for undocumented immigrants was never stated clearly as such on any ballot nor was it made clear it was being enacted.
2) Its effects where/are detrimental to many lower class working poor Americans.
3) Our elected representatives are supposed to represent the best interest of the electorate. Not foreign nationals or those that exploit or profit from them.

 

[Vandalshandle]

If there any legal scholars out there: I would like to know in your opinion, what you think about of the legality and constitutionality so called "sanctuary cities". From my plebeian perspective, it seems questionable. On so many levels. I don't know what part of this to start this off with. Lets go with:
1) We were not clearly openly asked nor were we informed of the adoption of these policies. The policies that created sanctuary for undocumented immigrants was never stated clearly as such on any ballot nor was it made clear it was being enacted.
2) Its effects where/are detrimental to many lower class working poor Americans.
3) Our elected representatives are supposed to represent the best interest of the electorate. Not foreign nationals or those that exploit or profit from them.

Post no, 10 clearly and concisely answers your question, unless you are going fishing for another answer because you don't like the correct answer.

 

[MaryL]

If there any legal scholars out there: I would like to know in your opinion, what you think about of the legality and constitutionality so called "sanctuary cities". From my plebeian perspective, it seems questionable. On so many levels. I don't know what part of this to start this off with. Lets go with:
1) We were not clearly openly asked nor were we informed of the adoption of these policies. The policies that created sanctuary for undocumented immigrants was never stated clearly as such on any ballot nor was it made clear it was being enacted.
2) Its effects where/are detrimental to many lower class working poor Americans.
3) Our elected representatives are supposed to represent the best interest of the electorate. Not foreign nationals or those that exploit or profit from them.

Post no, 10 clearly and concisely answers your question, unless you are going fishing for another answer because you don't like the correct answer.

I will read it. I want answers, not a pissing contest.

 

[MaryL]

I just read post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not concerned so much about the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect of this to begin with. That's were this issue starts. We weren't t asked nor was this policy adopted with out best interest in mind. The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I just read post post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not asking about how the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect to begin with. The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.

If you don't like the decisions of your city council, you can vote them out and vote someone in whose decision you do like. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[candycorn]

I’m against them but what part of the constitution does a SC violate?

 

[MaryL]

I just read post post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not asking about how the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect to begin with. The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.

If you don't like the decisions of your city council, you can vote them out and vote someone in whose decision you do like. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

So, do you happen to have time machine I can borrow? Perhaps you think its a good idea for any politician to do things without our knowledge and without our consent? Perhaps I am old fashioned, I expect a certain level of honesty and openness from our representatives on all matters. Don't you?

 

[eagle1462010]

California Governor Signs 'Sanctuary State' Bill

The bill, SB 54 by California Senate President pro tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), takes effect on January 1st, 2018. In broad terms, it extends local "sanctuary city" protections for immigrants living in California without legal documentation. (The governor, De León and some of the bill's backers prefer not to use the term "sanctuary state" because they argue it has become politically loaded and there is confusion over its precise meaning.)

Specifically, it bans state and local agencies, excluding the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, from enforcing "holds" on people in custody. It blocks the deputization of police as immigration agents and bars state and local law enforcement agencies from inquiring into an individual's immigration status.

It also prohibits new or expanded contracts with federal agencies to use California law enforcement facilities as detention centers, although it does not force the termination of existing contracts – including Orange County's $22 million annual contract with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

"The California Values Act won't stop ICE from trolling our streets. It will not provide full sanctuary. But it will put a kink – a large kink – in Trump's perverse and inhumane deportation machine," De León said at a news conference Thursday after Governor Brown signed the bill. "California is building a wall – a wall of justice – against President Trump's xenophobic, racist and ignorant immigration policies."

 

[Vandalshandle]

I just read post post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not asking about how the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect to begin with. The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.

If you don't like the decisions of your city council, you can vote them out and vote someone in whose decision you do like. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

So, do you happen to have time machine I can borrow? Perhaps you think its a good idea for any politician to do things without our knowledge and without our consent? Perhaps I am old fashioned, I expect a certain level of honesty and openness from our representatives on all matters. Don't you?

I am in no position to judge your city council. I do not live in a city, so I guess this is your problem to solve.

 

[eagle1462010]

Detainers

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.

ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.

 

[MaryL]

I just read post post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not asking about how the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect to begin with. The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.

If you don't like the decisions of your city council, you can vote them out and vote someone in whose decision you do like. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

So, do you happen to have time machine I can borrow? Perhaps you think its a good idea for any politician to do things without our knowledge and without our consent? Perhaps I am old fashioned, I expect a certain level of honesty and openness from our representatives on all matters. Don't you?

California Governor Signs 'Sanctuary State' Bill

The bill, SB 54 by California Senate President pro tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), takes effect on January 1st, 2018. In broad terms, it extends local "sanctuary city" protections for immigrants living in California without legal documentation. (The governor, De León and some of the bill's backers prefer not to use the term "sanctuary state" because they argue it has become politically loaded and there is confusion over its precise meaning.)

Specifically, it bans state and local agencies, excluding the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, from enforcing "holds" on people in custody. It blocks the deputization of police as immigration agents and bars state and local law enforcement agencies from inquiring into an individual's immigration status.

It also prohibits new or expanded contracts with federal agencies to use California law enforcement facilities as detention centers, although it does not force the termination of existing contracts – including Orange County's $22 million annual contract with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

"The California Values Act won't stop ICE from trolling our streets. It will not provide full sanctuary. But it will put a kink – a large kink – in Trump's perverse and inhumane deportation machine," De León said at a news conference Thursday after Governor Brown signed the bill. "California is building a wall – a wall of justice – against President Trump's xenophobic, racist and ignorant immigration policies."

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change the federal law and do so openly. Don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's probably unconstitutional.

 

[eagle1462010]

United States v. California, No. 18-16496 (9th Cir. 2019)

ourt Description: Immigration. In a case in which the United States sought to enjoin the enforcement of three laws California enacted expressly to protect its residents from federal immigration enforcement, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial in large part of the United States’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The United States challenged three California laws: AB 450, which—as relevant to this appeal—requires employers to alert employees before federal immigration inspections; AB 103, which imposes inspection requirements on facilities that house civil immigration detainees; and SB 54, which limits the cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. The United States sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that these laws violated the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity and the doctrine of conflict preemption. The district court concluded that the United States was unlikely to succeed on the merits of many of its claims, and so denied in large part the motion for a preliminary injunction. With respect to AB 450, which requires employers to alert employees before federal immigration inspections, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary

 

[Vandalshandle]

Detainers

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.

ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.

In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.

 

[eagle1462010]

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.

I agree with you. Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here. 1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I just read post post #10. It doesn't answer the core questions at all. I am not asking about how the federal aspect of this, I am talking about LOCAL aspect to begin with. The questions I posited on post #63 remain unanswered.

If you don't like the decisions of your city council, you can vote them out and vote someone in whose decision you do like. That seems pretty straightforward to me.

So, do you happen to have time machine I can borrow? Perhaps you think its a good idea for any politician to do things without our knowledge and without our consent? Perhaps I am old fashioned, I expect a certain level of honesty and openness from our representatives on all matters. Don't you?

California Governor Signs 'Sanctuary State' Bill

The bill, SB 54 by California Senate President pro tem Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), takes effect on January 1st, 2018. In broad terms, it extends local "sanctuary city" protections for immigrants living in California without legal documentation. (The governor, De León and some of the bill's backers prefer not to use the term "sanctuary state" because they argue it has become politically loaded and there is confusion over its precise meaning.)

Specifically, it bans state and local agencies, excluding the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, from enforcing "holds" on people in custody. It blocks the deputization of police as immigration agents and bars state and local law enforcement agencies from inquiring into an individual's immigration status.

It also prohibits new or expanded contracts with federal agencies to use California law enforcement facilities as detention centers, although it does not force the termination of existing contracts – including Orange County's $22 million annual contract with U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

"The California Values Act won't stop ICE from trolling our streets. It will not provide full sanctuary. But it will put a kink – a large kink – in Trump's perverse and inhumane deportation machine," De León said at a news conference Thursday after Governor Brown signed the bill. "California is building a wall – a wall of justice – against President Trump's xenophobic, racist and ignorant immigration policies."

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change the federal law and do so openly. Don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's probably unconstitutional.

Nobody is "skirting" the law. If so, you would have to complain that the FBI is skirting the law by not helping the city arrest speeders on Main Street.

 

[eagle1462010]

Detainers

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.

ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.

In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.

They don't have that kind of manpower and you know it.

They issue Detainer orders for people they are looking for..............for a number of reasons...........One of the main ones being .................THEY MISSED ASYLUM COURT............which is VERY COMMON......imagine that.

The Detainer order is always an Order for someone who is breaking our nations laws.......and California is pissing on Federal Law with the 3 laws they passed AGAINST ICE.

This is BS and you know it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Thanks for that. That is informative. But it doesn't answer my questions at all. We all agree, NOBODY is above the law. I am sure we both agree. Local or federal. So to paraphrase you: If you don't like Federal laws, elect people and change them, don't enable people to skirt laws without the consent of the people. Because that's unconstitutional.

I agree with you. Illegal aliens are breaking the laws of this country by just being here. 1st offense is a misdemeanor and the second time is a felony.

So in ESSENCE, LEA's are allowing those breaking the law to go free..............They use the legal Mumbo Jumbo that it is NOT IN THEIR JURISDICTION to do so...............and not their problem.........It is the Feds problem and let them go............

I just showed 3 laws passed in California Challenged in court that ORDERS EMPLOYERS to NOTIFY illegals working for them that an Immigration inspection is going to happen........So they will not be at work that day.............LOL

That is INSANE..............and that to me is a VIOLATION of the Laws passed by Reagan...........not sure if this one is headed to the Supreme Court or not.............will look.

Call it insane, if you like, but the citizens of California seem to like it, because if they did not, they would vote for somebody else, and they do have the right to elect their own state lawgivers.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Detainers

These requests are intended to allow a reasonable amount of time for ICE to respond and take custody of the alien. When LEAs fail to honor immigration detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens, it undermines ICE’s ability to protect public safety and carry out its mission.

ICE continues to collaborate with all law enforcement agencies to help ensure that aliens who may pose a threat to our communities are not released onto the streets to potentially reoffend and harm individuals living within our communities. However, in some cases, state or local laws, ordinances or policies restrict or prohibit cooperation with ICE. In other cases, jurisdictions choose to willfully decline ICE detainers or requests for notification and release removable aliens back into the community.

In which case, ICE should be proactive, and check with the courthouse every day to see if they have anyone wanted under federal law. I have never heard of any city refusing to answer that question. If so, An ICE person should then be there to immediately release the freed person.

They don't have that kind of manpower and you know it.

They issue Detainer orders for people they are looking for..............for a number of reasons...........One of the main ones being .................THEY MISSED ASYLUM COURT............which is VERY COMMON......imagine that.

The Detainer order is always an Order for someone who is breaking our nations laws.......and California is pissing on Federal Law with the 3 laws they passed AGAINST ICE.

This is BS and you know it.

The feds lack of manpower is not the city's problem