San Francisco, NY and other cities have declared themselves Sanctuary cities in violation of federal immigration law. An estimated 50 billion dollars is being sent out of the US yearly by illegal aliens.
San Francisco: 'Sanctuary City' For Illegal Immigrants
By Jim Brogan
Apr 23, 2007

San Francisco A Sanctuary City? Mayor Gavin Newsom vowed on Sunday to maintain San Francisco as a sanctuary for immigrants and do everything he can to discourage federal authorities from conducting immigration raids, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.

In speaking to about 300 mostly Latino members of St. Peter's Church and other religious groups supporting immigrants, Mayor Newsom stated that although he could not stop federal authorities from making arrests, no San Francisco employee will help with immigration enforcement.
"I will not allow any of my department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way shape or form with these raids," Newsom declared. "We are a sanctuary city, make no mistake about it."
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original..._21276396.shtml


Questions for the debate:

1. Should we allow cities like SF and New York to flaunt Federal immigration law as Sanctuary Cities for illegal aliens? Why or Why not?

2.With millions of good jobs and an estimated 50 billion $$ going back to Latin America in “remittances” each year can we afford to allow this practice to continue?

3. What should we do to get cities to comply with the law?

I heard about this story yesterday and I have to admit I am baffled by it. Sanctuary City? What is that? I have been to SF many times and I have never seen even one hunchback!

I'm not a huge Federal guy but this seems like a really bad idea. Especially if you live there! So, no there should not be any Sanctuary Cities.

I don't see how this hurts other than the loss of sales taxes. I don't like it but I don't see it as something that will break our economy.

Cut Federal Funding for something?

Many of the jobs are good construction jobs. They could be filled by (unemployed) Americans or legal immigrants. Instead we allow illegal aliens to work for below minimum wage, eroding the system, and they send the majority of their money home. And we miss more than “sales tax” we miss the multiplier effect of that money if it was spent in the US rather than sent out of the country.


And, needless to say, people who live in theses cities bear the medical and social expenses of most of theses folks

Should we allow cities like SF and New York to flaunt Federal immigration law as Sanctuary Cities for illegal aliens? Why or Why not?

While I support making decisions as locally as possible, I don't see how this should extend to actually flaunting and disregarding federal law. I'm further not sure how this doesn't make Newsom a criminal himself--aiding and abetting, or something along those lines.

2.With millions of good jobs and an estimated 50 billion $$ going back to Latin America in “remittances” each year can we afford to allow this practice to continue?

I'm more cconcerned with the simple illegality of the issue. If you're not going to enforce immigration laws, why have them?

3. What should we do to get cities to comply with the law?

This part is fairly simple. Any locale that refuses to comply with/enforce federal law doesn't need to receive any federal funds, for anything. Why would the federal government support an entity actively working against it? They should further be held liable for any costs born by other locales for their actions.

This issue is wierd. In ACLU v. PA conservatives say Scranton has the right to pass its own immigration laws. This is a strictly federalist view in my opinion, because immigration, work visas, etc., have been the purview of the federal government for several decades.

When the PA thread got started I came across this high-strung federalist blog:


So if I'm catching this guy's meaning correctly, ACLU v. PA should get smacked down, and San Fransico's "illegal pro-illegal immigration" policy should stand. What's good for the goose... Just sayin'.


California has opted out of federal education assistance since Bush made abstinence-only education mandatory. I wonder if the state passes on other federal assistance. If the Union continues fracturing along ideological lines I suspect so-called liberal states with economies big enough to produce an independent country's GDP have the biggest incentive to strike out on their own, with "poor" Southern and Midwestern states taking up more federal assistance (and mandatory federal government programs).

1. Should we allow cities like SF and New York to flaunt Federal immigration law as Sanctuary Cities for illegal aliens?
Flaunt? I'm not certain that's the case, although "skirt" is certainly appropriate. The problem AND solution here is one of Federalism. My guess, although I'm not certain as I've never investigated it, is that states, cities, counties, towns, villages, etc are not responsible for enforcing Federal laws. Thus, there is no obligation on the smaller jurisdictions to do so. Whether or not such responsibility can be foisted on them is questionable. However, any failures to cooperate with Federal authorities can and should be prosecuted as obstruction of justice, racketeering, etc.

Why or Why not? Such skirting/flaunting should only be permitted in the context of insuring that the "sanctuary" jurisdiction also bears full responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The problem is, how is this possible? Once an illegal (Chan) from China jumps off the boat in SanFran, and is identified in the normal course of city/county governmental activities as an illegal, and thus explicitly granted "sanctuary", how does the rest of the country effectively confine Chan to SF? Checkpoints on every route in and out? So, since the sanctuaries are increasing the risk for everybody else, they should be smacked down, hard.

2.With millions of good jobs and an estimated 50 billion $$ going back to Latin America in “remittances” each year can we afford to allow this practice to continue?

We can afford it, the question is whether or not the practice is good for our country. $50 billion is chump change in the context of our entire economy. (mind you, I'd like to be the chump in possession of that change... )

3. What should we do to get cities to comply with the law?
Simple. Homeland Security should go to the city leaders with requests for specific assistance. When they refuse, arrest them. Adjoining cities should sue the sanctuary cities for the costs of illegals that have been given sanctuary, and private citizens should shadow city leaders and as soon as one of the city leaders engages in any economic transaction involving a sanctuary illegal, he should be hit with a RICO suit.

I seriously hope you're able to see the difference between adding to federal laws, and actively working against them. As I mentioned on the ACLU v PA thread, it's the equivalent of the difference between states raising the minimum wage above the number set by federal law, and attempting to lower it below that number. "Just sayin'."

Interesting blog link, though.

How do states passing their own immigration laws "add" to existing federal laws? Is the line between state and federal governments that blurred?

The minimum wage example doesn't hold since a minimum wage isn't addressed in the Constitution and it doesn't need to be addressed in state constitutions. If you want to argue the feds shouldn't pass minimum wage legislation because it lacks the authority to do so then, based on a federalist interpretation regarding immigration, the feds also lack the authority to tell California it can't have an open border policy at its own expense. I seem to recall you saying something about the Tenth Amendment?

1. Should we allow cities like SF and New York to flaunt Federal immigration law as Sanctuary Cities for illegal aliens? Why or Why not?

I am not an expert in law, but I don't see how federal laws can compel cities to be the enforcers of these laws. So declaring that city officials will in no way cooperate with federal immigration enforcement laws seems like a legal statement to me. I do not see Mayer Newsom saying that SF will obstruct federal immigration enforcement.

2.With millions of good jobs and an estimated 50 billion $$ going back to Latin America in “remittances” each year can we afford to allow this practice to continue?

Yes. Should the federal government be able to compel city governments to act in certain ways? I don't see a violation of federal law here. While I personally don't support illegal immigration I also don't like the federal government passing laws that take local and state resources to fulfill, enforce or comply with.

3. What should we do to get cities to comply with the law?

Nothing. But just for giggles, how is the city not complying with existing federal immigration laws?

I don't quite understand the question. That is, I don't see how that question doesn't answer itself. If they're passing immigration laws (or minimum wage laws), those are laws in addition to laws that Congress has passed. As long as there's no actual conflict between the two, there's no constitutional problem.


I might be willing to go that far, if the federal minimum wage was found to be unconstitutional by the powers-that-be. But as it is, both minimum wage and immigration laws are considered valid at the federal level by those powers, despite no expressed grant of power in the Constitution for either. So the same principles should logically apply to both when it comes to state legislation. If states want to add to federal law, that's kosher, but that doesn't mean they're allowed to work against federal law.



His quotes could go either way. When he says, "We are a sanctuary city, make no mistake about it," he seems to be implying that he'll try to shield illegals from the enforcement of the law. And I believe in most cases, knowingly concealing a crime, especially when it's a government official doing the concealing, can be considered obstruction of justice.

Come on please this is common practice. Are you against the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)? Numerous Federal laws – employer, business and environmental are on the books costing states, cities, towns, and businesses billions per year. So should we repeal them all. All the “unfunded mandates” .

So why allow illegal aliens to work for peanuts, take jobs and send most money home???



Here is how:
"Mayor Gavin Newsom vowed Sunday to maintain San Francisco as a sanctuary for immigrants and do everything he can to discourage federal authorities from conducting immigration raids.
The mayor cannot stop federal authorities from making arrests, Newsom told about 300 mostly Latino members of St. Peter's Church and other religious groups supporting immigrants. But no San Francisco employee will help with immigration enforcement. "

"I will not allow any of my department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way shape or form with these raids," Newsom declared. "We are a sanctuary city, make no mistake about it." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...AGADPDGNF18.DTL

It should be noted that ICE raids are frequently performed in order to catch those illegal immigrants who are already wanted for other charges. Perhaps Mayor Newsom isn’t concerned with these other charges. The following represent only a fraction of the results of ICE raids over the past year:
• Four South Bay residents sentenced for role in operating area brothels
• Two Bay Area brothel owners plead guilty to immigration and money laundering charges
• Four nationals of Myanmar charged with operating illegal money transmitting business that wired more than $6.3 million overseas
• Possession of Child Pornography
• Chinese national charged with stealing military trade secrets
• Bay Area men plead guilty to economic espionage
• day care operator charged with receiving child pornography
http://www.californiaconservative.org/libe...migration-laws/


Hey IMHO they should cut off every penny of Federal funding to SF and pull out every military installation and every government job that can be done elsewhere.

Well maybe I'm a little slow, but my question does not seem to be resolved and you brought no additional information and quoted an article and the exact part of the article that prompted my original question. Is this policy in violation of existing federal law? If so, what law and how?


As for unfunded mandates I support federal standards that get applied equally to all United States citizens such as the Civil Rights Act and environmental laws and ADA, but I do not support laws that consume state and local governmental resources without providing them.

Well Eeyore I would seem to be in violation of Federal Law – Title 8 US Code.:
Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_se...24----000-.html


Certainly it allows criminals to stay in country who should be deported.

By Fred Lucas CNSNews.com Staff Writer January 10, 2007
“Illegal immigrants charged in criminal cases are frequently released without ever facing federal authorities thanks largely to local governments' "sanctuary" policies, according to a Justice Department audit.
Many of these illegal immigrants are arrested up to six times after being released for drug-related charges, robbery, assault, weapons charges and other offenses, it said.
The report reviews how 752 state, county and municipal governments are spending the $287.1 million in federal funds under the State Criminal Assistance Program, which covers the cost to incarcerate illegal immigrants charged in criminal cases.
The audit found these local governments frequently did not follow the rules of accepting the grants by fully cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The report highlights a larger problem of lax immigration enforcement at the local level, said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a government watchdog group that is suing the cities of Los Angeles and Chicago for laws preventing enforcement. “
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/freedomwriters/139.html

Questions for the debate:

1. Should we allow cities like SF and New York to flaunt Federal immigration law as Sanctuary Cities for illegal aliens? Why or Why not?

NO

2.With millions of good jobs and an estimated 50 billion $$ going back to Latin America in “remittances” each year can we afford to allow this practice to continue?

NO, although ultimately if a legal alien wants to send his money back to LA, it is his right.

3. What should we do to get cities to comply with the law?

Cut off all Fed Funds to these cities for their various projects, roads, sewers, etc., and this would end overnight. Of course, SF wants to be part of another nation, rather than the US; they may get their wish with the next 'quake.

I'm not aware of any law that does such when it comes to immigration enforcement. If Mayor Newsom simply said that he would not devote his city's resources to assist in these raids, I think he'd be on safe legal ground. But he said that he would specifically order his employees not to cooperate in the raids, and he emphasized that he was doing it for the express purpose of harboring illegal aliens. At some point or another, he's crossing a line. At the very least he's coming dangerously close to it.