Sanctuary Cities -- help me understand

I cannot understand the logic behind sanctuary cities. I have asked a few liberals (the one's who can reply without screaming at me) and they don't agree with it either. So, I am here to try to understand the logic. My understanding is the original concept of sanctuary cities was to protect illegal alien VICTIMS of crime and to encourage them to report and help the police. This is understandable. But it seems crazy to me to let someone out of jail (either due to bail being posted or having served their time) and NOT comply with an ICE detainer. Who is this serving?

I know that the illegal alien is much more likely to commit crimes in their own neighborhood then elsewhere, so you are specifically endangering the immigrant community.

Then, when ICE comes to their home or work to deport them, they are required to take all illegal aliens at that address, not just the criminals (at least that is the way it used to be, I had a friend from school deported that way). So again, I wouldn't think the illegal community would want that either.

Finally, serving deportation orders outside of a jail system is much more dangerous to everyone involved. Again, a lose-lose situation.

Please try to make me see the logic. I'm sure I won't agree that it should be so, but I want to see how it could be viewed positively. I live in the Charlotte area and they released two child rapists in the last couple of weeks without notifying ICE. I am horrified.

Also, I am new to this site and I spent a fair amount of time searching for this topic. I'm sure it has been discussed, but I couldn't find it. My search skills are at fault, I'm sure.

karenp said:

I cannot understand the logic behind sanctuary cities. I have asked a few liberals (the one's who can reply without screaming at me) and they don't agree with it either. So, I am here to try to understand the logic. My understanding is the original concept of sanctuary cities was to protect illegal alien VICTIMS of crime and to encourage them to report and help the police. This is understandable. But it seems crazy to me to let someone out of jail (either due to bail being posted or having served their time) and NOT comply with an ICE detainer. Who is this serving?

I know that the illegal alien is much more likely to commit crimes in their own neighborhood then elsewhere, so you are specifically endangering the immigrant community.

Then, when ICE comes to their home or work to deport them, they are required to take all illegal aliens at that address, not just the criminals (at least that is the way it used to be, I had a friend from school deported that way). So again, I wouldn't think the illegal community would want that either.

Finally, serving deportation orders outside of a jail system is much more dangerous to everyone involved. Again, a lose-lose situation.

Please try to make me see the logic. I'm sure I won't agree that it should be so, but I want to see how it could be viewed positively. I live in the Charlotte area and they released two child rapists in the last couple of weeks without notifying ICE. I am horrified.

Also, I am new to this site and I spent a fair amount of time searching for this topic. I'm sure it has been discussed, but I couldn't find it. My search skills are at fault, I'm sure.

Click to expand...

It’s about liberals who have compassion for everyone except taxpayers. They don’t see the harmful effects of a class society, as is illegal residents will remain serfs and pass on their caste to their descendants creating an eternal font of cheap labor.

chuckiechan said:

It’s about liberals who have compassion for everyone except taxpayers. They don’t see the harmful effects of a class society, as is illegal residents will remain serfs and pass on their caste to their descendants creating an eternal font of cheap labor.

Click to expand...

same reason they have no outrage for china, as long as they can get cheap ****.

It is a mistake to assume progressives oppose rape and other violent crimes. To the contrary, the evidence suggests the Democratic Party and those on the left otherwise support rape and violent crimes as a good thing.

For example, by outlawing female adults who leave home upon graduation from high school owning a defensive handgun, they created a window period to assure females from age 18 to 20 can not own a handgun to defend themselves, successfully turning many college campuses into rape centers. Some believe that part of growing as a female includes being raped including gang raped as a beneficial life experience. Thus, it should not surprise you they would release, rather than deport, rapists.

They oppose police. They oppose protecting children in schools. They oppose deporting violent illegal immigrants. They support every criminal on earth coming here by decriminalizing illegal immigration - meaning open borders and no bases to even question anyone coming into the USA.

The rich and powerful in sanctuary cities don't live in general areas of their cities. They live safe and isolated from the general population behind walls with their own security and the police heavily patrolling THEIR communities. Why would they care about anyone else?

karenp said:

I cannot understand the logic behind sanctuary cities. I have asked a few liberals (the one's who can reply without screaming at me) and they don't agree with it either. So, I am here to try to understand the logic. My understanding is the original concept of sanctuary cities was to protect illegal alien VICTIMS of crime and to encourage them to report and help the police. This is understandable. But it seems crazy to me to let someone out of jail (either due to bail being posted or having served their time) and NOT comply with an ICE detainer. Who is this serving?

I know that the illegal alien is much more likely to commit crimes in their own neighborhood then elsewhere, so you are specifically endangering the immigrant community.

Then, when ICE comes to their home or work to deport them, they are required to take all illegal aliens at that address, not just the criminals (at least that is the way it used to be, I had a friend from school deported that way). So again, I wouldn't think the illegal community would want that either.

Finally, serving deportation orders outside of a jail system is much more dangerous to everyone involved. Again, a lose-lose situation.

Please try to make me see the logic. I'm sure I won't agree that it should be so, but I want to see how it could be viewed positively. I live in the Charlotte area and they released two child rapists in the last couple of weeks without notifying ICE. I am horrified.

Also, I am new to this site and I spent a fair amount of time searching for this topic. I'm sure it has been discussed, but I couldn't find it. My search skills are at fault, I'm sure.

Click to expand...

It comes down to ICE using local law enforcement to do ICE's job without pay and that local LEO do not have the authority to serve ICE warrants. Some small departments can get ICE training to legally serve warrants, but most have to pay for the training, and all must take time away from work. Citizens are let out of jail that have criminal records the same as illegal immigrants let out of jail.

karenp said:

My understanding is the original concept of sanctuary cities was to protect illegal alien VICTIMS of crime and to encourage them to report and help the police. This is understandable. But it seems crazy to me to let someone out of jail (either due to bail being posted or having served their time) and NOT comply with an ICE detainer. Who is this serving?

Click to expand...

Research shows that sanctuary policies have no impact on crime. I.e. those undocumented immigrants don't leave jail and go on a crime spree.

This should not be surprising. The reality is that the threat of prison establishes a "baseline" deterrent, and escalating punishments beyond that quickly hit diminishing returns. I.e. the threat of longer sentences or deportation are not a significantly greater deterrent than shorter sentences.

Other reasons for this result include....

• The vast majority of people out on bail are not arrested for new crimes; when they are, it is almost always drug-related. Violent criminals rarely get out on bail, or reoffend when out on bail. If an individual is a serious danger, then in a lot of cases they are not released, or are released with supervision (e.g. an ankle bracelet).

• The vast majority of accused criminals are citizens, not undocumented immigrants. If the criminal justice system is releasing accused criminals without any safeguards whatsoever, that really has nothing to do with ICE, nor does releasing undocumented immigrants accused of crimes constitute a massive safety risk.

• We no longer live in a world where deporting violent criminals really solves anything. For example, MS-13 is actually an American gang, whose members were deported to El Salvador and Honduras, where they set up new gangs that -- surprise! -- return to the US and continue their illegal activities.

• Crime is down significantly since the early 90s in the US, while the number of undocumented immigrants rose. Obviously it is unlikely that there is any sort of correlation between more undocumented immigrants and a greater threat of criminality.

...when ICE comes to their home or work to deport them, they are required to take all illegal aliens at that address, not just the criminals (at least that is the way it used to be, I had a friend from school deported that way).

Click to expand...

I haven't seen any indication that sanctuary policies are backfiring and getting more people detained.

Finally, serving deportation orders outside of a jail system is much more dangerous to everyone involved.

Click to expand...

I see no indication of that either. I haven't seen any reports of ICE agents getting mowed down when they try to detain someone.

I live in the Charlotte area and they released two child rapists in the last couple of weeks without notifying ICE. I am horrified.

Click to expand...

Are you also horrified when native-born people accused of the same crime are released?

I'm only seeing mention of one case, where an individual (Oscar Pacheco-Leonardo) was accused, not convicted. Is an accusation the same thing as a conviction? Pacheo-Leonardo was also previously deported and came right back to the US; would you really feel safer if he was deported again, before serving time in the US? If he stays in Honduras, won't he be a threat to Hondurans, especially if he is deported without jail time? Or does that not matter?


Ultimately, it sounds like you're letting fear get the better of you. Undocumented immigrants do not pose any sort of exceptional crime threat to the US, and this is borne out by the fact that sanctuary policies do not result in higher crime rates in those communities.

karenp said:

I cannot understand the logic behind sanctuary cities. I have asked a few liberals (the one's who can reply without screaming at me) and they don't agree with it either. So, I am here to try to understand the logic. My understanding is the original concept of sanctuary cities was to protect illegal alien VICTIMS of crime and to encourage them to report and help the police. This is understandable. But it seems crazy to me to let someone out of jail (either due to bail being posted or having served their time) and NOT comply with an ICE detainer. Who is this serving?

I know that the illegal alien is much more likely to commit crimes in their own neighborhood then elsewhere, so you are specifically endangering the immigrant community.

Then, when ICE comes to their home or work to deport them, they are required to take all illegal aliens at that address, not just the criminals (at least that is the way it used to be, I had a friend from school deported that way). So again, I wouldn't think the illegal community would want that either.

Finally, serving deportation orders outside of a jail system is much more dangerous to everyone involved. Again, a lose-lose situation.

Please try to make me see the logic. I'm sure I won't agree that it should be so, but I want to see how it could be viewed positively. I live in the Charlotte area and they released two child rapists in the last couple of weeks without notifying ICE. I am horrified.

Also, I am new to this site and I spent a fair amount of time searching for this topic. I'm sure it has been discussed, but I couldn't find it. My search skills are at fault, I'm sure.

Click to expand...

Sanctuary policies are in defiance of Constitutional federal laws to which state and local governments are bound and should therefore, not be able to receive any federal funding. That would put an end to them, (over 300 in existence), real fast.
I know, I know... 'if horse were wishes, beggars would ride'.

chuckiechan said:

It’s about liberals who have compassion for everyone except taxpayers. They don’t see the harmful effects of a class society, as is illegal residents will remain serfs and pass on their caste to their descendants creating an eternal font of cheap labor.

Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty much everything you're saying is wrong.

There is no compassion when an accused criminal is booted from the US, with no penalty and no record, who thus gets a clean slate in another nation which almost certainly has a weaker rule of law, which means they are more likely to commit more crimes.

There is no compassion when a member of a US gang is deported from the US, sets up a gang in his home country, returns to the US, and makes the resulting gang more connected, more powerful and more violent (e.g. MS-13).

Undocumented immigrants are not "serfs." In fact, if you really wanted them to work with less fear of exploitation, you wouldn't grasp at every excuse to deport them; you'd talk about guest worker programs and/or paths to citizenship.

No, the children of undocumented citizens are not stuck as "endless serfs" either. If those children were born in the US, then they are very likely to have a better standard of living, and of course full protections of the law and ability to engage the political system, than their parent(s). If they aren't citizens, they are still likely to improve their lot, and any children they have will be US citizens.

Got any more Weak Xenophobic Tea for us?

trixare4kids said:

Sanctuary policies are in defiance of Constitutional federal laws to which state and local governments are bound and should therefore, not be able to receive any federal funding.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Enforcement of immigration law is the responsibility of the federal government, period. Municipalities and states may agree to assist in certain ways, but are not required to do so.

There is no legal basis whatsoever to pull all federal funding for sanctuary cities. Most legal challenges by the Trump administration to change federal funds linked with law enforcement are losing in the courts.

All that the federal government might be able to do is give some funding preferences to cities that cooperate with federal requests. That is a classic "carrot" approach, which is used for a wide variety of policies.

We should also note that in some cases, municipalities that choose to cooperate with ICE are actually violating state laws, e.g. in California.

Thanks, but no thanks, for the usual ignorant xenophobic Trumpian nonsense.

Thread title: Sanctuary Cities -- help me understand

There is no legal definition of a "Sanctuary City". Understand now?

It's a combination of opposition to the self-defeating attempt to deport our way out of the illegal immigration problem and resentment at being asked to bear expenses the federal government is responsible for by way of having to hold people until ICE feels like showing up.

They aren't stopping the feds from doing their duty. They just don't want to do the feds' duty for them. I think it's silly IF there's a standing offer of federal reimbursement, but really, if ICE wants someone they just have to get the release date (from jail) right.....

:shrug:






It's really much ado about nothing, but then, so are many right wing talking points. Why do you think they're always claiming that "the left" makes a big deal out of nothing?

Projection, again. Lots of projection.

Visbek said:

Incorrect.

Enforcement of immigration law is the responsibility of the federal government, period. Municipalities and states may agree to assist in certain ways, but are not required to do so.

There is no legal basis whatsoever to pull all federal funding for sanctuary cities. Most legal challenges by the Trump administration to change federal funds linked with law enforcement are losing in the courts.

All that the federal government might be able to do is give some funding preferences to cities that cooperate with federal requests. That is a classic "carrot" approach, which is used for a wide variety of policies.

We should also note that in some cases, municipalities that choose to cooperate with ICE are actually violating state laws, e.g. in California.

Thanks, but no thanks, for the usual ignorant xenophobic Trumpian nonsense.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your thoroughness, but in California by making it illegal for employers to “Discriminate” against illegals over citizens, they have effectively removed the benefits of citizenship from citizens. The result? A dual system of justice. For example, California traffic fines are crazy high. The poor, Including illegals can ask to have them reduced because they are poor. I can’t. Their drivers licensees say “Federal limits apply”. A cop just will let them off with a warning because they probably don’t have insurance either and it is frowned upon to “stack” violations on illegals. Legal citizens get a ticket. The majority who get a license buy a 6 month auto policy, then let it expire.

We are the only nation who imports poverty then complains about it.

I live in California. You live in Other.

joko104 said:

It is a mistake to assume progressives oppose rape and other violent crimes. To the contrary, the evidence suggests the Democratic Party and those on the left otherwise support rape and violent crimes as a good thing.

For example, by outlawing female adults who leave home upon graduation from high school owning a defensive handgun, they created a window period to assure females from age 18 to 20 can not own a handgun to defend themselves, successfully turning many college campuses into rape centers. Some believe that part of growing as a female includes being raped including gang raped as a beneficial life experience. Thus, it should not surprise you they would release, rather than deport, rapists.

They oppose police. They oppose protecting children in schools. They oppose deporting violent illegal immigrants. They support every criminal on earth coming here by decriminalizing illegal immigration - meaning open borders and no bases to even question anyone coming into the USA.

The rich and powerful in sanctuary cities don't live in general areas of their cities. They live safe and isolated from the general population behind walls with their own security and the police heavily patrolling THEIR communities. Why would they care about anyone else?

Click to expand...

How does it feel to live in a society where the majority of your neighbors believe that rape and violence are good things?

But, don't LEO notify the federal jails when a person is convicted of both a local and federal crime? Isn't this the same thing? Just notify them -- don't do their jobs.

chuckiechan said:

I appreciate your thoroughness, but in California by making it illegal for employers to “Discriminate” against illegals over citizens, they have effectively removed the benefits of citizenship from citizens.

Click to expand...

Or... not.

To start with, there is no reason for scare quotes. Discrimination is discrimination, period.

Second, those anti-discrimination laws basically make it difficult for employers to threaten undocumented workers, and/or retaliate against employees who report abuses. The 2017 law makes it harder for ICE to detain workers when they are appearing in courts; again, that is so employers can't threaten or silence workers who report abuses.

Absolutely nothing about those laws makes them perfectly equivalent to citizens. They can't vote in federal elections; they can't collect any federal benefits, including Social Security; they certainly aren't immune from deportation; the list goes on.

California traffic fines are crazy high. The poor, Including illegals can ask to have them reduced because they are poor. I can’t.

Click to expand...

What the what?

That has nothing to do with undocumented immigration, or anti-discrimination laws. Merely mentioning in this context is absurd.

It doesn't remotely suggest any sort of "dual system of justice." CA fines are high for many reasons, including a much higher cost of living, which means much higher wages. Scaling the fines is a recognition that those fines are a much bigger punishment for someone whose income is low.

Their drivers licensees say “Federal limits apply”. A cop just will let them off with a warning because they probably don’t have insurance either and it is frowned upon to “stack” violations on illegals. Legal citizens get a ticket. The majority who get a license buy a 6 month auto policy, then let it expire.

Click to expand...

If you say so :roll:

I seriously doubt that officers are giving undocumented immigrants a pass because the fines will be lower.

We are the only nation who imports poverty then complains about it.

I live in California. You live in Other.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you don't know my background (nor is it any of your business really). What I can say is I live in an area with a large number of migrants (with and without papers), and it is not an abject nightmare here -- or anywhere else in the US. I've also heard this kind of fear-mongering over and over and over, and yet all the alleged horrors keep Not Happening. Undocumented immigrants living in the US will not will infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the country from winning the war.

Visbek said:

Or... not.

To start with, there is no reason for scare quotes. Discrimination is discrimination, period.

Second, those anti-discrimination laws basically make it difficult for employers to threaten undocumented workers, and/or retaliate against employees who report abuses. The 2017 law makes it harder for ICE to detain workers when they are appearing in courts; again, that is so employers can't threaten or silence workers who report abuses.

Absolutely nothing about those laws makes them perfectly equivalent to citizens. They can't vote in federal elections; they can't collect any federal benefits, including Social Security; they certainly aren't immune from deportation; the list goes on.



What the what?

That has nothing to do with undocumented immigration, or anti-discrimination laws. Merely mentioning in this context is absurd.

It doesn't remotely suggest any sort of "dual system of justice." CA fines are high for many reasons, including a much higher cost of living, which means much higher wages. Scaling the fines is a recognition that those fines are a much bigger punishment for someone whose income is low.



If you say so :roll:

I seriously doubt that officers are giving undocumented immigrants a pass because the fines will be lower.



Yeah, you don't know my background (nor is it any of your business really). What I can say is I live in an area with a large number of migrants (with and without papers), and it is not an abject nightmare here -- or anywhere else in the US. I've also heard this kind of fear-mongering over and over and over, and yet all the alleged horrors keep Not Happening. Undocumented immigrants living in the US will not will infect your soul, curve your spine and keep the country from winning the war.

Click to expand...

We’ll just have to agree to disagree. If we do have recession, California will not be able to pay its welfare benefits for very long, as high earners are being replaced with peasants.

I see you practice what Rosa Diaz preaches.

karenp said:

You claim that sanctuary cities have no effect on crime. However, it is an impossible thing to know as almost all sanctuary cities (which, of course, is where most illegals are) do not report a criminal's immigration status.

Click to expand...

It's not impossible. E.g.:

http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/shelter_nopols_blind.pdf
Error - Cookies Turned Off
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Crime rates are nearly entirely a function of the number of young males in a society. The baby boom generation caused the crime wave and, as they grew older, caused the decline.

Click to expand...

It is true that most crimes are committed by men, and people generally age out of criminal behavior (which is one reason why long prison sentences don't make much sense). However, that does not mean or prove that merely having more young men around increases crime rates. If that was correct, then we should have seen an increase in crime rates with the Millennials, who are a larger cohort than Gen X.

There has recently been an analysis of federal crimes which showed that non-citizens commit crimes at roughly 2x the rate of citizens. It is unfortunate it doesn't count all crime -- for example the same report shows that non-citizens cause nearly zero burglaries, but burglaries are almost never federal crimes. If you haven't seen it, it is here....

Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen that one before. CIS is incredibly biased against immigrants, and routinely puts their fingers on the scales with these types of reports.

Numerous studies show that migration (with and without papers) does not increase crime rates. E.g.:
Is There a Connection Between Undocumented Immigrants and Crime? | The Marshall Project
Error - Cookies Turned Off
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...-sanctuary-policies-on-crime-and-the-economy/
https://www.cato.org/publications/i...f/criminal-immigrants-texas-illegal-immigrant

According to the CATO institute, from 2003 through 2019 so far, the annual chance of an ICE agent being killed in the line of duty is about one in 37,917 per year.

Click to expand...

Actually, CATO says that 10 ICE agents died between 2003 and 2018. Four died from illnesses linked to 9/11 cleanup. One died in training. One died from dengue fever while on assignment in Indonesia. One died of a heart attack while in pursuit of a suspect. The last 3 died in the line of duty. They concluded that "being a normal police officer is much more dangerous than being an ICE agent."
https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-customs-enforcement-ice-agent-deaths-line-duty

It is quite clear that ICE agents are not getting routinely ambushed.

"One death is too many!" is simply not a legitimate response. By that standard, almost any policy could be justified -- including resistance to ICE, due to detainee deaths. (At least 24 detainees died in the past 3 years.)

You ask "Are you also horrified when native-born people accused of the same crime are released?". The answer is yes, I am. Unfortunately, in our system there is no other recourse, so we have to abide by the law. When someone is convicted of both a local and federal law, we move them from one jail system to another without giving them an opportunity to recommit a crime in between sentences. With illegals, we can have them deported.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you are not being clear here.

Are you saying that your preference is that anyone accused of a crime should be detained indefinitely, and there should be no option for bail at all?

Are you saying that once someone is convicted, and serves their sentence, they should never be let out?

Do you know that many undocumented immigrants aren't committing a federal crime? Overstaying a visa, for example, is only a civil offense.

It seems the gist of your opinion is that illegal criminals don't effect crime rates, so let them stay. But why? If you had a child molester (citizen or not) in your neighborhood and you could get him away from your kids, wouldn't you? Whether the likelihood of them harming your child was large or small?

Click to expand...

To be more precise, my position is that people in sanctuary cities do not regard undocumented immigrants as a threat, therefore no one should be terrified when local LEOs do not cooperate with ICE.

karenp said:

I cannot understand the logic behind sanctuary cities. I have asked a few liberals (the one's who can reply without screaming at me) and they don't agree with it either. So, I am here to try to understand the logic. My understanding is the original concept of sanctuary cities was to protect illegal alien VICTIMS of crime and to encourage them to report and help the police. This is understandable. But it seems crazy to me to let someone out of jail (either due to bail being posted or having served their time) and NOT comply with an ICE detainer. Who is this serving?

I know that the illegal alien is much more likely to commit crimes in their own neighborhood then elsewhere, so you are specifically endangering the immigrant community.

Then, when ICE comes to their home or work to deport them, they are required to take all illegal aliens at that address, not just the criminals (at least that is the way it used to be, I had a friend from school deported that way). So again, I wouldn't think the illegal community would want that either.

Finally, serving deportation orders outside of a jail system is much more dangerous to everyone involved. Again, a lose-lose situation.

Please try to make me see the logic. I'm sure I won't agree that it should be so, but I want to see how it could be viewed positively. I live in the Charlotte area and they released two child rapists in the last couple of weeks without notifying ICE. I am horrified.

Also, I am new to this site and I spent a fair amount of time searching for this topic. I'm sure it has been discussed, but I couldn't find it. My search skills are at fault, I'm sure.

Click to expand...

The plutocracy wants illegals, so we have them.

The end.