HAMMER: Why Is No One Pointing Out That Sanctuary Cities Blatantly Violate This Federal Law?

[Sanguine]

By Josh Hammer
@josh_hammer
July 23, 2019

Securing the nation's borders and protecting the nation's sovereignty against those who would violate it is, perhaps above anything else, the singular most important function of the federal government. After all, in the 2012 Supreme Court case of Arizona v. United States, Justice Antonin Scalia powerfully described "the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there" as "the defining characteristic of sovereignty." Illegal immigration, furthermore, manifests itself across countless issues affecting the body politic: National security, crime, drugs, public health, cultural assimilation, and the health of the public fisc.

But what happens when the federal government's unwillingness to defend its sovereignty is coupled with the federal government's unwillingness to defend the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution — that the "Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the land?"

Every single day across America, sundry sanctuary jurisdictions harbor illegal aliens — often violent criminal ones — and fail to honor detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As ICE explains on its website, detainers "provide notice of [ICE's] intent to assume custody of an individual detained in federal, state, or local custody" and are typically "placed on aliens arrested on criminal charges for whom ICE possesses probable cause to believe ... are removable from the United States." The results of local law enforcement agencies failing to honor ICE detainers, from a public safety and sovereignty protection perspective, are often predictably disastrous. But what seems to be an under-covered aspect of the sanctuary cities phenomenon is how blatantly illegal the practice is under existing federal statute....

https://www.dailywire.com/news/49795/hammer-why-no-one-pointing-out-sanctuary-cities-josh-hammer?%3Futm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dwtwitter

[Cyber Liberty]

In the age of Trump, disobeying immigration laws is all the fad.

[Bill Cipher]

The author seems a bit confused on the subject.

[Sanguine]

The author seems a bit confused on the subject.

Say more.  I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.

[Bill Cipher]

Say more.  I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.

His beef is that local authorities are ignoring ICE detainer requests, and then cites to 8 USC 1373 as if that makes it illegal for local authorities to ignore such requests (it doesn’t) and then nonetheless says that his interpretation of 8 USC 1373 doesn’t run afoul of the anti-commandeering rule (which it would, if his interpretation were valid).

Also, a quick google indicates that, to the extent that 8 USC 1373 is interpreted to impose affirmative obligations on state or local authorities, it is probably unconstitutional. 

I’m not saying that I think state and local officials should be able to thumb their noses at federal immigration law, but I am saying that the statute he cites to doesn’t stop them from doing so. 

I would also say that the anti-commandeering rule should probably be revisited, at least to the extent that, as currently crafted, it would prevent the federal government from legally requiring local officials to keep people in custody if they receive a detainer request from ICE.  Without the power to compel local officials to keep someone like that in custody, it becomes extremely difficult for the federal government to enforce immigration law with respect to immigrants who break other laws, and I have serious doubts that the Framers intended the gap between federal and state to be quite so hermetic.

[Sanguine]

Good comments.  Thanks, @Bill Cipher

[Rivergirl]

When Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of NYC he instructed his police officers to NOT ask anyone their citizenship status.
Somehow, he managed to lower the crime rate and turn the city into a sanctuary for ALL of us.    It's only now in his ugly grasp for power that he supports this evil doer in the White House.

[Cyber Liberty]

 

[Sanguine]

When Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of NYC he instructed his police officers to NOT ask anyone their citizenship status.
Somehow, he managed to lower the crime rate and turn the city into a sanctuary for ALL of us.    It's only now in his ugly grasp for power that he supports this evil doer in the White House.

Did you have a comment about the topic or is this just another chance to bash Trump?

[Rivergirl]

Did you have a comment about the topic or is this just another chance to bash Trump?

So some sanctuary cities are more equal than others?
What is your point.

[Sanguine]

So some sanctuary cities are more equal than others?
What is your point.

Okay, again, with feeling:  the topic is "Why Is No One Pointing Out That Sanctuary Cities Blatantly Violate This Federal Law?

And, you wrote: "When Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of NYC he instructed his police officers to NOT ask anyone their citizenship status.
Somehow, he managed to lower the crime rate and turn the city into a sanctuary for ALL of us.    It's only now in his ugly grasp for power that he supports this evil doer in the White House."

Did you have an opinion on the legal argument presented by the author?

[Cyber Liberty]

Okay, again, with feeling:  the topic is "Why Is No One Pointing Out That Sanctuary Cities Blatantly Violate This Federal Law?

And, you wrote: "When Rudy Giuliani was Mayor of NYC he instructed his police officers to NOT ask anyone their citizenship status.
Somehow, he managed to lower the crime rate and turn the city into a sanctuary for ALL of us.    It's only now in his ugly grasp for power that he supports this evil doer in the White House."

Did you have an opinion on the legal argument presented by the author?

My fault.  I brought Trump up wayy up thread.  That said, I'd like to know that too.  "Evil doer?"

[Cyber Liberty]

His beef is that local authorities are ignoring ICE detainer requests, and then cites to 8 USC 1373 as if that makes it illegal for local authorities to ignore such requests (it doesn’t) and then nonetheless says that his interpretation of 8 USC 1373 doesn’t run afoul of the anti-commandeering rule (which it would, if his interpretation were valid).

Also, a quick google indicates that, to the extent that 8 USC 1373 is interpreted to impose affirmative obligations on state or local authorities, it is probably unconstitutional. 

I’m not saying that I think state and local officials should be able to thumb their noses at federal immigration law, but I am saying that the statute he cites to doesn’t stop them from doing so. 

I would also say that the anti-commandeering rule should probably be revisited, at least to the extent that, as currently crafted, it would prevent the federal government from legally requiring local officials to keep people in custody if they receive a detainer request from ICE.  Without the power to compel local officials to keep someone like that in custody, it becomes extremely difficult for the federal government to enforce immigration law with respect to immigrants who break other laws, and I have serious doubts that the Framers intended the gap between federal and state to be quite so hermetic.

I appreciate that too, @Bill Cipher