Here is the complaint by the Justice Discrimination against Sheriff Arpaio. http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... rpaio.html

In particular, please look at paragraphs at paragraphs 7 and 18 for the federal laws allegedly violated by sheriff Arpaio and the federal statutes authorizing enforcement of violations of those laws by the federal government.

Under the Supremacy Clause a state law cannot preempt a federal law. (For example , a state could not pass a law instituting state proceeding for deporting illegal aliens because that would preempt exclusive federal role in regulating immigration) Here is a discussion of the legality of sanctuary cities.
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/0 ... lat/204286

"Sanctuary policies are about public safety and decisions on how to spend public funds and establish priorities, and therefore are not preempted."

Listen, I get what a whackadoodle Arpaio is. Being a strict adherant to the law, I find his actions beyond the pale. My problem is that there are people on the left who say he does not have the right to enforce Federal immigration laws as he sees fit, and then say that SF can enforce immigration law as they see fit.

Does anyone see the dichotomy in that?

ICE gives a criminal to the authorities in SF for a drug charge, and SF releases him rather than giving him BACK to ICE. That is the issue.

When should a local jurisdiction work with the Federal government on immigration?

Well I guess I don't see the point of continuing to post on this when you don't respond to the points I (or Owen ) make and just continue to repeat the same thing about the left criticizing Sheriff Arpaio for not following federal law while sanctuary cities get a pass, Brad. These are legal discussions, there is legal authority out there on this , and if you want to move the discussion along you should be finding legal authority (if any) that supports your opinion.

I said SF does not need to follow the immigration laws of the Federal government. I said I agree with you, but I find it sad.

'Nuff said

Sorry if that came off a bit harsh. And certainly you can criticize San Francisco's policy--that's fair game.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

bbauska wrote:Listen, I get what a whackadoodle Arpaio is. Being a strict adherant to the law, I find his actions beyond the pale. My problem is that there are people on the left who say he does not have the right to enforce Federal immigration laws as he sees fit, and then say that SF can enforce immigration law as they see fit.

Does anyone see the dichotomy in that?

Again I am awaiting your reference to the actual laws and what they say.

Some laws explicitly exclude state and local authorities from taking actions. Some laws explicitly mandate them to take action. In between would be laws that allow actions but do not mandate them.

This means there are three states (cannot / can / must), not two (cannot / must).

So, please quote me the laws that you think SF was violating. We already have seen reference to the laws that Arpaio was violating in his over-zealous approach.

When should a local jurisdiction work with the Federal government on immigration?

By law? When the law says that:

a) they can, and
b) they must

If it only says (a), then they do not have to if they don't want to. If the jurisdiction does something that does not even come up to (a), then they should not.

freeman3 wrote:I am not sure I understand your point, Brad. Under the law there is leeway for a local city or state entity to either assist or not assist the federal government in enforcing immigration laws. Arizona opts to aggressively cooperate with the federal government and San Francisco opts to be less cooperative in assisting immigration enforcement. Both are permissible. It was not permissible for the state to not integrate schools. Your comparison does not work.

Frankly you need to show that a state is violating some federal law when it does not appropriate scarce law enforcement resources to immigration enforcement. Otherwise, it is not question of obeying the law but a policy choice that is made by individual states.

I think you have this backwards.

Colorado and Washington have thumbed their noses at the Federal drug laws. They have no right to do that. It's not a matter of "enforcement resources." They have actually legitimized activity that is in opposition to Federal law. In a different era, this might be grounds to send in Federal troops. It is rebellion.

With regard to immigration, your argument is again specious. Federal agencies request a hold on someone local authorities have in custody. It would take virtually no funding to keep them a short period of time. Instead, they REFUSE to do so--not on the basis of funding, but on the basis of "fairness." So, to be "fair," they release violent felon illegal immigrants who are free to murder, rape, and steal.

That is unconscionable.

Then again, your State is heading to the abyss, but I digress.

To go against all expectations, I'm going to stick up for rickyp.

rickyp wrote:You are opposed to police, prosecutors or judges having any discretion?

He's right. Bbauska is wrong.

There are times when the letter of the law is not justice and is, in fact, a travesty. The most glaring example I can think of from personal experience: a gang member told a female relative he was going to use her home to sell narcotics. She said "No, you're not." He threatened her. She shot him in the shoulder and he fled the location.

When we arrived and asked what happened, she said. "He told me he was going to sell drugs in my home. I told him he was not going to do that. He told me I would have to shoot him to stop him, so I shot him."

Technically, she violated the law and should have gone to jail.

Would that be justice?

Not in my mind.

Another one: a man is convicted of burglary under the three strikes law. His previous convictions were burglaries. He never committed a burglary when anyone was home. When apprehended, he confessed and cooperated fully--even telling the detectives about burglaries they didn't know about.

His sentence: 85 years to life. Was that justice? He never physically harmed anyone. The guy who crushed a man's head with a brick during a riot got less time than this--substantially less.

Discretion can be abused--no doubt about that. But, when it is removed, the results can be decidedly unjust.

The only question up for debate is whether sanctuary cities are violating federal law. That is the issue Brad brought up and the side issues you brought up do not address that issue. And by the way a federal court has held a city can be held liable for damages for holding a prisoner past their release date to comply with an ICE hold. How hard is it for to ICE to pick people up before they get released? Even in that San Francisco case how hard would it for ICE to get an court order to hold the guy? ICE is a typical lazy and arrogant government entity.

Yes, you need judicial discretion for justice. Cases are so different that when you try to lump them all together you get unjust results. I blame this at least in part on the media. Every time a judge makes an overly lenient decision on a serious offender it gets publicized and people get the sense it is the norm. So people start favoring taking power from judges and we get things like Three Strikes laws where a person would commit a petty theft, that would get turned into a felony because of priors, and that would be the third strike and a guy would get 25 to life (that is changed--the third felony needs to be violent). Then there are the Federal Sentencing Guidelines with very long sentences for certain drug cases no matter the extenuating circumstances. The problem with fixed rules that strip judges of discretion is they take a well-trained judicial officer's ability to make sure the punishment fits the crime, the punishment fits what the Legislature was trying to do in the first place. Bright-line sentencing rules are over-inclusive in that they sweep in cases that were not meant to be subject to such harsh sentences. A judge using discretion can filter out the cases that should not be subject to such long sentences. That is how you get justice.

And California is doing just fine without you and your negativity regarding it...
http://www.newyorker.com/business/curre ... sted-texas
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... story.html

Two things:
Danivon, if we can only speak about existing law, and not opinion of what we think the law should be, then this will be a very quiet place indeed.

DF, we are not that far apart. The police should not be be the agency making decisions on guilt. That would be a jury or judge. If a law is violated, it is the responsibility of the police to bring suspects to the justice system, not pass judgement.

If a law is in place, then follow and prosecute it if violated. If that is not what is desired, then get rid of it.

I am fine with judges having discretion. Police and prosecutors, not so much.

freeman3 wrote:And California is doing just fine without you and your negativity regarding it...
http://www.newyorker.com/business/curre ... sted-texas
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... story.html

Dude, get into reality. This is an epic takedown of CA, including this:

A third of America’s welfare recipients reside in California. Nearly a quarter of Californians live below the poverty line.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... -democrats

bbauska wrote:DF, we are not that far apart. The police should not be be the agency making decisions on guilt. That would be a jury or judge. If a law is violated, it is the responsibility of the police to bring suspects to the justice system, not pass judgement.

If a law is in place, then follow and prosecute it if violated. If that is not what is desired, then get rid of it.

I am fine with judges having discretion. Police and prosecutors, not so much.

Police officers have to have discretion. The more mandatory arrests police officers have to make, the more the courts will be clogged with cases that should not be there. Cops are the "common sense" that the lawmakers often can't squeeze into the written law.

Victor Hanson writes bad history books and his analysis of current events isn't any better...

freeman3 wrote:Victor Hanson writes bad history books and his analysis of current events isn't any better...

Just the facts. Ad hominem won't help you.