Is There A Legal Barrier To Cities Holding Illegal Immigrants For Federal Authorities?

ever-valles-mug-shotThe recent arrest of Ever Valles, 19, for murder has rekindled the debate over sanctuary cities and the proposed crackdown by the Trump Administration. We have previously discussed the status of sanctuary cities.  I have maintained that these cities are in a poor legal position to oppose the federal programs and that they would face the loss of badly needed federal funding. The case of Valles will reinforce moves in Congress to clamp down on cities like Denver, which have responded that their police would have no legal basis to hold illegal immigrants for federal officials under the Constitution. The conflict presents an interesting series of issues about the basis for detainers and the legal status of immigration warrants under the Fourth Amendment.  There is certainly no barrier in cooperating through notice to ICE and coordinating transfers.  The question is whether there are barriers to holding someone for the requested 48 hours under these detention requests.

3d82bb5700000578-4247962-image-a-46_1487744384845Valles was arrested in the murder of 32-year-old Timothy Cruz (right) on Feb. 7th at a light rail station. He was charged with Nathan Valdez, 19, with aggravated robbery and first-degree murder.

Critics have noted that federal officials had placed a detainer on Valles with the Denver jail due to his prior gang history. Nevertheless, he was released in Denver which is a sanctuary city that refuses to cooperate with the federal authorities in holding such individuals. So, when he was arrested on Oct. 20th in Denver and held on multiple charges including possession of a weapon, vehicle theft and eluding, the local authorities received the federal detainer request but released him without even notice to the ICE.

The case is being compared to the 2015 murder of Kathryn Steinle, 32, in San Francisco tourist by a five-time deported Mexican immigrant. There was also the recent case in New York of alleged MS-13 gang member and illegal immigrant Estivan Rafael Marques Velasquez who was released by New York City officials despite a detainer. He served a disorderly conduct sentence and was allowed to walk despite a record of association with one of the bloodiest gangs in the United States. He was later arrested on the street by federal authorities.

The Trump Administration has promised to punish those jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal enforcement and I believe that it can do so.  The Jan. 25 executive order calls for the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withhold “federal funds, except as mandated by law” from sanctuary cities. Some cities have already backed down rather than risk needed federal support.  In just the top 10 jurisdictions, the cities received  $342 million in active justice assistance grants as of March 2015.  Cities can survive without such funds to be sure.  However, there is a host of ways that cities and states rely on federal assistance in law enforcement.

440px-denver_mayor_michael_hancock_-_2012-08-15_portrait_cropDenver Mayor Michael Hancock recently tried to deny that the city was a sanctuary city while voicing support for the city as . . . well as sanctuary city. It left many confused and many immigration advocates miffed:

 “If being a sanctuary city means that we value taking care of one another, and welcoming refugees and immigrants, then I welcome the title. If being a sanctuary city means families and young ‘Dreamers’ live with hope and not fear, then Washington can label us whatever they want . . . If being a sanctuary city means that our law enforcement officers are expected to do the work of federal immigration authorities, or violate the constitutional rights of any of our people, we reject that.”

The Supreme Court has embraced an equality principle regardless of alienage for those within the United States.  In Wong Wing v. United States, the Court addressed the  Geary Act of 1892 which singled out Chinese workers for summary proceedings.  The Court found such discrimination based on alienage to be “not consistent with the theory of our government” and that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments protect “even aliens.” Likewise, in Plyler v. Doe, the Court ruled for the children of illegal immigrants who faced a bar to  publicly funded education.  Thus, there are strong arguments against orders that deny illegal immigrants fundamental rights, though the question remains where the line is drawn since the courts have allowed special procedures and expedited removals in many cases.

The suggestion that a detainer hold may violate the constitutional rights of prisoners has been raised repeatedly. The premise that that you cannot hold a person without a charge is obviously sound. However, people are held all the time pending charges.  A detainer notice states that a person is being sought by the federal government and should be released into federal custody.

There are a couple types of forms used by the INS.  Form I-247D requests detention of a subject for up to 48 hours with priority removal as a suspect of terrorism, someone with a felony conviction or three prior misdemeanor convictions.  Form I-245X covers other priority cases as with those who have a long record of visa abuse.  Finally, Form I-247N is a simple advance notification of a subject’s release date.

ICE  can avoid problems by speeding up the issuance of warrants for state-held detainees.  Alternatively, they can rely on the power for warrantless arrest power under 8 USC 1357(a)(2), with an individualized assessment of the likelihood that a suspected removable alien.  This is often invoked for a suspect who would likely flee or evade immigration officers.

The warrant itself can also be challenged.  Federal law does not currently require cooperation on detainer.  However, this voluntary cooperation has long been followed by most jurisdictions and has not to my knowledge been found to be unconstitutional.  There remain some fairly challenging questions that have not be fully litigated.  Professor Michael Kagan recently published a law review of the basis for such challenges.  Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney recently defended his city’s position by saying  “We have no authority to violate the Fourth Amendment. All the immigration officials have to do is get a warrant signed by a federal magistrate and we’ll be happy to turn that person over.”

us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-seal-plaque-lUnder the Immigration and Nationality Act, ICE issues a “warrant” as part of the process of removal.  However, most of these cases involve the forms above requesting a hold.  The use of the term “warrant” can be contested.  After all, this is not some neutral magistrate or judge but an ICE official.  States could object that they cannot hold someone without a valid warrant establishing probable cause of a crime and this is not a cognizable warrant.  That leads to the question of whether the standard may be different for illegal immigrants.  The Supreme Court has held that those people within the country have protections under the Constitution even if they may not (in the case of foreign nationals) outside of the country.  It is possible that federal courts could carve out an accommodation but it would mean that the Fourth Amendment is deemed as not applying in the same way to some individuals with our country.  Yet, prior cases have laid a foundation for claiming a consistent application of fourth amendment cases.  SeeUnited States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).  Moreover, in  Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Court rejected unquestioned or unreviewable exercise of plenary power and imposed some limits to protect the liberty interests of immigrants in prolonged confinement.  The question is when such procedures will be required in the immigration context where people have often been deported with little procedural protections.  For example, under the Obama Administration, there was no hearing afforded to people before deportation if they were caught within 100 miles of the border within two weeks of crossing illegally.

Of course, many ICE arrests are not done pursuant to a warrant.  An ICE agent may arrest a person without a warrant pursuant to 8 U.S. Code 1357 if he has reason to believe that the immigrant so arrested is in the US in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.

Notably, this is still a review by ICE and not a neutral magistrate.  Once in the federal system, the person may demand a Joseph hearing to review his or her confinement.  There is no automatic review as under Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975). In such cases, you are given a hearing as a general matter within 48 hours to determine probable cause.

Zadvydas places the emphasis of many past cases on the duration of custody.  Ironically, the Trump Administration states that it wants to reduce that duration.  Zadvydas clearly bars indefinite detention and the Court interpreted the INA to avoid a conflict by limiting the time to six months of detention after the imposition of a final removal order.  That six month period has been used by the Ninth Circuit as the line for requiring a bond hearing for someone who is subject to a final removal order.  Even if that six-month period is imposed for a requirement of a hearing, it does not afford states a good basis for refusing to recognize an ICE detainment notice.  If there is such a cause of action, it would ripen later as part of the federal system.

That brings us back to the question whether states are prevented legally from handing over a detainee based on an immigration hold.  States can argue that the immigration violation must be treated as as separate crime from the state crime. I think that such an argument is well based.  The immigration violation is not cognizable as a state or municipal offense as a general matter.  Moreover some lower courts have ruled that the hold request is not a warrant of any kind and that holding someone for 48 hours is thus a violation of the Fourth Amendment.   In Jimenez Moreno et al.v. Napolitano, the district court ruled in favor of a class-action lawsuit. The court found that the detainers do not meet the standard of a warrant to justify the holding of someone for 48 hours.

In the end, I do not believe that the local police are risking liability by cooperating with the federal government and that it is lawful to hold detainees under certain circumstances. However, those circumstances are strongest when there is a warrant or a formal invocation of INS authority under Section 1357.  There are still viable grounds for challenging these orders but those challenges are likely to be heard in the federal not state systems.

There is a great deal of confusion left by the courts in this areas.  Courts have long allowed expedited removals for individuals found close to the border and the Obama Administration targeted those who entered in the prior two weeks.  Yet, those distinctions beg for a clear statement as to why the legal status of illegal immigrants are given materially different treatment based on a matter of miles or days.  Likewise, if the process is unconstitutional, why do some sanctuary cities hold detainees when they have certain crimes in their past but not others?  This is an area that has been made a horrendous mess by the courts and particularly the Supreme Court.    It is also an area that calls for congressional action.

80 thoughts on “Is There A Legal Barrier To Cities Holding Illegal Immigrants For Federal Authorities?”

  1. It is a huge mess caused by some gushing sentimentality over illegals that both the executive and judicial branches have shown. Congress however is crystal clear that illegal immigration is to be discouraged. The solution is for ICE is to deputize select local law enforcement personnel to enforce these laws. I’d start with sheriffs in the Southwest. That would expand the enforcement universe. Detainers could then be issued by federal magistrates directly to deputized local law enforcement who could apply for warrants themselves once notified by ICE. These deputized local officials would, of course, be federally compensated for their efforts. I’d do a bounty system. This “cuts out the middle man,” and aids enforcement efforts to deport know violent criminal illegals.

    1. Actually Mark there was a system in place in the past, before the mid 1980s, where there was a bounty to be had for local LEO arrests of illegals. (At least here and according to some “old timers” I worked with long ago)

      There are programs where local officers can become certified for ICE and ATF and commissioned accordingly but it is rarely done in some areas. I’ve only personally known a handful of guys over the years who bothered with the certification.

      1. Darren:
        I seem to remember something like that in the late 70s here, too. If you provide an individual financial incentive, I bet lots of LEOs would sign up.

    2. Federal “bounty” system is a good idea. Any citizen can take the designated perp into custody and deliver the perp to a federal Marshal or have the Marshal come get him. Bounty gets paid upon delivery and proof of who the perp is. Five grand would be about right.

  2. What is the net tangible benefit for cities to maintain a sanctuary status? Is it votes? Is it cheap labor? Doesn’t the non-enforcement of the law violate the oath these politicians take? Cut federal funds but also make every elected official that enables these sanctuary cities to exist ineligible for public office. If they happen to hold a license to practice law in that state then revoke their license.

    1. Olly:
      The benefit is not to cities but to politicians than run cities — a key distinction. Big donors thrive on the suppressed wages that illegal immigration fosters. Think some contractor in NYC or Chicago isn’t thriving on illegal workers he pays or launders through subcontractors? He’s got millions in contracts riding with high profit margins. Think his paying a $100K to some local mayor is any big deal? And a $100K to a mayor buys you big influence. Amazing how the price of politicians has dropped these days.

      1. “The benefit is not to cities but to politicians than run cities — a key distinction.”


        The obvious point is that it is the politicians who put these sanctuary policies in place. The not-so-obvious point is why the voting public elect and then reelect them to office? What is the incentive to do so? The welfare state minimizes the pain of unemployment when the cheap (illegal) labor drives out legal competition.

        When we have cities advertising themselves as havens for illegal aliens then doesn’t that undermine any argument that the federal government is burdening these cities with immigration compliance? I would expect if you invite illegal aliens to your community that you have no grounds to defend the cost of compliance with federal law.

        1. If federal funds are cut to these sanctuary cities, then the citizens who are impacted by reduced services and/or increased taxes will have to decide whether they want these politicians to represent them. If they re-elect them, they have no basis to complain about the loss of federal funds.

  3. There ought to be a happy medium. Nobody should be overly concerned about “paperwork crimes”. Known gang members, violent assailants, and murderers should be held on those types of charges and turned over. Peaceful mothers and fathers of American citizens, wives seeking asylum from abusive husbands, people who cooperate to make their neighborhoods safer, and people needing lifesaving surgery, among others, should be free. This would cut down on the number of people affected and thus the expense of the hold orders to the cities, while applying some common sense and keeping our cities safer.

    1. Elena:
      “Peaceful mothers and fathers of American citizens, wives seeking asylum from abusive husbands, people who cooperate to make their neighborhoods safer, and people needing lifesaving surgery, among others, should be free.”

      That would mean we enforce the law against people we don’t like and not against people we do. Is that really what you want? Do we let the bankrobber go free because his wife will be left destitute without his stolen money?

    2. Elena Carlena – lifesaving surgery should be done in the country the immigrant is from. And we should not have to pay for it.

  4. If the perp is released by the sanctuary city and then assaults Joe Blow a resident of Colorado, the Joe should sue the perp for the assault and add the City of Denver as a co defendant and co conspirator. All statements by all agents and employees of the City are admissible in evidence under Fed Rule of Evidence 801 d 2 as admissions of a party opponent and agents of a party opponent. Joe sues for damages and also declaratory and injunctive relief. The injunction is to enjoin the city officials from office (can not do their jobs anymore) and to force them to jail the perp. The City is on the hook for the damages, punitive damages and attorney fees. See 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1988.

  5. America is not a lawless society/country.
    Just one. Lawful document allows entry.
    If you don’t have that document you are simply “ILLEGAL”.

  6. I would use President Obama’s commutation calculus. Here’s a quote from this 538 article:

    “According to our analysis of Justice Department records, about 98 percent of Obama’s commutations through Tuesday were for prisoners convicted on drug offenses. And many of those, more than 60 percent of all commutations, were charged under conspiracy laws.”

    Violent crimes get instant ICE processing and out da door you go.

    Michael A’s argument about making murder a terrorist act under the Patriot Act makes perfect sense.

    1. So, a veteran of the choom gang doesn’t want to hold people responsible for violating the drug laws. How very disinterested of him.

  7. I think the government has a strong case here. Besides, they can always withhold monies if they don’t comply.

    1. Paul:

      They should withhold other things too like FBI lab and investigation services, ICE services, federal contracts and then cut off access to military bases for sanctuary residents. You throw sand in the Leviathan’s face, you get the wake.

      1. mespo – the Navy could declare the entire county of San Diego off-limits. That would screw things up. 🙂 Although traffic would be better. 😉

        1. It seems fair to withhold federal funds from cities and counties which have openly declared that they refuse to comply with federal law. San Fran, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, etc. But what about the rural counties in CA that haven’t declared as “sanctuaries?” I don’t think they should be punished for the acts (or failure to act) of the others.

  8. Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemy.

    If these illegals are in jail after a local crime, any reasonable sheriff who wanted to protect his community, and not the political grandstanding of liberal politicians, would want nothing more than to get criminal illegals out of town as fast as possible. Plus, if they are handed off to the feds, it is the feds’ responsibility to deal with them not the locals.

    1. If someone is arrested in a city or county, wouldn’t his/her arrest be entered into a state database? Perhaps a solution would be to allow ICE to access the state databases, where they can check for illegals who are in custody at the local level. Of course, that would require ICE to act quickly, in states like CA where arrestees are often cited and released fairly quickly, but it’s better than nothing.

      1. TIN,

        I haven’t worked atthat side of the booking counter for a great many years but I believe once an arrestee is fingerprinted, the prints can be checked against databases to confirm the identity of the person, provided they were previously printed, usually from a prior arrest. (I don’t know how real-time this is presently) One flaw in this system is if an illegal hasn’t been printed in the past, there is no record to compare against.

        The most common and easiest method is to “run” their professed identity through NLETS (National Law Enforcement Communication System) to NCIC (National Crime Information System) and if they are flagged as having a warrant or ICE hold and if confirmed yard them to jail. NLETS is automatically queried when checking a person for wants, and in usual practice gets a ride along query when running a driver’s license check. NCIC is essentially the “go to” place for all things such as stolen firearms, missing persons, arrest warrants, and even AWOL military personnel.

    2. If I recall correctly, in fact, what ICE asked for from SF Sheriff dept, at minimum, was a phone call to them if we released Sanchez…. that they would “find him”. Running this story down, as an ordinary citizen but at least one that is a news junkie, was horrible. San Francisco obfuscated as much as possible. And lied.

      AFAIK he is still here in San Francisco jail. He appeared in court about 3 weeks following the killing and was clearly in mental and physical decline.

      Further when he was brought to San Francisco from Victorville, he was held at least two weeks. Never an explanation for why he was held so long if they never were going to prosecute the old charges. He spent a large amount of time … I think most of it in Federal prison, around 15 years… for a range of offenses and was deported I think 5 times. There had been a charge (and i think plea process) in the past on an assault charge but I never found much on that.

      1. Seems to me that “deportation” doesn’t really mean anything if the deportee can turn around and return illegally to the U.S. FIVE TIMES! Essentially “deportation” is just a free trip home at taxpayer expense. It really shows that the concept of a border is a joke.

        1. I agree, the whole thing is a mess. Additionally, and tho my personal opinion as a lay person is based on his jail house interviews (several versions directly from him on tape about the killing) and not conducted in his native language, but he appeared to be mentally deficient.

          I have a feeling this story repeats all across the nation. Not long after the Steinle killing (it was still summer) there were two horrible crimes in the San Luis Obispo area…. so violent, a rape and hammer killing of a retired AF officer at the time on contract at the local base – and a 2 year old beaten wtihin an inch of her life (she may eventually have died, I had to stop looking it up, it was terrible), both by illegals. If you can believe it, the judge gave the man who beat the baby BAIL (100k, so someone came up with 10K)… and he was in the wind.

    1. Oh please. Hogwash. We have 324 MILLION people in the US.
      Canada= 38 million.
      Australia= 25 million.
      Our GDP will be just fine, if we can bring back jobs and retain future jobs.

    2. Wow, David, there are so many inaccuracies in that opinion piece. Not exactly unbiased article looking at both sides of an issue. Undocumented immigrants are here illegally. It doesn’t matter what you call them. Those are the facts. It doesn’t make the tragedy that Mexico is failing its people any less sad. It doesn’t make the people that call them illegal immigrants any less compassionate than those that call them undocumented. Removing people that have committed crimes is not the same as mass deportations of all illegal immigrants. I am all for giving the law abiding illegal immigrants that work some sort of legal status and I think that would be much more likely if you control the border and assure citizens that there are measures in place to keep them safe. The America I want is ironically the same America that many immigrants, wherever they come from, also want. A place where law is respected, where people feel safe and where there is opportunity that with hard, work and determination will be rewarded. It is not perfect but I think it is the most successful system there is.

  9. Turley, I though you were a lawyer. They are undocumented immigrants, not ‘illegal immigrants’. Lack of documentation is not a crime.

    1. If you break our laws in the US and sneak into the country ILLEGALLY or overstay your visa ILLEGALLY.
      You are a criminal and a illegal alien.

    2. No documents; no crime. No documents and crossing the border without papers; crime. Misdemeanor first and then a felony:

      8 U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien

      Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
      US Code

      (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
      Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

      Dumb ol’ P̶r̶o̶f̶e̶s̶s̶o̶r̶ ̶T̶u̶r̶l̶e̶y̶ David B. Benson.

  10. OMG PC now stands for Policed Clapping. will this wing extremist fascist crap NEVER cease?

  11. Just to show how silly this gets the Patriot Act which does not really define terrorist especially for the purpose of exclusing citizens has done away with all civil rights. Arrest is “suspicion of terroristacts or suspicison of supporting terrorist acts” no probable cause, no rights card readings, no warrants needed, no due process etc. etc. And citizens not excluded from this method.

    All that is needed is stating which level of crime constitutes terror and if submit if murder does not then nothing does. Under the Patrioit Act it seem mere suspicion could conceivably lead to on the spot execution and exclude the need for written reports. But it keeps getting expanded the latest Dec 31 2015 by the Congress and President Obama.

    All of what Turlow wrote and all of what’s been commented on ceases to exist by simply stating murder and other crimes involving violence are acts of terrorism.

    Again for the ujmpteenth time i’ll refer you to the interview between Turlow and Kusack the actor who were childhood friends and Kusack is a strong supporter of cvil rights that was in this blog September 2015. What Kusack was afraid of occuring did come true under Obama. WITH an 85 to 100 vote of the Senate.

    Furthermore another simple fix is adding hard drugs to WMD making it WMD and putting them under the Chemical and Biological sections of CBR R being Radiological …used to be NBC and before that ABC but Atomic and Nuclear was too much for the PC snow flakes.

    The final silly part to al lthis is these sanctuaries apply only to violent criminals who are undocumented or illegal aliens They don’t apply to native born citizens who are violent criminals . Where’s the f’n logic to that? Well what do you expect from leftist snowflakes.

  12. I know that the Sheriff dept did go get him… It was an old MJ charge and in the opinion of no one at all should he have been brought here for a useless prosecution and yet they did… only to “decide” not to prosecute and released him…. It is receding in time and I am beginning to forget some details, but I THINK the prison in Victorville wanted to turn him over to ICE directly… but made the call to SF before doing so. Both our Sheriff at the time (Mirkarimi) and our PD (Adachi) regularly make flagrant promises to the local community that we will do nothing to aid ICE. IMO it’s been out of hand for a long time.

    It also very quietly got out, sub rosa, that Sanchez did in fact steal the gun from the BLM vehicle in the downtown area. The cover story continues to be that he ”found it”, wrapped in a T shirt near where he shot Steinle. That story always stank but the official story keeps it going.

  13. Immigration law is indeed a mess. However I believe that Printz v. United States controls concerning the power of the federal government to compel the states or state officials to act as immigration enforcement agencies. Therefore, I question the use of a financial hammer, whether or not lawful, in the manner contemplated by the Administration.

    1. Simply notifying the Feds that an inmate is in custody hardly constitutes ‘acting as an immigration agent.’ It’s a whole lot less time and effort than compelling someone to bake and decorate a cake.

  14. Making a huge fuss at the time – and still – about needing a warrant from ICE to turn Francisco Sanchez over is what happened in San Francisco in the Steinle killing….that is the excuse used for why Francisco Sanchez was released on a old MJ charge when ICE had asked to be advised of the disposition. This after SF Sheriff dept picked him up in Victorville at the prison and brought him to San Francisco.

    The whole thing was utterly shameful.

    1. Why did the SF Sheriff drive all the way to Victorville to get him? Are they running a cab service? Seriously, there was a case up north in Eureka a few years ago where the Humboldt Co Sheriff’s Dept arrested a local in Garberville. They took him to the jail in Eureka, about one hour’s drive through the redwood forest. He was released in the middle of the night with no way to get home. He walked a few blocks to the rectory of St. Bernard’s Catholic Church, broke into the priest’s residence, and beat the beloved priest to death with a variety of objects in order to steal his car and drive home. That terrible murder raised the obvious question of the legality and propriety of the police or sheriff taking a person to a remote location, and failing to provide a means for that person to return to the place where he was arrested. The Sheriff’s Dept pointed out that they are a rural, underfunded county, and claimed they don’t have the resources to return arrestees to the town they were arrested in. Citizens pointed out that that Sheriff had the resources to take this guy to the county seat, an hour away, so they could have least given him the option of remaining in the jail until morning, when he could have been given a ride back to Southern Humboldt, or a Greyhound ticket. I don’t know how the matter was resolved, but it seems odd that the SF Sheriff would go fetch Sanchez from Victorville, when the Humboldt Co Sheriff won’t even provide a means for an arrestee to get home, in a rural county with no public transportation connecting the distant cities.

      1. The bigger question is why we let an insane madman out of jail? Did the Sheriff even check to see how many warrants were out on this monster?

  15. Certainly cities/states can choose to cooperate with federal authorities, but I think the question is whether they can be required to do so. Does ICE compensate local authorities for holding aliens under detainers? Is the anti-commandeering doctrine applicable? See, e.g., Printz v. US.

    1. I don’t think compensation should be a prerequisite to upholding the law. As I understand it most of these cities are already being compensated by the Fed for something or another. Trust me it’s not the street cop who doesn’t want to detain these illegals it always comes from the politicians Dems or Repubs via the chief. When I hear this bunk that the illegals help the the police close cases that’s why they don’t arrest them, I laugh, just not true.

      Where did Squeeky go, what’s the scuttlebut on her disappearance, by the way is she a she?

      1. Squeaky presented as a she, but these days it can be a minute by minute determination. LOL. But I do hope she comes back; I miss her witty comments.

      2. Yes, but under Printz v. US, localities cannot be required to provides services pursuant to federal law unless the federal government has made some arrangement to compensate them. Prior to the implementation of the national criminal background check for firearms purchases, federal law purported to require chief local law enforcement officials to conduct criminal background checks on firearms purchasers. Many local officials did so voluntarily. Two local sheriffs sued, however, arguing that their offices could not be commandeered by the federal government to provide services without compensation. They won at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered, among other things, that if this were allowed, there would be no end of costs that the federal government could shift to the states by fiat.

        If localities are uncompensated for holding detainees, how would this be different than the situation in Printz?

  16. These officials should be held accountable for declaring their towns and cities sanctuaries for illegals. Watch how fast this will stop when they are arrested and tried for aiding and abetting and by all means let the families sue the officials and towns/cities for everything they own.

  17. I don’t see the problem. We have sanctuaries for criminals, illegal immigrants, Islamic terrorists, and all the other assorted cast of characters that the Democratic-run cities hold so near and dear. They’re called prisons. They just need to be expanded and used more frequently and for longer periods of time.

Comments are closed.