Tulsa as a "Sanctuary City"

[patric]

Could it happen?  Should it?

How far off are we, in practice?
A not-so-crazy piece from Faux News notes one of the few times the Mayor and Police are on the same page in NYC.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/24/nypd-official-tells-trump-that-nobody-will-get-deported-for-jumping-turnstile.html


Trump's order strips some federal grant money from "sanctuary cities." In his hometown, it could yank over $150 million in law enforcement funding that's mainly for counterterrorism efforts, protecting the United Nations and international missions, and, arguably, safeguarding Trump Tower.

They also argued the order would harm policing in general, by making immigrants reluctant to talk to the New York Police Department as witnesses or even victims of crime.


There's no formal definition of a "sanctuary city." The term generally refers to cities that don't fully cooperate with immigration authorities, sometimes by declining requests from immigration officials to hold onto potential deportees who would otherwise be released from jail.

New York, for example, doesn't honor such detainment requests unless there's a federal warrant and the person requested may be on the terrorist watch list or committed a serious crime in the past five years.

Unless it's recently changed, I understand Immigration Holds to be a part of the revenue stream at the Moss Jail that has evolved into a dependency.

[patric]

Several Tulsa faith communities will come together Sunday to explore the possibility of joining the New Sanctuary Movement, a national initiative to provide help and shelter to undocumented immigrants facing possible deportation.

The Rev. Barbara Prose, associate pastor at All Souls Unitarian Church and the spearhead of the local effort, said the group is looking into the Sanctuary Movement now "because our current administration is talking about getting very aggressive with deportation, instead of talking about fixing the system, and talking about the great contribution that immigrants are making to our country, ... they're talking about separating families and kicking people out."

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/religion/undocumented-immigrants-may-benefit-as-tulsa-churches-train-to-join/article_fa502ffb-3d66-5a93-860c-9683425c360d.html

[Vashta Nerada]

ICE are not Police.  They are closer to mall cops than legitimate law enforcement.

[saintnicster]

ICE are not Police.  They are closer to mall cops than legitimate law enforcement.

That's just a pile of Smoot

[patric]

The whole point of so-called sanctuary city policies, which seems lost on the president and his team, is that it's counterproductive for law enforcement if immigrant communities think local police will question them about their immigration status when they are the victim of — or witness to — a crime.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/brown-shooting-shows-trump-immigration-push-makes-us-less-safe/

[Ed W]

It also brings up a question about paying for the manpower to enforce federal law. TPD is understaffed now and adding federal requirements exacerbates the problem.

[Breadburner]

They detain 10 to 20 a day....

[heironymouspasparagus]

They detain 10 to 20 a day....

And release the next day...

Catch and release - kinda like Bassmasters...

[erfalf]

It also brings up a question about paying for the manpower to enforce federal law. TPD is understaffed now and adding federal requirements exacerbates the problem.

Murder and rape are federal offenses that are a hassle to deal with to. We shouldn't be burdening our local law enforcement with deterring those either.

[rebound]

Murder and rape are federal offenses that are a hassle to deal with to. We shouldn't be burdening our local law enforcement with deterring those either.

Murder and rape are both laws on the books in OK.  The state has decided those are worth doing.  So the point is moot and the argument is illogical.   

But I will ask one of the lawyer-folk out there an honest question.  What federal laws does a state have to enforce?  I'm thinking CO and pot laws, etc.   What laws can a state say "yeah, well, within our borders we aren't doing that one."  What recourse would the feds have, beyond monetary withholding, to make a state enforce  any specific law?

[erfalf]

Murder and rape are both laws on the books in OK.  The state has decided those are worth doing.  So the point is moot and the argument is illogical.    

But I will ask one of the lawyer-folk out there an honest question.  What federal laws does a state have to enforce?  I'm thinking CO and pot laws, etc.   What laws can a state say "yeah, well, within our borders we aren't doing that one."  What recourse would the feds have, beyond monetary withholding, to make a state enforce  any specific law?

So is immigration. Sanctuary cities are against Oklahoma laws as well. More specifically HB1804 actually directs our local police forces to actually check anyone they suspect.

So not quite so illogical.

[patric]

So is immigration. Sanctuary cities are against Oklahoma laws as well. More specifically HB1804 actually directs our local police forces to actually check anyone they suspect.

So not quite so illogical.

Bait and switch.  You proposed an absurd argument and then tried to prop up your position with a completely different argument.

They detain 10 to 20 a day....

What agency?

[rebound]

Bait and switch.  You proposed an absurd argument and then tried to prop up your position with a completely different argument.

Thanks Patric.  I was the absurdity part that bothered me also.   

However, if there is a state law that requires cooperation with the Feds on this, then our cities have to follow those laws.  (I don't know the specifics, and  am not going to take the time to find out...)   But the more broad question, to me, is whether a state can do this, and if so, what are the limitations?   If OK (or TX, or CA, or whoever) simply says "I'm not enforcing (insert favorite federal law here)" Can they do that?  Of course, the Federal Govt has a lot of carrots and sticks, with federal funds being the most obvious one, but could a state simply say "nope, not doing it"?

[erfalf]

Bait and switch.  You proposed an absurd argument and then tried to prop up your position with a completely different argument.

When protecting the vary existence of a country becomes absurd, I guess I've lost the argument. So you are all right with the police protecting people from messing with other people, but not from foreigners f'ing us all. There is a reason that every country in history has defended it's borders. The notion has not become antiquated as so many here seem to believe.

I know that's being a little mellow dramatic, but seriously people. It's no bait and switch, except in you all's warped sense of state.

[erfalf]

Thanks Patric.  I was the absurdity part that bothered me also.  

However, if there is a state law that requires cooperation with the Feds on this, then our cities have to follow those laws.  (I don't know the specifics, and  am not going to take the time to find out...)   But the more broad question, to me, is whether a state can do this, and if so, what are the limitations?   If OK (or TX, or CA, or whoever) simply says "I'm not enforcing (insert favorite federal law here)" Can they do that?  Of course, the Federal Govt has a lot of carrots and sticks, with federal funds being the most obvious one, but could a state simply say "nope, not doing it"?

Generally those that opposed legislation similar to those passed in Oklahoma (and other righty states) argue that the federal government essentially must not mean to pass those laws since they don't enforce them strongly. Stands to reason too that when laws like ours come along the federal government itself is acting against these laws, when in most cases, they are basically reiterating federal law or slight variations of it. I don't know how it can get more contradictory than that.

My stance on pretty much anything has been if you don't like the rules, change the rules, don't just thumb your nose at them. If we become a society of lawlessness, that's not good for anyone.