What if a witness to a murder is an accused thief? Should we let thefts go unpunished because it may implicate their testimony in more severe crimes? What we actually do is offer the person reduced sentencing in exchange for their cooperation but we don't ignore their crime.
In terms of illegal immigrants, if they haven't filed any paperwork, or haven't attempted to legally claim asylum, then they shouldn't be surprised they're left without legal protections, even if they happen to have witnessed a more severe crime.
And no one is asking the relevant authorities to ignore their duties to enforce immigration policy. They're just saying that state and local courts and police aren't the relevant authorities, and that they'd prefer to have the rest of the apparatus of government function with and for undocumented people.
> And no one is asking the relevant authorities to ignore their duties to enforce immigration policy.
I take a look at Los Angeles policy, which was recently ensconced into law, and it does specifically require authorities to ignore their duties. It even requires them to interfere in them.
They cannot, even if if they incidentally know a persons immigration status, contact immigration authorities with that information. If the immigration authorities find out anyways they are required to prevent those authorities from even _interviewing_ the subject let alone take them into custody. If requested to participate in any sort of joint operation they must decline just because it's the federal immigration authorities.
> and that they'd prefer to have the rest of the apparatus of government function
If that were the case then only the first restriction above would need to exist. Instead they literally provide an active shield against any enforcement of these federal laws and directly interfere with that function.
> for undocumented people.
If the city is so willing to shield this class of people from federal immigration enforcement then why aren't they also willing to then document them on their own terms? It seems inappropriate and careless to me and leaves these people in a slightly worse place than they were without the sanctuary status. It also makes it look like their primary concern is frustrating federal law and not truly caring for a desperate class of people.
No one is required to ignore their duties, because immigration enforcement is not the duty of anyone bound by a City of Los Angeles ordinance. No one is required to interfere with federal law enforcement pursuing actual criminals under a judicial warrant. No one is prevented from making whatever claims they might want to federal authorities in their personal capacity; they just can't investigate immigration status under the pretext of city business, or use city resources for unintended purposes.
which is all good! I want people to confidently report crimes committed against them. I want restaurants to be health-inspected without staff worrying about questions of status. I want people to get pulled over and cited for traffic violations without having to ask existential questions about their presence in the country or consider rash actions as a result.
City and State governments have precisely zero authority over who lives within their borders. The past several decades of federal vacillation have got us to this point. The federal government can spend its own time and money to sort it out. Until then LAPD, LASD, CHP, etc. are expensive enough; let them focus on enforcing the local and state laws they're responsible for as equitably as they can for _all_ the people living there.
> because immigration enforcement is not the duty of anyone bound by a City of Los Angeles ordinance.
Neither is upholding and defending the constitution yet we accept this as a basic oath of office. I can see technical arguments either way; however, ...
> Until then LAPD, LASD, CHP, etc. are expensive enough
We are, on the most basic level, really just talking about a phone call or a copy of a report being forwarded to DHS/INS. This does not seem resource intensive and it can be seen as obstructive to refuse to do this; particularly, if they had this reporting arrangement previously.
> We do? e.g. AB 60 driver's licenses
No one is _required_ to get one of those and there is no penalty for being without one. So the city has a large population of people who are not known. To take the argument to the extreme, this implicates disaster and evacuation planning, as well as resource management within the city. It tends to show their main function is obstruction and not service.
A more moderate policy might be, if you have an AB60 license, you receive sanctuary protection, but if you do not, then you may not, and may have your details forwarded to federal immigration. I would argue this is the most equitable for everyone, both immigrants, and citizens.
Not really - we're talking about holding someone (and therefore being responsible for their food, safety, possibly healthcare) until the relevant agency collects them.
Even for mere notification, there's nothing obstructive about refusing, even if there was a prior arrangement[0]. Any cooperation would have been voluntary, and the practice and policy of the administration has changed in a way that adversely affects essential city services if they were to continue to cooperate, so that voluntary arrangement would have been terminated.
> _required_
No citizen is required to make themselves known to their state government either. I'm free to go to NYC tomorrow, rent a room for cash, get a metro card, and tell NYS nothing at all, until I earn enough money to necessitate a tax return and have to give them an SSN or ITIN.
Disaster planning etc. is the responsibility of the demographers and statisticians, at least until the the census rolls around, and they're not particularly interested in identity
> expensive
While I threw that in, I do think the cost concerns are secondary to the overall alignment of incentives. Cities have to work for everyone that lives there; without control over the immigration status of their residents (nor any implication that cities _should_ have that control) cities are better off abstaining from questions of immigration status entirely.
> No citizen is required to make themselves known to their state government either.
The hospital is required to create a birth certificate for you. I knew a guy growing up who was born to extremely off the grid people and it was a constant problem for him until he decided to just get himself the birth certificate and all other paperwork to avoid the obvious problems with trying to live that way and participate in our society.
Most importantly, if you plan to vote, you're going to have to "make yourself known" and actually prove you have the right. We're creating a class that otherwise doesn't exist and to the extent they do they accept the limitations that come with it.
> at least until the the census rolls around
The federal census? And while living under sanctuary status you think they're going to participate?
> cities are better off abstaining from questions of immigration status entirely.
So services that are reserved for immigrants? How do we means test those? Isn't the act of applying for an AB60 license declaring your immigration status implicitly? I get that some people may not want cities to do this but I have trouble with the extent of this logic.
> [0]: which there wasn't
There absolutely was. It's called a section 287(g) delegation. Los Angeles ended this in 2015.
What if a witness to a murder is an accused thief? Should we let thefts go unpunished because it may implicate their testimony in more severe crimes? What we actually do is offer the person reduced sentencing in exchange for their cooperation but we don't ignore their crime.
In terms of illegal immigrants, if they haven't filed any paperwork, or haven't attempted to legally claim asylum, then they shouldn't be surprised they're left without legal protections, even if they happen to have witnessed a more severe crime.