Illegal Alien/criminal sues San Francisco for not giving him sanctuary

[madoka]

And the liberal madness continues:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/1...y-violating-its-sanctuary-city-ordinance.html

A 32-year-old is suing San Francisco, alleging that the city violated its sanctuary city ordinance by reporting him to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after reporting his car stolen in 2015.

Pedro Figueroa Zarceno, who is from El Salvador and lives in the Mission District, was in federal immigration custody for two months. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that it is prohibited in the city to use local resources to help federal law enforcement.

“With an incoming federal administration threatening mass deportations and targeting sanctuary cities, we must hold SFPD and the Sheriff’s Department accountable and ensure that every single officer is following the city’s due process protections,” Saira Hussain, an attorney representing Figueroa, told the paper.

The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court, seeks an unspecified amount and calls on police to admit that he was a “victim of false imprisonment.”

A spokesman from the city reportedly said that San Francisco has “strong policies in place to encourage victims and witnesses to report crimes without fear of being deported.” The report pointed out that in February, then-Police Chief Greg Suhr acknowledged that the man should not have ended up in custody.

The report said that Figueroa reported the car stolen in November 2015.

Authorities eventually found the car, and when he filled out the paper work to pick up the car, he was arrested.

Homeland Security told the paper that police ran the background check and learned that he had a 10-year-old, outstanding warrant for deportation after failing to appear at an immigration hearing in Texas in 2005, and a 2012 conviction for drunken driving, authorities told the paper.

 

[OutHouse]

10-year-old, outstanding warrant for deportation after failing to appear at an immigration hearing in Texas in 2005, and a 2012 conviction for drunken driving, authorities told the paper.

so sanctuary means a bubble from active warrants now. humm this is a crazy world.

 

[OrByte]

dude had warrants out, he has no immunity from the law because he is here illegally.

 

[Indus]

Its not liberal, its not madness, its America.

Anyone in America can sue anyone.

You can sue Trump for spitting on your sidewalk or calling you a Orange goon.

Not sure I agree with it but that's the law.

 

[interchange]

I have neither the requisite familiarity with the law nor the legal expertise to comment on the lawsuit itself, but, generally, if it is the City of San Francisco's intent to provide sanctuary from deportation regardless of immigration status, then they failed in this duty.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I have neither the requisite familiarity with the law nor the legal expertise to comment on the lawsuit itself, but, generally, if it is the City of San Francisco's intent to provide sanctuary from deportation regardless of immigration status, then they failed in this duty.

Perhaps. Perhaps there are different rules for convicted criminals as the guy had DUI conviction.

 

[interchange]

Perhaps. Perhaps there are different rules for convicted criminals as the guy had DUI conviction.

Maybe, although it sounds otherwise given this quote from the article: "The report pointed out that in February, then-Police Chief Greg Suhr acknowledged that the man should not have ended up in custody."

The article reads as if he had a past conviction and that his only active warrant was for being an illegal alien.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Build a wall!

 

[Meghan54]

I have neither the requisite familiarity with the law nor the legal expertise to comment on the lawsuit itself, but, generally, if it is the City of San Francisco's intent to provide sanctuary from deportation regardless of immigration status, then they failed in this duty.

That's not what a "sanctuary city's" intent is.

 

[MongGrel]

Build a wall!

Lock her up !

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe, although it sounds otherwise given this quote from the article: "The report pointed out that in February, then-Police Chief Greg Suhr acknowledged that the man should not have ended up in custody."

The article reads as if he had a past conviction and that his only active warrant was for being an illegal alien.

That warrant was issued from TX and is legally binding. The concept of sanctuary means that local agencies will not help the feds, not ignore all law entirely.

 

[PokerGuy]

The fact that we have major cities actively pushing policies to encourage people to violate federal law and enter the country illegally shows just how far down this rabbit hole of insanity we've come. I hope Trump starts punishing those cities by removing all federal funding whenever possible.

 

[michal1980]

That warrant was issued from TX and is legally binding. The concept of sanctuary means that local agencies will not help the feds, not ignore all law entirely.

Just ignore laws liberals dont like.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Just ignore laws liberals dont like.

I'm not justifying, I'm explaining.

 

[werepossum]

Build a wall!

And a large catapult to return him to his country.

 

[werepossum]

The fact that we have major cities actively pushing policies to encourage people to violate federal law and enter the country illegally shows just how far down this rabbit hole of insanity we've come. I hope Trump starts punishing those cities by removing all federal funding whenever possible.

Agreed.

 

[fskimospy]

That warrant was issued from TX and is legally binding. The concept of sanctuary means that local agencies will not help the feds, not ignore all law entirely.

How is Texas issuing immigration warrants?

 

[fskimospy]

The fact that we have major cities actively pushing policies to encourage people to violate federal law and enter the country illegally shows just how far down this rabbit hole of insanity we've come. I hope Trump starts punishing those cities by removing all federal funding whenever possible.

Choosing not to help enforce federal law does not equal encouraging people to violate it. States are not required to help enforce federal law and I sincerely doubt you would want it any other way. For example do you think states with legal marijuana should have to have their police enforce federal marijuana laws? Federal gun laws? It's funny that to conservatives federalism is the greatest thing ever when it allows states to pursue more conservative policies and is 'insanity' when it allows states to pursue more liberal policies. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Also, those sanctuary cities comprise the largest and most productive economic areas of the entire country. Might want to think twice before you kill the golden goose that provides the economic engine for the rest of the country and enables the lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

 

[PokerGuy]

Choosing not to help enforce federal law does not equal encouraging people to violate it.

They actively encourage people to violate the law, not just "not help enforce federal law". For example, Emmanuel said “To all those who are, after Tuesday’s election, very nervous and filled with anxiety … you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago.” That is saying "law breakers, you have a safe space to continue breaking the law, come on in!". He's not the only one. They are actively encouraging illegals, not just choosing not to help enforce federal law.

States are not required to help enforce federal law and I sincerely doubt you would want it any other way. For example do you think states with legal marijuana should have to have their police enforce federal marijuana laws? Federal gun laws? It's funny that to conservatives federalism is the greatest thing ever when it allows states to pursue more conservative policies and is 'insanity' when it allows states to pursue more liberal policies. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Apples & oranges. I'm all in favor of states and local regulation instead of federal when possible, but when it comes to immigration, ONLY the federal government can set policy and laws. There are no overlapping federal/state issues like with marijuana (legal in the state but illegal federal etc). Local and state law enforcement is not obligated to assist, but neither is the federal government obligated to provide those cities with other funds related to law enforcement etc. That's what I imagine Trump is going to do, just start taking away those bennies for cities that insist on harboring illegals and making them feel comfy.

Also, those sanctuary cities comprise the largest and most productive economic areas of the entire country. Might want to think twice before you kill the golden goose that provides the economic engine for the rest of the country and enables the lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

Won't kill any golden goose, nor are illegals needed for the economic productivity for those cities to continue. You just give them an incentive to not screw our nation, by not giving them additional federal funding.

 

[fskimospy]

They actively encourage people to violate the law, not just "not help enforce federal law". For example, Emmanuel said “To all those who are, after Tuesday’s election, very nervous and filled with anxiety … you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago.” That is saying "law breakers, you have a safe space to continue breaking the law, come on in!". He's not the only one. They are actively encouraging illegals, not just choosing not to help enforce federal law.

They aren't encouraging anyone to violate the law any more than not enforcing federal drug laws is encouraging people to violate the law. You can't condemn one and not the other.

Apples & oranges. I'm all in favor of states and local regulation instead of federal when possible, but when it comes to immigration, ONLY the federal government can set policy and laws. There are no overlapping federal/state issues like with marijuana (legal in the state but illegal federal etc). Local and state law enforcement is not obligated to assist, but neither is the federal government obligated to provide those cities with other funds related to law enforcement etc. That's what I imagine Trump is going to do, just start taking away those bennies for cities that insist on harboring illegals and making them feel comfy.

Of course there is an overlapping state and federal issue. You are wanting state and local governments to devote resources to enforcing federal law when they think those funds are better spent elsewhere. There are plenty of federal laws that don't have an analogous state law.

Won't kill any golden goose, nor are illegals needed for the economic productivity for those cities to continue. You just give them an incentive to not screw our nation, by not giving them additional federal funding.

Spoken like someone who doesn't live in any of those cities. One of the big draws of them is the mixture of people from all backgrounds. These cities not only provide the tax revenue to deal with these immigrants, they provide loads of money to help you out too.

As I mentioned, for conservatives support for federalism and local control only extends as far as it serves conservative policies. As soon as it doesn't you throw it away. The total hypocrisy and lack of principles is sad.

 

[michal1980]

They aren't encouraging anyone to violate the law any more than not enforcing federal drug laws is encouraging people to violate the law. You can't condemn one and not the other.



Of course there is an overlapping state and federal issue. You are wanting state and local governments to devote resources to enforcing federal law when they think those funds are better spent elsewhere. There are plenty of federal laws that don't have an analogous state law.



Spoken like someone who doesn't live in any of those cities. One of the big draws of them is the mixture of people from all backgrounds. These cities not only provide the tax revenue to deal with these immigrants, they provide loads of money to help you out too.

As I mentioned, for conservatives support for federalism and local control only extends as far as it serves conservative policies. As soon as it doesn't you throw it away. The total hypocrisy and lack of principles is sad.

what principles do liberals have?

Of course they are encouraging people to break the law.

These cities are saying they wont enforce the laws. IE they are saying that the federal laws dont mean anything. They are telling illegals to come to their cities because the city does not recognize the federal law.

 

[fskimospy]

what principles do liberals have?

Of course they are encouraging people to break the law.

These cities are saying they wont enforce the laws. IE they are saying that the federal laws dont mean anything. They are telling illegals to come to their cities because the city does not recognize the federal law.

That's a lie. They are saying they won't devote resources to the enforcement of federal law, which is one of the key components of federalism.

Thanks for so clearly showing your own hypocrisy. I hope you never try to argue for state's rights again as you clearly don't believe in them.

 

[chucky2]

I wonder if enforcement of Fed law would be important if a state decides to not recognize gay "marriage"? I mean, the states would just be saying they aren't going to devote resources to recognizing or enforcing that Fed law...seems legit! Oh Nickie...lol...

 

[fskimospy]

I wonder if enforcement of Fed law would be important if a state decides to not recognize gay "marriage"? I mean, the states would just be saying they aren't going to devote resources to recognizing or enforcing that Fed law...seems legit! Oh Nickie...lol...

States are required to enforce the Constitution, they are not required to enforce federal statutes. States cannot VIOLATE federal statutes in the same way they can't violate the Constitution, but violating and not enforcing are two totally different things.

It never stops being funny how many things you don't know that kids literally learn in high school. Here, Chuckie, can I suggest some reading for you? lol.

 

[PokerGuy]

They aren't encouraging anyone to violate the law any more than not enforcing federal drug laws is encouraging people to violate the law. You can't condemn one and not the other.

As I already pointed out, that's simply not true. They are not just not enforcing the law, they are advertising that they won't help enforce the law and that anyone in violation of that law is welcome and will be supported (harbored) in those cities.

Of course there is an overlapping state and federal issue. You are wanting state and local governments to devote resources to enforcing federal law when they think those funds are better spent elsewhere. There are plenty of federal laws that don't have an analogous state law.

Are you as OK with local and state jurisdictions ignoring other federal laws and advertising that? If some state decided that spending resources elsewhere instead of on equal opportunity, discrimination in employment, equal housing etc was good, would you be in favor of that, or would you want to make sure federal resources are used to make sure those federal laws are applied?

Spoken like someone who doesn't live in any of those cities. One of the big draws of them is the mixture of people from all backgrounds.

So in order to have a good mix you need to have illegals? Only illegals can provide a good mix, not legal residents from different backgrounds?

These cities not only provide the tax revenue to deal with these immigrants, they provide loads of money to help you out too.

... which has nothing to do with it. Those cities don't need those illegals to provide that money. The economic output of those cities is a contributing factor to the economy to be sure, but they don't need to harbor and encourage illegals to do so.

As I mentioned, for conservatives support for federalism and local control only extends as far as it serves conservative policies. As soon as it doesn't you throw it away. The total hypocrisy and lack of principles is sad.

Again, look in the mirror. You want federal control and laws enforced for things you agree with, but other things you don't agree with should just be under local control (ie, not enforced). Like you said, the total hypocrisy and lack of principles is sad.