California Sheriffs Oppose Bill on Illegal Immigrants

[frigidmagi]

NYTimes

Some California sheriffs are pushing back against a proposed state law that would bar law enforcement officers from detaining illegal immigrants for deportation if they have not been charged with serious or violent crimes.

The bill, which the Legislature sent on Friday to Gov. Jerry Brown, would create what opponents have called a “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants statewide. It sets up a new fight over immigration enforcement that comes as Republicans vow at their national convention in Florida to impose sanctions on states, cities and counties that adopt similar measures.

Known as the Trust Act, the bill would require police officers to ignore requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain immigrants for deportation, except when suspects are charged with serious or violent crimes. Mr. Brown has not indicated where he stands on the proposed law; he must sign or veto it by Sept. 30.

But some local authorities, including Sheriff Lee Baca of Los Angeles County, say that they will continue to enforce federal policy regardless of what Mr. Brown does. “It’s pretty simple: Federal law pre-empts state law,” said Steve Whitmore, a spokesman for Sheriff Baca.

Law enforcement officials in San Diego and Riverside Counties have also expressed dismay with the Trust Act. Sheriff Robert T. Doyle of Marin County said his “gut reaction would be to ignore it,” adding, “If someone comes to the county jail and he is not here lawfully, I think he should be turned over” to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“We are forcefully pushing for a veto,” said Nick Warner, legislative director for the California State Sheriffs’ Association. “The sheriffs of this state are actively, unalterably and vehemently opposed.”

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a Democrat from San Francisco who sponsored the Trust Act, said “some of the more reasonable sheriffs” are in favor of the law. “There is always going to be that alpha-male posturing,” he said of Sheriff Baca and other opponents. “The governor has been quiet, but we’ve been working with his staff to address concerns, and we know that he knows doing the right thing here has political cachet,” Mr. Ammiano added.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Brown had no comment.

The Trust Act has been endorsed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, the police chiefs of cities like Oakland and San Francisco, immigrant-rights groups and California’s Roman Catholic bishops, among others.

The clash over the Trust Act involves a federal program called Secure Communities, under which local authorities share fingerprints with federal immigration officials of everyone booked. Federal agents run that information through immigration databases and, if a suspect appears to be in the country illegally, they can ask police to detain the person for deportation.

The Obama administration has expanded the Secure Communities program rapidly across the country, saying that it helps federal agents identify illegal immigrants arrested by local authorities who have criminal histories. Under a policy started in June 2011, administration officials have sought to focus their enforcement efforts on deporting criminal convicts, while steering away from illegal immigrants arrested in minor offenses like traffic violations.

But many immigrants’ rights and Latino groups say Secure Communities, which aided in the deportation of nearly 400,000 people last year, has not operated as the administration said it would, instead sweeping up and deporting many illegal immigrants arrested for minor violations, separating families.

Dozens of cities and counties — prominently Cook County in Illinois — have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances that limit police cooperation. Politicians like Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago, who is pushing the adoption of such an ordinance in his city, argue that Secure Communities erodes trust between police and immigrant communities; when every arrest is a potential deportation, immigrants might be afraid to report crimes or cooperate with investigators.

“We are also trying to bring some sanity and clarity to a program that I frankly think has gone rogue,” Mr. Ammiano said. “We want police to distinguish between the woman selling tamales and the gang member who has a record.”

Mr. Ammiano was referring to Juana Reyes-Hernández, a Sacramento tamale peddler who became a focal point in the Trust Act debate here after she was arrested for trespassing in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Ms. Reyes-Hernández spent 13 days in jail while authorities considered a deportation case. A judge eventually dismissed the misdemeanor charge, and she remains in the United States.

The implementation of Secure Communities — which, opponents to the Trust Act note, Mr. Brown supported as state attorney general — has become a hotter political issue as the presidential election approaches. Republicans meeting in Florida adopted a party platform that states, “In order to restore the rule of law, federal funding should be denied to sanctuary cities that violate federal law and endanger their own citizens.”

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are pressing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to force Cook County to comply with Secure Communities, including by freezing some federal funding for jails — something that California sheriffs worry awaits them if the Trust Act is enacted and they follow it.

Huh, you know I can see both sides here.

[Steve]

I would ask "What part of illegal do you not get?", but I'm aware that these people consider it justified due to the... nature of American immigration law. And it's something of an accepted rule that unjust laws should be broken.

....I'm just not convinced that immigration laws are so terrible that they should be broken so flagrantly and happily.

[General Havoc]

"Sanctuary city" is what led to that terrible incident out here a couple years ago when the police refused to arrest a multiple violent felon because he was an illegal immigrant, until he shot up a car full of civilians in broad daylight. It's posturing shit of the worst sort and I hope the cities that do institute it get federalized.

Immigration law may be a ball of insanity, but the way to fix it is not to simply countenance flagrant violations of the law over and over until people die.

[LadyTevar]

I'm with Frigid, tho. While every population has bad apples, the majority of illegals are simply trying to get jobs and raise their families in peace. Yes, they're illegal, but do they need locked in jail for it?

[Steve]

So it's okay to break the law if you're just trying to feed your family? Should we legalize shoplifting of food under the same logic? Maybe it's legal to steal from someone else if you have a good reason?

[frigidmagi]

Look here's the deal, most of them would never get in legally... Because it would cost them thousands of dollars they don't have and decades of time. So I can understand why they say "You know what? Fuck it." and just jump a fence. You know most of them don't hurt anybody, they work, they pay. Just trying to get by.

On the flip side... Look this is our country right? Don't we have a right to decide who we want to let in? Don't we got a right to decide as a group who gets to move into the living room of the United States? Should this really be decided by who can out run the border patrol best? Are we not a nation of laws? Decided by the people?

Add in this, you know who benefits the most from having easily terrorized, low paid workers with next to no legal rights? It sure as fucking hell ain't any of the posters on this board.

Our system is a complete clusterfuck. It needs to be redone. It does not benefit the nation, it does not benefit the citizens, it does not benefit perfectly decent people trying to become legal residents in good faith. It does benefit crooked businesses quiet a damn bit in keeping wages down and profits up.

So what we got two perfectly reasonable positions "Look, I can't get through your fucked up system and I'm just looking to get my family a leg up." verus "Hey, this is my country, I have a right to decide who gets to move in with me. I know alot of you want in but bluntly there's only so much space." Neither of these positions can be solved under the current system.

[Steve]

A very good summary of the issues at hand.

[LadyTevar]

As Nitram has posted before, it costs $3000 just to file to become a Citizen. Then comes a few years of getting your background checks, buying, studying, taking and passing the Naturalization tests, and finally driving to the nearest Federal Courthouse to get sworn in.

Hell, Nit and I can't afford to do it.

[General Havoc]

There is however a gulf between citizenship and being here illegally.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

It does benefit crooked businesses quiet a damn bit in keeping wages down and profits up.

That right there is the problem. That makes me support even more the idea of naturalizing the immigrants into full taxpaying citizens who cannot be bullied into accepting economically destructive slave wages. If your business cannot succeed without illegal crutches like OSHA and labor rights violations, bribery, and corruption, then the people have a moral duty to force you out of business and auction your boats off for back wages, tout de suite!

[SirNitram]

There is however a gulf between citizenship and being here illegally.

Yes. One has a strict quota which is ridiculously dwarfed by those wishing to come in.

[General Havoc]

The United States takes in a million legal immigrants a year, more than the rest of the world combined. Nor are we under some form of obligation to take in literally everyone who wishes to come. Were we to do that, half the nations of Africa, Asia and the Mid East would be emptied.

I'm not averse to amnesty, but that does not mean that every person who wishes to should automatically become a full fledged citizen, particularly the ones with extensive criminal records, such as the ones who wound up taking advantage of my city's sanctuary policy.

[SirNitram]

The United States takes in a million legal immigrants a year, more than the rest of the world combined. Nor are we under some form of obligation to take in literally everyone who wishes to come. Were we to do that, half the nations of Africa, Asia and the Mid East would be emptied.

I'm not averse to amnesty, but that does not mean that every person who wishes to should automatically become a full fledged citizen, particularly the ones with extensive criminal records, such as the ones who wound up taking advantage of my city's sanctuary policy.

I don't argue you should take in everyone. However, the current system is untenable. Amnesty should be a possibility for those who aren't breaking other laws, and the deferred action for students and such that Obama set in motion are good.

Part of the troubles with the situation as it stands is you will get sanctuary cities, because the actual enforcement, policies, and politics have gone stark raving insane. And, to be honest of my own feelings, I'd rather have sanctuary cities with the risk of those with criminal records, than slavery, which Florida is only just ending.

[General Havoc]

The United States takes in a million legal immigrants a year, more than the rest of the world combined. Nor are we under some form of obligation to take in literally everyone who wishes to come. Were we to do that, half the nations of Africa, Asia and the Mid East would be emptied.

I'm not averse to amnesty, but that does not mean that every person who wishes to should automatically become a full fledged citizen, particularly the ones with extensive criminal records, such as the ones who wound up taking advantage of my city's sanctuary policy.

I don't argue you should take in everyone. However, the current system is untenable. Amnesty should be a possibility for those who aren't breaking other laws, and the deferred action for students and such that Obama set in motion are good.

Part of the troubles with the situation as it stands is you will get sanctuary cities, because the actual enforcement, policies, and politics have gone stark raving insane. And, to be honest of my own feelings, I'd rather have sanctuary cities with the risk of those with criminal records, than slavery, which Florida is only just ending.

I agree that the current system is untenable, and I suppose you're correct that it leads not only to horrible abuse (which it dos) .but also extreme reactions such as the sanctuary policy. I also support amnesty to those without other records, but I wish the issue was framed around here in other ways than unconditional, unrestricted amnesty for violent felons, or latifundia-style slavery forever. Perhaps that's a facet of local politics over here.

[SirNitram]

The United States takes in a million legal immigrants a year, more than the rest of the world combined. Nor are we under some form of obligation to take in literally everyone who wishes to come. Were we to do that, half the nations of Africa, Asia and the Mid East would be emptied.

I'm not averse to amnesty, but that does not mean that every person who wishes to should automatically become a full fledged citizen, particularly the ones with extensive criminal records, such as the ones who wound up taking advantage of my city's sanctuary policy.

I don't argue you should take in everyone. However, the current system is untenable. Amnesty should be a possibility for those who aren't breaking other laws, and the deferred action for students and such that Obama set in motion are good.

Part of the troubles with the situation as it stands is you will get sanctuary cities, because the actual enforcement, policies, and politics have gone stark raving insane. And, to be honest of my own feelings, I'd rather have sanctuary cities with the risk of those with criminal records, than slavery, which Florida is only just ending.

I agree that the current system is untenable, and I suppose you're correct that it leads not only to horrible abuse (which it dos) .but also extreme reactions such as the sanctuary policy. I also support amnesty to those without other records, but I wish the issue was framed around here in other ways than unconditional, unrestricted amnesty for violent felons, or latifundia-style slavery forever. Perhaps that's a facet of local politics over here.

National politics are framing it the same way. 'Amnesty' is treated like it's allowing a full-scale violent invasion and occupation, and the opposition categorizes the opposition using examples of the worst abuses.