DescentBB

So San Fran sees the result of its mothers apron strings policy of being a sanctuary city. My question is, it legal for a city to ignore federal law and not notify federal agents when they knowingly have a illegal in custody and turn him loose? If it is, does that mean a city can declare itself a deportation city and go out of its way to notify the feds when they encounter a illegal?

fair questions, actually. I just was listening to a discussion about the matter on the way home from the food stores(ah, the glamour). They were saying the issue for the locals is that the Federal directive(not the same as a law, per se) was not limited, and if the cities turned in every person with a minor issue it would alienate the relationship of city and citizenry. Most locales that declare 'sanctuary' status still turn over multiple felons or even one-time violent felons, so something went awry in San Fran. Once again, it points to what you get with a morass of immigration laws, rulings, directives and orders, at every level from Fed to local, and virtually all infrastructure and enforcement is underfunded.

This seems like a good set of questions for an immigration attorrney, way out of my scope of understanding.

A little background on federal immigration detainers. SF is not the only city refusing to honor immigration detainer rules either.

http://immigrationpolicy.org/perspectiv ... -detainers

I note that the family of the slain woman is pissed off that right-wing loons are using her death as a political football.

Plus, a pic worth reposting:

yes, it's kind of hard for a person to take a job when the guy who controls it gives it to someone else.

as someone put it the other day, we don't HAVE an illegal immigration problem, we have an illegal HIRING problem.

made much easier with the H1B visa debacle.