Jophiel wrote:
I don't see a huge disparity there between her remarks.
To be fair, it's because she didn't actually answer the question that was asked.
Quote:
Yes, it can be helpful for local police if people don't clam up and refuse to speak to them because they fear deportation and don't want anything to do with cops. Knowing that the cops won't deport them makes that easier. Likewise, San Francisco was explicitly asked by the feds to hold this guy and they didn't. That's different from local cops casually playing federal immigration enforcement on the street.
Precisely. The issue of whether cops are actively investigating people for violations of immigration law is one thing. A city policy that actively prohibits cops from arresting or detaining someone who is known to be in violation is something completely different. For the most part, opposition to "sanctuary cities" is about the latter one, not the former. In the question above, Clinton chose to pretend the entire issue was about just the former, while ignoring the issue most people really care about. Great political answer, I suppose, but still crappy policy.
Quote:
Clinton is correct that local law enforcement's job is different than that of immigration enforcement (unlawful presence, by itself, is not even a criminal act) and San Francisco erred when they blocked federal authorities from doing their job. However, nationwide, it sounds as though cities have a myriad of reasons for not holding suspects for immigration: cost of imprisonment, lawsuits for unlawful imprisonment, etc.
Obviously, a balance has to be struck. My issue with it is that it seems like some of these cities care more about protecting an illegal immigrant from deportation than they do about protecting legal citizens from criminal activity. That's the point where you've passed into nuttyville. Of course, this is San Fransisco, so that status is already well established.