back

by kristjansson·1y ago·view on hn ↗
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.

also:

> document them on their own terms?

We do? e.g. AB 60 driver's licenses

1 comments
> 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.

> talking about a phone call or a copy

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.

[0]: which there wasn't

> 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.

https://abc7.com/la-county-board-of-supervisors-los-angeles-...