Regarding sanctuary cities, which of the two alternatives do you think is the most desirable and why?

I don’t see why this has to be a binary thing. That is, state and local law enforcement and civil bureaucracies don’t have to “enforce” Federal law on immigration, and they don’t even have to mount investigations as to immigration status. They probably don’t have the resources, in terms of manpower, funding or even legal / jurisdictional capability, to perform effectively in that arena.

But it would seem to me that there should be some kind of “if you see something, say something” requirement that applies. When they encounter a driver at the DMV, for example, applying for a driver’s license or ID card, who presents a foreign birth certificate and no other documentation, that there should be a call put in to ICE to determine whether this person has standing to request civil services on his own behalf.

There shouldn’t be a detention or other interruption of service – it would cost more to deny the application than it would to simply fulfill it – but it should be flagged for “investigation by others”. Then if the feds don’t or won’t do their jobs, the state agency can honestly say that at least they did their part, and they were in compliance regarding notification of suspicion.

In the case of “actual crimes”, the line is brighter. When a person is arrested in the commission of a crime, if his immigration status is “indefinite”, then he should not be bailed out of jail until that is either established (that he is a citizen or legal resident) or, if he’s here illegally, then he can be deported forthwith. Deported by the responsible Federal authorities, that is.

I agree with @cwotus – it’s not really an either-or situation.

However, the second choice (the feds) is the better choice. THis is because the US population is not about to support, financially or socially, a new “internal security” paramilitary force to roam every small town in America. Unless the US plans to turn into a Gestapo-governed fascist dictatorship, there is no chance of that sort of enforcement mechanism.

The police are everywhere and one should be concerned about that. The Fed Force either will never happen, or it will mean that the US has turned into a Nazi-style North Korea.

I just think that something like a local cop asking each and every traffic stop “Do you have your papers” is going overboard and yet another step closer to becoming the police state that we so despise when the Russians do it. The officer is there to issue a ticket or a warning for a perceived violation not to question the right of every individual to be in this country.
And if he has concerns he can, as was previously mentioned by @CWOTUS, flag it for someone else with that responsibility to investigate.

That being said, I agree with you @josie that I don’t want more heavily armed Federal (Well, I don’t even want local) police/agents on the streets. I don’t even like them watching me from the hills and sky when I am out hiking in Big Bend.

There seems to be some flaws in the question. What is considered a Sanctuary City, is where they have passed laws or created procedures that actively thwart federal law. Refusal to pass along information they have or notify ICE when some is arrested. Local police are not being asked to investigate anything.

The penalty being discussed is to with hold federal money. It seems pretty simple that if you want to be a Sanctuary City and don’t want to cooperate with the feds why should they pay you to do that? If you want federal money the a modicum of cooperation seems reasonable.

We have Federal Border Patrol agents driving on our road quite often. They are super nice. (Why wouldn’t they be? They have the one of the cushiest jobs in the country.)

True story. My elderly neighbor had a dog who had the habit of wandering away. (Of course, she rarely if ever used a leash but that is another story.). One day, the dog wandered off and my neighbor started walking the neighborhood trying to find it.
She spoke to several of us but could not find the dog. After a while she gave up searching and returned home – where she found the dog inside!
The neighborhood Border Patrol agent saw the dog, caught it, went to her house and let it in!!!
They drive Tahoes and are willing to help you if you are stuck in snow.
Yep. We like those guys!

Of course, I am not an “illegal alien.”

My local police don’t really have the resources or manpower to do ICE’s job for it.

Broke down in the desert once. After several hours caught a ride back with the Mexican Border Patrol. They were real nice and oh, so helpful. They were on the US side. They said they used our roads because there weren’t any on their side. Don’t know if they still do or can.

You also live along the northern border, @LuckyGuy. I suspect that even the ICE guys there realize that that really is the cushiest job in the country.

I’ve been dealing with immigration detainers in jails for the past couple of months. I think there is some confusion as to how it works.

Federal agents (ICE) are already notified whenever someone is arrested and identity information like fingerprints are passed along. They have an option of issuing an immigration detainer which holds the person arrested for 2–4 additional days after whatever they were arrested for is dealt with (I think the statute is 48 business hours). So you’re arrested for public intoxication on a Friday, would normally get out the next day, but an ICE detainer is issued and you will instead either be picked up by ICE or released on Tuesday or Wednesday some time.

The main complaint seems to be that local jails are just supposed to hold the people with no or little compensation and not much information back. Any interviews or additional information gathering is done within the jail and then sent to ICE for review and any legal challenges would be the responsibility of the community doing the jailing (state, city, county, etc), they can’t just say ICE requested it.

Several court cases called into question whether it was legal to hold people like this. ACLU Summary so that along with costs prompted some local areas to start selectively honoring the requests, mainly decided on the seriousness of the charge.

Here’s a decent primer on the situation in Texas from a little while ago. Texas counties see price tags on both sides of ‘sanctuary’ debate.

The Federal Government is already doing raids on their own, without local support or information, so that’s not really a change. “Sanctuary cities” at this point just means local governments don’t hold people without a conviction any longer than they usually would.

Isn’t that how jail is supposed to work? You’re arrested only as long as necessary, then allowed release until you have a day in court?

If ICE wants them, they just show up at the courthouse and take them then it seems.

So for the question, right now both of the presented “bad” options are happening. Federal enforcement at a local level AND requirements for local authorities to do the leg work without compensation.