The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Could it happen?  Should it?

How far off are we, in practice?
A not-so-crazy piece from Faux News notes one of the few times the Mayor and Police are on the same page in NYC.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/24/nypd-official-tells-trump-that-nobody-will-get-deported-for-jumping-turnstile.html


Trump's order strips some federal grant money from "sanctuary cities." In his hometown, it could yank over $150 million in law enforcement funding that's mainly for counterterrorism efforts, protecting the United Nations and international missions, and, arguably, safeguarding Trump Tower.

They also argued the order would harm policing in general, by making immigrants reluctant to talk to the New York Police Department as witnesses or even victims of crime.


There's no formal definition of a "sanctuary city." The term generally refers to cities that don't fully cooperate with immigration authorities, sometimes by declining requests from immigration officials to hold onto potential deportees who would otherwise be released from jail.

New York, for example, doesn't honor such detainment requests unless there's a federal warrant and the person requested may be on the terrorist watch list or committed a serious crime in the past five years.

Unless it's recently changed, I understand Immigration Holds to be a part of the revenue stream at the Moss Jail that has evolved into a dependency.

Several Tulsa faith communities will come together Sunday to explore the possibility of joining the New Sanctuary Movement, a national initiative to provide help and shelter to undocumented immigrants facing possible deportation.

The Rev. Barbara Prose, associate pastor at All Souls Unitarian Church and the spearhead of the local effort, said the group is looking into the Sanctuary Movement now “because our current administration is talking about getting very aggressive with deportation, instead of talking about fixing the system, and talking about the great contribution that immigrants are making to our country, … they’re talking about separating families and kicking people out.”

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/religion/undocumented-immigrants-may-benefit-as-tulsa-churches-train-to-join/article_fa502ffb-3d66-5a93-860c-9683425c360d.html

ICE are not Police.  They are closer to mall cops than legitimate (http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/174457) law enforcement.

That's just a pile of Smoot

The whole point of so-called sanctuary city policies, which seems lost on the president and his team, is that it’s counterproductive for law enforcement if immigrant communities think local police will question them about their immigration status when they are the victim of — or witness to — a crime.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/brown-shooting-shows-trump-immigration-push-makes-us-less-safe/

It also brings up a question about paying for the manpower to enforce federal law. TPD is understaffed now and adding federal requirements exacerbates the problem.

They detain 10 to 20 a day....

And release the next day...

Catch and release - kinda like Bassmasters...

Murder and rape are federal offenses that are a hassle to deal with to. We shouldn't be burdening our local law enforcement with deterring those either.

Murder and rape are both laws on the books in OK.  The state has decided those are worth doing.  So the point is moot and the argument is illogical.   

But I will ask one of the lawyer-folk out there an honest question.  What federal laws does a state have to enforce?  I'm thinking CO and pot laws, etc.   What laws can a state say "yeah, well, within our borders we aren't doing that one."  What recourse would the feds have, beyond monetary withholding, to make a state enforce  any specific law?

So is immigration. Sanctuary cities are against Oklahoma laws as well. More specifically HB1804 actually directs our local police forces to actually check anyone they suspect.

So not quite so illogical.

Bait and switch.  You proposed an absurd argument and then tried to prop up your position with a completely different argument.


What agency?

Thanks Patric.  I was the absurdity part that bothered me also.   

However, if there is a state law that requires cooperation with the Feds on this, then our cities have to follow those laws.  (I don't know the specifics, and  am not going to take the time to find out...)   But the more broad question, to me, is whether a state can do this, and if so, what are the limitations?   If OK (or TX, or CA, or whoever) simply says "I'm not enforcing (insert favorite federal law here)" Can they do that?  Of course, the Federal Govt has a lot of carrots and sticks, with federal funds being the most obvious one, but could a state simply say "nope, not doing it"?

 

When protecting the vary existence of a country becomes absurd, I guess I've lost the argument. So you are all right with the police protecting people from messing with other people, but not from foreigners f'ing us all. There is a reason that every country in history has defended it's borders. The notion has not become antiquated as so many here seem to believe.

I know that's being a little mellow dramatic, but seriously people. It's no bait and switch, except in you all's warped sense of state.

Generally those that opposed legislation similar to those passed in Oklahoma (and other righty states) argue that the federal government essentially must not mean to pass those laws since they don't enforce them strongly. Stands to reason too that when laws like ours come along the federal government itself is acting against these laws, when in most cases, they are basically reiterating federal law or slight variations of it. I don't know how it can get more contradictory than that.

My stance on pretty much anything has been if you don't like the rules, change the rules, don't just thumb your nose at them. If we become a society of lawlessness, that's not good for anyone.

Double post. Sorry. And started a new page. Doubly sorry.

I guess I should always qualify where I'm at on something, as a reference for any argument I might make.  In this case, I am not in favor of sanctuary cities.  I am for solid boarders (but "the wall" is stupid..) and I don't want to see over-zealous deportations, etc, but I do think that state officials have to cooperate with the Feds on immigration.

My broader point/argument though is more along the lines of your position above of "if you don't like the rules, change the rules".   The question is, who should change the rules? And given the separation of powers from state and Fed, how much does the state actually have to help the Feds if they don't want to?  For example,  can CO legalize pot within it's borders, even though it is on the Federal banned narcotics list?  I would argue yes, based on it being a purely internal CO law and not subject to the commerce clause, but I'm not a lawyer.  In the same vein, does CA actually have to help the feds on immigration?  (Forgetting whether they should, do they have to?)

US immigration policy and law is one big hairy mess, and that is the underlying problem.   But, like healthcare, it has become a topic that neither side can (or is willing too) sit down and come to a rational and pragmatic solution.  Until then, I think these arguments about sanctuary cities and similar help keep the fires burning hot enough to maybe someday force a reasonable conclusion.

The biggest problem is that no one can figure out how to monetize the rational pragmatic solution.  And if the so-called "problem" is solved, who is gonna pick the fruits and veggies and do the hard manual labor at below half price rates that they can pay now??


Adopt my plan and the large majority of illegals will leave - probably in less than a couple months.  And next time you buy strawberries, instead of $4 a carton, expect about $12.

Following that example, Pruitt thinks states rights rule when it comes to Big Energy but not Mary Jane.  Go figure.

Sometimes the law is wrong, and there isnt an obvious path to correct it outside of flat-out disobedience. 
Just ask Jesus  ;)

True.

Nope...Without bond....

The gentleman arrested Thursday and tried before Pontius Pilate had a troubled background.

Born (possibly out of wedlock?) in a stable, this jobless thirty-something of Middle Eastern origin had had previous run-ins with local authorities for disturbing the peace, and had become increasingly associated with the members of a fringe religious group. He spent the majority of his time in the company of sex workers and criminals.

He had had prior run-ins with local authorities — most notably, an incident of vandalism in a community center when he wrecked the tables of several licensed money-lenders and bird-sellers. He had used violent language, too, claiming that he could destroy a gathering place and rebuild it.

At the time of his arrest, he had not held a fixed residence for years. Instead, he led an itinerant lifestyle, staying at the homes of friends and advocating the redistribution of wealth.

He had come to the attention of the authorities more than once for his unauthorized distribution of food, disruptive public behavior, and participation in farcical aquatic ceremonies.

Some say that his brutal punishment at the hands of the state was out of proportion to and unrelated to any of these incidents in his record.

But after all, he was no angel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2017/04/12/crucified-man-had-prior-run-in-with-authorities

Read that, and this popped up in my head:

"Long hair, beard and sandals, and a funky bunch of friends
Reckon we'd just nail him up, If he came down again"

Jesus Was a Capricorn - Kris Kristofferson

TULSA, Oklahoma - A small protest is happening weekly outside the Tulsa County Jail.

The "New Sanctuary Network Tulsa" opposes the sheriff housing inmates for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency the protesters claim is arresting undocumented people, in Tulsa County, who haven't otherwise broken the law.

"What's happening is that you have people in our community who have been arrested, many of them years ago, the situation has been adjudicated and ICE enforcement gets their names and just go around and collect them," said Scott Carter with New Sanctuary Tulsa.

The protesters plan to keep meeting outside the jail every Thursday at noon.

The Tulsa County Sheriff's Office says only inmates arrested and booked on other charges are checked for immigration status. http://www.newson6.com/story/35881943/small-protests-becoming-routine-at-tulsa-co-jail

I agree.   Some laws were just meant to be broken.   Laws that don't benefit me suck.

May I point out that the entire Christianity movement was based on someone who broke the law?
...and then there were the founders of our country in contempt of their King...

Please forgive me if I forgo posting a meme of Jesus wearing an American flag.

That could explain some of my disdain for those who wrap themselves in religion and try to tell me how much better they are than me.

As for the pilgrims and early settlers, they left rather than break the law.   

Maybe they should run some ICE checks at the protest...   Wouldn't that be funny?

I still don't fault them for coming here rather than living in a hovel with dirt floors...  But there is a process, and skirting it has consequences.

The pilgrims are different than the founding fathers.

They still broke the law though...

http://mayflowerhistory.com/crime/ (http://mayflowerhistory.com/crime/)

Nasty boys...

That's what I said...release the next day.  Sometimes same day if early enough.

As it should be.

I missed this little jewel earlier....


This has nothing to do with protecting people - most especially foreigner's doing anything to us.  This is about a nod and a wink to vast segments of corporate America so they can continue to hire illegals at dramatically lower wages and continue the proceed with the long term "honored tradition" of holding wages down for the rest of us.

Answer just one simple question - if illegals are really a problem - and they are not - why are employers not charged and imprisoned for their criminal acts?  I have never heard of a CEO being held indeterminately while we hold tens of thousands of illegals that way every day.

Again.  It is because we as a society, meaning the RWRE who has held the reins for so long, that lie to you to make you belief some other poor Joe Schmoe is the problem.  Getting real people to fight and argue amongst ourselves while they go about their merry way laying waste to the American Dream for over half the population.  

That is the Kook-Aid you have drunk.   Unless, of course, you are a guido - one of those top 1/2% people who are a big cause and part of the problem.

  do you mean melodramatic?  I know what you meant but it does not interpret the way you said it.  Unless you really meant a very laid back drama.  Then I am totally out of bounds. 

We've seen successive waves of immigrants, starting with the Irish and continuing through the Chinese, southern Europeans and eastern Europeans, with each wave producing a nativist reaction and demands for measures to repel the "invaders." The republic survived those bouts of xenophobia. It will survive this one.

The big change, however, is the growth of Asian and Hispanic populations. This is causing some foreboding among the largely white and elderly Republican elite. Deservedly so.

The City Council on Tuesday terminated an agreement with the federal agency that allowed Oakland police to take part in task forces headed by ICE.

“Under the new presidential administration, we have seen increased use of ICE to target non-criminals, including arresting people dropping their kids off at school, including arresting people coming out of church, and including arresting a woman in court who was there to testify against the man who had raped her, arrested by ICE for deportation.”
http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/07/19/oakland-cuts-ties-with-ice
http://michiganradio.org/post/its-federal-agency-it-can-arrest-people-your-town-it-wont-say-who-it-has-custody

Starting with the English.   And when the Natives objected, they were exterminated.  So, being Irish, I guess I should be thankful that only ridicule, deep persecution, decade after decade of abuse and mistreatment came our way...!  But by then, the English Overlords realized they needed the minions of all kinds to set on the backs of.

Some of that anti-Catholic bias remains. It's not unusual to find a Catholic church well removed from the "important" buildings fronting a town square in rural PA. And in that farm country where I lived, Catholics were sometimes reviled. I did not and do not understand that. But my employer would not hire anyone into a management position unless they were Catholic. Illegal, yes, but proving it was another thing.

SWMBO was raised taught that Catholics are Communists.  Persona non grata.  And her cousin actually had the temerity to marry one!!  He even had been a Trappist monk!!   Great guy!

And I was raised around Catholics - not quite sure how they insinuated themselves into the private personal lives of Methodists and Baptists quite as much as they did, but am glad they did!  Have reached the point that if I were going to attend church on a more regular basis than I do now, it would either be Catholic or Unitarian....can't quite make up my mind yet.

A federal judge on Monday permanently blocked President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick rejected the administration's argument that the executive order applies only to a relatively small pot of money and said Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/11/20/us/ap-us-sanctuary-cities.html

Tulsa County contract with Immigration and Customs Enforcement protested

http://www.tulsaworld.com/tulsa-county-contract-with-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-protested/article_fb14647e-5250-53a6-8819-38e567f126bf.html




Tulsa Jail ICE detainers double in a year as immigrant enforcement partnership nets millions for Sheriff's Office

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/government/tulsa-jail-ice-detainers-double-in-a-year-as-immigrant/article_1fe71baa-e054-57df-912c-771f49b9edf6.html

There has been much confusion about releasing asylum seekers from the David L. Moss Jail in Tulsa.

Immigrants have not been released with instructions in their native language as required by the contract with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Several have been released without their "community release" card but only with their inmate identification from jail showing their inmate ID number, hardly suitable for showing lawful presence in this country.

In two cases, it was as simple as going to the clerk's office and obtaining proper documentation. But in one case, a different clerk refused to help saying, "They don't have a right to be here."

Detainees have been released late at night, often without proper clothing.

One detainee was released at 1 a.m. wearing only a pair of shorts and a t-shirt when the night-time temperature was only 8 degrees above freezing. He was rescued at 6 a.m. by local volunteers.

The asylum seekers do not have criminal records, have all passed their credible-fear interviews and their families posted a $5,000 bond prior to release.

They have since traveled to all parts of the U.S. There is a change of address form for them to fill out, but no mention in their packets of a change of venue petition, which usually requires an attorney fill them out.

ICE blames the Tulsa Jail; the jail blames ICE.
https://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/letters/letter-to-the-editor-asylum-seekers-being-mistreated-in-tulsa/article_2248df39-01f4-594d-beaa-73c3b830d533.html

County commissioners on May 13 heard from 18 speakers opposed to the county’s involvement in the 287(g) program. Not once during the meeting were speakers informed that the agreement had been signed by Sheriff Vic Regalado on May 10.
Historically, the Board of County Commissioners, not the sheriff, has signed off on the 287(g) agreements.

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/tulsa-county-commissioners-accused-of-misleading-the-public-over-immigration/article_9a8a28ed-9c07-52b6-a21b-bb0998c9b285.html



The Sheriff’s Office is one of dozens of local law enforcement agencies participating in the 287(g) program, which uses local law enforcement to identify and process undocumented residents for deportation proceedings.

The Sheriff’s Office has six employees certified by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to participate in the program.

Sheriff Vic Regalado recently signed a 12-month extension of the MOU that did not require BOCC approval. But opponents of the program continue to call for commissioners to end it.

Nearly 20 area residents told commissioners last week that 287(g) is creating mistrust of local law enforcement and leading to individuals being deported for minor offenses.

The MOU makes clear that the agreement could be ended at the request of either party.

“During the MOU’s effective period, either party, upon written notice to the other party, may terminate or suspend the MOU at any time,” the agreement states.

Don’t expect action on the issue soon. Commissioners have no plans to vote on the MOU, and Sallee says he’s still examining the program to determine whether he should support it or not.

“I owe it to both sides,” he said. “I certainly support law enforcement. I support our sheriff. He’s done a great job, I feel like, managing our jail … so I have a lot of confidence in him.

“But when we have concerns from throughout the county, we’ve got to look at those as well.”

Sallee said he is “100 percent, totally” against racial profiling and has yet to be convinced that it is happening.

“If I felt that (racial profiling) is happening … I would not support it whatsoever,” he said.

On the plus side, Sallee said, the program helps with public safety, which is an important consideration.

Another issue to be considered is the separate agreement the Sheriff’s Office has with ICE to hold inmates from around the country in the county jail. Last fiscal year alone, the agreement brought in $4.7 million, according to county records.

“If that is not here, then where is the BOCC or the county going to come up with those funds?” Sallee said. “And what are they going to be willing to cut, and what department are they going to cut from?”

“The big thing is, they’re making it sound like we’re just seeing that you are dark skinned and we’re pulling you over and arresting you so we can deport you,” the commissioner said. “That’s not going on.”

“You might be able to find some in there who got a trivial arrest, but for the most part, we’re not looking at good folks,” Peters said.

The county commissioner said he fears that pulling out of the 287(g) program could effectively make Tulsa a sanctuary city, “and I don’t think that is what a majority of people in Tulsa want.”

Critics of the 287(g) program note that state law already requires that jails make a reasonable effort to determine the citizenship status of persons charged with a felony or with driving under the influence and that if lawful immigration status cannot be verified, the jail is to notify the Department of Homeland Security.

Keith said she is philosophically opposed to local participation in either of the ICE programs.

“Countless local agencies that engage with the Hispanic populations report that individuals who may need the help of law enforcement are afraid to call in,” Keith said. “That is despite valiant efforts by Sheriff Regalado to reassure that population that it is safe to call his agency without fear of deportation.”

She added: “In addition to the potential impacts (of the ICE programs) on individuals, I don’t like the perception that as a county we are participating in these programs.”

https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/tulsa-county-commissioners-could-end-g-program-but-would-they/article_c4ddcac8-7d2c-5cf6-a6eb-898e93bfacc5.html
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-and-politics/sheriff-regalado-sees-value-in-g-program-to-combat-criminal/article_52591d67-fff3-57d6-8d6d-9e212596359e.html

Tulsa councilor's proposal would prohibit using city funds to 'benefit illegal immigrants.'

A Tulsa city councilor and mayoral candidate is proposing to prohibit the use of city funds, either directly or indirectly, to “house, accommodate, or benefit illegal immigrants.”
The proposed ordinance from Jayme Fowler defines city funds as any money under the city treasurer’s control, including but not limited to tax revenues, grants and subsidies.

The proposed prohibition would apply to all city departments, city contractors, city employers and nonprofits. Nonprofits and programs found to be in violation of the proposed ordinance could have their funding withheld.
The ordinance defines an illegal immigrant as “any person residing in the United States who does not possess legal documentation or authorization to reside in the United States.”

Fowler listed three reasons he proposed the ordinance.
“No. 1 is that we’re barely able to address our unhoused citizens here in the city of Tulsa,” Fowler said. “And then No. 2 is that, literally, one or two busloads of illegal immigrants would max out our low-barrier shelter.
The third reason, Fowler said, is to staunch any misinformation or misperceptions that Tulsa is a sanctuary city. Fowler noted that a conservative news outlet portrayed efforts by city leaders to create a more welcoming city as making “the city a more desirable destination for illegal migrants.”

“You can tell people so many times that that’s not true,” Fowler said. “But if you just simply lay down in an ordinance and let people know that we are not a sanctuary,” that would help.

A sanctuary city is generally defined as a municipality that does not cooperate with or limits its cooperation with the federal government in enforcing immigration laws. Tulsa has never been designated as such a city.

Mayor G.T. Bynum said he has not discussed the proposal with Fowler but agrees with the sentiment behind it. He added that the city complies with federal immigration laws and has strongly supported opportunities for lawful immigrants in Tulsa.

Bynum said his main concern is how the ordinance is drafted.
“From a practical standpoint, everyone in Tulsa benefits from basic infrastructure and services funded by the city government,” Bynum said. “I can’t imagine that Councilor Fowler plans to check the immigration status of every person before they flush the toilet or drive down a street.

“If a person calls 911 because someone is trying to murder them, the Tulsa Police Department isn’t going to check their immigration status before stopping the murderer. If a person has a heart attack, the Tulsa Fire Department isn’t going to check their immigration status before saving their life.”

Bynum said those are just a few examples of why the current wording of the ordinance is not enforceable.
“And I would not want us setting a legal expectation that we have no means of enforcing,” he said.

The city relies heavily on nonprofits to provide food, shelter and other social services to the homeless and immigrants making their way into the country.
Asked whether his proposed ordinance would mean shelters and feeding programs would have to check an individual’s immigration status before assisting them, Fowler said he did not know the mechanics of how that would work.

But he added that there are nonprofit service providers locally that are not funded by city dollars that could provide housing to immigrants without proper documentation.

Nearly all of the money the city provides to nonprofits working on homelessness comes in the form of federal pass-through dollars.
Becky Gligo, outgoing executive director of the nonprofit Housing Solutions, said federal funding for housing and shelter are subject to anti-discrimination provisions and the federal Fair Housing Act.

https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/government-politics/tulsa-councilors-proposal-would-prohibit-using-city-funds-to-benefit-illegal-immigrants/article_7811f12e-cd20-11ee-b6dd-bf45ca6c1527.html