O'Reilly falsely accuses Houston, San Francisco of breaking federal law
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that San Francisco and Houston are "sanctuary cities" that are violating federal law. In fact, O'Reilly has misconstrued the law's requirements, and the Bush administration's Justice Department concluded that Houston and San Francisco are not violating the applicable laws that do exist.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
O'Reilly falsely claims Houston, San Francisco are "sanctuary cities" that are breaking the law
O'Reilly claimed cities are required by law to "tell Homeland Security" if they have an "illegal alien involved with the police for some reason." During the July 19 edition of his Fox News program, Bill O'Reilly stated, "While the Justice Department is suing the state of Arizona over its new anti-illegal alien law, it has for years ignored sanctuary cities like San Francisco and Houston that have refused to enforce federal immigration law. That is, if local authorities there in those cities apprehend illegal aliens, they do not tell Homeland Security, as they are required to do." Moments later, O'Reilly added:
O'REILLY: The law says, in San Francisco and Houston, when you have an alien, illegal alien involved with the police for some reason, either a crime or a traffic stop, a DUI, whatever it may be, that they have to give the feds a heads up, so the fed's data bank can see how bad these guys really are.
Immigration law expert: O'Reilly is "wrong" on what federal law requires. David Leopold, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said via email that O'Reilly is "wrong" to suggest that federal law requires state and local law enforcement authorities to enforce civil immigration law. Leopold stated that "there is nothing that requires the collection of immigration information about a person" and "there is no requirement that state or local authorities inform the federal immigration authorities of civil immigration violations--ie out of status, overstay, present without lawful admission, failure to maintain status etc."
Immigration Policy Center: Community policing policies often confused with "sanctuary cities." A March 2009 Immigration Policy Center document states, "there is much confusion about the term 'sanctuary city.' The term is often used derisively by immigration opponents to blast what are best described as community policing policies." The document further notes:
More than 50 cities and states across the country have adopted policies that prevent police agencies from asking community residents who have not been arrested to prove their legal immigration status. These policies do allow state and local police to report foreign-born criminals to DHS. Based on the tenets of community policing, these policies make it safe for immigrant crime victims and witnesses to report criminals to the police and help put them behind bars.
Bush Justice Department's Inspector General: San Francisco policy does not violate requirements of federal law
CRS: Federal law bans policies restricting maintenance and exchange of information about immigration status. The Congressional Research Service stated in a January 2008 report that laws enacted in 1996 by Congress provide that "states and localities may not limit their governmental entities or officers from maintaining records regarding a person's immigration status, or bar the exchange of such information with any federal, state, or local entity." These provisions were included in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. CRS further stated that while this "prohibits states and localities from barring the transfer or maintenance of information regarding immigration status, it does not require entities to collect such information in the first place."
Justice Inspector General "cannot conclude" that San Francisco is violating the law. In January 2007, the Justice Department Office of Inspector General reported that after reviewing the policies of seven jurisdictions, including the State of Texas, they located an official "sanctuary" policy for only the State of Oregon and the City and County of San Francisco, "[h]owever, in each instance, the local policy either did not preclude cooperation with ICE or else included a statement to the effect that those agencies and officers must assist ICE or share information with ICE as required by federal law." The report further states that because San Francisco included "specific provisions requiring compliance with federal law, we cannot conclude that San Francisco's policies are contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1373 [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.]" OIG also concluded, "there is insufficient evidence to conclude that San Francisco fails to cooperate with ICE's efforts to remove undocumented aliens."
San Francisco recently began participating in Secure Communities program. According to the SF Weekly, the federal Secure Communities program -- "which checks fingerprints of anyone booked into custody in the city against the DHS's database" -- started in San Francisco on June 8. San Francisco Sheriff Department spokeswoman Eileen Hirst reportedly said that prior to the start of the Secure Communities program, San Francisco reported to ICE those "booked on felonies or had prior felony convictions."
Houston does not have a "sanctuary" policy
Politifact: "Houston has no official sanctuary policy." Politifact.com wrote on March 14 that Houston was presumably included in the 2007 OIG review, but was not mentioned, indicating that "Houston has no official sanctuary policy," and that the city now participates in the Secure Communities program, which "enables fingerprints of arrested individuals to be checked against federal crime and immigration databases." Politifact further reported that Jessica Vaughn of the Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks reductions in both illegal and legal immigration, "said that because the county and city have stepped up efforts to identify illegal immigrants, she no longer views the city as much of a sanctuary."
ICE official in 2006 said Houston cooperates with them. The Houston Chronicle reported on June 30, 2006, that Bob Rutt, the agent in charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Houston, said "Houston police notify ICE when officers arrest people wanted by ICE. He said officers also call his agency when they suspect violent criminals might be in the country illegally, and they help out on some criminal operations." The article further stated:
The department also flags criminal cases involving illegal immigrants when they are sent to the Harris County District Attorney's Office, so ICE agents can determine whether arrestees are in the country legally.
"Houston is not a sanctuary city, by the definition," Rutt told the Houston Chronicle on Saturday. "They do cooperate with us."
Houston police are "required to check the warrant status of everyone who is ticketed, arrested or jailed - if they fail to show proper ID." Houston police are reportedly required to check with federal immigration authorities about "everyone who is ticketed, arrested or jailed--if they fail to show proper ID." From a December 23, 2007, Houston Chronicle article:
Twice in the past two years, Mayor Bill White has tightened the city's policy on dealing with suspected illegal immigrants:
Under the city's revised policy, officers are required to check the warrant status of everyone who is ticketed, arrested or jailed - if they fail to show proper ID.
Those arrested for Class B misdemeanors or more serious crimes are booked into jail and asked whether they are U.S. citizens.
ICE officials were given full access to city jails and information collected by HPD.
Officers are required to notify ICE of any suspects with outstanding immigration warrants and previously deported felons.
Time to 86 the sanctuary city policy.
Since we don't have a parallel universe available, we don't know if immigration was fostered by these policies or not, so your conclusion is invalid and unsupportable AND off-topic.
The topic is how Bill O'Reilly falsely said that these cities were breaking federal law!
Pot, meet kettle.
It's YOU who didn't actually discuss the issue, and because I STOPPED YOU IN YOUR TRACKS, you're teed off, and so you made a baseless personal attack that I was unable to actually discuss the topic.
You're the one who failed here, and got caught at it. I expect that frustrates you. Too bad, so sad baby.
Well, dell, let's talk the law then. The link that mmfa provided for this statement: "These policies do allow state and local police to report foreign-born criminals to DHS.", says that local officials are allowed to call DHS to report illegal activities by illegal immigrants. The link that mmfa provides to support their case of BOR being "wrong" actually supports BOR's position and proves mmfa "wrong".
Which means YOU are wrong and so is everyone else who says BOR is "wrong" in this case. So, it is YOU who failed here, and of course it will frustrate YOU. Too bad, so sad baby.
Again, you aren't capable of reading REAL law, but here is the text that makes it illegal:
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part VIII > ยง 1324 Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
Uhhh, speak about being ignorant ... YES, it does mean that.
rad-- Also this law says "person" not law enforcement agencies or cities.
Yes, I realize that. I'm glad you learned how to read so quickly. I was beginning to worry you were a typical liberal who whines about FACTS using heresay to make their argument. Wait, that's all you do. Ooops, my bad
No it doesn't. Do you call quotes from this article that quotes the CRS heresay?
1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County ( L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien
Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers
are Mexican nationals here illegally.
I'm not buyin' it. Until you can really quantify your premise, I'll continue to blame the overall problem on an increasing abundance of employers willing to hire undocumented workers. As far as the murders, where are the illegals getting the weapons?
This has to be the worst sentence on this web site. You just absolved a murderer by blaming an inanimate object.
I like Eddie Izzard's take. He said that people kill people, not guns, but the guns certainly helped. You're not going to kill many people by running around, pointing your finger at them and yelling "Bang!".
I never said that only guns are used. What I want brought to light is: for the murders that are committed using firearms, where are those firearms coming from? How is it that an illegal can so easily obtain a deadly weapon in the US?
There you go again. Provide a source that shows illegals are obtaining these weapons IN the US.
No. It is what liberals are trying to do. I take it you are admitting what I said is correct?
However, what you fail to admit is that there are as many rich liberals as there rich right-wingers. You seem to think ONLY the right-wingers are rich and all liberals are poor/uneducated dolts. Well, I guess the second half may be correct, but that would be an opinion of mine.
When you're not collecting welfare, unemployment, SS, medicare you are paying into it.
When you ARE collecting welfare, unemployment, SS, medicare you are receiving payments from them.
What part of redistribution of wealth do you not understand?
And in tyical liberal form, you accuse me of saying something I never said. Good job
You pay in, and you get the benefits when you need them.
Since you insist on being ridiculous, who says the weapons are inanimate objects. You could use a snake or spider to kill someone. Hell, you can strangle someone with an eel if you are motivated enough.
Using your logic, it makes just as much sense to blame RightON for asserting that the "sanctuary city" law was the motive for these murders, which he did not.
In no place in my post i mentioned a dislike for the first ammendement, and i'm going to admit, i'm not a massive fan of the second ammendment since its abused and people scream the loudest and most hateful when government tries either to close a loophole or actually enforce their part of the law "...a well regulated militia..." and i'm no fan of guns, but the ammendment will never be repealed and i have no problem with that.
PS: You did not sya guns, you said blaming an innanimate object. Answer me this, why would an "illegal" go out of his/her way to kill someone with a car/gun? And do you even know what a freudian slip is?
A lot of red tape just to make pretty colors and loud noises in the sky, predating 2001.
The BATF also does a background check before issuing a Federal Firearms License (FFL) - required for legal purchase/ownership of regulated weapons, but, having no personal experience with that, I can't tell you much about it.
I don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about. 100% of illegal immigrants commit a felony within the first week of stepping their feet on US territories. Have you learned what a "felony" is yet (in school)? Do you know what it means to break a FEDERAL LAW? What are the local police to do when they find out someone is breaking a federal law? Should they release them, so they can continue breaking federal law? Or, should they report them to proper authorities?
Although the indentation on your reply indicates that you were replying to boulderhippy, he never mentioned the BATF or Class B anything so I conclude you are replying to me.
Do you include me in your broad painting of liberals? I consider myself a person first, loving husband and father, able, willing employee, tax-paying American citizen, former service member, etc. Liberal is so far down the list that I don't really consider it at all. If you are going to paint me with that brush, be aware that the color doesn't suit me well.
My response to boulderhippy was directly to the question: "What other purchase requires a "background check"?" I cited two examples that I know about, Class B EX and FFL - neither of which are required to legally purchase most types of handgun or longarm.
Nobody, regardless of citizenship status, can legally purchase Class B in the U.S. without the permit.
I can read and, more importantly, understand and interpret laws fairly well. I find the language to be a bit stilted - legalize is not prose - but overall a bit plodding but emphatically clear.
Is it illegal to enter the US without proper authorization and/or identification? Is the crime a federal law or state law that would be broken by entering the country illegally? If a city is harboring illegal immigrants, would that be a federal crime or state crime that is being ignored/broken?
Oh? Now I've heard it all. You liberals are truly incapacitated in ways we can only laugh at.
article-- More than 50 cities and states across the country have adopted policies that prevent police agencies from asking community residents who have not been arrested to prove their legal immigration status.
THIS article says local citys/towns have policies that prevent the information from reaching the feds. The laws are FEDERAL laws. If the locals do not inform the feds, then they are, IN FACT, harboring illegal immigrants. Which makes BOR correct and mmfa IN-correct.
But, why am I talking to YOU?!? YOU don't even know that crossing into our nation illegally is illegal. How smart can you be?
Source?
Last year, 2,455 weapons traces requested by Mexico showed that guns had been purchased in the United States, according to ATF. Texas, Arizona and California accounted for 1,803 of the traces submitted by Mexican authorities.
HOUSTON: A federal judge sentenced a Houston man Friday to nearly four years in prison for his role in an organization that bought military-style firearms that ended up in the hands of drug traffickers in Mexico.
Federal agents swooped down on a north Phoenix gun store Tuesday in the biggest weapons bust in years, highlighting Arizona's major role as an arms conduit to violent drug cartels in Mexico.
Events like "reconquista"?
Or "FEMA camps"?
Or a "media takeover"?
You can have all the border protection you want, it's not going to do anything about the forces of supply and demand. As long as there are employers willing to break the law, and as long as they continue to be ignored by law enforcement, border security won't matter.
Well, if you people would stop your whining about racism when something is attempted to stem the flow of illegals into this nation, perhaps that wouldn't be true.
My guess is that your plan to stem the flow of illegal drugs and weapons into the US is to fully allow them to be brought in and eventually they will get tired of doing it. Or, to stop the flow of "illegal drugs" your plan is to make them legal. Great idea, liberal! That should certainly help matters.
Your "guess" is not even close. There is no stemming the flow of illicit drugs into the US, that's my point. Alcohol could not be stopped, so it was again legalized, regulated, and taxed.
Illegal weapons are 'flowing' into the US? BULL***T. As has already been made clear to you, America is a veritable Wal-Mart for guns. In addition, we are far and away the world's largest producer and exporter of weapons. Why would any but the most incredibly stupid of criminals go to the expense and hassle of smuggling in weapons when everything you need is freely available in bulk locally?
pet-- America is a veritable Wal-Mart for guns.
Uhhh, what BORDER do they cross to get into Mexico? You people are unbelievable, almost laughable.
pet-- My whining about racism?
Yes, yours. Did you have a problem reading that? Should I re-type it in smaller words for you? You couldn't even give a decent example for your whine about right-wingers. Of course this is coming from someone who thinks the 'tea baggers' are all racist, but the NAACP has no racists in its ranks.
Now you're not only accusing me of saying things (without quotes or links), but now you're claiming to know what I think. The simple fact is, you can't quote me broadbrushing all Teabaggers as racist, nor can you quote any assessment I have made of the NAACP (because I haven't never did).
MMfA is an absolute cornucoppia of right-wing sound bites regarding race and racism. It's difficult to know where to begin. But here's one of the most prominent: Beck: Obama has "exposed himself as a guy" with "a deep seated hatred for white people"
http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp
I would have expected more of you than to provide a source, with attribution, when you, yourself, did not retrieve it.
That being said, my opinions on sanctuary cities still stands. They have become havens for illegal aliens for obvious reasons. As I said, the intentions may have been noble at the outset, but it hasn't worked. Anyone who believes our illegal immigration problem has improved is sadly mistaken. Just look at the frustration of Arizona's residents for proof of that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts
Even they said : "This report of FBI / INS statistics by a California blogger is sickening if he has his facts right."
You post specious facts that even freepers regard as not verified . . . whatever floats your off-topic boat.
By the way, I noticed someone was ripping off your current moniker elsewhere.
It's about how Bill O'Reilly falsely accused these cities of breaking federal law.
And you have NEVER addressed that topic on this thread!
There, now you have what you want.
Quick question for dell, Is it illegal to be in the US illegally? Would that be a federal crime or a state crime?
Going on the assumption (also ... gasp ... a reality) that it is illegal to be in the US illegally, what in God's name makes you think a US city harboring illegals would be legal? I realize you are a liberal, but what kind of numb-skull would think it is legal to harbor illegal immigrants??
Don't worry, dell. I don't expect an answer from you. You have a history of ignoring the questions and going straight into 'troll commentary'. That is the ONLY way you can appear (to yourself) to be intelligent. If, for some odd reason, you were to attempt to answer a valid question, your total ignorance of everything would shine through.
Why would he want to do that. He would prefer to dwell within the over-simplified fantasy version of reality conservative media has laid out for him.
The Sanctuary city policy was not meant to stop or slow down illegal immigration. It is, as the article states, part of community policing which enables law enforcement to have input and cooperation from all members of the community.
Isolating people from law enforcement, especially people who are already in areas of low income or marginalized in other ways is a great way to increase crime. The only thing denying people access to protection from law enforcement does is make them targets of criminals, which means they need to organize and arm themselves for protection. Why do you think drug dealers are so violent? Same reason bootleggers where in the 1920's. They could only only find protection outside civil society. Nowadays liquor distributors are pretty mild.
Making local law enforcement enforce immigration policy is just a feel good issue for conservatives.
Wow! You're one brilliant person. Who would have guessed that those participating in ILLEGAL activities would participate in deadly activities. So, your plan is to leave drug dealers alone just so they don't become violent and to leave illegals alone just so they don't become violent? Or are you saying we should make drug legal so they aren't as violent as in your comparison to the liquor industry? Quick question for your legal drug hankering: how many lives have been lost due to accidents caused by liquor use? And you want the same thing from legal drug use?
Its simple Floyd. Keeping the drug market underground makes it more violent. Making undocumented immigrants more underground will make crime worse and communities more unsafe. All this AZ stuff makes conservatives feel good about being tough, but doesn't make anyone safer or prevent more immigration.
Quick question for your legal drug hankering: how many lives have been lost due to accidents caused by liquor use? And you want the same thing from legal drug use?
We as a society have to decide if it is worth it to us to have the side effects of the black market, one of which is violence. I am just pointing out what happens.
As the article states, Federal efforts are not impaired with these sanctuary policies and arrested people are checked for documentation. I bet most Fox viewers would find that hard to comprehend. I wonder why?
You mean "illegal", not undocumented. So you're admitting that illegal immigrants are a danger to society? Which is why Arizona has been asking the feds for help for years. With no help being offered they must do something to protect the HONEST citizens of Arizona from the illegal ones.
eb-- As the article states, Federal efforts are not impaired with these sanctuary policies
Yes it does. Who informs the feds that an arrest has been made of an illegal immigrant? Well, it would be upon the local yocals to do that. If they don't then the feds will not know any different. That means the locals are harboring illegals from federal law and/or prosecution of those laws.
The "local yocals" are not required to report the arrest of someone who is here illegally to the INS. It is a civil violation to be here illegally, so no one is prosecuted for it. They are simply deported.
Rad, you are the one who can't read. He exactly said that illegals are more dangerous to communities by being more underground. He specifically said underground activities are more dangerous, then said illegals would be more underground which would lead to unsafe communities.
So, if cities would stop BREAKING THE LAW and stop harboring illegals, then we wouldn't have such dangerous conditions as are being described by eb.
Punishments for injuries caused by illegals after sanctuary city employees don't inform Feds
(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
So, in a case (in San Fransisco) where an illegal had been arrested, released and then he went out and fatally shot an innocent father+son because he thought they were gang members ... the releasing officer is guilty of this crime and that crime is punishable by up to the death penalty.
It's too bad you aren't very smart.
"[h]owever, in each instance, the local policy either did not preclude cooperation with ICE or else included a statement to the effect that those agencies and officers must assist ICE or share information with ICE as required by federal law."
And
These policies do allow state and local police to report foreign-born criminals to DHS.
These cities are not breaking Federal law. As the article states.
Also you totally miss the point about community policing. Quote from the article:
Based on the tenets of community policing, these policies make it safe for immigrant crime victims and witnesses to report criminals to the police and help put them behind bars.
Floyd - Conservatives always moan and whine about unintended consequences and here is one right in front of your nose that you seem to want to ignore: Involving local police in enforcing federal law makes crime worse and law enforcement more difficult for the police.
Well once again this is a typical example of lousy conservative leadership. Enact policies that make problems worse and then use the result of their mismanagement to promote their radical agenda, thereby justifying their agenda even more while the problems remain unsolved.
A correlation does not establish causation. There are a lot of factors behind immigration.
It may have been done in good faith when proposed, to make sure crimes are reported, but it has done more harm than good now.
Creating a situation where a large number of people are alienated from law enforcement only aids criminals and encourages criminal behavior.
Time to 86 the sanctuary city policy.
Why? Did you read the above article. It does not interfere with federal efforts, which are increasing, to stop illegal immigration.
Do you want to stop illegal immigration and make things more difficult for identity thieves? Why not have a national biometric ID system along with a comprehensive program to register undocumented people who are otherwise following the law, working, and learning English. Let them pay a fine or be taxed at a higher rate as a consequence of breaking the law. Deportation and massive round ups are destructive and not necessary.
It's just easier for them to push their own opinions.
Facts don't matter.
Legal experts on the subject don't matter.
The Constitution doesn't matter.
Their solution is the same as that of the "conservatives" in Congress: complain and do nothing, complain and do nothing, complain and do nothing, complain and do nothing, complain and do nothing, complain and do nothing, lather, rinse, repeat.
Los Angeles adopted a sanctuary policy in 1979 when the city police commission issued an order barring cooperation between the police and the immigration service. Other cities, including Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, and New York City adopted similar policies.
Non-Cooperation Policies