8 ms·

>> [Church Asylum] surprisingly survived (in a much changed form) into the 17th century. Longer than that. There was a case this year in Denver where an illega

• mtviewdave 11y ago
  "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • jbuzbee 11y ago
    The point is that the article claims that practice petered out in the 17th century. I show otherwise. The article also states that one reason the practice was abolished was due to criminals leaving their sanctuary to commit more crimes. 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' George Santayana
    • DonQuixote1000 11y ago
      No. You are a troll. You mentioned that it was probably dropped for a reason after mentioning the murder. I can also mention of a person that was saved by a doctor and then went on to kill somebody. Maybe doctors should stop saving people. Again, you are a fucing troll.
      • gargarplex 11y ago
        I think what you are trying to express, in your own quixotic way, is that the phrase "murdered for taking a stroll" belies the complex causes of the murder. And he's a "troll" because he justified this conversation-prompt with a genuine value-add
    • mtviewdave 11y ago
      The city of San Francisco did not give Lopez-Sanchez (the alleged murderer) sanctuary in the same way as described in the article. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was free to detain Lopez-Sanchez at any time while he was in San Francisco, and then deport him. What San Francisco did was refuse to comply with the ICE request to detain Lopez-Sanchez, because he didn't have a violent record and because ICE did not get an arrest warrant. In situations like this, ICE apparently does not want to go through the process of getting a warrant, preferring instead to treat local law enforcement as an extension of federal immigration enforcement. But in the U.S.'s federal system, it is not the responsibility of local law enforcement to simply do whatever the feds them to do. The responsibility of SFPD is to the people of San Francisco, not to ICE. Obviously in this case the result was horrific, but up to this point the policy was in place because the City believed it better served the needs of the people of San Francisco, and the people apparently agreed. There's obviously a good case to be made for local police departments to comply with ICE requests. On the other hand, I find it disturbing that ICE could simply order my local police department to detain me (a US citizen) without getting a warrant, just on their say-so. As someone with a strong respect for the U.S. federal system, I found your comparison to medieval sanctuary to be cheap and inflammatory. Hence my earlier comment.
      • tzs 11y ago
        > What San Francisco did was refuse to comply with the ICE request to detain Lopez-Sanchez, because he didn't have a violent record and because ICE did not get an arrest warrant. In situations like this, ICE apparently does not want to go through the process of getting a warrant, preferring instead to treat local law enforcement as an extension of federal immigration enforcement. ICE requested San Francisco to notify them when Lopez-Sanches was going to be released from jail in San Francisco so that ICE could pick him up then [1]. All San Francisco was being asked to do was make a phone call. Do you have a source for the claim that ICE asked San Francisco to detain him for them? [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/san-francisco-murder-case-exposes-lapses-in-immigration-enforcement.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/us/san-francisco-murder-ca...
        • mtviewdave 11y ago
    • elektromekatron 11y ago
      Your first example is church sanctuary, but is a pretty isolated case, the second is nothing to do with church sanctuary, and both cases seem picked, not to make a point about the practice of church sanctuary, but rather to stir fud about migration.
• peterfirefly 11y ago
  It is also apparently a de facto right in Germany (but not a de jure right). https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenasyl https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchenasyl We (Denmark) also had a case in 1991/1992 where hundreds of (criminal) rejected asylum seekers occupied a church for a long time, in full cooperation with the priest and plenty of left-wing politicians and musicians. It ended with a special law that granted them asylum -- whereupon most of them continued to inflict crimes upon the natives and so did many of their children. https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pal%C3%A6stinenserloven https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pal%C3%A6stinenserloven The extreme left tried to repeat the "success" in 2009 and a new batch of (criminal) rejected asylum seekers and other (criminal) foreigners who had been banned from the country. This time they didn't succeed, despite ready displays of violence from violent blackshirts ( https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifascistisk_Aktion https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifascistisk_Aktion ) and widespread support from the media.
  • llamataboot 11y ago
    hmmm...I think calling anti-fascists that are trying to protect migrants from fascist violence is a pretty large inversion of terms given the original black and brown shirts.
    • peterfirefly 11y ago
      They dress in black and are violent... and they do not try to protect "migrants" from "fascist violence".
• pdabbadabba 11y ago
  I suspect you're just trading on the multiple meanings of "sanctuary" to inject your political views into this conversation. The modern practice bears only superficial similarities with the medieval practice. Yes, people use the word "sanctuary" to describe the practice explained in the article, and also to describe modern U.S. localities' policies of selectively enforcing federal immigration laws. (I say "selectively" because sanctuary cities will typically hand over known criminals for deportation.) But the modern practice, based in the differing jurisdictions and legal obligations of various levels of government in the U.S. federal system, does not have a lot to do with medieval sanctuary laws. Medieval sanctuary practices, as described in the article, largely took the place of (or served as) criminal punishment, at every level of government, due to an interesting commingling of church and secular law to which there is little analog in the U.S. Sanctuary cities also, of course, only decline to enforce immigration laws, not other criminal laws as was the case in medieval England. And while I suppose it is slightly interesting to ponder the difference, I'm not sure this slight relevance justifies injecting this flame-war inducing topic (especially in such glib terms as "a criminal was given 'sanctuary' in San Francisco where he proceeded to randomly murder a tourist taking a stroll").
  • javert 11y ago
    To point out that there is a modern practice that is similar is relevant to the conversation and not particularly inflammatory. The proper way to converse on HN is to address the content of the comment, not complain that it exists, like speech police. Unless the comment is clearly WAY over the line, like if it were full of racial slurs. This case is not at all like that. These kinds of speech police comments---and there is more than just this one---are what is turning this thread into a flame war. Only a very small part of the political specturm would interpret the comment in question as contra their political views and thus "inflammatory," and I'll leave it to implication which part that is. Hint: It's the part that is the usual culprit for wanting to restrict speech.
    • elektromekatron 11y ago
      Are you really making the argument that people who are liberal with regard to migration are the inverse when it comes to speech?