4 ms·

"Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

"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
      I take it from ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice's statement that "the detainer was not honored" that a detainer was issued for Lopez-Sanchez: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-immigration-sanctuary-kathryn-steinle-20150723-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-immigration-sa... An ICE detainer is a request (not a court order) that a state or local police department detain an individual for 48 hours (excluding holidays and weekends) while ICE decides whether or not they want to take someone into custody for consideration for deportation: https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/immigration-detainers https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border... In retrospect, I probably exaggerated ICE's power wrt my local police department. Still, compliance with a detainer means an arrested citizen can be detained for up to five calendar days (48 hours + 3 day weekend) without charge, or indeed any sort of judicial review, merely on ICE's say-so.
  - will_brown 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...I found your comparison to medieval sanctuary to be cheap and inflammatory. Every time I touch on an immigration related topic on HN, I swear it is the last time, but because it is so personal to me I just simply can't resist. OP falls into the classical logical error equating undocumented/unlawful/illegal immigrants as criminals. It is just simply impossible for certain individuals/groups to wrap their minds around the simple fact that ones immigration status does not and can not constitute a crime in and of itself. Almost everyone is aware there is civil and criminal laws, I also think everyone knows immigration law is civil in nature, but you will never stop those with a certain bias from wrongfully projecting immigration status as a criminal issue, hence the existence of terms such as "illegal immigrant" for the mere fact that is sounds closer to a criminal label...its sad really.
- 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.

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
    I take it from ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice's statement that "the detainer was not honored" that a detainer was issued for Lopez-Sanchez: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-immigration-sanctuary-kathryn-steinle-20150723-htmlstory.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-immigration-sa... An ICE detainer is a request (not a court order) that a state or local police department detain an individual for 48 hours (excluding holidays and weekends) while ICE decides whether or not they want to take someone into custody for consideration for deportation: https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/immigration-detainers https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border... In retrospect, I probably exaggerated ICE's power wrt my local police department. Still, compliance with a detainer means an arrested citizen can be detained for up to five calendar days (48 hours + 3 day weekend) without charge, or indeed any sort of judicial review, merely on ICE's say-so.
- will_brown 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...I found your comparison to medieval sanctuary to be cheap and inflammatory. Every time I touch on an immigration related topic on HN, I swear it is the last time, but because it is so personal to me I just simply can't resist. OP falls into the classical logical error equating undocumented/unlawful/illegal immigrants as criminals. It is just simply impossible for certain individuals/groups to wrap their minds around the simple fact that ones immigration status does not and can not constitute a crime in and of itself. Almost everyone is aware there is civil and criminal laws, I also think everyone knows immigration law is civil in nature, but you will never stop those with a certain bias from wrongfully projecting immigration status as a criminal issue, hence the existence of terms such as "illegal immigrant" for the mere fact that is sounds closer to a criminal label...its sad really.
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.