Sanctuary states

[SavannahMann]

Do you even know what the Sanctuary Cities are doing? When an illegal immigrant is arrested the city notifies the ICE agents. Then ICE says hold onto them for a couple days until we feel like coming to get them. The city says no and releases the person on bail or with time served or with a notice to appear. The same as they do for every other person they arrest for a minor crime.

The city does not prevent ICE from running raids or arresting the illegals anytime they want. The cities will hold the guy if there is a valid warrant for them. But a request is asking for a favor. If someone asks you for a favor you are free to say no.

The other thing that Sanctuary Cities do is refuse to provide police support for an ICE raid. If you as an ICE agent want to, that is your business. The local police won't hinder you but won't assist either.

The same is true of legalization of Marijuana. The DEA can still arrest people. But the local cops aren't going to. The reason the DEA doesn't is because the Jury is likely to find the defendant not guilty based upon those state laws.

Federal Agents still have all the authority they had before any of this. What they don't have is the local cops rushing about at their whim. The DEA could flood Colorado with agents and arrest people for Marijuana every day. Then the trial and aforementioned jury nullification which is a time honored power the jury always have. It is the same power the Jury exercise when a cop is caught abusing a prisoner when they find the cop not guilty.

Now calling this a crime against the Feds is stretching the meaning of the word crime all out of proportion. Let's say you see a cop arresting a guy. The cop says hold on to this guy while I go talk to that woman. You say no. You are under no legal obligation to assist the officer. He can't deputize you without your consent. You have committed no crime. He can order you to disperse. You are not allowed to withhold information about a crime. But you are in no way required to render assistance.

The stories about an armed citizen shooting the person beating a cop have been in the news before. But let's say I am the first on the scene. I have no obligation to pull my pistol and shoot the man. I would be committing no crime by pulling out the popcorn and watching the events unfold. I am a witness and am required by law to inform the police of what I saw. I am not required to take any action.

The same is true of an accident scene. I am allowed to render aid. I am not required to do so except in Alaska where leaving a person stranded is attempted murder.

I may not be a "good" person. But I am not a criminal. The cities and states are within their rights to refuse requests for assistance. If they refuse a warrant then they are committing a crime.

 

[Votto]

Do you even know what the Sanctuary Cities are doing? When an illegal immigrant is arrested the city notifies the ICE agents. Then ICE says hold onto them for a couple days until we feel like coming to get them. The city says no and releases the person on bail or with time served or with a notice to appear. The same as they do for every other person they arrest for a minor crime.

The city does not prevent ICE from running raids or arresting the illegals anytime they want. The cities will hold the guy if there is a valid warrant for them. But a request is asking for a favor. If someone asks you for a favor you are free to say no.

The other thing that Sanctuary Cities do is refuse to provide police support for an ICE raid. If you as an ICE agent want to, that is your business. The local police won't hinder you but won't assist either.

The same is true of legalization of Marijuana. The DEA can still arrest people. But the local cops aren't going to. The reason the DEA doesn't is because the Jury is likely to find the defendant not guilty based upon those state laws.

Federal Agents still have all the authority they had before any of this. What they don't have is the local cops rushing about at their whim. The DEA could flood Colorado with agents and arrest people for Marijuana every day. Then the trial and aforementioned jury nullification which is a time honored power the jury always have. It is the same power the Jury exercise when a cop is caught abusing a prisoner when they find the cop not guilty.

Now calling this a crime against the Feds is stretching the meaning of the word crime all out of proportion. Let's say you see a cop arresting a guy. The cop says hold on to this guy while I go talk to that woman. You say no. You are under no legal obligation to assist the officer. He can't deputize you without your consent. You have committed no crime. He can order you to disperse. You are not allowed to withhold information about a crime. But you are in no way required to render assistance.

The stories about an armed citizen shooting the person beating a cop have been in the news before. But let's say I am the first on the scene. I have no obligation to pull my pistol and shoot the man. I would be committing no crime by pulling out the popcorn and watching the events unfold. I am a witness and am required by law to inform the police of what I saw. I am not required to take any action.

The same is true of an accident scene. I am allowed to render aid. I am not required to do so except in Alaska where leaving a person stranded is attempted murder.

I may not be a "good" person. But I am not a criminal. The cities and states are within their rights to refuse requests for assistance. If they refuse a warrant then they are committing a crime.

In other words, law enforcement is free to ignore certain types of illegal activity or choose not to go after certain kinds of illegal activity. Still not impressed. Try again.

 

[SavannahMann]

Do you even know what the Sanctuary Cities are doing? When an illegal immigrant is arrested the city notifies the ICE agents. Then ICE says hold onto them for a couple days until we feel like coming to get them. The city says no and releases the person on bail or with time served or with a notice to appear. The same as they do for every other person they arrest for a minor crime.

The city does not prevent ICE from running raids or arresting the illegals anytime they want. The cities will hold the guy if there is a valid warrant for them. But a request is asking for a favor. If someone asks you for a favor you are free to say no.

The other thing that Sanctuary Cities do is refuse to provide police support for an ICE raid. If you as an ICE agent want to, that is your business. The local police won't hinder you but won't assist either.

The same is true of legalization of Marijuana. The DEA can still arrest people. But the local cops aren't going to. The reason the DEA doesn't is because the Jury is likely to find the defendant not guilty based upon those state laws.

Federal Agents still have all the authority they had before any of this. What they don't have is the local cops rushing about at their whim. The DEA could flood Colorado with agents and arrest people for Marijuana every day. Then the trial and aforementioned jury nullification which is a time honored power the jury always have. It is the same power the Jury exercise when a cop is caught abusing a prisoner when they find the cop not guilty.

Now calling this a crime against the Feds is stretching the meaning of the word crime all out of proportion. Let's say you see a cop arresting a guy. The cop says hold on to this guy while I go talk to that woman. You say no. You are under no legal obligation to assist the officer. He can't deputize you without your consent. You have committed no crime. He can order you to disperse. You are not allowed to withhold information about a crime. But you are in no way required to render assistance.

The stories about an armed citizen shooting the person beating a cop have been in the news before. But let's say I am the first on the scene. I have no obligation to pull my pistol and shoot the man. I would be committing no crime by pulling out the popcorn and watching the events unfold. I am a witness and am required by law to inform the police of what I saw. I am not required to take any action.

The same is true of an accident scene. I am allowed to render aid. I am not required to do so except in Alaska where leaving a person stranded is attempted murder.

I may not be a "good" person. But I am not a criminal. The cities and states are within their rights to refuse requests for assistance. If they refuse a warrant then they are committing a crime.

In other words, law enforcement is free to ignore certain types of illegal activity or choose not to go after certain kinds of illegal activity. Still not impressed. Try again.

Federal authorities have the right, and the responsibility to enforce federal law. Federal Authorities don't have the right or authority to enforce state law unless that state grants the authority.

The same is true in reverse. The local cops have only the authority that the States or cities grant them. If the state says they are barred from enforcing federal law. That is the states rights issue right there.

Let's say I am a local cop. I can't arrest you for a federal crime. I can arrest you for the state or city law that has been violated.

The ones making the law are the ones who have the authority to enforce it.

 

[Votto]

Do you even know what the Sanctuary Cities are doing? When an illegal immigrant is arrested the city notifies the ICE agents. Then ICE says hold onto them for a couple days until we feel like coming to get them. The city says no and releases the person on bail or with time served or with a notice to appear. The same as they do for every other person they arrest for a minor crime.

The city does not prevent ICE from running raids or arresting the illegals anytime they want. The cities will hold the guy if there is a valid warrant for them. But a request is asking for a favor. If someone asks you for a favor you are free to say no.

The other thing that Sanctuary Cities do is refuse to provide police support for an ICE raid. If you as an ICE agent want to, that is your business. The local police won't hinder you but won't assist either.

The same is true of legalization of Marijuana. The DEA can still arrest people. But the local cops aren't going to. The reason the DEA doesn't is because the Jury is likely to find the defendant not guilty based upon those state laws.

Federal Agents still have all the authority they had before any of this. What they don't have is the local cops rushing about at their whim. The DEA could flood Colorado with agents and arrest people for Marijuana every day. Then the trial and aforementioned jury nullification which is a time honored power the jury always have. It is the same power the Jury exercise when a cop is caught abusing a prisoner when they find the cop not guilty.

Now calling this a crime against the Feds is stretching the meaning of the word crime all out of proportion. Let's say you see a cop arresting a guy. The cop says hold on to this guy while I go talk to that woman. You say no. You are under no legal obligation to assist the officer. He can't deputize you without your consent. You have committed no crime. He can order you to disperse. You are not allowed to withhold information about a crime. But you are in no way required to render assistance.

The stories about an armed citizen shooting the person beating a cop have been in the news before. But let's say I am the first on the scene. I have no obligation to pull my pistol and shoot the man. I would be committing no crime by pulling out the popcorn and watching the events unfold. I am a witness and am required by law to inform the police of what I saw. I am not required to take any action.

The same is true of an accident scene. I am allowed to render aid. I am not required to do so except in Alaska where leaving a person stranded is attempted murder.

I may not be a "good" person. But I am not a criminal. The cities and states are within their rights to refuse requests for assistance. If they refuse a warrant then they are committing a crime.

In other words, law enforcement is free to ignore certain types of illegal activity or choose not to go after certain kinds of illegal activity. Still not impressed. Try again.

Federal authorities have the right, and the responsibility to enforce federal law. Federal Authorities don't have the right or authority to enforce state law unless that state grants the authority.

The same is true in reverse. The local cops have only the authority that the States or cities grant them. If the state says they are barred from enforcing federal law. That is the states rights issue right there.

Let's say I am a local cop. I can't arrest you for a federal crime. I can arrest you for the state or city law that has been violated.

The ones making the law are the ones who have the authority to enforce it.

But states have the right to write laws that conflict with Federal laws?

 

[IsaacNewton]

I have no words to say how wrong it is to have sanctuary states that defy federal laws. How is it that federal law prohibits things like illegal immigration and reefer, but the liberal courts allow them to continue anyhow.

Of course, there are no sanctuary states that prohibit things like abortion or allow creation to be taught in schools, and there never will be.

As far as the lame Constitutional reasoning to allow this crap to continue, save it. I have no interest in your hypocrite reasoning. The Constitution and rule of law is 100% meaningless.

I also have no interest in the fact that justice Scalia sided with this sort of reasoning. Are there really any conservative justices on the Supreme Court? Was it not Justice Roberts who re-wrote Obamacare to change it into a tax so that it was half way Constitutional because Obama sold it as anything but a tax?

Sickening. About the only way any judgments are ever deemed "conservative" is when they empower corporate America, which is in large part is also left leaning as well. After all, how could the Prog scum raise funds to win elections every year without them. They are the culprits.

Various states this year have said they will ignore federal abortion law. During Obama's presidency various states passed more than 200 laws instructing their city and state officials to ignore federal law on firearms.

Whining when out of power, whining when in power. Conservatives have really taken to nonstop whining.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There is no federal drinking age law yet if a state doesn't have a drinking age of 21, you loses federal $$. Nobody seemed to have a problem. Carter did it back in the seventies regarding the 55 mph speed limit.

States are not allowed to violate federal law.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

That's what our traitor libs who run everything here in Oregon want to do.

 

[SavannahMann]

Do you even know what the Sanctuary Cities are doing? When an illegal immigrant is arrested the city notifies the ICE agents. Then ICE says hold onto them for a couple days until we feel like coming to get them. The city says no and releases the person on bail or with time served or with a notice to appear. The same as they do for every other person they arrest for a minor crime.

The city does not prevent ICE from running raids or arresting the illegals anytime they want. The cities will hold the guy if there is a valid warrant for them. But a request is asking for a favor. If someone asks you for a favor you are free to say no.

The other thing that Sanctuary Cities do is refuse to provide police support for an ICE raid. If you as an ICE agent want to, that is your business. The local police won't hinder you but won't assist either.

The same is true of legalization of Marijuana. The DEA can still arrest people. But the local cops aren't going to. The reason the DEA doesn't is because the Jury is likely to find the defendant not guilty based upon those state laws.

Federal Agents still have all the authority they had before any of this. What they don't have is the local cops rushing about at their whim. The DEA could flood Colorado with agents and arrest people for Marijuana every day. Then the trial and aforementioned jury nullification which is a time honored power the jury always have. It is the same power the Jury exercise when a cop is caught abusing a prisoner when they find the cop not guilty.

Now calling this a crime against the Feds is stretching the meaning of the word crime all out of proportion. Let's say you see a cop arresting a guy. The cop says hold on to this guy while I go talk to that woman. You say no. You are under no legal obligation to assist the officer. He can't deputize you without your consent. You have committed no crime. He can order you to disperse. You are not allowed to withhold information about a crime. But you are in no way required to render assistance.

The stories about an armed citizen shooting the person beating a cop have been in the news before. But let's say I am the first on the scene. I have no obligation to pull my pistol and shoot the man. I would be committing no crime by pulling out the popcorn and watching the events unfold. I am a witness and am required by law to inform the police of what I saw. I am not required to take any action.

The same is true of an accident scene. I am allowed to render aid. I am not required to do so except in Alaska where leaving a person stranded is attempted murder.

I may not be a "good" person. But I am not a criminal. The cities and states are within their rights to refuse requests for assistance. If they refuse a warrant then they are committing a crime.

In other words, law enforcement is free to ignore certain types of illegal activity or choose not to go after certain kinds of illegal activity. Still not impressed. Try again.

Federal authorities have the right, and the responsibility to enforce federal law. Federal Authorities don't have the right or authority to enforce state law unless that state grants the authority.

The same is true in reverse. The local cops have only the authority that the States or cities grant them. If the state says they are barred from enforcing federal law. That is the states rights issue right there.

Let's say I am a local cop. I can't arrest you for a federal crime. I can arrest you for the state or city law that has been violated.

The ones making the law are the ones who have the authority to enforce it.

But states have the right to write laws that conflict with Federal laws?

They aren't in conflict. That is what I keep trying to explain to you. There is nothing stopping either the DEA or ICE from arresting all the people they want.

 

[ptbw forever]

Do you even know what the Sanctuary Cities are doing? When an illegal immigrant is arrested the city notifies the ICE agents. Then ICE says hold onto them for a couple days until we feel like coming to get them. The city says no and releases the person on bail or with time served or with a notice to appear. The same as they do for every other person they arrest for a minor crime.

The city does not prevent ICE from running raids or arresting the illegals anytime they want. The cities will hold the guy if there is a valid warrant for them. But a request is asking for a favor. If someone asks you for a favor you are free to say no.

The other thing that Sanctuary Cities do is refuse to provide police support for an ICE raid. If you as an ICE agent want to, that is your business. The local police won't hinder you but won't assist either.

The same is true of legalization of Marijuana. The DEA can still arrest people. But the local cops aren't going to. The reason the DEA doesn't is because the Jury is likely to find the defendant not guilty based upon those state laws.

Federal Agents still have all the authority they had before any of this. What they don't have is the local cops rushing about at their whim. The DEA could flood Colorado with agents and arrest people for Marijuana every day. Then the trial and aforementioned jury nullification which is a time honored power the jury always have. It is the same power the Jury exercise when a cop is caught abusing a prisoner when they find the cop not guilty.

Now calling this a crime against the Feds is stretching the meaning of the word crime all out of proportion. Let's say you see a cop arresting a guy. The cop says hold on to this guy while I go talk to that woman. You say no. You are under no legal obligation to assist the officer. He can't deputize you without your consent. You have committed no crime. He can order you to disperse. You are not allowed to withhold information about a crime. But you are in no way required to render assistance.

The stories about an armed citizen shooting the person beating a cop have been in the news before. But let's say I am the first on the scene. I have no obligation to pull my pistol and shoot the man. I would be committing no crime by pulling out the popcorn and watching the events unfold. I am a witness and am required by law to inform the police of what I saw. I am not required to take any action.

The same is true of an accident scene. I am allowed to render aid. I am not required to do so except in Alaska where leaving a person stranded is attempted murder.

I may not be a "good" person. But I am not a criminal. The cities and states are within their rights to refuse requests for assistance. If they refuse a warrant then they are committing a crime.

In other words, law enforcement is free to ignore certain types of illegal activity or choose not to go after certain kinds of illegal activity. Still not impressed. Try again.

Federal authorities have the right, and the responsibility to enforce federal law. Federal Authorities don't have the right or authority to enforce state law unless that state grants the authority.

The same is true in reverse. The local cops have only the authority that the States or cities grant them. If the state says they are barred from enforcing federal law. That is the states rights issue right there.

Let's say I am a local cop. I can't arrest you for a federal crime. I can arrest you for the state or city law that has been violated.

The ones making the law are the ones who have the authority to enforce it.

But states have the right to write laws that conflict with Federal laws?

They aren't in conflict. That is what I keep trying to explain to you. There is nothing stopping either the DEA or ICE from arresting all the people they want.

Except the courts....

 

[Votto]

Do you even know what the Sanctuary Cities are doing? When an illegal immigrant is arrested the city notifies the ICE agents. Then ICE says hold onto them for a couple days until we feel like coming to get them. The city says no and releases the person on bail or with time served or with a notice to appear. The same as they do for every other person they arrest for a minor crime.

The city does not prevent ICE from running raids or arresting the illegals anytime they want. The cities will hold the guy if there is a valid warrant for them. But a request is asking for a favor. If someone asks you for a favor you are free to say no.

The other thing that Sanctuary Cities do is refuse to provide police support for an ICE raid. If you as an ICE agent want to, that is your business. The local police won't hinder you but won't assist either.

The same is true of legalization of Marijuana. The DEA can still arrest people. But the local cops aren't going to. The reason the DEA doesn't is because the Jury is likely to find the defendant not guilty based upon those state laws.

Federal Agents still have all the authority they had before any of this. What they don't have is the local cops rushing about at their whim. The DEA could flood Colorado with agents and arrest people for Marijuana every day. Then the trial and aforementioned jury nullification which is a time honored power the jury always have. It is the same power the Jury exercise when a cop is caught abusing a prisoner when they find the cop not guilty.

Now calling this a crime against the Feds is stretching the meaning of the word crime all out of proportion. Let's say you see a cop arresting a guy. The cop says hold on to this guy while I go talk to that woman. You say no. You are under no legal obligation to assist the officer. He can't deputize you without your consent. You have committed no crime. He can order you to disperse. You are not allowed to withhold information about a crime. But you are in no way required to render assistance.

The stories about an armed citizen shooting the person beating a cop have been in the news before. But let's say I am the first on the scene. I have no obligation to pull my pistol and shoot the man. I would be committing no crime by pulling out the popcorn and watching the events unfold. I am a witness and am required by law to inform the police of what I saw. I am not required to take any action.

The same is true of an accident scene. I am allowed to render aid. I am not required to do so except in Alaska where leaving a person stranded is attempted murder.

I may not be a "good" person. But I am not a criminal. The cities and states are within their rights to refuse requests for assistance. If they refuse a warrant then they are committing a crime.

In other words, law enforcement is free to ignore certain types of illegal activity or choose not to go after certain kinds of illegal activity. Still not impressed. Try again.

Federal authorities have the right, and the responsibility to enforce federal law. Federal Authorities don't have the right or authority to enforce state law unless that state grants the authority.

The same is true in reverse. The local cops have only the authority that the States or cities grant them. If the state says they are barred from enforcing federal law. That is the states rights issue right there.

Let's say I am a local cop. I can't arrest you for a federal crime. I can arrest you for the state or city law that has been violated.

The ones making the law are the ones who have the authority to enforce it.

But states have the right to write laws that conflict with Federal laws?

They aren't in conflict. That is what I keep trying to explain to you. There is nothing stopping either the DEA or ICE from arresting all the people they want.

Except the courts....

The courts preventing Federal laws from being implemented is OK, don't ya know.

 

[ptbw forever]

In other words, law enforcement is free to ignore certain types of illegal activity or choose not to go after certain kinds of illegal activity. Still not impressed. Try again.

Federal authorities have the right, and the responsibility to enforce federal law. Federal Authorities don't have the right or authority to enforce state law unless that state grants the authority.

The same is true in reverse. The local cops have only the authority that the States or cities grant them. If the state says they are barred from enforcing federal law. That is the states rights issue right there.

Let's say I am a local cop. I can't arrest you for a federal crime. I can arrest you for the state or city law that has been violated.

The ones making the law are the ones who have the authority to enforce it.

But states have the right to write laws that conflict with Federal laws?

They aren't in conflict. That is what I keep trying to explain to you. There is nothing stopping either the DEA or ICE from arresting all the people they want.

Except the courts....

The courts preventing Federal laws from being implemented is OK, don't ya know.

The way the right wins is not by winning elections, it is by winning the narrative and ruthlessly destroying the spirit of their opponent.

It is time for the right to fully embrace radicalism.

 

[my2¢]

The courts preventing Federal laws from being implemented is OK, don't ya know.

And who is responsible for that?

The federal government can’t coerce states (or cities) into action with a financial “gun to the head,” according to Supreme Court precedent developed by Chief Justice John Roberts in the 2012 Affordable Care Act case.

The “anti-commandeering principle,” says that the federal government can’t require state officials to enforce federal law. Its leading formulation was written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in the 1997 case of Printz v. U.S.

 

[Timmy]

You realize what the Feds are asking ?

They want you to hold mr X , on your own dime and you are also liable if there's a mistake .

Cities will do it for real bad dudes who are already in trouble . But some guy who was arrested for somthing minor ?! What good does that do.

Plus as far as the law goes . Supreme Court says immigration is the Feds responsibility alone .

 

[SavannahMann]

There is no federal drinking age law yet if a state doesn't have a drinking age of 21, you loses federal $$. Nobody seemed to have a problem. Carter did it back in the seventies regarding the 55 mph speed limit.

States are not allowed to violate federal law.

Yes they are. If a state lowered the drinking age and was willing to forgo the federal highway funds then there would be little the Feds could do.

 

[SavannahMann]

Do you even know what the Sanctuary Cities are doing? When an illegal immigrant is arrested the city notifies the ICE agents. Then ICE says hold onto them for a couple days until we feel like coming to get them. The city says no and releases the person on bail or with time served or with a notice to appear. The same as they do for every other person they arrest for a minor crime.

The city does not prevent ICE from running raids or arresting the illegals anytime they want. The cities will hold the guy if there is a valid warrant for them. But a request is asking for a favor. If someone asks you for a favor you are free to say no.

The other thing that Sanctuary Cities do is refuse to provide police support for an ICE raid. If you as an ICE agent want to, that is your business. The local police won't hinder you but won't assist either.

The same is true of legalization of Marijuana. The DEA can still arrest people. But the local cops aren't going to. The reason the DEA doesn't is because the Jury is likely to find the defendant not guilty based upon those state laws.

Federal Agents still have all the authority they had before any of this. What they don't have is the local cops rushing about at their whim. The DEA could flood Colorado with agents and arrest people for Marijuana every day. Then the trial and aforementioned jury nullification which is a time honored power the jury always have. It is the same power the Jury exercise when a cop is caught abusing a prisoner when they find the cop not guilty.

Now calling this a crime against the Feds is stretching the meaning of the word crime all out of proportion. Let's say you see a cop arresting a guy. The cop says hold on to this guy while I go talk to that woman. You say no. You are under no legal obligation to assist the officer. He can't deputize you without your consent. You have committed no crime. He can order you to disperse. You are not allowed to withhold information about a crime. But you are in no way required to render assistance.

The stories about an armed citizen shooting the person beating a cop have been in the news before. But let's say I am the first on the scene. I have no obligation to pull my pistol and shoot the man. I would be committing no crime by pulling out the popcorn and watching the events unfold. I am a witness and am required by law to inform the police of what I saw. I am not required to take any action.

The same is true of an accident scene. I am allowed to render aid. I am not required to do so except in Alaska where leaving a person stranded is attempted murder.

I may not be a "good" person. But I am not a criminal. The cities and states are within their rights to refuse requests for assistance. If they refuse a warrant then they are committing a crime.

In other words, law enforcement is free to ignore certain types of illegal activity or choose not to go after certain kinds of illegal activity. Still not impressed. Try again.

Federal authorities have the right, and the responsibility to enforce federal law. Federal Authorities don't have the right or authority to enforce state law unless that state grants the authority.

The same is true in reverse. The local cops have only the authority that the States or cities grant them. If the state says they are barred from enforcing federal law. That is the states rights issue right there.

Let's say I am a local cop. I can't arrest you for a federal crime. I can arrest you for the state or city law that has been violated.

The ones making the law are the ones who have the authority to enforce it.

But states have the right to write laws that conflict with Federal laws?

They aren't in conflict. That is what I keep trying to explain to you. There is nothing stopping either the DEA or ICE from arresting all the people they want.

Except the courts....

ICE agents are going to state courts and arresting people. The cops there aren't forming human chains to prevent them.

Let's say you are a cop in Pennsylvania. You arrest a guy and put it on the wire. The ICE agents call and say hold him until we get there. You hold him. Days and then weeks go by. Finally the lawyer files a motion demanding that you either charge him or release him.

You call ICE and say I thought you wanted this guy. They say nope. Mistaken identity. Sorry.

Where does that leave you? Sued at the very least. Whatever you arrested him for is now gone. The charges will be thrown out because you held him waiting on ICE.

But let's deal with LOs Angeles as one real world example. Remember Lindsey Lohan? She was in and out of jail in hours due to overcrowding. Lindsay Lohan released from jail shortly after checking in - CNN.com

Thirty days was done in about eight hours.

Now to keep the illegals that you want them to hold for days who do they release? You tell me. How many rapists and murderers should be cut loose so that Los Angeles can detain the suspected illegals until ICE gets around to picking them up?

Remember it could be two or three days or it could be two weeks. Lohan served eight hours of a thirty day sentence and was released as time served. If the time had been less then the old joke would literally be true. The crooks would be out before the ink was dry on the fingerprint cards. ICE isn't waiting there with a van for the people. THeir jails are full too.

 

[Rigby5]

By law, all cities and states must be sanctuaries.

Federal law can never require anything at all from states or cities, as they must always be entirely independent of any federal jurisdiction.
Federal forces are always inherently abusive, so are supposed to be strictly limited by the Constitution.

Here is what happens when federal forces start to abuse state and local authorities.

City To Pay American War Veteran $190,000 After He Was Detained by ICE

{...
City To Pay American War Veteran $190,000 After He Was Detained by ICE
Nina Golgowski,HuffPost
...
A Marine combat veteran who was wrongly held for potential deportation for three days after a Michigan police captain reported him to federal immigration officials will be paid $190,000 by the city over the incident.
...}