Right! Police has no choice, because that’s the only alternative.
/s
1 Like
I still contend something as drastic as a human chain in the city is going to be removed unless it was say on private property and approved by said owners. This isn’t the police going out of their way to enforce a law rarely enforced otherwise.
And my examples were to counter the point that by helping enforce this law they were violating their policy to not help with immigration enforcement.
1 Like
In both of your examples there’s the issue of individuals being in immediate danger, which was not an issue in this case.
But that’s beside the point, at least as far as I’m concerned.
Our status as a sanctuary city isn’t worth the paper it’s written on if city leadership can’t provide some measure of assurance to undocumented citizens that they will be protected. OBV I’m aware that by federal law the city can’t legally take action (didn’t some Martin something whatsisname jr. have something to say about that?)
What they can, and IMO must do is precisely what I’m arguing- disobedience via inaction. So what if an ICE office is blockaded? What does this cost the city?
1 Like
Which one?
2 Likes
And when did the police figure out that there was no steel that needed to be cut through?
Because that wouldn’t have been apparent at the start.
3 Likes
So, you are arguing that instead of just “following the law”, the police should not willfully engage in civil disobedience efforts directed at federal agents?
Following the law = not assisting ICE in the search/arrest of illegal immigrants.
civil disobedience= ignore and allow people to commit illegal acts towards a federal agent/agency
You realize how insane that sounds?
//Sarcasm starting//
Hell, let us take it a bit further. ICE works for the federal government. How about we all start pirate radio stations and also fly planes without a license. Fuck the federal government. The police should refuse the federal government police those actions as well. If they do assist the FCC and FAA in stamping out any federal crimes, they are complicit and not maintaining the “Sanctuary city” mandate.
//Sarcasm ending//
2 Likes
I’m arguing that the enforcement of one law (the immediate effects of which I believe are insignificant, specifically that the inoperability of the ICE office costs the city relatively little) places the police contradictory at the least to the spirit of the law barring cooperation with immigration enforcement (which, in my opinion, is quite costly to the city and its residents.)
As others have noted, differing priorities can and do create differing enforcement levels. Micro, police officers have great latitude in choosing how they process instances of illegality. I’ve definitely buzzed past speed traps going ten over the limit and been allowed to fuck off on my merry way. I’ve been cuffed and let go because another crime happened to occur in the moment. There are likely objective reasons to these instances, i.e. the speed trap was looking for those doing 15 over or more, or for the latter it was probably because somebody set a police car on fire. In these moments, police officers ignore an illegal act in order to direct their efforts elsewhere.
From the macro perspective, the PPD as a whole stood down to the taking of highways and bridges in the protests immediately following Trump’s election. Then-mayor Hales defended the decision purely on subjective grounds-
When the protests first began on Election Night, the Police Bureau, with direction from the mayor, took a "hands-off’’ and "light touch’’ approach to the demonstrators, Marshman said. They ended up on two nights roaming onto Interstate 5 and walking in both southbound and northbound lanes.
He told the mayor he was uncomfortable allowing protesters to reach the freeways, he said, but the mayor disagreed.
"The first night, we thought there’s just a lot of emotion in the country. Just let them go out and voice their concerns and vent and keep our fingers crossed it’s peaceful and kind of watch from afar,‘’ the chief said. "We let that happen and that was a conscious choice of mine and the mayor’s office.‘’
(from this blog post at the Oregonian which also includes various quotes from disgraced ex-chief Marshman that reek of his general incompetence)
Those protests were certainly more disruptive to public order than this action, and yet, they proved quite capable to
As I’m sure that the Department of Transportation has something to say about the matter…
Although I suppose Hales and Marshman weren’t too concerned with upsetting Secretary Foxx.
I was thinking more like the mayor sending a polite letter to ICE Director Homan informing him that the PPD’s budget for trespass enforcement is worn to thin from shuttling houseless folks from one area of the city to the next.
Do these things punish people solely because of the randomness of their place of birth? Otherwise I don’t see the similarity, philosophically speaking.
Eh, I’ll settle for a political social structure that actually functions as a democracy.
1 Like
Here is the problem. You are basically arguing that the police should be biased in their policing.
Police are banned from endorsing racist organizations, like the KKK, right?
So, should the police respond to a murder call?
What if the victim is a member of the KKK?
Would responding to that murder call be “endorsing the KKK”? Of course not!
Too slippery slope for you?
Ok, should they respond to a robbery call from a KKK member?
How about an assault call from a KKK member?
You are basically arguing that as soon as a city/state deems a group “bad”, they should lose ALL legal protection and rights? That isn’t how the United States works. In the United States, even non-citizens have rights.
Our society is predicated on the concept that all people are treated equally under the law.
Take the president as the ultimate example. He has great latitude in how he chooses to enforce legislation. However, he is not allowed to undermine the legislation. His granted “latitude” is in practical and effective enforcement.
The latitude is pragmatic. It isn’t total carte blanche to do whatever the fuck he wants.
1 Like
Reductio ad absurdum.
I am arguing that our city leaders had an opportunity to make a statement about what we supposedly value in this city. I presented objective and subjective instances of law enforcement decision making, at both micro and macro scales to provide a background.
The only extreme idea I am seeing here is this notion you apparently have that the enforcement of law is black and white, and that if we don’t enforce every instance of illegality then the whole thing comes crashing down.
No, I am not arguing that murderers should be allowed to roam free, nor that we should enable our police departments to be any more racist than they already are. Have a nice day.
No, I am arguing that discretion in enforcement is arbitrary due to logistical and pragmatic concerns.
I am arguing that the whole thing comes “crashing down” if you let discretion be based on politics or personal belief of the officers, the subjects, etc.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
