「庇護城市」的存在本身就是非法的、違反常理的！必須取締！

[noid2]

支持

[SourSweetTea]

取缔干嘛，如果liberal真有爱心，全部送过去不就好了，又能增加他们的就业
只不过德州送了几车，这帮伪君子装逼犯就暴露了
康人家之恺

[laomei9]

要不要几个兰州一起把德州的homeless送回去？

[noid2]

德州的homeless？送到兰州？
万万不可

[noid2]

取缔干嘛，如果liberal真有爱心，全部送过去不就好了，又能增加他们的就业
只不过德州送了几车，这帮伪君子装逼犯就暴露了
康人家之恺

政府执法犯法，居然还振振有词

[SourSweetTea]

政府执法犯法，居然还振振有词

纽森听不见你这么说他的，别费劲了

[GreatCanada]

取缔干嘛，如果liberal真有爱心，全部送过去不就好了，又能增加他们的就业
只不过德州送了几车，这帮伪君子装逼犯就暴露了
康人家之恺

牛和梁，莉莉康老师家都不欢迎难民

[SourSweetTea]

牛和梁，莉莉康老师家都不欢迎难民

他们又不是真的liberal

[microfish]

你说非法的依据是啥

[noid2]

你说非法的依据是啥

依据就是国家有边境，入境要有手续。
没经过这些手续就是非法进入，政府不处理反而庇护那当然是违法。

[microfish]

依据就是国家有边境，入境要有手续。
没经过这些手续就是非法进入，政府不处理反而庇护那当然是违法。

各是各的事儿 你说的违法的 法律 依据是哪条法律？

[noid2]

各是各的事儿 你说的违法的 法律 依据是哪条法律？

保护罪犯不违法吗？

[laomei9]

没有法庭定罪的都是无辜的吧

[magagop]

支持

這個我不同意，只要不花聯邦政府的錢，那些藍州愛庇護誰庇護誰，因為紅州也是憲法第二修正案的庇護地區，如果未來哪天美國全國禁槍，紅州也可以庇護持槍者，把聯邦軍隊和警察擋在外面，讓他們乾瞪眼，有種就內戰come and take it

[VladPutin]

与其撒泼打滚不如搬去密西西比。

[magagop]

没有法庭定罪的都是无辜的吧

法庭定罪的也可以庇護，美國內戰前北方就有庇護南方法庭定罪的聯邦逃奴的傳統。即使中國紅色通稽犯，美國也可以庇護。

[laowangtou]

法庭定罪的也可以庇護，美國內戰前北方就有庇護南方法庭定罪的聯邦逃奴的傳統。即使中國紅色通稽犯，美國也可以庇護。

举的两例都不成立

南方逃奴没有犯联邦储备法，联邦法没有维护南方蓄奴
中国红通犯也没有犯美国法律
而兰州还是受联邦法约束的

[magagop]

举的两例都不成立

南方逃奴没有犯联邦储备法，联邦法没有维护南方蓄奴
中国红通犯也没有犯美国法律
而兰州还是受联邦法约束的

幫助南方逃奴的北方人會觸犯1850年聯邦逃奴法，會被聯邦刑事處罰，但北方州和地方法院仍舊用盡全力袒護這些觸犯美國聯邦法律幫助南方逃奴去加拿大的北方人，變成de facto庇護州：

Yes — under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, northerners who knowingly aided escaped enslaved people (for example by sheltering, feeding, harboring, or obstructing their capture) were committing a violation of federal law. The Act explicitly imposed fines and imprisonment for such assistance.

Here is a more detailed legal analysis plus examples:

What the 1850 Act required, and what it made illegal

Key relevant provisions in the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850:

The Act extended federal power and required that “persons owing labor or service … escaping … shall, on claim of the party to whom such labor or service is due, be delivered up.”

Crucially, it imposed criminal penalties on those who assisted escapees or obstructed capture. The law stated that:

“any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him … or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive … shall be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months.”

The Act also required that citizens and law enforcement in free states must assist federal marshals, and made marshals liable (or subject to penalties) if they refused.

It barred state interference in these cases: it prohibited state courts from interfering with federal rendition proceedings, and prevented state authorities from introducing new procedural protections for alleged fugitives that might thwart capture.

Thus, under the statute, a northerner who knowingly helped a fugitive could be criminally prosecuted by federal authorities for those acts (fine + up to six months imprisonment).

However, key nuances and practical limits affected enforcement.

---

Legal and practical limitations, and resistance

Even though the law was on the books, in practice enforcement was spotty, contested, and often confronted with resistance. Some of the obstacles and tensions included:

1. State noncooperation
   After Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), the Supreme Court held that while federal law was supreme, state officials were not required to help enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793.
   Later, northern states passed “Personal Liberty Laws” that barred state courts and officials from assisting or enforcing fugitive slave claims, or from using state jails or facilities for holding suspected fugitives. These laws did not legalize violating the federal law but sought to limit state-level collaboration.

2. Community resistance and rescue efforts
   In many cases, local communities—free Black networks, abolitionist groups, vigilance committees—directly interfered with captures, sheltered escapees, or organized rescues. While these acts were illegal under federal statute, enforcement against them was politically and logistically difficult.
   Some of these rescues led to indictments and prosecutions, though sometimes with weak results or political backlash.

3. High risk and selective prosecution
   Because of strong local opposition in many Northern jurisdictions, and political considerations, federal authorities sometimes hesitated to prosecute, or prosecutions were less robust in hostile locales. Also, proving knowledge, intent, and the particular facts could be hard.

4. Conflicts with state law or public opinion
   Abolitionist sentiment in many northern communities made local juries less willing to convict. Some courts and local officials deliberately delayed or obstructed proceedings, complicating enforcement.

So the law was technically enforceable against someone in the North who aided an escape, but in practice enforcement was uneven, risky, and often contested.

---

Concrete examples

Here are some historical cases that illustrate how northerners helping escapees risked in theory (and occasionally in practice) breaking federal law:

Oberlin–Wellington Rescue (1858, Ohio). Under the 1850 Act, John Price (an escaped slave) was arrested by a U.S. marshal. A group of 37 local citizens forcibly rescued him and helped him escape. They were federally indicted.

Christiana Riot (1851, Pennsylvania). A federal attempt to regain four fugitives led to confrontation and the death of a slaveholder. Afterward, about 41 people (Black and white) were indicted under federal law (some for treason) for resisting the recapture.

Joshua Glover / Sherman Booth (Wisconsin, 1854). Glover was captured under the 1850 Act and jailed in Milwaukee. Sherman Booth and local sympathizers broke him out of jail and sent him to Canada. Booth was arrested for violation of the federal law, and became central to a legal battle culminating in Ableman v. Booth, in which the Supreme Court held that state courts couldn’t override federal fugitive slave law.

Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad. Though not a single case, Tubman’s repeated efforts to guide escapees across state lines would, if captured and proven, be subject to the penalties in the law (providing assistance, harboring, etc.).

These show that northerners did sometimes act in violation of the 1850 law, at considerable risk.

---

Summary & implications

Yes — under the 1850 statute, helping escapees was unlawful under federal law: a person could be fined up to $1,000 and imprisoned up to six months for knowingly obstructing capture or harboring fugitives.

But enforcement was uneven, often politicized, and frequently met with local resistance.

Many northern jurisdictions tried to minimize their involvement (via state noncooperation) to avoid legal conflict.

The tension between federal mandates and local/northern resistance was one of the flashpoints that deepened sectional division before the Civil War.

[magagop]

举的两例都不成立

南方逃奴没有犯联邦储备法，联邦法没有维护南方蓄奴
中国红通犯也没有犯美国法律
而兰州还是受联邦法约束的

即使同時觸犯美國法律，美國也不會把犯人送回中國審判，而是在美國接受審判，然後美國服刑，然後在美國申請政治庇護。反正中國肯定拿不到人，美國跟中國也沒有引渡條約，美國不會也不想配合中國。

[noid2]

這個我不同意，只要不花聯邦政府的錢，那些藍州愛庇護誰庇護誰，因為紅州也是憲法第二修正案的庇護地區，如果未來哪天美國全國禁槍，紅州也可以庇護持槍者，把聯邦軍隊和警察擋在外面，讓他們乾瞪眼，有種就內戰come and take it

不花政府的钱你能把罪犯藏你家里吗？