DOJ Considering Arresting Sanctuary City Politicians

[ghitch75]

WOW.....i thought it was a crime to be in the USA illegally?......so local LEO's shouldn't arrest them?????

 

[Fargo]

WOW.....i thought it was a crime to be in the USA illegally?......so local LEO's shouldn't arrest them?????

Kinda. I don't believe presence is a crime, there is a crime for illegal entry though IIRC. The problem is, much like that people having drugs in their system is insufficient to convict for possession, just being here by itself probably isn't sufficient to convict for illegal entry unless you can prove when/where/how etc. Plus, if memory serves, iLegal entry is a misdemeanor unless there is an aggravator. The feds prosecute virtually none of these cases, instead they just do a removal proceedings if they care enough to even do that.

Removal or deportation proceedings are civil administrative proceedings, nothing criminal about them and you don't even get a real judge. Instead you get an executive branch ALJ who works for the DOJ.

 

[phylodog]

Part of what frustrates me so much about the whole thing is how impotent our immigration code and enforcement have become.

Even with the vast majority of jurisdictions cooperating with ice, there has been virtually nothing accomplished in so far as creating a workable immigration framework or enforcing it.

Both parties are pandering in my opinion, the Democrats just want to ignore all immigration law, and the Republicans don't have much interest in any system which could actually be enforced as a practical matter.

Agreed. Building the wall and adopting the immigration policies of the nice places like North Korea and Iran (at least how illegals are treated) would work for me.

 

[phylodog]

Hell, I'm a nice guy. I'd even vote for having my money go towards an awesome log ride type amusement park ride which transports them back across the border. The logs will need to be steel though as I'd want them filled with fire as they return back to the loading station.

 

[Fargo]

Agreed. Building the wall and adopting the immigration policies of the nice places like North Korea and Iran (at least how illegals are treated) would work for me.

Like BBI posted above, both sides tacitly benefit from illegal immigration and so nothing will actually happen in my opinion. Plus, the taxpayers would never be willing to pay the cost of having a truly closed border.

 

[phylodog]

Like BBI posted above, both sides tacitly benefit from illegal immigration and so nothing will actually happen in my opinion. Plus, the taxpayers would never be willing to pay the cost of having a truly closed border.

Aww, come on.....what's another trillion tacked on to the national "debt"?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.

There is no PC required that the guy that they tell you to cage is an illegal immigrant and not a US citizen.

The proceeding that they're asking you to hold him on is not criminal in nature, it's a civil administrative proceedings.

If they do screwup and have you hold someone that shouldn't be, the burden falls on you. See for example, the City of Indianapolis.

This cluster is solely of the federal government's making. It alone has the ability to create immigration law, and to appropriate funds to enforce it. Under no circumstance should they be allowed to shove this crap off on the states.

Perhaps illegal entry should be made a felony?

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Border wall tests find heights should keep out crossers - San Antonio Express-News

 

[Fargo]

Perhaps illegal entry should be made a felony?

It already is a crime, it is just one that the US attorney's office virtually never prosecutes. (Although the same can be said for the vast majority of misdemeanors and lower level federal felonies.)

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Unless there is a PC finding to hold them, yes it is unconstitutional. U.S. Const. Am 4.

You are acting like ice holds carry some sort of burden of proof. Once again they are/were issuing them without PC which is why the city of Indianapolis got in trouble.

ICE places detainers on aliens who have been arrested on local criminal charges and for whom ICE possesses probable cause to believe that they are removable from the United States, so that ICE can take custody of the alien when he or she is released from local custody.

https://www.ice.gov/detainer-policy

Detainer form:

1. DHS HAS DETERMINED THAT PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS THAT THE SUBJECT IS A REMOVABLE ALIEN. THISDETERMINATION IS BASED ON (complete box 1 or 2).

• Maintain custody of the alien for a period NOT TO EXCEED 48 HOURS beyond the time when he/she would otherwise havebeen released from your custody to allow DHS to assume custody.

If someone is issuing it without PC, that person is doing it wrong. No different than a local LEO who arrests without PC. However detainers DO require PC to be legal.

You are acting like these are proven illegal immigrants (or even PC) when that is simply not the case in any way. If they were, the feds could have a warrant issued and actually order their detention.

Warrants aren't instant and neither are database searches, etc. You know that. It's why Indiana has the 72 hour hold. Once PC is established and the person is in custody, a reasonable length of time to complete the investigation and secure a warrant isn't illegal or unreasonable.

 

[BugI02]

Perhaps illegal entry should be made a [STRIKE]felony[/STRIKE][capital crime]?

*.*

 

[Fargo]

https://www.ice.gov/detainer-policy

Detainer form:





If someone is issuing it without PC, that person is doing it wrong. No different than a local LEO who arrests without PC. However detainers DO require PC to be legal.



Warrants aren't instant and neither are database searches, etc. You know that. It's why Indiana has the 72 hour hold. Once PC is established and the person is in custody, a reasonable length of time to complete the investigation and secure a warrant isn't illegal or unreasonable.

Neither of the authorizing acts, specifically 8 USC 1357 nor 8 CFR 287.7 require PC and ICE has repeatedly been found by federal courts to issue them without PC in violation of the 4th Am. See. https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170221b05 and MORALES v. CHADBOURNE | FindLaw

That is why the Indianapolis consent decree explicitly adresses PC and makes it a requirement.

Edit: ICE policy now requires PC to comport with the adverse rulings. However, it is explicitly an internal policy with no effect or right conferred outside of the agency per sub 9. https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2017/10074-2.pdf

 

[jamil]

*.*

So kill people who come here illegally? Really? Or is teal the new purple?

 

[jamil]

I've kinda stayed out of the conversation because I'm really not all that read into Indy local politics, and I kinda don't care to be. But on the topic, I just don't see arresting community leaders without having committed an actual crime. I think it's different if they catch sanctuary city officials actively thwarting officials--not just not cooperating but hiding, or physically preventing feds from making arrests. It seems to me that should be some kind of obstruction charge.