ICE arrests Bolivian man convicted of child sex crimes, Fairfax sheriff REFUSED 3 detainers

[Anonymous]

Call your Republican Senator and pass the bi-partisan immigration bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Call your Republican Senator and pass the bi-partisan immigration bill.

Why should we pass a trash bill that still allows in 1.5M illegals per year in?

It was a stupid democrat bill pretending to do something when it basically still allowed for open borders. Just so the Dems could say they were trying to pass border bills even though it was weaker than toilet paper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:all a result of Kamala and Joe

It was fixed by Obama but all his accomplishments no matter how good were canceled under Trump.

It’s my understanding it was cancelled by progressive extremists, no?

Under Trump, sure, but hardly condoned by Trump. Get it right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to be a bit of a he said-he said situation. FC says they never received retainers for the guy. ICE said they said they sent the retainers but never followed up with a judicial warrant (which is something one would be able to find in the public record).

So, my question is why ICE is either lying or left the job half done?

That is not a situation. FC does not need a warrant to honor a retainer request, there are plenty of jurisdictions that honor request from ICE without a warrrant. ICE did not mess anything up, FC policies let sex offenders that should be deported go free.

Right, but FC claims that ICE never issued the retainer request. If ICE had sought a warrant, we would not be in this position of ICE saying they made the request, and FC saying they never did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does something like this happen? The county needs to be held accountable. From WJLA:

"ICE arrested a Bolivian national convicted of sex crimes against a Virginia child and the Fairfax County Sheriff refused to honor three immigration detainers and released the convicted sex offender back into the community, 7News learned...ERO adds that in July, a Fairfax County judge sentenced Veizaga-Vargas to six months in jail for sexual assault of a child, and then the court suspended all six months of the sentence and the Fairfax County Sheriff refused to honor an immigration detainer."

https://wjla.com/news/local/virginia-crime-illegal-immigrants-arrests-bolivian-man-convicted-of-child-sex-crimes-fairfax-county-virginia-sheriff-stacey-kincaid-refused-detainers-ero-enforcement-removal-operations-jose-fabricio-veizaga-vargas#

This is literally the whole point of being a sanctuary city.
So congratulations, the system worked as you voted.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to be a bit of a he said-he said situation. FC says they never received retainers for the guy. ICE said they said they sent the retainers but never followed up with a judicial warrant (which is something one would be able to find in the public record).

So, my question is why ICE is either lying or left the job half done?

That is not a situation. FC does not need a warrant to honor a retainer request, there are plenty of jurisdictions that honor request from ICE without a warrrant. ICE did not mess anything up, FC policies let sex offenders that should be deported go free.

Right, but FC claims that ICE never issued the retainer request. If ICE had sought a warrant, we would not be in this position of ICE saying they made the request, and FC saying they never did.

They don't need a warrant, they need a retainer but it's FC policy to ignore those retainers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to be a bit of a he said-he said situation. FC says they never received retainers for the guy. ICE said they said they sent the retainers but never followed up with a judicial warrant (which is something one would be able to find in the public record).

So, my question is why ICE is either lying or left the job half done?

That is not a situation. FC does not need a warrant to honor a retainer request, there are plenty of jurisdictions that honor request from ICE without a warrrant. ICE did not mess anything up, FC policies let sex offenders that should be deported go free.

Right, but FC claims that ICE never issued the retainer request. If ICE had sought a warrant, we would not be in this position of ICE saying they made the request, and FC saying they never did.

They are not legally required to get a warrant for a retainer request and other counties find legal ways to detain high risk criminals without a warrant from ICE. Fairfax county chooses not to share arrest information with ICE. If they truly cared about protecting the community from violent criminals they would share this information with immigration authorities when he was arrested for a crime. Instead they share information with ICE after criminals are released into the community and effectively tell ICE we released this person good luck finding them. This is 100% a policy choice and FC is making excuses to avoid accountability for their actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to be a bit of a he said-he said situation. FC says they never received retainers for the guy. ICE said they said they sent the retainers but never followed up with a judicial warrant (which is something one would be able to find in the public record).

So, my question is why ICE is either lying or left the job half done?

That is not a situation. FC does not need a warrant to honor a retainer request, there are plenty of jurisdictions that honor request from ICE without a warrrant. ICE did not mess anything up, FC policies let sex offenders that should be deported go free.

Right, but FC claims that ICE never issued the retainer request. If ICE had sought a warrant, we would not be in this position of ICE saying they made the request, and FC saying they never did.

They don't need a warrant, they need a retainer but it's FC policy to ignore those retainers.

Ok, but is that a surprise to ICE? It feels like ICE is more interested in scoring political points than they are in protecting the public. If ICE actually thought this guy was a threat, and was motivated by public service/safety, wouldn't they have: 1) ensured FC received the retainer; and 2) sought a warrant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to be a bit of a he said-he said situation. FC says they never received retainers for the guy. ICE said they said they sent the retainers but never followed up with a judicial warrant (which is something one would be able to find in the public record).

So, my question is why ICE is either lying or left the job half done?

That is not a situation. FC does not need a warrant to honor a retainer request, there are plenty of jurisdictions that honor request from ICE without a warrrant. ICE did not mess anything up, FC policies let sex offenders that should be deported go free.

Right, but FC claims that ICE never issued the retainer request. If ICE had sought a warrant, we would not be in this position of ICE saying they made the request, and FC saying they never did.

This is also circular reasoning because ICE uses criminal history to prioritize warrant requests. If FC does not tell them someone has been arrested for a crime until after they are released, ICE will not know they need to issue a warrant to facilitate the deportation of a violent criminal. FC is not giving ICE information they need to do their job and then blaming immigration enforcement for not requesting a warrant. The county is are not sharing essential information needed to request a warrant and prioritize deportations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to be a bit of a he said-he said situation. FC says they never received retainers for the guy. ICE said they said they sent the retainers but never followed up with a judicial warrant (which is something one would be able to find in the public record).

So, my question is why ICE is either lying or left the job half done?

That is not a situation. FC does not need a warrant to honor a retainer request, there are plenty of jurisdictions that honor request from ICE without a warrrant. ICE did not mess anything up, FC policies let sex offenders that should be deported go free.

Right, but FC claims that ICE never issued the retainer request. If ICE had sought a warrant, we would not be in this position of ICE saying they made the request, and FC saying they never did.

They don't need a warrant, they need a retainer but it's FC policy to ignore those retainers.

Ok, but is that a surprise to ICE? It feels like ICE is more interested in scoring political points than they are in protecting the public. If ICE actually thought this guy was a threat, and was motivated by public service/safety, wouldn't they have: 1) ensured FC received the retainer; and 2) sought a warrant?

ICE has to work with local law enforcement in order to pick up these criminals. When local law enforcement obstructs ICE, they can't do their job. Immigration is a civil matter, not criminal, so they don't need a warrant. FC claiming a warrant is necessary is just gas lighting so they can continue with their lazy sanctuary policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems to be a bit of a he said-he said situation. FC says they never received retainers for the guy. ICE said they said they sent the retainers but never followed up with a judicial warrant (which is something one would be able to find in the public record).

So, my question is why ICE is either lying or left the job half done?

That is not a situation. FC does not need a warrant to honor a retainer request, there are plenty of jurisdictions that honor request from ICE without a warrrant. ICE did not mess anything up, FC policies let sex offenders that should be deported go free.

Right, but FC claims that ICE never issued the retainer request. If ICE had sought a warrant, we would not be in this position of ICE saying they made the request, and FC saying they never did.

They don't need a warrant, they need a retainer but it's FC policy to ignore those retainers.

Ok, but is that a surprise to ICE? It feels like ICE is more interested in scoring political points than they are in protecting the public. If ICE actually thought this guy was a threat, and was motivated by public service/safety, wouldn't they have: 1) ensured FC received the retainer; and 2) sought a warrant?

ICE wont necessarily know that they need a warrant if FC does not share timely information about arrest history. The best practice to share this information once someone is arrested rather than after they are released. When FC does not tell ICE that someone was arrested for sexual assault until they are released, there is no time for ICE to request a criminal warrant before this person is back on the streets. It is an impossible standard for ICE to meet.

[Anonymous]

The immigration angle is stupid politicking.

Why is a child-raper getting a suspended sentence and not an institutionalization?

If this convicted children abuser was in custody for 6 months as the law set forth, ICE and Fairfax would have 6 months to argue about it without losing this dangerous person.

[Anonymous]

Why does everyone get one free child rape and get released on a double-or nothing deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Call your Republican Senator and pass the bi-partisan immigration bill.

Nice attempt at deflection. According to the link: "Veizaga entered the U.S. illegally on April 24, 2023, according to ERO."

That was well before the very flawed bill was even drafted. The number of rapists, murderers, and thieves this administration has allowed in is just mind boggling.

[Anonymous]

But Vice President Kamala Harris claimed that the US border with Mexico is secure. The Border Czar was very clear.