Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Reply to "ICE arrests Bolivian man convicted of child sex crimes, Fairfax sheriff REFUSED 3 detainers"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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? [/quote] 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. [/quote] 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. [/quote] They don't need a warrant, they need a retainer but it's FC policy to ignore those retainers.[/quote] 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? [/quote] 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.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics