Reply to Sanctuary Cities are Stupid

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Sanctuary Cities are Stupid"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]We have an entire federal government agency dedicated to nothing but the enforcement of immigration law. Local police need to do their own job.  They don’t have the time of resources to do immigration.  How about ICE does its job and stop complaining?[/quote]

Quite a few jurisdictions have the time and resources to do it. If they're not doing it it's because they don't want to.[/quote]

Or maybe because they are aware of the federal appellate court rulings indicating that they are not supposed to do so.[/quote]

And yet some jurisdictions still do it. Must not be an issue. [/quote]

It's not an issue because some jurisdictions are not yet getting their hands slapped? That's probably because those particular actions have not been challenged. Doesn't mean it isn't problematic, and that they won't be held accountable for that in the future.

Legal consequences take time, and change is slow. Rulings are made, and appealed, and there are new rulings that set precedence. And some jurisdictions aren't going to want to change.

Here is where the thinking is currently at for the federal appellate level (link is to Newsweek, but there are plenty of others): [url=https://www.newsweek.com/what-people-fearing-deportation-need-know-about-ices-administrative-warrants-808205]Police Who Help ICE Detain Undocumented Immigrants Could Be ‘Violating Fourth Amendment,’ Experts Say [/url]

[quote]What Tukwila, Washington, officers didn't realize was that Macarreno had flagged an "administrative" rather than a "judicial" warrant. Had the officers known the difference, he may not find himself days away from deportation.

"They are two very different things," Kristie De Peña, who serves as the Director of Immigration and Senior Counsel at the Niskanen Center, told Newsweek.

"A judicial warrant requires two things—a genuine issuance by a judge, and it has to be supported by some determination of probable cause," De Peña explained.

An administrative warrant, on the other hand, need only be signed by an immigration officer. Once they are issued, an "ICE detainer" can be placed on a person's file.

"All [a detainer request] needs to say is that ICE has initiated an investigation into a person's status. It doesn't really mean anything beyond that, so obviously that kind of opens itself up to challenges," De Peña said, adding that there is "no legal requirement that local law enforcement have to comply."
Concerns

In fact, De Peña said law enforcement officers who do execute administrative warrants issued by ICE may be "violating the Fourth Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures."

In July, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires that ICE detainers be supported by probable cause.[/quote]

These cases are going to continue to be contested until there is clear guidance issued. It may not happen under Trump, but it will be settled. The fact that everyone isn't on the same page at this moment doesn't mean it "must not be an issue." Actually, it's a looming one.

[/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