The President Trump Immigration Thread

[Timjoebillybob]

Indy not helping......sad very sad....

Marion County Sheriff's Department reducing cooperation with ICE - Local News - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Anyone have any info on this part of the article? It kinda sounds like MCSD won't have any choice in the matter.

A settlement expected to be signed by a federal judge would mean the sheriff's department can only detain a person if federal agents can get a judge to sign off that there is probable cause the person has committed a criminal offense.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Question to the lawyer types... isn't being in the country illegally (civil) "probable cause" to believe the individual entered illegally (criminal)? Especially if there is no evidence of a visa-overstay?

Doubly so if the individual has a criminal history of illegal entry and deportation?

 

[T.Lex]

Question to the lawyer types... isn't being in the country illegally (civil) "probable cause" to believe the individual entered illegally (criminal)? Especially if there is no evidence of a visa-overstay?

Doubly so if the individual has a criminal history of illegal entry and deportation?

Lawyer answer: it depends. Within immigration law, there are too many variables to give a definitive answer (in my limited experience).

There are a couple layers to the MCSD thing:
- Political - the Democrat administration probably appreciates a legal reason to not hold people for ICE detentions. This is a very good "out" for them - a federal judge told us we couldn't.
- Practical - MCSD, whatever their current role is, probably has better/worse things to handle than immigration violations. This may free up some capacity for more meaningful law enforcement.
- Federalism - we don't expect MCSD to hold people for suspicion of tax evasion, which is another violation of federal law that can be either criminal or civil. Immigration is a federal matter; it is properly enforced by the federales.

On a slightly different note, reasonable articulable suspicion of violating federal law can be (but isn't always) proper support for a Terry stop. So, if IMPD/MCSD thinks a certain someone might be in the country illegally that may (or may not) allow for a limited intrusion on that person's freedom for purposes of investigation.

 

[printcraft]

How about we make it a "duty to inform" if you are here illegally or face a felony if it is later found out you are not here legally?

If it's ok for carrying a gun it's ok for this too.

 

[IndyDave1776]

- Federalism - we don't expect MCSD to hold people for suspicion of tax evasion, which is another violation of federal law that can be either criminal or civil. Immigration is a federal matter; it is properly enforced by the federales.

We would have non-federal law enforcement agencies all over this if there were any money in it. For example, state motor carrier enforcement is for the most part ISP enforcing federal regulations--not even law per se, but bureaucratically generated regulations, for fun and profit. We are now seeing counties having their deputies DOT qualified so they can get their hooks into this revenue stream. My guess is that doing a pack and ship job on illegals just doesn't pay that well.

 

[T.Lex]

We would have non-federal law enforcement agencies all over this if there were any money in it. For example, state motor carrier enforcement is for the most part ISP enforcing federal regulations--not even law per se, but bureaucratically generated regulations, for fun and profit. We are now seeing counties having their deputies DOT qualified so they can get their hooks into this revenue stream. My guess is that doing a pack and ship job on illegals just doesn't pay that well.

That's probably a fair point.

I do think there's a difference though, with respect to your example, that immigration policy is a subset of foreign policy, which is inherently and solely a federal issue. Enforcing domestic laws/rules/arbitrary-but-supposedly-not-arbitrary guidelines is less so (interstate commerce issues notwithstanding).

 

[IndyDave1776]

That's probably a fair point.

I do think there's a difference though, with respect to your example, that immigration policy is a subset of foreign policy, which is inherently and solely a federal issue. Enforcing domestic laws/rules/arbitrary-but-supposedly-not-arbitrary guidelines is less so (interstate commerce issues notwithstanding).

I would accept this distinction if there were state laws passed by the General Assembly that they were enforcing rather than federal laws. I don't see how federalism differentiates based on the nationality of the person(s) being addressed.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

T.

My question has to do with why doesn't ICE just swear out a warrant if they have probable cause the individual entered illegally?

I would think part of that process would be checking to see if the individual had a valid (or over-stayed) Visa, or if they had been previously deported. Deported before or no visa, and here illegally, would seem to raise probable cause of illegal entry. Kind of like caught with a bag of money and a ski mask is probable cause to take someone into custody if there was a hold up nearby.

Isn't that how the FBI does it when locals arrest someone they want for a crime? Requests that the locals continue to hold the person in jail since they have a warrant for arrest?

Solves the due process, reviewed and signed by a judge.

 

[T.Lex]

T.

My question has to do with why doesn't ICE just swear out a warrant if they have probable cause the individual entered illegally?

Oy vey. That's a loaded question.

Based on my limited familiarity with these issues, I think the bulk of the answer is because they don't really care. They have limited resources for a problem that seems infinite. It isn't just the sheer number of estimated illegals, its that they don't really stop coming in.

They end up prioritizing based on which ones are really suspected of being dangerous.

I would think part of that process would be checking to see if the individual had a valid (or over-stayed) Visa, or if they had been previously deported. Deported before or no visa, and here illegally, would seem to raise probable cause of illegal entry. Kind of like caught with a bag of money and a ski mask is probable cause to take someone into custody if there was a hold up nearby.

Isn't that how the FBI does it when locals arrest someone they want for a crime? Requests that the locals continue to hold the person in jail since they have a warrant for arrest?

Solves the due process, reviewed and signed by a judge.

To a lesser extent, I think part of the issue is that the immigration courts couldn't handle the tsunami of cases if ICE swore a warrant for every suspected illegal. Each one would have the right to due process to determine their actual status. We like to think of it as legal/illegal, but it really isn't binary. There's a multitude of gray in between. An immigration judge is who gets the first shot at what shade of gray any given individual's case falls into.

If we're talking about just the MCSD issue, then yeah, a warrant by a judge would be enough for MCSD to hold the person. But MCSD doesn't want that. They really have overcrowding issues as it is. If they don't have to hold these people, who may not even be violent, then that's more space for the individuals shooting up Marion County.

And, the judge finding PC to hold someone would not be (most likely) the same judge doing the immigration proceeding. There's a whole different system set up for immigration.

I'm sorry, but it feels like I'm not really answering your questions. I'm not trying to be evasive. I think I just need more coffee.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Thanks, T, but no, I'm not talking about the MCSD situation. Rather, the general issue that a number of jurisdictions are under court orders that they cannot hold an individual based upon an ICE detainer request alone, the root of which is that a detainer request lacks due process (which is a separate issue since IIRC suspects can be held 24-72 hours before being charged before a court, smh). An arrest warrant on PC has due process.

Even though it's a court of law, it is just another bureaucracy. Each day, showing up with "stack A is illegals with felonies, stack B is illegals with misdemeanors, stack C is illegals previously deported, stack D is illegals with no entrance visa". For the agents, no more work than filling out a detainer request if they "mail merge" with 4 templates. Sooner or later, as the daily stacks get higher and higher, it reduces to glance through it for the "highlights" and stamp it with a signature stamp.

 

[T.Lex]

Thanks, T, but no, I'm not talking about the MCSD situation. Rather, the general issue that a number of jurisdictions are under court orders that they cannot hold an individual based upon an ICE detainer request alone

I was with you until that last bit.

That's not my understanding of what's happening, although I admit to not following it as closely as some other things. Is this a sanctuary city thing? The only anecdotal stuff I've heard is that it works the other direction: local jurisdictions have someone that they think (basically know) is illegal, and the feds won't do anything about it.

It sounds like you're describing a situation where ICE says, "Don't let this guy go" and local authorities are doing just that. I'm not familiar with that, outside some sanctuary city BS.

Even though it's a court of law, it is just another bureaucracy.

Yes.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Here is an article, federal court in Illinois ruled holding individuals solely for an ICE detainer unconstitutional. (ICE updated the form to provide a checkbox the individual is a flight risk, but that'll be challenged also)

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/13/courts-ruling-immigration-detainers-could-have-rip/

Lee ruled that the detainers were “void” because “immigration detainers issued under ICE’s detention program seek to detain subjects without a warrant — even in the absence of a determination by ICE that the subjects are likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.”

Now, a cynic would say that Judge Lee's court is exactly the court to appear in, daily, with large stacks of all of the arrest warrants for the entire 7th Circuit.

"No problem, judge... take your time... we can stay here until 2 in the morning if need be."

 

[T.Lex]

Here is an article, federal court in Illinois ruled holding individuals solely for an ICE detainer unconstitutional. (ICE updated the form to provide a checkbox the individual is a flight risk, but that'll be challenged also)

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/13/courts-ruling-immigration-detainers-could-have-rip/



Now, a cynic would say that Judge Lee's court is exactly the court to appear in, daily, with large stacks of all of the arrest warrants for the entire 7th Circuit.

"No problem, judge... take your time... we can stay here until 2 in the morning if need be."

Wow. Thanks for the link. I either didn't read it or had forgotten about that development.

I totally don't understand it.

Person is in jail awaiting criminal trial. That person has an immigration status that could be in jeopardy if convicted. ICE issues a detention request, because if the person gets out of jail, and knows that the conviction could impact their status, there's an incentive to leave. This judge invalidated that request, absent a showing that the person is an actual flight risk.

I guess the only legal issue I see is that the person remaining incarcerated creates a credit-time issue. If they are being held on the ICE detention, but would be bailable otherwise, then they may not get credit time. But, that doesn't impact (or shouldn't IMHO) the validity of the hold.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Wow. Thanks for the link. I either didn't read it or had forgotten about that development.

I totally don't understand it.

Person is in jail awaiting criminal trial. That person has an immigration status that could be in jeopardy if convicted. ICE issues a detention request, because if the person gets out of jail, and knows that the conviction could impact their status, there's an incentive to leave. This judge invalidated that request, absent a showing that the person is an actual flight risk.

I guess the only legal issue I see is that the person remaining incarcerated creates a credit-time issue. If they are being held on the ICE detention, but would be bailable otherwise, then they may not get credit time. But, that doesn't impact (or shouldn't IMHO) the validity of the hold.

And, according to this article, AG Sessions indicates that detainers are used by all law enforcement agencies, it's only the ICE ones that are being ignored/attacked. The flipside of the argument is that the ICE detainers are "civil", hence I think the need for PC that criminal illegal entry occurred.

Mass. High Court To Consider Local Authorities' Role In ICE Detainer Requests | WBUR News

From what I've read, the issue arises when the individual would otherwise be released due to:

1. Making bail
2. Pleading out to time served
3. Completing a sentence

I have NOT read of, though surely there is a case somewhere, of an individual exonerated, but then held on a detainer. (well, other than the Bundy folks, lol)

Again, a cynic would say, give them 2 days credit for the "next time'.

 

[miguel]

Who can initiate impeachment of a Federal judge? Looks like the Lyin' Hawaiian is at it again...

AG Sessions, Patriotic Immigration Groups React to Hawaii Judge Taking Teeth Out of SCOTUS-Approved Travel Ban

 

[IndyDave1776]

Who can initiate impeachment of a Federal judge? Looks like the Lyin' Hawaiian is at it again...

AG Sessions, Patriotic Immigration Groups React to Hawaii Judge Taking Teeth Out of SCOTUS-Approved Travel Ban

He doesn't need impeached. He needs tried, convicted, and executed for treason as he is making every effort to aid an enemy with whom we are at war.

 

[Libertarian01]

If I am reading this correctly SCOTUS AGAIN backed President Trumps limits and slapped down Judge Watson.

News from The Associated Press

So, for now, the President does get to say "yay or nay."

Regards,

Doug

 

[SheepDog4Life]

New immigration policy fight coming....

Immigration battle brewing in the GOP | TheHill

and CNN's Jim Acosta gets his Hello Kitty panties bunched up...

[video=youtube;6Z-tOhfpEow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z-tOhfpEow[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

He doesn't need impeached. He needs tried, convicted, and executed for treason as he is making every effort to aid an enemy with whom we are at war.

Just a lil hyperbole here, right?

 

[hoosierdoc]

I hear so much about the price of food going up if we block illegal immigration.

what happened to the price of cotton when the slaves were liberated? Did people walk around naked?