Supreme Court Ruling: Immigrants Do Not Have the Right to Bond Hearings

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Today, the Supreme Court of the USA determined that immigrants of all status, whether legal permanent residents, asylum seekers, or illegal immigrants, do not have a right to bond hearings while being held in detention by immigration officials. To quote the Supreme Court, whose ruling was 5-3 (one justice recused herself due to work she had done as Obama's chief solicitor), "Immigration officials are authorized to detain certain aliens in the course of immigration proceedings while they determine whether those aliens may be lawfully present in the country."

You may think that doesn't sound so bad. After all, the ruling just seems to be saying that immigration officials can hold people suspected of being illegal immigrants until they are confirmed to be legal or illegal. How long can that take?

Well, the reason this was heard by the Supreme Court was because a legal permanent resident, Alejandro Rodriguez, was convicted of joyriding as a teenager. In addition, he plead guilty at the age of 24 to misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. As a result of these two incidences, he was held for three years without the right to appear before a judge to ask for bond.

One of the dissenters, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, read from his dissent, a rarity for a decision. He minced few words, stating that "We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, in particular its insistence that all men and women have 'certain unalienable Rights' and that among them is the right to 'Liberty'," along with calling the ruling "legal fiction".

Source: NPR

So, how does this ruling jibe with the idea that the current government is only trying to crack down on illegal immigration, that those who have a legal residency here have nothing to worry about. You could argue that, in the case of Alejandro Rodriguez, he broke the law, and this was a consequence of it. Here's the thing, though. The average time for detention holdings, according to the NPR release, is 13 months. Joyriding, the initial crime that Alejandro Rodriguez committed, generally carries a sentence of 1 year in prison for less serious cases, to 3 years in prison for more serious incidences (such as joyriding leading into a car crash and property damage).

In other words, if someone "borrowed" a car, drove it around some, and returned it safely, it's still a crime that can lead to a year in prison. HOWEVER, that person is likely to spend as much time, if not more, than the actual sentence just waiting in a detention center if they are an immigrant. That is fucked up, and this decision basically says "Hey, when we said people have a right to Liberty, we meant people born in America, not immigrants."

A quick question I like to ask thats somewhat off topic.

Is a permanent resident immigrant one that has fully trasitioned his citizenship? As in he now revokes his citzenship of origin completely in favor of the new nation's citizenship?

Or I can still retain the citizenship of my country of origin while permenantly living in a different one?

Samtemdo8:
A quick question I like to ask thats somewhat off topic.

Is a permanent resident immigrant one that has fully trasitioned his citizenship? As in he now revokes his citzenship of origin completely in favor of the new nation's citizenship?

Or I can still retain the citizenship of my country of origin while permenantly living in a different one?

"Permanent legal resident" is basically a fancy way of saying "green card". In essence, anyone declared a permanent resident is legally a non-citizen, but has been granted authorization to live and work in the US on a permanent basis. In the case of Alejandro, for example, he's still a citizen of Mexico, and could be deported if he were to commit a serious crime, such as armed robbery. However, he's been granted the right to live and work in the US permanently unless he gives them cause to revoke his green card.

ETA: Actually, I was presumptuous. The spoiler is a list of "aggravated felonies" that can result in deportation. Despite the name, not all are felonies.

List is courtesy of Alllaw.com, via the Immigration and Nationality Act

thebobmaster:

In other words, if someone "borrowed" a car, drove it around some, and returned it safely, it's still a crime that can lead to a year in prison. HOWEVER, that person is likely to spend as much time, if not more, than the actual sentence just waiting in a detention center if they are an immigrant. That is fucked up, and this decision basically says "Hey, when we said people have a right to Liberty, we meant people born in America, not immigrants."

Also while they are waiting in the detention center: they can be forced to work manual labour for something like a dollar a day.

It's something that will please most, if not all conservatives. So try not to expect any criticism from that direction. Life as any form of immigrant - or even as a person who may 'resemble' an immigrant in name or aesthetic - is not going to get any easier in the US with the current fucklechucks in the house

If a judge were to hypothetically sentence him to 2 years in prison for joyriding now, would he be set free almost straight away since he already spent 3 years in prison waiting for his court date, or would he be locked up for those 2 years additionally? (I'm sure theres a specific term for it in English, I can't think of it right now but you know what I mean.)

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
If a judge were to hypothetically sentence him to 2 years in prison for joyriding now, would he be set free almost straight away since he already spent 3 years in prison waiting for his court date, or would he be locked up for those 2 years additionally? (I'm sure theres a specific term for it in English, I can't think of it right now but you know what I mean.)

It's usually referred to as "time served" ie the time you spend in jail waiting for trial is subtracted from any sentence you might receive. I am not sure if this applies for immigration detention in the US.

thebobmaster:

So, how does this ruling jibe with the idea that the current government is only trying to crack down on illegal immigration, that those who have a legal residency here have nothing to worry about.

It doesn't. But it isn't like any of us here actually believed that those who have a legal residency have nothing to worry about, don't we?

I think the question here should be - if you are a legal resident, and commit a crime, why should you be held by immigration officials? Surely it should be through regular law enforcement until sentenced?

Catnip1024:
I think the question here should be - if you are a legal resident, and commit a crime, why should you be held by immigration officials? Surely it should be through regular law enforcement until sentenced?

In theory, I think it's so they can process to ensure that the legal resident has a green card, and isn't just saying that they are a legal resident, along with making sure that the nature of the crime doesn't fall under the "aggravated felony" category that would allow for their green card to be revoked. That probably takes time, and add in the backlog, and that makes sense.

What DOESN'T make sense is essentially holding them captive, with no ability to request bail, until you can manage to get around to ensuring that the A) Have a green card, and B) haven't committed an aggravated felony, which would revoke their green card and allow for deportation.

thebobmaster:
What DOESN'T make sense is essentially holding them captive, with no ability to request bail, until you can manage to get around to ensuring that the A) Have a green card, and B) haven't committed an aggravated felony, which would revoke their green card and allow for deportation.

If it takes longer than 24 hours to check if those 2 criteria are met, whoever is being held needs to be released with, at most, a monitoring device. There's no justification in the world to hold anyone longer than that time period.

Samtemdo8:

Is a permanent resident immigrant one that has fully trasitioned his citizenship? As in he now revokes his citzenship of origin completely in favor of the new nation's citizenship?

Or I can still retain the citizenship of my country of origin while permenantly living in a different one?

A permanent resident is someone who is living in the country long-term but hasn't gone through the process of full immigration.

Students are the most frequent case.

renegade7:

Samtemdo8:

Is a permanent resident immigrant one that has fully trasitioned his citizenship? As in he now revokes his citzenship of origin completely in favor of the new nation's citizenship?

Or I can still retain the citizenship of my country of origin while permenantly living in a different one?

A permanent resident is someone who is living in the country long-term but hasn't gone through the process of full immigration.

Students are the most frequent case.

A minor quibble here, but students have a category of visa completely separate from residency. https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/study/student-visa.html

A permanent resident is someone who has completed the entire immigration process, so they can live and work in the US in perpetuity without extra restrictions. They haven't, however, undergone the naturalization process to become a citizen (there exists no requirement for them to do so either).

I think it speaks more to problems in the system than any sort of argument on rights, why someone with those convictions is held for so long at all. Seems like an outlier, anyway.

No sane person could argue that the criminal system is fine; it's a ridiculous mess. But that doesn't mean you go to the SCOTUS and start trying to change how we interpret law, or reexamine the Declaration of Independence.

So long as we're talking about people who aren't citizens, there is a phrase: see terms for details, certain restrictions may apply.

Pecola:
But that doesn't mean you go to the SCOTUS and start trying to change how we interpret law, or reexamine the Declaration of Independence.

Let's lock you up for three years due to 2 misdemeanors and see if you believe your rights haven't been violated. The sheer lack of empathy here is appalling.

Pecola:

So long as we're talking about people who aren't citizens, there is a phrase: see terms for details, certain restrictions may apply.

And here I thought that we were the land of the free and abided by the constitution. It's nice of you to throw out established legal precedent because you don't care about other human beings who are "others". The Supreme Court has ruled a number of times before this that constitutional protections apply to non-citizens especially in regards to criminal law.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights:
The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory."

Twenty years before Zadvydas, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas could not enforce a state law that prohibited illegally present children from attending grade schools, as all other Texas children were required to attend.

[...]

A decade before Plyler, the court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution's amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.

Three key Supreme Court decisions in 1886, 1896 and 1903 laid the 14th Amendment basis for the consistent ruling of the court that aliens, legal and illegal, have constitutional protection in criminal and certain civil affairs in the justice system.

Next they will put them on trains and hold them in camps.

Avnger:
Let's lock you up for three years due to 2 misdemeanors and see if you believe your rights haven't been violated. The sheer lack of empathy here is appalling.

Well, first of all I wouldn't be in this situation; I'm not a foreigner committing crimes in other countries. And I agreed there was a violation here, but it's a matter of length of time held, not granting bond hearings. Gathering context before academic research to a point that wasn't made might have saved you some time.

If you want to argue that these categories of people should have bond hearings, that argument is clearly over, given the court's ruling.

So yeah, devoid of empathy.

Granting the, bond hearings would potentially get them out of holding for the three goddamned years it took to decide not to deport them.

It'd be like sitting in a county jail for three years to see if they wanted to prosecute you for running that red.

Only the county jail is privately owned and renting out your labor for a dollar a day, undercutting free labor markets.

Pecola:
I think it speaks more to problems in the system than any sort of argument on rights, why someone with those convictions is held for so long at all. Seems like an outlier, anyway.

No sane person could argue that the criminal system is fine; it's a ridiculous mess. But that doesn't mean you go to the SCOTUS and start trying to change how we interpret law, or reexamine the Declaration of Independence.

So long as we're talking about people who aren't citizens, there is a phrase: see terms for details, certain restrictions may apply.

It is a long-held principle of US constitutional law that the rights granted by the US constitution - with few exceptions - are granted to both US citizens and to any non-citizen persons inside the US, including illegal aliens.

It is convenient that you are vigorous in your defence of civil liberties when it comes to gun ownership, but are willing to apply "certain restrictions" when it comes to the civil liberties of non-citizens.

Pecola:
Well, first of all I wouldn't be in this situation; I'm not a foreigner committing crimes in other countries.

So you're okay with bad things happening to people on the basis that they would never happen to you. Righto.

bastardofmelbourne:
It is a long-held principle of US constitutional law that the rights granted by the US constitution - with few exceptions - are granted to both US citizens and to any non-citizen persons inside the US, including illegal aliens.

And another clear exception has been affirmed here. What's your problem? The issue is about these people being held during proceedings without a bond hearing, and that's fair. Three years stuck in the system is ridiculous, so it's clearly a problem within the system, not the law.

So you're okay with bad things happening to people on the basis that they would never happen to you. Righto.

I'm okay with being a good person and not violating the law in other countries. And I don't expect to be treated as a full citizen of that country because I believe that status actually means something, unlike many people.

Pecola:

bastardofmelbourne:
It is a long-held principle of US constitutional law that the rights granted by the US constitution - with few exceptions - are granted to both US citizens and to any non-citizen persons inside the US, including illegal aliens.

And another clear exception has been affirmed here. What's your problem? The issue is about these people being held during proceedings without a bond hearing, and that's fair. Three years stuck in the system is ridiculous, so it's clearly a problem within the system, not the law.

So you're okay with bad things happening to people on the basis that they would never happen to you. Righto.

I'm okay with being a good person and not violating the law in other countries. And I don't expect to be treated as a full citizen of that country because I believe that status actually means something, unlike many people.

I...fail to see how expecting the ability to post bail is a totally ridiculous idea. I mean, I understand where you are coming from, to a degree, about the last part. But why is it fair to essentially leave people locked up until you can get around to processing them for a joyriding charge?

thebobmaster:
But why is it fair to essentially leave people locked up until you can get around to processing them for a joyriding charge?

As the OP quoted, immigration needs to verify a person's legal status. There may be other reasons too, if the person is considered dangerous.

Immigration services could sort of lose every suspect they ever detain if they just let people go and, you know, evade the authorities, like millions of illegal immigrants do.

And now today we have cities and states literally obstructing federal authorities from even finding and arresting people of questionable legal status. So I really don't have much sympathy here if someone gets a bad break. The systems and politics in this country are beyond foul.

Pecola:
And now today we have cities and states literally obstructing federal authorities from even finding and arresting people of questionable legal status. So I really don't have much sympathy here if someone gets a bad break. The systems and politics in this country are beyond foul.

The people responsible for the mess, and the people being caught up in it don't tend to overlap much.

Pecola:
As the OP quoted, immigration needs to verify a person's legal status. There may be other reasons too, if the person is considered dangerous.

Immigration services could sort of lose every suspect they ever detain if they just let people go and, you know, evade the authorities, like millions of illegal immigrants do.

So they choose to hold them for three years?

Here's a solution; if those people were provided with better legal representation, or if there was an actual goddamn deadline that the authorities had to meet - something nice and broad, say six months or a year - then maybe the system would process this shit faster. Because the only excuse for holding a guy without bail for three years while you figure out if he's got a goddamn green card or not is that you don't care about how long he's held for and will face no consequences if you hold him too long.

Pecola:
And now today we have cities and states literally obstructing federal authorities from even finding and arresting people of questionable legal status. So I really don't have much sympathy here if someone gets a bad break. The systems and politics in this country are beyond foul.

The politics of sanctuary cities is complex and, ironically, relies a lot on the sort of state's rights federalism that Republicans often champion. For Jeff Sessions the avowed state's right crusader to open a lawsuit against California because they had the gall to defy federal authority is a display of hypocrisy that literally causes me gut pain.

But to explain the situation simply, the behaviour you describe is illegal. A state cannot obstruct federal authorities in the course of enforcing federal law. But, the federal authorities cannot compel a state to enforce a federal law, which means that if Los Angeles has a catch-and-release policy, ICE cannot compel the LAPD to hold the people in question until ICE arrives to process them. It is generally agreed that sanctuary city policies do not constitute an obstruction of federal law enforcement because they simply regulate what the LAPD will do or not do, not what ICE will do or not do. The flip side of this coin is that sometimes a state such as Arizona may put in place immigration enforcement policies that are more strict than that of the federal government, as happened in 2011, if I recall.

In short, if ICE wants to perform immigration raids and arrest hundreds of undocumented immigrants to deport them, it has to do so with its own resources and information. The LAPD cannot stop them from doing so, but ICE cannot compel the LAPD to help them do so. It also cannot commandeer the LAPD's vehicles or jails to transport and house the detainees. This is the "sanctuary city" policy that Trump and Sessions so often complain about; states exercising their right to not do what the federal government demands that they do, so long as they also let the federal government do what it wants to do.

Thaluikhain:

Pecola:
And now today we have cities and states literally obstructing federal authorities from even finding and arresting people of questionable legal status. So I really don't have much sympathy here if someone gets a bad break. The systems and politics in this country are beyond foul.

The people responsible for the mess, and the people being caught up in it don't tend to overlap much.

The people caught up in it and being held for 3 years aren't white, Christian, freedom-blooded Americans, so who cares? They're just dirty "others."

bastardofmelbourne:

Pecola:
As the OP quoted, immigration needs to verify a person's legal status. There may be other reasons too, if the person is considered dangerous.

Immigration services could sort of lose every suspect they ever detain if they just let people go and, you know, evade the authorities, like millions of illegal immigrants do.

So they choose to hold them for three years?

Here's a solution; if those people were provided with better legal representation, or if there was an actual goddamn deadline that the authorities had to meet - something nice and broad, say six months or a year - then maybe the system would process this shit faster. Because the only excuse for holding a guy without bail for three years while you figure out if he's got a goddamn green card or not is that you don't care about how long he's held for and will face no consequences if you hold him too long.

Pecola:
And now today we have cities and states literally obstructing federal authorities from even finding and arresting people of questionable legal status. So I really don't have much sympathy here if someone gets a bad break. The systems and politics in this country are beyond foul.

The politics of sanctuary cities is complex and, ironically, relies a lot on the sort of state's rights federalism that Republicans often champion. For Jeff Sessions the avowed state's right crusader to open a lawsuit against California because they had the gall to defy federal authority is a display of hypocrisy that literally causes me gut pain.

But to explain the situation simply, the behaviour you describe is illegal. A state cannot obstruct federal authorities in the course of enforcing federal law. But, the federal authorities cannot compel a state to enforce a federal law

Let's also not forget that at least one state's supreme court (I think it was California) ruled that detaining a suspect for longer than the maximum standard holding time (usually 24 hours) in order for ICE to get their shit together is illegal under the state constitution. The prisoner hasn't been charged with any state crime, so state law enforcement cannot hold them longer than any other person.

Just because ICE thinks that this person might be an immigrant without legal papers doesn't mean they lost their right to due process.

Pecola:
And now today we have cities and states literally obstructing federal authorities from even finding and arresting people of questionable legal status. So I really don't have much sympathy here if someone gets a bad break. The systems and politics in this country are beyond foul.

If you have proof of this, contact your nearest FBI or US Marshall office or contact the Justice Department. States violating federal law is a serious matter.

Oh wait, you're conflating a state not actively going out of its way to illegally revoke a potential illegal immigrant's right to due process with a state directly interfering with federal law enforcement. Funny how the rule of law and state's rights that conservatives love so much goes out the window when it comes to "brown people." Last I checked, the right to due process was enshrined in the constitution exactly the same way that the right to bare arms is. Why is it ok for authorities to arbitrarily violate one but not the other?

bastardofmelbourne:
So they choose to hold them for three years?

How do you know that was a choice? And do we have other examples that show a pattern, that this is some sort of policy? All I'm seeing are cracks in a system and someone unfortunately falling through.

Suffice to say that immigration in the US is broken. That's why I made the second point about sanctuary cities. Cities, states, even the federal government just doesn't seem to give a shit about having a sane, orderly, efficient system.

The politics of sanctuary cities is complex

It's not. Immigration is federal domain. Cities and states have no authority here. And sanctuary cities and states laws and actions are obstruction of justice, as well as compromise national security. This is off-topic.

Avnger:
Just because ICE thinks that this person might be an immigrant without legal papers doesn't mean they lost their right to due process.

I do believe in due process for everyone, which is why three years is insane here. It still doesn't mean this supreme court ruling is wrong, it means the system is wrong and the courts can't change the laws to try to fix that. Fix the system and hold people accountable.

Oh wait, you're conflating a state not actively going out of its way to illegally revoke a potential illegal immigrant's right to due process with a state directly interfering with federal law enforcement. Funny how the rule of law and state's rights that conservatives love so much goes out the window when it comes to "brown people." Last I checked, the right to due process was enshrined in the constitution exactly the same way that the right to bare arms is. Why is it ok for authorities to arbitrarily violate one but not the other?

People are arrested and held all the time before they get a lawyer and due process. No one is arguing against that, so you can stop fighting ghosts. This issue had its day in court and it has been settled. Seems the only complaining is coming from people who refuse to accept this, maybe don't understand or just don't like how immigration and law enforcement works and want to die on some hill for no other reason than they feel offended. Not my problem. Keep complaining and projecting racism because you were told those mean old conservatives hate brown people, and you have to stand up for them even when it's irrelevant.

Pecola:

bastardofmelbourne:
So they choose to hold them for three years?

How do you know that was a choice?

It's a choice because, last I checked, it doesn't take 3 years to do a simple computer search for permanent residents. Hell, it wouldn't take 3 years to look through paper files. It took 3 years because no one gave a damn about locking up an innocent person because they happened to be Hispanic.

Pecola:

Suffice to say that immigration in the US is broken. That's why I made the second point about sanctuary cities. Cities, states, even the federal government just doesn't seem to give a shit about having a sane, orderly, efficient system.

Yes... such a sane, orderly, and efficient system that it takes 3 years for federal authorities to check the immigration status of a permanent resident registered with the federal government. The feds are interested in nothing more than locking people up regardless of their guilt or right to due process.

Pecola:

The politics of sanctuary cities is complex

It's not. Immigration is federal domain. Cities and states have no authority here. And sanctuary cities and states laws and actions are obstruction of justice, as well as compromise national security. This is off-topic.

Exactly. Immigration is federal domain and cities and states have no authority. Having no authority means they cannot obstruct federal authorities. It also means that they have no authority to detain individuals for the simple fact that they may be violating immigration law. You can't have it both ways. Either cities and states have authority over immigration and therefore can enforce immigrations laws, or they have no authority over immigration and therefore are both not required and not constitutionally allowed to enforce immigration laws.

Pecola:

Avnger:
Just because ICE thinks that this person might be an immigrant without legal papers doesn't mean they lost their right to due process.

I do believe in due process for everyone, which is why three years is insane here. It still doesn't mean this supreme court ruling is wrong, it means the system is wrong and the courts can't change the laws to try to fix that. Fix the system and hold people accountable.

Holding people accountable starts with those in charge of enforcing the system. That means Homeland Security, ICE, and Border Patrol all the way down to individual officers should not be in the practice of violating people's constitutional rights and engaging in cruel activities such as overcrowding prisoners into unsanitary environments for long periods of times.

Oh wait, you're conflating a state not actively going out of its way to illegally revoke a potential illegal immigrant's right to due process with a state directly interfering with federal law enforcement. Funny how the rule of law and state's rights that conservatives love so much goes out the window when it comes to "brown people." Last I checked, the right to due process was enshrined in the constitution exactly the same way that the right to bare arms is. Why is it ok for authorities to arbitrarily violate one but not the other?

People are arrested and held all the time before they get a lawyer and due process.[/quote]

When they are charged with a crime. All states have a maximum holding period where the prisoner must be charged or must be released, and none of those periods reaches anywhere near 3 years.

Pecola:
This issue had its day in court and it has been settled. Seems the only complaining is coming from people who refuse to accept this, maybe don't understand or just don't like how immigration and law enforcement works and want to die on some hill for no other reason than they feel offended.

With this attitude, everyone should have accepted the Dredd Scott ruling and never revisited the issue of slavery. Oh wait, that was an argument that conservatives made back then as well.

Pecola:

Not my problem.

Of course not. It's not like you'll never be locked up for having the wrong last name. Got mine, fuck you, right?

Pecola:

Not my problem. Keep complaining and projecting racism because you were told those mean old conservatives hate brown people, and you have to stand up for them even when it's irrelevant.

If conservatives didn't play their hand with the racism so openly, ala Trump's BFF Sheriff Joe, they wouldn't be accused of it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

edit: I'm going to repeat myself here. You're claiming that states and cities are violating federal law and obstructing federal law enforcement investigations. I urge you to take your evidence to the nearest FBI/US Marshall's office to remedy such a clearly illegal act. This all assumes that you actually have such evidence, of course.

Pecola:
How do you know that was a choice? And do we have other examples that show a pattern, that this is some sort of policy? All I'm seeing are cracks in a system and someone unfortunately falling through.

Suffice to say that immigration in the US is broken. That's why I made the second point about sanctuary cities. Cities, states, even the federal government just doesn't seem to give a shit about having a sane, orderly, efficient system.

Your argument here doesn't make sense. You're saying that this person was held for three years because of an innocent mistake resulting from a broken system. Then you started talking about sanctuary cities.

But sanctuary cities had no role in this person's detention. He was detained by federal authorities, who are responsible for the violation of his due process, and if he had been detained by state authorities within a sanctuary city, he would have been released in a matter of days. Strictly speaking, sanctuary cities are irrelevant. They are not the cause of a federal failure to process a federal detainee in a reasonable period of time.

Which brings us back to the core argument, which is that if federal authorities were being held to tighter standards of due process, they would not be procrastinating on the question of finding out if a detainee has a green card or not. If ICE was being required to follow the same standards of due process that all other law enforcement agencies in the US do, this scenario would be unthinkable. It was only possible because ICE seems to believe that its detainees do not have basic constitutional rights by virtue of the fact that they are suspected of being illegal immigrants.

Pecola:
It's not. Immigration is federal domain. Cities and states have no authority here. And sanctuary cities and states laws and actions are obstruction of justice, as well as compromise national security. This is off-topic.

They are not obstructing justice. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to give orders to state law enforcement in the process of enforcing a federal law. It's called commandeering. This includes directives to arrest, detain, or transport suspected illegal immigrants. The federal government can ask for help, and the state government can provide it, but the state government can also not provide it if they choose and the federal government cannot coerce them.

All law enforcement exercises a fundamental discretion over whether to prosecute a case of lawbreaking. That may seem unfair, and it can be, but it is necessary in order for law enforcement to function; you cannot mandate that police arrest every lawbreaker they see, because it is beyond the capacity of police to do so. Instead, you tell the police to arrest the ones that they think are the biggest problem. This is why cops do not stop to arrest people for littering while on their way to respond to a 911 call.

In a sanctuary city, the state government has made the conscious decision that arresting illegal immigrants and expending resources detaining and processing them in preparation for ICE's arrival is just not worth it. There are too many illegal immigrants and the vast majority of them are essentially harmless, so police are directed to focus on more serious lawbreakers. This angers ICE, because ICE simply doesn't care about the more serious lawbreakers; their sole mandate is catching illegal immigrants. To ICE, it appears as if the state government is obstructing justice by not doing what the federal government tells them to do. To the state police, it feels as if ICE is trying to stop them from doing their jobs.

This is what I meant when I said it was complex. You can insist that it's simple all you like, but that just indicates that you haven't looked at the topic in-depth.

Avnger:
The feds are interested in nothing more than locking people up regardless of their guilt or right to due process.

Your arguments are void at this point. Just hurling accusations and insinuating without real knowledge of the situation.

This occurrence isn't a pattern, as far as I can tell. And if it is, it still suggests something entirely wrong with the system. The fact that people could be held like this does not warrant interpreting law so that these classes of individuals can get bond hearings, it means the system is flawed and standards need to be maintained.

I'm going to repeat myself here. You're claiming that states and cities are violating federal law and obstructing federal law enforcement investigations. I urge you to take your evidence to the nearest FBI/US Marshall's office to remedy such a clearly illegal act. This all assumes that you actually have such evidence, of course.

The law needs to be interpreted, that is the judicial branch, not the executive branch. A federal judge first needs to issue injunctions, then the SCOTUS needs to declare sanctuary-ism unconstitutional. Apparently you people are so unfamiliar with the laws you preach that you don't know that all this sanctuary business is about city and states laws. They are not sticking their hands in their pockets and ignoring a problem like a union employee saying it's not our job.

And that's not even the topic. The point is immigration in the US is broken. Sanctuaryism is just an example of how this country has an unhealthy system, including the laws around it. At this point it really seems like a make-it-up-as-you-go sort of thing. DACA spelled that out.

Pecola:

The law needs to be interpreted, that is the judicial branch, not the executive branch. A federal judge first needs to issue injunctions, then the SCOTUS needs to declare sanctuary-ism unconstitutional.

On what basis are sanctuary cities and states unconstitutional? They're under no legal obligation to enforce federal law on state property in the same way that the feds aren't obligated to enforce state law on federal property.

altnameJag:
They're under no legal obligation to enforce federal law on state property in the same way that the feds aren't obligated to enforce state law on federal property.

This is nothing more than a legal loophole to defy federal law and appease certain groups of people, and businesses and politicians profit through cheap labor and votes.

It's a disgrace to the union. It devalues citizenship, compromises security, divides the country, rewards criminals, weakens rule of law, and turns the state into a political battle ground, with one group appealing to this nonsense along obvious racial lines and the other made to look like goose-stepping nationalists who don't like foreign brown people.

Pecola:

altnameJag:
They're under no legal obligation to enforce federal law on state property in the same way that the feds aren't obligated to enforce state law on federal property.

This is nothing more than a legal loophole to defy federal law and appease certain groups of people, and businesses and politicians profit through cheap labor and votes.

So federalism is a legal loophole, but the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is an inalienable, absolute right.

Okay.

bastardofmelbourne:
So federalism is a legal loophole, but the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is an inalienable, absolute right.

Exploitation vs. the Bill of Rights.

Hmm.

Pecola:

bastardofmelbourne:
So federalism is a legal loophole, but the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is an inalienable, absolute right.

Exploitation vs. the Bill of Rights.

Hmm.

I keep forgetting. What is the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights again?

Pecola:

bastardofmelbourne:
So federalism is a legal loophole, but the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment is an inalienable, absolute right.

Exploitation vs. the Bill of Rights.

Hmm.

Yeah, go read your Constitution. It's pretty clear you haven't.

I'll wait.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here