http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html
If federal laws supercede state and local laws (per the Constitution), and if we have federal immigration laws, and if federal authorities ask that criminal illegal aliens be detained until those federal authorities can take action, how is a city's, county's or state's refusal to comply anything but open rebellion?
The Orange County Sheriff's Department said Monday the information is available on its website.
The move comes after California passed a law limiting local police collaboration with deportation agents. That measure also put an end to a long-standing program in Orange County where deputies screened inmates to help federal authorities identify immigrants subject to deportation.
http://www.kolotv.com/content/news/Cali ... 99793.html
Ok, I'll bite. What's so damn big about that?Professor Fate wrote:QR_BBPOST And this is big! Authorities in Orange County, California, have started publishing the release dates for inmates from the county's jails to try to help federal agents locate immigrants subject to deportation.
Two relevant laws.MDDad wrote:QR_BBPOST federal authorities ask that criminal illegal aliens be detained until those federal authorities can take action
MARCH 4, 2014
Ruling Says Local Jails May Be Liable for Wrongful Immigration Detentions in Case of U.S. Citizen Held for Three Days
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
ACLU National, firstname.lastname@example.org
ACLU of Pennsylvania, 215-592-1513
PHILADELPHIA – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today ruled that states and localities are not required to imprison people based on "detainer" requests from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, ICE, recognizing that states and localities may share liability when they participate in wrongful immigration detentions. The ruling in Galarza v. Szalczyk, et al., stems from Lehigh County Prison’s wrongful detention of Ernesto Galarza, a U.S. citizen, who despite posting bail and telling his jailers that he was born in New Jersey was held in jail for three days because of an ICE detainer that stated only that ICE was investigating his immigration status.
SB 54 the California Law Specifically, it bans state and local agencies, excluding the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, from enforcing "holds" on people in custody. It blocks the deputization of police as immigration agents and bars state and local law enforcement agencies from inquiring into an individual's immigration status.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... state-bill
ICE is going to spend all its time trying to get warrants 3/4 of the folks in local drunk tank on Friday and Saturday night.Professor Fate wrote:QR_BBPOST The Sheriff is outwitting the state. The sanctuary law forbids local law enforcement sharing info on illegals with ICE.
Costa Mesa Mayor Pro Tem Allan Mansoor would like to see his city become the next to opt out of California’s sanctuary state legislation.
"I'm open to bringing another resolution forward, but it would be just that — a resolution," he said, referencing a 2010 item he brought forth that ultimately declared Costa Mesa a “rule of law city.”
"Another option is clearly asking ICE to come over and for us to start cooperating with them, which, frankly, we should be doing," Mansoor added.
We've already mentioned how Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Buena Park and Fullerton are exploring the possibility of joining in this movement, along with counties and cities in Central and Northern California.
And now the High Desert city of Hesperia also began discussions on SB 54 last week.
During a closed session Tuesday, the Hesperia City Council voted 3-1 on the legislation-based item, that includes the city “joining” an amicus brief that is being filed in the case that involves the Department of Justice suing the state of California over recent immigration laws, city attorney Eric Dunn said.
https://www.californiacitynews.org/2018 ... e-law.html
A person is "outwitting" an abstract concept.Professor Fate wrote:QR_BBPOST The Sheriff is outwitting the state.
Again, how is this big?
I'm completely confused about why ICE and local authorities continue to hold people beyond their sentences. It seems like a very clear violation of the 14th Amendment.broman wrote:QR_BBPOST The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today ruled that states and localities are not required to imprison people based on "detainer" requests from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, ICE, recognizing that states and localities may share liability when they participate in wrongful immigration detentions.
ICE warrants are issued for civil violations of immigration law, not criminal charges. They are also sometimes called “administrative warrants.”
An ICE warrant directs various federal immigration enforcement agents to arrest the person named in the warrant.
Both an ICE detainer and an ICE warrant are issued based on alleged civil immigration violations and do not provide probable cause of a crime. Neither document meets Fourth Amendment requirements for arrest or provides authority for local law enforcement to arrest or detain someone
https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/file ... ummary.pdf
Whether you think it's big or not is irrelevant. California's AG thinks it is, and has hinted he might consider arresting the OC Sheriff. The Sheriff said "I wouldn't advise it."Vilepagan wrote:QR_BBPOST Again, how is this big?
"How stupid is our country?"
I didn't say it was big, you did. Since then I've been trying to figure out why and it doesn't seem like you really have a clue as to why you said that. I'll just assume you were a bit overexcited.Professor Fate wrote:QR_BBPOST Whether you think it's big or not is irrelevant.
IMO if the democrats would have just agreed to the deportation of convicted violent felons this would not be a huge issue today.
Were "Democrats" harboring him? I was under the impression he'd snuck back in and hadn't been caught.Tommy Tar wrote:QR_BBPOST What positive qualities was Pedro Espinoza going to give back that the democrats wanted to keep him in the US?
The killer Espinoza was just released from LA County jail after serving six months for an assaulting a police officer. ICE was never contacted about his release. The murdered of Jamiel Shaw happened the next day.
Los Angeles police chief William Bratton said Espinoza had been released from jail March 1 after serving time for an assault case. Police also are seeking a second suspect in the Shaw case.
"It was spontaneous," Bratton said. "[Espinoza] was a gang member. He saw someone else he thought was from an opposing gang, and he immediately, almost intuitively, popped out of that car and shot that young boy twice.
"He assassinated him just on the belief the other individual may have been a gang member. That is what we are up against in this city, sociopaths like that who just got out of jail and within a day had a gun and in an instant took that young boy's life."
Police, acting on tips from the public, arrested Espinoza late Friday night, authorities said. He is being held without bail.
Even after this the democrats fight to keep ICE out of the jails.