No. of Recommendations: 3
And There's the non-sequitur. One that actually proves my point: they don't like deportation laws and as such aren't going to lift a finger to help enforce them.
That may or may not be. Could just be a matter of resource allocation. Regardless, whatever the motivation, they are not obligated to assist the Feds unless the Feds have a judicial warrant. That's really all that is relevant (at least until the law changes).
If ICE has a detainer on a guy who's missed 17 check ins and deserves to be deported, then why not deport him?
In principle, I might agree. But...if it's only a "detainer", they still are not obligated. Why don't they get an actual warrant, instead? That is enforceable in every city in the country. Maybe even on Native American reservations (in fact, I'm pretty sure there, too), which are only quasi-US territory. The warrant is a bit more work, I suspect, but it gives the Feds unquestioned authority to get the target person.
When it comes to the idea that releasing violent criminals out in the public doesn't increase crime and lower public safety, yeah, there's no real discussion there.
Sure. Good thing no one is doing that. The violent criminals tend to stay in jail when caught. And without documents they would be a flight risk, so almost certainly no bail. No community wants them released until properly adjudicated.
The right wing seems to lump them all into "violent criminals", when the data show that -as a percentage of their population- you're in far more danger from your fellow Americans than you are from undocumented migrants. It's just a scare tactic designed to inflame. A tactic that the data simply do not support.
