Post New

As I have said before, over the years, I have a fundamental problem with any city/county/state, declaring itself a "sanctuary" wrt immigration law.

I don't have any problem with the first two "demands".

I have a major problem with numbers three and four, if it means Minneapolis PD is to join in the systematic rousting of brown people, just because they are brown.

Trump issues four immigration demands to Walz, Democratic leaders


1. Governor Walz and Mayor Frey should turn over all Criminal Illegal Aliens that are currently incarcerated in their State Prisons and Jails to Federal Authorities, along with all Illegal Criminals with an active warrant or known Criminal History, for Immediate Deportation.

2. State and Local Law Enforcement must agree to turn over all Illegal Aliens arrested by Local Police.

3. Local Police must assist Federal Law Enforcement in apprehending and detaining Illegal Aliens who are wanted for Crimes.

4. Democrat Politicians must partner with the Federal Government to protect American Citizens in the rapid removal of all Criminal Illegal Aliens in our Country. Some Democrats, in places like Memphis, Tennessee, or Washington, D.C., have done so, resulting in safer streets for ALL.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trump-issues-fou...

Steve

I don't have any problem with the first two "demands".

There's problems with the first two demands, though.

You currently don't - and probably shouldn't - get to walk out of prison without serving your sentence just because you're here illegally. My understanding is that the feds have require those folks to serve their time, first. You stay in prison, rather than getting to go free in another country.

And turning everyone over to the feds upon arrest can cause problems, because not everyone who is arrested is guilty of a crime. Many (probably most) people who are arrested end up without any charges or having their charges dropped. Sometimes they've got the wrong person, sometimes the arrest is prophylactic ("we don't know what happened and/or who did it, but we're bringing this guy in just in case"), sometimes it turns out later that the facts are fundamentally different than what the police thought, etc. But if every person who is here illegally will get thrown out of the country, then large swatches of the community will be less likely to cooperate with law enforcement. If you hear my neighbors having a major fight next door and you're really worried about it, you might call the cops - but if calling the local cops means that one of them might end up being deported without having actually committed any crime, you might be a little less likely to pick up that phone....

And turning everyone over to the feds upon arrest can cause problems, because not everyone who is arrested is guilty of a crime.

Traditionally, anyone arrested, at the local, or Federal, level, would have an expectation of legal due process.

You currently don't - and probably shouldn't - get to walk out of prison without serving your sentence just because you're here illegally.

Ideally, someone properly convicted and imprisoned, would be deported to their home country, and handed over to the authorities there. Then the authorities in that country could decide to have him serve out his sentence in their prison, or walk free, on their streets. iirc, it was suggested that illegals convicted in the US, serve their term in El Salvador, as locking them up there would be a lot cheaper than holding them in a US prison.

But, as you said, the focus by US authorities has been to ring up big numbers, not see justice done.

Steve

You stay in prison, rather than getting to go free in another country.

Actually, why should taxpayers pay for them? Just send them away. Cheaper, and it accomplishes the same thing as prison: removing them from US society.

Generally, the country they would be sent to is not a pleasant country for them (which is why they came here).

Traditionally, anyone arrested, at the local, or Federal, level, would have an expectation of legal due process.

Sure - but if they're here illegally, and they get turned over to the feds upon being arrested, then they'll face deportation on arrest. Getting due process for the crime they were arrested on (which, again, more likely than not results in no charges or acquittal) doesn't spare them from that consequence.

So people get reluctant to call in the police as often, because if they call the cops it might result in a person who is innocent of any present wrongdoing getting deported. Which is a pretty harsh consequence, so unless what's going on is really serious, a person who was considering calling the cops might think twice.

Ideally, someone properly convicted and imprisoned, would be deported to their home country, and handed over to the authorities there. Then the authorities in that country could decide to have him serve out his sentence in their prison, or walk free, on their streets.

I'm no international lawyer, but I don't think criminal justice systems work that way. There's treaties on international enforcement of civil judgements and other legal matters, but I don't think countries will keep someone in their own prisons based on a conviction from another jurisdiction without the prisoner's consent.

Plus - that's not without its own concerns. Do we want to leave it up to a foreign government whether someone who's been convicted here of a serious crime to perhaps just let them go free?

it is clear that community based policing is inconsistent with Trumps world view. It generally runs counter to conservative principles which value consequences, power, and fear over cooperation.
Alan

And turning everyone over to the feds upon arrest can cause problems, because not everyone who is arrested is guilty of a crime. - albaby

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

That is certainly true but I think ICE only issues detainers for those who already have a deportation order or have a lengthy rap sheet regardless of the recent crime that got them arrested.

That is certainly true but I think ICE only issues detainers for those who already have a deportation order or have a lengthy rap sheet regardless of the recent crime that got them arrested.

They certainly will issue detainers for those folks, but not only those folks. They can issue a detainer for anyone, depending on the current enforcement priorities.

Because of that discretion, and the fact that a sizable proportion of people that are here unlawfully have a removal order (more than 10%, including a number of folks who came here as kids), jurisdictions with large unlawfully-present populations have concerns that cooperating with federal immigration enforcement will lead to folks reducing cooperation with law enforcement. Reasonable minds can disagree about whether that concern justifies a sanctuary policy or not, but it is one of the main factors behind those policies that local governments balance.

The ignorance expressed by the LWNJs here is appalling (as always).

NO ONE who is "arrested" is guilty of ANYTHING.

In fact, EVERYONE who is arrested is presumed innocent until proved guilty in a court of law.

But then why would I expect you dum dums to have basic knowledge of our laws and Constitution in the first place?

Sure - but if they're here illegally, and they get turned over to the feds upon being arrested, then they'll face deportation on arrest.

There is no presumption of innocence, if someone is arrested on suspicion of being an illegal? No due process? That would open the door to the Feds declaring anyone an "illegal" and whisking them off to CECOT. I can agree to turning over suspected illegals to the Feds, but I have a major problem with them being denied due process.

Steve

NO ONE who is "arrested" is guilty of ANYTHING.

In fact, EVERYONE who is arrested is presumed innocent until proved guilty in a court of law.

Yeah. What Marco said. If the US starts routinely denying due process to certain classes of accused, this county is even farther in the kimchee than we thought.

Steve

No, it's not a pretty harsh consequence that if someone who is here illegally is arrested, for something else, charges are dropped on the something else, then the illegal alien is deported.

It's an appropriate consequence.

It's a fully-"deserved" consequence.

The lack of logic and common sense expressed by Leftists on these topics is profound, and disturbing.

You mean like how the Minneapolis local authorities and rioters are "cooperating" with ICE?

That kind of cooperation?

There is no presumption of innocence, if someone is arrested on suspicion of being an illegal?

I think you're thinking of a different situation.

This particular demand relates to people who are in the country illegally who are arrested by local authorities for a state crime, not on suspicion of being here illegally.

By construction, the population we're talking about are people who are here unlawfully. The concern underlying these sanctuary laws isn't based on people who are here lawfully not having an opportunity to prove it, but rather than anyone who is here unlawfully will face likely deportation if they are arrested by the local police - even if they are eventually found to have not committed any crimes (or only minor ones).

Actually, why should taxpayers pay for them? Just send them away. Cheaper, and it accomplishes the same thing as prison: removing them from US society.

But it fails to accomplish two other main goals of the criminal justice system - punishment and deterrence.

Punishment is pretty straightforward: one of the purposes of criminal justice is to punish a lawbreaker. If someone has done a terrible thing, we choose to exercise the power of government to punish them. If we cede that to another country, and they then decline to punish the person for their crime, then that goal is unfulfilled.

And if people here unlawfully are able to escape criminal punishment by being deported, it will reduce the deterrent effect of being convicted of a crime. It won't eliminate it, of course - being deported is also a negative outcome. But it's less negative than being incarcerated for a decade and then deported.

BHM, the bolded parts are likely where liability comes in. Let the Feds assume the liability by getting a judicial warrant.


"ICE issues an immigration detainer (Form I-247A) to federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies
when they have probable cause to believe an individual in custody is a deportable non-citizen. These are typically issued for individuals convicted of, or charged with, serious crimes, or those posing a public safety/security threat.
Key details regarding when ICE issues a detainer:

Trigger Mechanism: Often triggered through the "Secure Communities" program, where fingerprint checks identify individuals in local custody.
Probable Cause Requirement: ICE must have information, such as a biometric match, final order of removal, or statements, indicating the person is removable.
Purpose: The detainer requests that local law enforcement maintain custody of the individual for up to 48 hours (excluding weekends/holidays) after their scheduled release date to allow ICE to assume custody.
Common Targets: Individuals with convictions for homicide, sexual assault, drug trafficking, or human trafficking, as well as repeat immigration violators.
Legal Nature: It is a formal request, not a judicial warrant, although it often accompanies an administrative warrant (Form I-200 or I-205)."

protect American Citizens in the rapid removal of all Criminal Illegal Aliens in our Country.

Start with Spankee. He CURRENTLY has 34 felonies--and counting....

...it will reduce the deterrent effect of being convicted of a crime.

I thought it had been pretty well established that prison neither reforms, nor deters. Always exceptions, of course. But in terms of the larger population, no. It just removes people from society for some amount of time.

I thought it had been pretty well established that prison neither reforms, nor deters. Always exceptions, of course. But in terms of the larger population, no. It just removes people from society for some amount of time.

I don't think that's correct. There's evidence that the certainty of being convicted is more important than the length of the sentence, which is used to argue against things like long mandatory minimums and life sentences without parole for less-than-capital crimes. Things like, a 90% chance of a 5 year sentence is a more effective deterrent than a 10% chance of a 20 year sentence. But prison itself does serve as a deterrent. So letting someone escape serving their sentence by getting deported immediately (if that were to be what happens) would reduce the deterrent effect.

Do we want to leave it up to a foreign government whether someone who's been convicted here of a serious crime to perhaps just let them go free?

Nice trap set for the right. Remember, that is EXACTLY what Spankee did to CLAIMED "drug smugglers" less than a year ago. They were "let go" in their native countries.

The concern underlying these sanctuary laws isn't based on people who are here lawfully not having an opportunity to prove it, but rather than anyone who is here unlawfully will face likely deportation if they are arrested by the local police - even if they are eventually found to have not committed any crimes (or only minor ones).

Well, seems people who are not here legally, *should* be deported, regardless if guilty of the crime for which they were arrested.

As for the deterrence aspect, seems being deported back to the hell-hole they escaped from, should be deterrent enough, and it saves we taxpayers the cost of incarcerating them, in relative comfort, with three hots a day. Maybe, if the perp is arrested in the US again, for a crime other than being here illegally, then he goes to the slammer, rather than be deported again. Yes, I concede the issue of a second person in the US being hurt by the same person, but that risk is run anyway, if the person is housed at taxpayer expense, then deported.

There must be a rational way of handling this, between the two extremes. Put them on trial in the US. If guilty, deported with a recommendation to the receiving country to toss him in the jug. If innocent, deported without a recommendation of incarceration. Second conviction means a mandatory visit to CECOT.

Steve

I don't think that's correct.

https://daily.jstor.org/rethinking-prison-as-a-det...

And while imprisonment may well provide punishment and sequester criminals away from public life for a time, that may be all it does: A large body of research finds that spending time in prison or jail doesn’t lower the risk that someone will offend again. In some instances, it actually raises the likelihood that they will commit future crimes.

It may deter people like you and me, should we consider crime an option for some unforeseen reason. But, for people prone to crime (for whatever reason), it isn't a significant deterrence.

More material:
https://www.vera.org/news/research-shows-that-long...
https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf

As one of those sources said, the certainty of getting caught is a deterrent. But actual incarceration isn't. We're just keeping them out of society for a time, and actually increasing risk for future crimes.

I think for a serious crime (like murder), OK. Send them to prison, and then deport them (unless the receiving nation agrees to house them in one of their prisons). For simple robbery, or other similar crimes, just get them out. Seems like a waste of resources otherwise.

why would I expect you dum dums to have basic knowledge of our laws and Constitution in the first place?

You do not have basic knowledge of US law or the US Constitution.

You mean like how the Minneapolis local authorities and rioters are "cooperating" with ICE?

That kind of cooperation?

LOL !!

How is ANYONE supposed to "cooperate" when the "criminal" is sitting, LOCKED UP, in a federal prison? And has BEEN THERE SINCE 2018?

ICE/CBP backed up into Spankee's butt--AGAIN ????

WHY IS ICE/CBP NOT COOPERATING ???? LOCK THEM UP !!!! NOT COOPERATING !!!!

As one of those sources said, the certainty of getting caught is a deterrent. But actual incarceration isn't.

But if certainty of getting caught is a deterrent, then that must mean that the consequences of getting caught matter to these folks. Yes, there's evidence that for the types of crimes that don't always result in prison sentences where you can do an A/B between prison and no-prison (which excludes nearly all violent crimes), the non-prison consequences have as much deterrent effect as the (almost always short) prison sentences. But that doesn't support a claim that if you take away the prison term for rape or murder or other serious crime, you won't reduce the deterrent effect compared to, say, probation or house arrest.

BHM, the bolded parts are likely where liability comes in. Let the Feds assume the liability by getting a judicial warrant. - Lambo

"ICE issues an immigration detainer (Form I-247A) to federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies when they have probable cause to believe an individual in custody is a deportable non-citizen. These are typically issued for individuals convicted of, or charged with, serious crimes, or those posing a public safety/security threat.
Key details regarding when ICE issues a detainer:

Trigger Mechanism: Often triggered through the "Secure Communities" program, where fingerprint checks identify individuals in local custody.
Probable Cause Requirement: ICE must have information, such as a biometric match, final order of removal, or statements, indicating the person is removable.
Purpose: The detainer requests that local law enforcement maintain custody of the individual for up to 48 hours (excluding weekends/holidays) after their scheduled release date to allow ICE to assume custody.
Common Targets: Individuals with convictions for homicide, sexual assault, drug trafficking, or human trafficking, as well as repeat immigration violators.
Legal Nature: It is a formal request, not a judicial warrant, although it often accompanies an administrative warrant (Form I-200 or I-205)."

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

That is a good and reasonable list and I agree with you. I further agree that ICE has gone way past those guidelines and they need to step back. I never have favored removing the aliens who have been here for a long time, working, raising their family, and generally behaving lawfully. As an aside I don't believe in granting them citizenship either.

Now, will you agree with me that a criminal alien with a long rap sheet of prior convictions for serious crimes is deportable without the necessity of convicting him of any additional crime including whatever has gotten him arrested again? Refer to italicized "Common Targets" above.

Now, will you agree with me that a criminal alien with a long rap sheet of prior convictions for serious crimes is deportable without the necessity of convicting him of any additional crime including whatever has gotten him arrested again? Refer to italicized "Common Targets" above.

They also need to provide evidence of deportability, per the above. Part of the "probable cause" is that the alien is removable, not merely that he's got a criminal record.

bighairymike,

What an individual "personally favors" isn't relevant.

Illegal aliens are subject to detention and removal.

Period.

Furthermore, it doesn't seem logical or fair to reward illegal aliens who have managed to violate immigration law from a long, long time by throwing up our hands and saying "Welp. They got away with it for decades, I guess we can give the a pass."

No way.

>>Now, will you agree with me that a criminal alien with a long rap sheet of prior convictions for serious crimes is deportable without the necessity of convicting him of any additional crime including whatever has gotten him arrested again? Refer to italicized "Common Targets" above.<<

They also need to provide evidence of deportability, per the above. Part of the "probable cause" is that the alien is removable, not merely that he's got a criminal record.

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

Then I withdraw my agreement with the reasonableness of the list.

Then I withdraw my agreement with the reasonableness of the list.

But...that's a constitutional requirement for detentions.

State government can't just lock you up. They can't hold you in a jail because they want to. Once all the reasons they could hold you under state law have disappeared (your sentence is up, you've made bail, the charges were dropped, whatever) then they don't have a legal basis to restrain your liberty any more. You're free to go. They need probable cause under the Constitution if they're going to detain you past that point.

So ICE has to give them probable cause to demonstrate that there's a Constitutionally valid basis for holding you. That's why their detainer form requires that information to be provided. Otherwise it's illegal for them to hold you.

Now, will you agree with me that a criminal alien with a long rap sheet of prior convictions for serious crimes is deportable without the necessity of convicting him of any additional crime including whatever has gotten him arrested again?

1. The criminal illegal alien still gets due process, you can have a briefer due process, but not too much briefer.

2. If he's charged with a crime, let's prosecute it, but even if he's acquitted, he still gets deported.

3. If you can arrange for his home country to imprison him for his sentence, and it looks like they really will imprison him, that's fine.

4. We gave amnesty in the past, let's give amnesty to those who can show they've been good citizens for 10 years or more.

5. We issue judicial warrants to the state. You need ICE to present documents, etc., to the judge, whole thing can be electronic - the Judge issues an electronic warrant to the state. We need judges to weed out people who may get different scrutiny. 95%+ of the criminals should go through easily.

6. We get rid of the paramilitary look and change the name.

7. We tone down.

8. We stop obsessing over illegal aliens, we're always going to have some - there's a lot of ways into the USA.

1. The criminal illegal alien still gets due process, you can have a briefer due process, but not too much briefer.

A guy from the Cato Institute was on Amanpour tonight. He noted that, of all the people that ICE has incarcerated in the past year, only about 5% have committed any crime. Seems the regime narrative that they are exclusively going after "violent criminals", is more gaslighting.

A former Minneapolis PD Chief was also on, talking about the escalation of violence since ICE showed up. A clip of the current Chief noting that, over the past year, MPD has taken about 600 guns away from criminals, and arrested many hundreds of violent criminals, without shooting anyone. ICE has shot three, in as many weeks. The Chief also talked about how the 600 person Police Force is being stretched by both performing it's usual police work, *and* dealing with the chaos that 3000 ICE and Border Patrol are generating.

Here's a run down of the dozen people ICE and Border Patrol have shot, since September.

Trump's DHS has shot 12 people during immigration enforcement operations since September. Here's what to know.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-shootings...

Steve

Me: 1. The criminal illegal alien still gets due process, you can have a briefer due process, but not too much briefer.

Steve: A guy from the Cato Institute was on Amanpour tonight. He noted that, of all the people that ICE has incarcerated in the past year, only about 5% have committed any crime. Seems the regime narrative that they are exclusively going after "violent criminals", is more gaslighting.

But we knew they were gaslighting us, didn't we? If this regime was actually shipping out 20% plus, that figure would be inscribed onto the Washington National monument for all to see (under a gold bust of Trump. ) That's for those with allegiance. The rest of it knew it was ~5% or less and that the criminals were not easy pickins and law abiding folks are the low hanging fruit to keep the numbers up.

A former Minneapolis PD Chief was also on, talking about the escalation of violence since ICE showed up. A clip of the current Chief noting that, over the past year, MPD has taken about 600 guns away from criminals, and arrested many hundreds of violent criminals, without shooting anyone. ICE has shot three, in as many weeks. The Chief also talked about how the 600 person Police Force is being stretched by both performing it's usual police work, *and* dealing with the chaos that 3000 ICE and Border Patrol are generating.

Yah, I agree. I think nationally, the number of LE that are guilty of serious misconduct is 3-5%. In only 1-2% of fatal on duty shootings is the officer arrested, 30% convicted, but only 4% of those arrested are convicted of murder, the rest plead to a lesser charge. Police work attracts those who want to kill people and fortunately there aren't that many of them.

The Minneapolis figures ave probably due to good training, practices, and procedures and some police forces try to weed out the rogues.

The Minneapolis figures ave probably due to good training, practices, and procedures and some police forces try to weed out the rogues.

And maybe some reforms and retraining after George Floyd's murder?

Derek Chauvin apparently will not be eligible for parole until 2035. He had 18 complaints against him, two of which drew disciplinary action against him, before murdering Floyd. Sounds like he's an ICE kind of guy.

Steve

Derek Chauvin apparently will not be eligible for parole until 2035. He had 18 complaints against him, two of which drew disciplinary action against him, before murdering Floyd. Sounds like he's an ICE kind of guy.

I disagree.

After murdering George Floyd, Derek Chauvin FAILED to flee the scene, as ICE Agents are obviously instructed to do.

Such an obvious failure to resist accountability, by remaining at the crime scene will not be tolerated.

And maybe some reforms and retraining after George Floyd's murder?

We have had multiple different attempts at police reform over the years. Right now we're having a drop in crime. One of the puzzles is that it seems the elimination/reduction of lead in the environment reduced violent crime. There is no doubt of police misconduct and that a few police actually want to tussle and kill with their gun. I knew one ex cop with six kills who expressed that having a gun makes you into somebody

After murdering George Floyd, Derek Chauvin FAILED to flee the scene, as ICE Agents are obviously instructed to do.

Fleeing would do no good. He was recorded/broadcast during the entire event. So he was convicted and sentenced per law.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.