No. of Recommendations: 3
As albaby has said, apparently they are -in most cases- not obligated to anyway. They have to honor federal warrants, but not "detainers". Certainly, states can help. But there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the sanctuary laws I have seen.
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.
Which is sort of their job. The mess we have now is not because of sanctuary cities, but because ICE is using unlawful and excessive force. They've raided sweatshops and farms for decades. They have that authority, and responsibility. They should go back to doing that until we pass a law that puts the employers on the spot, not the migrants.
No, no, and no.
ICE is issuing detainers for people and sanctuary places blow them off. Is ICE supposed to just forget about Bad Guy X? No - so they have to go track him down and arrest him. Then to make matters worse, local "activists" decide to impede law enforcement from doing their jobs. You don't see any riots in Texas or Tennessee or Alabama or Florida because of the cooperation.
Sanctuary cities like Portland and Minneapolis are creating the scenarios where these activists are getting hurt and that's entirely on them.
If they are already in jail, then they have to be adjudicated first. Once they get released from the jail, it's up to ICE to greet them at the gate (assuming it isn't a bail situation, in which case the issue has not yet been adjudicated).
If ICE has a detainer on a guy who's missed 17 check ins and deserves to be deported, then why not deport him?
I will defer to albaby on this one, since I don't know this for a fact. However, I would guess that such behavior would generate a warrant. And those are honored/enforced.
Not necessarily. Al's trying to claim that the folks in jail don't always get charged so there's no reason to call ICE but that skips over the fact that people get on ICE's radar for...things like missing their check ins or otherwise violating administrative immigration policy. And for that they should be sent packing.
Everything is up for discussion. Saying "End Of Discussion" doesn't mean it is.
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. Because releasing violent criminals to re-offend because you don't like ICE (like the vehicular manslaughter guy) just puts the public at more risk. I guess one of you could make the College Try of trying to argue that oh, no, these guys are Total Angels when they get set free but you'd have to ignore thousands of cases offenders re-offending to do it.
But if you want to, go for it.
And when you do, I'm going to turn your framework and use it against your argument :).
