ICE on Ice?

10 Comments

1. 

   Plurimus

    /  July 16, 2018

   Agreed, “ban” this or “ban” that feel good letters of support are analogous to tweeting about it.

   Disappointed at the local politicians who put their names on efforts they have little understanding of the impacts and (thank goodness) no control over rather than addressing the very real local issues they are elected to address.

   Shallow, meet pointless

2. 

   Terri

    /  July 17, 2018

   ICE is threatening the safety of our local community. I am personally grateful to those elected officials who are standing up to federal jackboot tactics. If we chose to turn our heads and not see what is happening today, we are collaborating. It’s time to take a moral stand.

3. 

   Nancy

    /  July 17, 2018

   Terri, I’ve never backed away from a moral stand. My sense is that the jackboot tactics will continue, ICE or no ICE, until we have a change in Congressional leadership and a more humanitarian president.

4. 

   Plurimus

    /  July 17, 2018

   Terri, ICE is doing its job.

   Do you agree that there should be zero enforcement of immigration laws or our national borders? Maybe you think we don’t need to have any border enforcement at all? Perhaps you think we don’t need customs and we should allow any goods to arrive without restriction, shouldn’t require visas, or allow box cutters on planes again?

   If not, you are making the mistake of conflating enforcement with policy.

   Getting rid of enforcement in an emotional catharsis will have side effects. Those who knee jerk want to “abolish ICE” have no idea about those side effects and display the same level of critical thinking as the the Short-Fingered Vulgarian.

   ICE has a purpose and a role. If you want to change what or who ICE is applying their function to, you need to act to change policy.

   Calls to “abolish ICE” are an extremest gift from the left to the other extremists on the right.

5. 

   James Barrett

    /  July 19, 2018

   The difference between INS and ICE doing the interior enforcing is that INS had a split mission — help people come here plus enforce against those who were harmful. ICE’s only mission is to enforce. It’s even in the name. Therefore, there is no proper balance in its actions. This has been true, regardless of the president, which is why eliminating the department (not the function, which can go back into INS — we still need some protection) is a good solution. When a department only has hammers, all brown people look like nails?

6. 

   Plurimus

    /  July 29, 2018

   James,

   INS no longer exists. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) has not existed since 2003. Your statement amounts to a distinction without a difference.

   INS functions were transferred from the Department of Justice DHS (Department of Homeland Security). USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). So your “split mission” is now the mission of DHS. ICE investigates and enforces federal statutes within the United States and at U.S. diplomatic missions overseas as a branch of DHS.

   INS used to do enforcement and the difference was not the combination of the three functions but rather, policy. Enforcement policy has ebbed and flowed since INS went from a branch of the Department of Labor to the Department of Justice.

   Once again. You do not understand all of what ICE does. If you did, you would realize the function is important. What you and Terri appear to want is to influence policy. I suggest that you stop the hyperbole if you want to have a positive effect this November. Otherwise, you just contribute to the escalating shrillness and turn off the very voters you are relying on.

   Ask yourself; is immigration a function of Commerce or Labor? A function of Justice or Revenue? All of them? Does a countries defensive or offensive posture affect your view? How about your economy? How about your neighbors economy? All of these factors and more affect how people look at immigrants. Policy is a difficult problem, as the current criticism of our Sheriff illustrates.

7. 

   Terri

    /  July 31, 2018

   If ICE were a legitimate enforcement agency, they would issue warrants based on probable cause (awarded by a judge) instead of detainers that are their own made-up paperwork. Even the courts have said local law enforcement agencies have the option of accepting those detainers.

   What you, Plumirus, don’t seem to understand is that in this country, visitors–invited or not–have the right to justice. And any agency that is using tactics that are not legitimate parts of our justice system is a threat to citizens as much as non-citizens.

8. 

   Plurimus

    /  July 31, 2018

   Terri,

   While you are correct that the Constitution uses the term “people” or “person” rather than “citizen”, your assertion that ICE is not legitimate or “makes up paperwork” is false. It sounds like you are parroting some other source.

   Again, if you have issues with ICE, the solution is to reform the process and policies. There are rules that define and enforce deportable offences and define a “criminal alien” which have been in place since 2012 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42057.pdf

   IMO, a better definition of “refugee” vs. “immigrant” would be advisable. Understand that because most deportation proceedings are civil rather than criminal cases, the right to legal counsel often doesn’t apply. The government is only required to provide counsel if the person is accused of a felony. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. I also think that ICE should not be treating non-citizens who have committed minor traffic offenses or have convictions for other minor offenses as “criminal aliens”.

   It is reprehensible to separate families, and the courts have not issued a final ruling, but I expect the prohibition will be upheld. The legal right to “family integrity” is not constitutional but it is settled law.

   While the 4th Amendment establishes the right “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” there is a clear exemption for “border search”, including a 100-mile wide “extended border” which has been ruled by the courts as reasonable and is settled law.

   I won’t address issues of voting, holding elected office, social welfare or education, but those are not really at issue here, you can research those on your own.

   Criminal aliens are a threat and should be removed with urgency. It is unacceptable for a society to allow people who are convicted of serious crimes to remain. I applaud cooperation with local law enforcement, because it keeps the person local where they are not separated from family and have better access to support systems. Again I think the relationship need much better definition and costs should be clearly borne by DHS. There is room for improvement here too.

   We are still left with the fact that crossing the border illegally is….well illegal and dangerous. We need creative solutions including resolving issues at the source. Just allowing people to cross unimpeded and remain after committing crimes is not a solution.

   again, IMO the “moral stand” energy you refer to is best focused on solutions.

9. 

   Terri

    /  August 1, 2018

   I am not “parroting” or taking a moral stand. Immigration detainers are not signed by judges, they are guesses at probable cause; they blur the difference between someone who is seeking sanctuary and someone who is illegal. The Constitution was here before ICE; I support the Constitution.

10. 

    Plurimus

     /  August 1, 2018

    An ICE detainer is a request that a local jail or law enforcement agency detain an individual for an additional 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) after his or her release date in order to provide ICE agents extra time to take the individual into federal custody for removal purposes.

    Detainers used sparingly should not result in trust issues between a LEO and the locals community. See section 278g of the immigration law: https://www.ice.gov/287g

    While I get your point it’s not as cut & dried as you would have the reader believe. There are differing views and the law is gray here. It seems federal courts need to decide this matter. Regardless, only a single detainer per individual should be honored,and they should not be abused as it was below. ICE needs to be timely and not rely so much on detainers.

    Since the individuals in question are already in jail, the argument goes they do not need probable cause. The question (I think) is does the detainer constitute a new arrest? The 4th amendment requires probable cause for a crime, not for deportation. Further, is settled law that it is constitutional to have a state law that requires local authorities to honor detainers.. Point is, so far this has only been adjudicated at the state level.

    I think we are agreeing that the difference between crossing the border illegally and being a refugee seeking sanctuary needs better definition. OTOH, if a person here illegally is arrested for a crime I support ICE looking at deportation, don’t you?.

    Our county just released a dangerous illegal alien criminal into the general population To be clear not honoring a detainer led to the release, but the child sex offender had been in jail for 300 days and had severed his sentence according to the judge. ICE had ample time to do their job.

    The whole thing is dripping with politics and I for one do not appreciate anyone playing with public safety unnecessarily.. Again, this person is a dangerous criminal and and illegal alien and should be deported immediately, detainer or not.

    I support the rule of law.