Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should sanctuary cities be held civilly liable for crimes committed by illegal immigrants they're sheltering from federal immigration authorities?

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by moogerfooger View Post
    wouldn't the criminal be better off in jail then deported only to return to commit more crimes?
    If the criminal was turned over for deportation, they would be here to commit crimes in the first place.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

      What's to avoid? There is no specific law on the books under which you could charge for example San Francisco with committing a murder actually done by some hypothetical illegal immigrant.

      the premise is vaporware.

      we can also discuss the dangers posed by the space goat that is hiding behind the moon and preparing to eat the Earth.

      among the list of other highly unlikely stuff...
      What of the premise is vaporware? As pointed out in Ned's OP there is no "hypothetical" illegal immigrant, there is an actual illegal immigrant who, as reported in the article, has a long criminal history. While you are correct that there is no law in the books about charging a city for murder, you have either failed to read the article or even Ned's post. It appears you did not even read the title of his post or the title went right over your head.

      Cities can, indeed, be held liable for negligent acts. I am sure you are aware of this. If you are not, then why involve yourself in this thread other than to toss in your politically biased, uninformed opinion? If you are aware then your continued misinterpretation of the conversation indicates you are not after truth or debate, you just want to make your biased political observations in hopes to derail the conversation.

      Your behavior in this thread is the same behavior you use in most of the threads you participate in: You make a statement but you do not substantiate with anything other than a snarky, totally unrelated comparison, and decree that the subject is not important or not legally viable.

      Other than your obvious political bias coloring your opinion, what other information do you have that makes this case "vaporware"?

      Again, you are not participating, you are merely presenting an opinion that has no basis in fact, just a bias.
      Last edited by gp2112; 03-14-2019, 07:35 AM.
      Sprinkles are for winners...

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

        What of the premise is vaporware? As pointed out in Ned's OP there is no "hypothetical" illegal immigrant, there is an actual illegal immigrant who, as reported in the article, has a long criminal history. While you are correct that there is no law in the books about charging a city for murder, you have either failed to read the article or even Ned's post. It appears you did not even read the title of his post or the title went right over your head.

        Cities can, indeed, be held liable for negligent acts. I am sure you are aware of this. If you are not, then why involve yourself in this thread other than to toss in your politically biased, uninformed opinion? If you are aware then your continued misinterpretation of the conversation indicates you are not after truth or debate, you just want to make your biased political observations in hopes to derail the conversation.

        Your behavior in this thread is the same behavior you use in most of the threads you participate in: You make a statement but you do not substantiate with anything other than a snarky, totally unrelated comparison, and decree that the subject is not important or not legally viable.

        Other than your obvious political bias coloring your opinion, what other information do you have that makes this case "vaporware"?

        Again, you are not participating, you are merely presenting an opinion that has no basis in fact, just a bias.
        We all have biases. Me you and the OP as well.

        And discussing about there being no legal way to hold the city responsible for the death committed by an illegal alien after being legally released by a municipality is the KEY issue.

        but carry on with your moot moralizing and impotent disapproval.

        it's harmless and I can fade the Heat.
        __________________________________________________

        Is This Thing On?

        https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post

          They are not absolving undocumented folks of crimes. If criminals are arrested on local crimes, they are charged, tried and convicted just like citizens.

          Sanctuary cities simply refuse to do the fed's work for them. If an undocumented immigrant is busted for drunk and disorderly, they get arrested charged and punished just like a regular person. The fingerprinting process has a built in system for alerting the fed that a wanted person, international or known terrorist was picked up. If the federal government fails to come get him before his sentence is completed, then he is released - just like a regular person. The city will not hold him any longer. Nor will they go out of their way to deliver him.

          So you should can it with the whole "sanctuary cities are letting illegals do crimes" schtick.
          First: Do not make broad brush statements steeped in heavy political biases to justify your incorrect assumptions about me. Your last sentence does that. I will exhibit why:

          The criminal highlighted in Ned's article had been CONVICTED of multiple crimes in Santa Clara county that should have gotten him deported. This is an excerpt from the article Ned cited:

          "In Santa Clara County alone, Carranza has prior convictions for kidnapping, drug possession, battery on a police officer, trespassing and burglary."

          This is the list of crimes an illegal immigrant must be detained for:
          "Mandatory Detention for Certain Crimes

          For certain crimes, detention in a federal institution is mandatory. You will not be released before the completion of removal proceedings or the carrying out of a deportation order if your record shows:
          • a prior removal order
          • two crimes involving moral turpitude
          • two or more offenses for which the confinement was 5 years or more
          • trafficking in a controlled substance
          • aggravated felony charges
          • drug offenses, with the exception of a single offense of possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana
          • firearms offenses
          • crimes involving moral turpitude resulting in a sentence of 1 year or more
          • terrorist activity/national security offenses

          So, if you are detained for any of the above, you can expect to remain detained until your immigration court hearing. Otherwise, as long as the immigration judge does not determine that you are not likely to show up for your hearings (are a “flight risk”) or that you are a threat to the community, you will be offered the opportunity to post a bond."

          https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo...cess-jail.html

          Clearly, in this case, it is not about "Sanctuary Cities Are Letting Illegals Do Crimes" shtick as you so eloquently wrote. This is about a city policy that allowed a violent offender who also happens to be an illegal immigrant continue to remain in this country even after being convicted of multiple crimes that fit the mandatory detention standards.

          It appears that there are those who are after facts and those who are merely allowing their biases to color their thinking.

          Taking facts into account do you still harbor the false narrative that I am all about the "Sanctuary Cities Are Letting Illegals Do Crimes!" shtick or do you think that a Sanctuary City let it's political biases get in the way of preventing a murder and could be held liable for negligence?
          Sprinkles are for winners...

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Zooey View Post

            If states can let actual murderers go free without incurring liability, I don't think they are are going to be liable for failing to voluntarily detain someone for suspected violations of immigration law.
            Again, I ask for specifics. I see a lot of accusations that appear to be merely attempts to distract from the OP, but no solid facts to go by.
            Sprinkles are for winners...

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by panhandler View Post

              Everyone is responsible for their own actions.
              What if those actions lead to the release of an illegal immigrant with multiple convictions of violent crimes who then commits murder? Do we hold responsible the person who actually made the decision to release that criminal? What, then, do we do when that person says: "I was forbidden to notify Immigration of the criminal we held due to policies of the city?"

              Do you really think a government worker is going to stick their neck out and take blame for that? Do you really think a deputy or an civilian jail employee is going to make that decision on his/her own?
              Sprinkles are for winners...

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Gromit View Post

                Thanks for the explanation, Tom. So basically, 'sanctuary cities' are ones that don't play narc when it comes to illegal immigration?
                If you want to call it that, I guess. What Sanctuary Cities do is merely re-affirm that their law enforcement is not an arm of Immigration enforcement and they will either not require or they will prohibit their officers from carrying out Immigration activities unless the immigrant is charged with a crime that meets federal mandatory hold guidelines.

                Los Angeles has been doing this since 1979 under the aegis of Special Order 40. This is not new, except now Trump has jumped on the Sanctuary City bashing bandwagon and made it a big deal.

                Another incident that led to many cities going "Sanctuary" was a case out of Oregon where a city was held liable for holding an illegal immigrant over 48 hours and violating that immigrants civil rights. Once that case was adjudicated in favor of the immigrant many cities decided that they would stop playing ball with the Feds and follow the laws as written.

                Not a bad thing to do as it lowered many costs and it prevented just anyone from being deported. All Sanctuary Cities do is, optimally, follow the letter of the law.
                Last edited by gp2112; 03-14-2019, 08:17 AM.
                Sprinkles are for winners...

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

                  We all have biases. Me you and the OP as well.

                  And discussing about there being no legal way to hold the city responsible for the death committed by an illegal alien after being legally released by a municipality is the KEY issue.

                  but carry on with your moot moralizing and impotent disapproval.

                  it's harmless and I can fade the Heat.
                  I know I have biases. I am also self aware enough to realize when by biases get in the way of logical thought. In those cases I do not try to derail a discussion by introducing strawman arguments and snark in an attempt to distract from the subject. I move along.

                  Again, you indicate you have no clue as to the details of the incident in the article Ned posted in his OP, or are choosing to ignore the facts in an effort to insert your biases into the discussion. You are, again, failing to address the OP, just replying with your biases in hopes of derailing the conversation.

                  There is awareness of one's biases and then there is acting upon one's biases to the detriment of the whole. Trump does the latter, as you do.

                  That is disingenuous and dishonest.

                  As far as your KEY issue, what makes it key in your estimation? Do you not think that a city can be held liable for its negligent actions? If not, please show why they cannot.
                  Last edited by gp2112; 03-14-2019, 08:31 AM.
                  Sprinkles are for winners...

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

                    First: Do not make broad brush statements steeped in heavy political biases to justify your incorrect assumptions about me. Your last sentence does that. I will exhibit why:

                    The criminal highlighted in Ned's article had been CONVICTED of multiple crimes in Santa Clara county that should have gotten him deported. This is an excerpt from the article Ned cited:

                    "In Santa Clara County alone, Carranza has prior convictions for kidnapping, drug possession, battery on a police officer, trespassing and burglary."

                    This is the list of crimes an illegal immigrant must be detained for:
                    "Mandatory Detention for Certain Crimes

                    For certain crimes, detention in a federal institution is mandatory. You will not be released before the completion of removal proceedings or the carrying out of a deportation order if your record shows:
                    • a prior removal order
                    • two crimes involving moral turpitude
                    • two or more offenses for which the confinement was 5 years or more
                    • trafficking in a controlled substance
                    • aggravated felony charges
                    • drug offenses, with the exception of a single offense of possession of less than 30 grams of marijuana
                    • firearms offenses
                    • crimes involving moral turpitude resulting in a sentence of 1 year or more
                    • terrorist activity/national security offenses

                    So, if you are detained for any of the above, you can expect to remain detained until your immigration court hearing. Otherwise, as long as the immigration judge does not determine that you are not likely to show up for your hearings (are a “flight risk”) or that you are a threat to the community, you will be offered the opportunity to post a bond."

                    https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo...cess-jail.html

                    Clearly, in this case, it is not about "Sanctuary Cities Are Letting Illegals Do Crimes" shtick as you so eloquently wrote. This is about a city policy that allowed a violent offender who also happens to be an illegal immigrant continue to remain in this country even after being convicted of multiple crimes that fit the mandatory detention standards.

                    It appears that there are those who are after facts and those who are merely allowing their biases to color their thinking.

                    Taking facts into account do you still harbor the false narrative that I am all about the "Sanctuary Cities Are Letting Illegals Do Crimes!" shtick or do you think that a Sanctuary City let it's political biases get in the way of preventing a murder and could be held liable for negligence?
                    I bolded the important part. The county jail in Santa Clara is not a federal detention facility.

                    Holding a prisoner in a local jail without a charge, or past the end of the sentence is a violation of the 4th amendment.

                    The feds dropped the ball and didn't come pick him up in time. The California fingerprinting system automatically notifies the feds. I know because I was on the dev team that built the NY system, and we had similar specs.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

                      I know I have biases. I am also self aware enough to realize when by biases get in the way of logical thought. In those cases I do not try to derail a discussion by introducing strawman arguments and snark in an attempt to distract from the subject. I move along.

                      Again, you indicate you have no clue as to the details of the incident in the article Ned posted in his OP, or are choosing to ignore the facts in an effort to insert your biases into the discussion. You are, again, failing to address the OP, just replying with your biases in hopes of derailing the conversation.

                      There is awareness of one's biases and then there is acting upon one's biases to the detriment of the whole. Trump does the latter, as you do.

                      That is disingenuous and dishonest.

                      As far as your KEY issue, what makes it key in your estimation? Do you not think that a city can be held liable for its negligent actions? If not, please show why they cannot.
                      Oh please...

                      the issue is the feds can't compel municipalities to act like their agents.

                      as pointed out there could even be legal liabilities against cities who held the illegal immigrants without a warrant.

                      stop misrepresenting the facts.
                      __________________________________________________

                      Is This Thing On?

                      https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post

                        I bolded the important part. The county jail in Santa Clara is not a federal detention facility.

                        Holding a prisoner in a local jail without a charge, or past the end of the sentence is a violation of the 4th amendment.

                        The feds dropped the ball and didn't come pick him up in time. The California fingerprinting system automatically notifies the feds. I know because I was on the dev team that built the NY system, and we had similar specs.
                        You keep trying to find ways to apologize for the city putting an illegal criminal alien's interest above it's citizens.

                        You do know you're doing that right?

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by nedezero1 View Post

                          You keep trying to find ways to apologize for the city putting an illegal criminal alien's interest above it's citizens.

                          You do know you're doing that right?

                          you don't seem to have very much appreciation for the Constitution's guarantees for rights for all persons in it's legal jurisdiction.

                          when illegal immigrants are brought to trial do you think they should even be allowed to have an attorney?

                          I ask because you seem to be picking and choosing which Constitutional Rights you believe illegal immigrants are not entitled to.
                          __________________________________________________

                          Is This Thing On?

                          https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post

                            Please explain how sanctuary cities are "sheltering" illegal immigrants.
                            Here is a hypothetical example...

                            City has illegal immigrant in jail for a state crime - felony offense, violent in nature... but because of their sanctuary laws, their LEOs can’t even call the feds to let them know said person is about to be released from custody so they can come down and pick them up. Said undocumented immigrant is then let free within the US, avoiding federal deportation due to the laws of the city, and they can re-offend. In such a case, IMO, a person who is victimized by said criminal alien should have legal recourse against the city, since they in fact had the ability to easily notify the feds, but failed to do so, and as a result, they suffered harm.
                            **********

                            "Look at it this way: think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of 'em are stupider than that."
                            - George Carlin

                            "It shouldn't be expected that people are necessarily doing what they appear to be doing on records."
                            - Sir George Martin, All You Need Is Ears

                            "The music business will be revitalized by musicians, not the labels or Live Nation. When the musicians decide to put music first, instead of money, the public will flock to the fruits and the scene will be healthy again."
                            - Bob Lefsetz, The Lefsetz Letter

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Should judges be allowed to deny bail to persons who have criminal records? What if they commit a crime while on bail, should the judge be held accountable? How about someone who's on parole?
                              "This is the kind of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put."

                              ...Winston Churchill

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post

                                Here is a hypothetical example...

                                City has illegal immigrant in jail for a state crime - felony offense, violent in nature... but because of their sanctuary laws, their LEOs can’t even call the feds to let them know said person is about to be released from custody so they can come down and pick them up. Said undocumented immigrant is then let free within the US, avoiding federal deportation due to the laws of the city, and they can re-offend. In such a case, IMO, a person who is victimized by said criminal alien should have legal recourse against the city, since they in fact had the ability to easily notify the feds, but failed to do so, and as a result, they suffered harm.
                                That is a false hypothetical.

                                When that criminal is arrested and fingerprinted, their prints and ID information is automatically sent to NCIC. When that person is convicted and sentenced, an update is also sent. The feds already know when he is being released.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X