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

  • #76
    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 are off the mark. The bolded part does not refer to detention in a federal facility, the part you bolded states that illegal immigrants who are charged with, or guilty of, the crimes listed are required to be held for detention in a federal facility.

    In this case, the feds did not, in any way, shape or form drop the ball. The locals did and it is quite clear they did if you read the law and the crimes the locals are required to report to the feds.

    I will chalk this up to a misinterpretation by you, on the law. I believe it is quite clear, to be honest, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. All you really have to do is read my links.
    Last edited by gp2112; 03-14-2019, 09:37 AM.
    Sprinkles are for winners...

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

      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
      .
      The bolded statement by you either shows you are ignorant of the case, and of the law and choose to remain so, or you are purposely trying to be obtuse to throw the discussion off the rails and into your wheel house.

      So: Oh please...

      We know this case is not about what the feds can or cannot compel municipalities to do. This case, if you chose to read the link in Ned;s OP, is about whether or not a city can be held liable for a negligent act, such as releasing an illegal immigrant prisoner even after that prisoner has been convicted or multiple crimes that meet federal guidelines for MANDATORY REPORTING.

      Stop trying to derail the discussion by being purposely obtuse, and try to keep on point with the discussion at hand, not your own highly biased dogwhistle reaction.

      You, yourself, are misrepresenting facts for purposes of promulgating your biases, or you are indeed ignorant of the facts and refuse to read the many links and information already given in this thread.

      So far your participation shows a distinct unwillingness to discuss the case, just an eagerness to shut it down because it does not resonate in your echo chamber.
      Sprinkles are for winners...

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post

        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.
        No, that's not true - people are released early on a regular basis, due to good behavior, jail overcrowding, etc. Unless they're told, the feds have no way of knowing precisely when anyone is being released at the state / local level, but it's still illegal for police or other authorities to notify them of releases in sanctuary cities / states.
        **********

        "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


        • #79
          Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

          The bolded statement by you either shows you are ignorant of the case, and of the law and choose to remain so, or you are purposely trying to be obtuse to throw the discussion off the rails and into your wheel house.

          So: Oh please...

          We know this case is not about what the feds can or cannot compel municipalities to do. This case, if you chose to read the link in Ned;s OP, is about whether or not a city can be held liable for a negligent act, such as releasing an illegal immigrant prisoner even after that prisoner has been convicted or multiple crimes that meet federal guidelines for MANDATORY REPORTING.

          Stop trying to derail the discussion by being purposely obtuse, and try to keep on point with the discussion at hand, not your own highly biased dogwhistle reaction.

          You, yourself, are misrepresenting facts for purposes of promulgating your biases, or you are indeed ignorant of the facts and refuse to read the many links and information already given in this thread.

          So far your participation shows a distinct unwillingness to discuss the case, just an eagerness to shut it down because it does not resonate in your echo chamber.
          A long-winded attack post.
          __________________________________________________

          Is This Thing On?

          https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by erok123 View Post

            The op is a "reductio ad absurdum"
            How so?
            Last edited by prolurkerguy; 03-14-2019, 10:03 AM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post

              No, that's not true - people are released early on a regular basis, due to good behavior, jail overcrowding, etc. Unless they're told, the feds have no way of knowing precisely when anyone is being released at the state / local level, but it's still illegal for police or other authorities to notify them of releases in sanctuary cities / states.
              Even if a prisoner is going to be released early, the NCIC is still notified. It is part of the Supervised Release file. Immigration and foreign fugitive data is also updated.

              https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ncic

              Supervised Release File: Records on individuals on probation, parole, or supervised release or released on their own recognizance or during pre-trial sentencing.
              Foreign Fugitive File: Records on persons wanted by another country for a crime that would be a felony if it were committed in the United States.
              Immigration Violator File: Records on criminal aliens whom immigration authorities have deported and aliens with outstanding administrative warrants of removal.
              This record is updated repeatedly throughout the processing of a criminal, and in large states like California and New York - automatically. The feds are given all of this information throughout the process.

              If they fail to come get the guy, it is on them.
              Last edited by BA.Barcolounger; 03-14-2019, 10:45 AM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post
                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.
                If the state generally has no liability for releasing non-aliens that commit crimes, why would they have liability in this case?

                ICE does not detain everyone they arrest. Many are released on bond pending their deportation hearing, and sometimes there's not even a bond. Is the federal government liable if one of these aliens commits a crime on the theory that they "weren't supposed to be here?"

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

                  A long-winded attack post.
                  Another attempt to distract from the facts and insert your own political biases by constructing a strawman argument to try to derail the conversation. If you did not wish to be challenged then you should not have involved yourself in a discussion in which you clearly have no desire to discuss the facts, just a desire to blow your own biased out and hope it resonates with others.

                  I could aver that every time you do what you did in this thread you are attacking the poster.

                  You could, of course, go to Phil and allow him to adjudicate this for you. I feel comfortable that unless you were of the easily triggered he would not find any of my posts as merely attack posts. He would, though, see that I am attacking your baseless position.

                  There is a difference, you may want to learn how to make the distinction instead of using snark and making accusations intended to get a poster banned.
                  Sprinkles are for winners...

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

                    Another attempt to distract from the facts and insert your own political biases by constructing a strawman argument to try to derail the conversation. If you did not wish to be challenged then you should not have involved yourself in a discussion in which you clearly have no desire to discuss the facts, just a desire to blow your own biased out and hope it resonates with others.

                    I could aver that every time you do what you did in this thread you are attacking the poster.

                    You could, of course, go to Phil and allow him to adjudicate this for you. I feel comfortable that unless you were of the easily triggered he would not find any of my posts as merely attack posts. He would, though, see that I am attacking your baseless position.

                    There is a difference, you may want to learn how to make the distinction instead of using snark and making accusations intended to get a poster banned.
                    And the double down long winded attack.

                    care to try for the trifecta?
                    __________________________________________________

                    Is This Thing On?

                    https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post

                      Even if a prisoner is going to be released early, the NCIC is still notified. It is part of the Supervised Release file. Immigration and foreign fugitive data is also updated.

                      https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ncic



                      This record is updated repeatedly throughout the processing of a criminal, and in large states like California and New York - automatically. The feds are given all of this information throughout the process.

                      If they fail to come get the guy, it is on them.
                      Clearly you, again, are ignorant of, or purposely ignoring my prior post on this and what the law states:

                      "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

                      This means that any municipality that has arrested an illegal immigrant for any of the above crimes, MUST hold that illegal immigrant for detention in a federal facility until his/her immigration hearing is heard.

                      You can choose to ignore the above highlighted but that does not make you correct. In fact, the above shows that you are not only incorrect but you seem to have failed to comprehend what I posted before.

                      First time you get a pass. What is the reason for ignoring the facts this time?
                      Sprinkles are for winners...

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

                        Another attempt to distract from the facts and insert your own political biases by constructing a strawman argument to try to derail the conversation. If you did not wish to be challenged then you should not have involved yourself in a discussion in which you clearly have no desire to discuss the facts, just a desire to blow your own biased out and hope it resonates with others.
                        Precisely what he used the comment function for when it was still functioning.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

                          And the double down long winded attack.

                          care to try for the trifecta?
                          And another attempt to deter from the fact that you came into this conversation without a weapon, relying solely upon your extreme bias, sans any logic.

                          Just Tom Hicks trying to derail another discussion because it does not fit his narrow view of his world as it should be.

                          Last edited by gp2112; 03-14-2019, 11:35 AM.
                          Sprinkles are for winners...

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

                            And another attempt to deter from the fact that you came into this conversation without a weapon, relying solely upon your extreme bias, sans any logic.

                            Just Tom Hicks trying to derail another discussion because it does not fit his narrow view of his world as it should be.
                            Hat Trick!

                            😁
                            __________________________________________________

                            Is This Thing On?

                            https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Here's more of my thoughts....

                              If someone I loved was harmed by an illegal, and I knew that illegal should have been deported, but an elected official prevented that deportation because of a political opinion...I honestly don't know what I would do, but it would not go unresolved.
                              "I belong to,a religion that calls for the hatered and stupidity. My religious beliefs doesn't allow me to serve Trumplethinskin or his trumpanzees"- oldsoapbars

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

                                Hat Trick!

                                😁
                                You keep going with that Tom. Meanwhile keep on trying to derail discussion by constructing strawman arguments and using snark instead of actually participating.

                                I am glad I could make you happy while you avoid actually saying something with substance and in a logical manner.

                                Lets see if you can go for the quadruple hat-trick in snark and lack of substance. I know you can in your response to this
                                Last edited by gp2112; 03-14-2019, 11:59 AM.
                                Sprinkles are for winners...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X