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

  • #91
    Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

    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 โ€œflight riskโ€) 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?
    A local detention facility cannot place a prisoner in a federal detention facility without the federal government participating in that process.

    If the federal government does not fulfill their obligation, the local government CANNOT continue to hold a prisoner after their sentence is completed while they wait around for the feds. That is a violation of the 4th.

    Comment


    • #92
      Machochist - Scold me, please!

      Sadist - No!

      ๐Ÿ™ƒ
      __________________________________________________

      Is This Thing On?

      https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by gp2112 View Post
        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.
        Didn't you already agree at least once in this thread that sanctuary cities are not violating federal law when they don't respond to ICE detainer requests?

        I'm talking about the earlier response below. I may have misunderstood you.

        I am not arguing that what Santa Clara is doing is wrong. I am saying that if they allow a known illegal immigrant to go free despite a crime that person may have committed that would have resulted in his/her deportation, they may be liable. Beyond that I do not know how the case would turn out.

        This is not about the fed laws, and the refusal of sanctuary cities to work with the feds, this is about liability.
        Last edited by Zooey; 03-14-2019, 12:54 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post

          A local detention facility cannot place a prisoner in a federal detention facility without the federal government participating in that process.
          This is purposeful obfuscation. No one here has stated that a local entity can place a prisoner in a federal detention center.

          Originally posted by BA.Barcolounger View Post
          If the federal government does not fulfill their obligation, the local government CANNOT continue to hold a prisoner after their sentence is completed while they wait around for the feds. That is a violation of the 4th.
          If the feds are not told about the prisoner, they cannot act. We both know you have been pushing the NCIC on us as a means to notify the feds but that dog will not walk in this case, and you know it. The law states, and has been made clear more than once, that locals are obligated to hold that type of prisoner in custody and notify the feds of such hold so that he/she may be held in federal custody. Are you advocating that an NCIC notice only is following the letter of the law? Are you stating that a phone call is not necessary or even warranted in such a case?

          What you are doing is splitting hairs to try to excuse a municipality in this case, all the while ignoring whether or not a municipality can he held liable for failing to follow the letter of the law and we are not talking about holding a prisoner after his/her sentence is completed. We are talking about the mandate that municipalities notify and hold illegal immigrants who break any of the highlighted laws until the immigrant is taken into custody.

          But I am sure you know that and are, again, obfuscating. All you have to do is read the links.

          What does the law say? You have plenty of facts to answer that question. Can you do so without the obfuscation?
          Last edited by gp2112; 03-14-2019, 01:02 PM.
          Sprinkles are for winners...

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post
            Machochist - Scold me, please!

            Sadist - No!

            ๐Ÿ™ƒ
            You did it!

            I knew I could get you to snark.

            Not really hard to be honest. That is all you have done in this thread.

            Congrats for being predictable.
            Sprinkles are for winners...

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

              You did it!

              I knew I could get you to snark.

              Not really hard to be honest. That is all you have done in this thread.

              Congrats for being predictable.
              Hopefully venting like this will make you feel better.

              I sure hope so.

              ๐Ÿ˜
              __________________________________________________

              Is This Thing On?

              https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Zooey View Post

                Didn't you already agree at least once in this thread that sanctuary cities are not violating federal law when they don't respond to ICE detainer requests?

                I'm talking about the earlier response below. I may have misunderstood you.
                You do realize that there is a huge difference between ICE detainer requests and holding a violent felon who is also an illegal immigrant so that they can be placed in federal custody, right?

                What does the law say about illegal immigrants who are in custody for the crimes highlighted in my prior posts? If the cities are not following the mandates in the law then they are in violation. I agreed that municipalities should not have to notify Immigration of every immigrant they arrest, just as the law allows.

                If San Jose did, in fact, release that person without notifying the feds then they are in violation of the law and should be held accountable.
                Sprinkles are for winners...

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

                  And the double down long winded attack.

                  care to try for the trifecta?
                  I don't see where he's attacking you personally Tom - just your positions.

                  And besides, aren't you supposed to report and ignore if someone is making personal attacks - especially multiple ones? Yes, you are... and you didn't. Please consider this a reminder / warning... I'd hate to have you join guido because, like him, you failed to report someone you felt was attacking you and instead egged them on while continuing to engage them directly.

                  **********

                  "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


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

                    You did it!

                    I knew I could get you to snark.

                    Not really hard to be honest. That is all you have done in this thread.

                    Congrats for being predictable.
                    It's tantamount to an admission of trolling when you say "I knew I could get you to snark."

                    Please leave the trolling out of the discussion.
                    **********

                    "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


                    • Originally posted by Tom Hicks View Post

                      Hopefully venting like this will make you feel better.

                      I sure hope so.

                      ๐Ÿ˜
                      I feel good. I am not dishonest in my postings in this forum.


                      Last edited by gp2112; 03-14-2019, 01:19 PM.
                      Sprinkles are for winners...

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

                        I feel good. I am not dishonest in my postings in this forum.

                        At least I do not resort to snark and obfuscation to try to satisfy my political biases.
                        Please see my comments at the bottom of the preceding page...
                        **********

                        "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


                        • Originally posted by gp2112 View Post

                          This is purposeful obfuscation. No one here has stated that a local entity can place a prisoner in a federal detention center.
                          You did. Right here...

                          Originally posted by gp2112 View Post
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe View Post

                            I don't see where he's attacking you personally Tom - just your positions.

                            And besides, aren't you supposed to report and ignore if someone is making personal attacks - especially multiple ones? Yes, you are... and you didn't. Please consider this a reminder / warning... I'd hate to have you join guido because, like him, you failed to report someone you felt was attacking you and instead egged them on while continuing to engage them directly.
                            Fair enough Phil. I won't reply to his provocations any further.
                            __________________________________________________

                            Is This Thing On?

                            https://soundcloud.com/tom-hicks888

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by gp2112 View Post
                              What does the law say about illegal immigrants who are in custody for the crimes highlighted in my prior posts? If the cities are not following the mandates in the law then they are in violation. I agreed that municipalities should not have to notify Immigration of every immigrant they arrest, just as the law allows.
                              That summary of the law you found is directed toward potential defendants who are in ICE custody. I don't think it has any application to states and localities, but I would need to know the citation to be sure.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Zooey View Post

                                That summary of the law you found is directed toward potential defendants who are in ICE custody. I don't think it has any application to states and localities, but I would need to know the citation to be sure.
                                No, it is not. It is directed to those who are in law enforcement custody. Please read the link again, carefully. There is a link in the article for those who have been placed on Immigration hold, but the body of the article relates to immigrants who are detained for any crime.
                                Last edited by gp2112; 03-14-2019, 02:17 PM.
                                Sprinkles are for winners...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X