U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-04-2012, 04:18 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,179,007 times
Reputation: 14879

Advertisements

This lawsuit, like the Birther™ lawsuits has a snowballs chance of seeing the inside of a court room, the plantiffs lack standing unless they can demonstrate that they directly and adversely affected, if they are allowed to sue the U.S. under any circumstance arising from their work requirements. And the will court will refuse to hear the case because it would violate the "political question doctrine."

Once again a whole lot of sizzle and not even some SPAM™.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-04-2012, 04:28 PM
 
Location: Maryland
15,179 posts, read 15,850,945 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
This lawsuit, like the Birther™ lawsuits has a snowballs chance of seeing the inside of a court room, the plantiffs lack standing unless they can demonstrate that they directly and adversely affected, if they are allowed to sue the U.S. under any circumstance arising from their work requirements. And the will court will refuse to hear the case because it would violate the "political question doctrine."

Once again a whole lot of sizzle and not even some SPAM™.
I would certainly consider the loss of one's livelihood and pension "direct and adverse."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2012, 05:51 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,718,247 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabluey View Post
Does the same logic apply when we ask police officers to give us a warning or let us go (and therefore ignore existing ordinances or state laws)? Traffic and immigration violations are similar in the sense that they are both non-criminal violations (according to most recent statutes I've seen). There is a distinction I realize in the sense of apparent, blanket non-enforcement orders versus the "exercise of discretion." Is that the only distinction, or is there a more substantive one between these two examples (traffic warning and non-enforcement of immigration laws).
Boy are you confused. A visa overstay is an infraction, equal to a speeding ticket. EWI (entry without inspection) is a Federal Class 4 Misdemeanor, a second EWI is a Federal Class 6 Felony, both are violations which equate to criminal activity. Now, a person that overstays his/her "order of deportation" also fall into the category of criminal with a Class 3 Federal Misdemeanor.

Now for the "exercise of discretion", it is up to DHS/ICE to prosecute or defer action, it is the officers responsibility to apprehend the illegal immigrant, period. The officers can not be told how to interpret their jobs, but they themselves can interpret the law their own way as long as they stay within the confines of the description of their job. Then it is up to the AG to prosecute or not for which once he receives the case he can send it back down and order a deferred action and release the illegal with a court date. What they can not do is tell the officers to not arrest an illegal for some biased view such as they may be able to apply for deferred action, which is what these officers are suing about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2012, 06:17 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,362,768 times
Reputation: 6451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Boy are you confused. A visa overstay is an infraction, equal to a speeding ticket. EWI (entry without inspection) is a Federal Class 4 Misdemeanor, a second EWI is a Federal Class 6 Felony, both are violations which equate to criminal activity. Now, a person that overstays his/her "order of deportation" also fall into the category of criminal with a Class 3 Federal Misdemeanor.

Now for the "exercise of discretion", it is up to DHS/ICE to prosecute or defer action, it is the officers responsibility to apprehend the illegal immigrant, period. The officers can not be told how to interpret their jobs, but they themselves can interpret the law their own way as long as they stay within the confines of the description of their job. Then it is up to the AG to prosecute or not for which once he receives the case he can send it back down and order a deferred action and release the illegal with a court date. What they can not do is tell the officers to not arrest an illegal for some biased view such as they may be able to apply for deferred action, which is what these officers are suing about.
That is exactly as it really is. I knew some people who use to work our dangerous borders. They signed up to do their job, in the best way they knew how. And to do it right. Not like what some of you think, they have to breath and live the crap, that is being fed to them, that some have gotten so fed up, they don't want to do their job anymore.

You spelled it out right. To tell these officers not to arrest illegals, based on some non significant biased view, is just plain wrong and disgusting, is so many opinions.

The officers most definitely have a right to be fed up, and to sue, when you do a job, you do it right or not at all, not half arse because some fools tell you too!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2012, 06:24 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,718,247 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
This lawsuit, like the Birther™ lawsuits has a snowballs chance of seeing the inside of a court room, the plantiffs lack standing unless they can demonstrate that they directly and adversely affected, if they are allowed to sue the U.S. under any circumstance arising from their work requirements. And the will court will refuse to hear the case because it would violate the "political question doctrine."

Once again a whole lot of sizzle and not even some SPAM™.
From the OP it states: being reprimanded by superiors, or listening to superiors and violating their own oaths of office and a 1996 law that requires them to put those who entered the country illegally into deportation proceedings. Does this NOT demonstrate that they are directly and/or adversely affected?

Their work requirements impose that they detain/arrest illegal immigrants, ALL illegal immigrants they come into contact with, it is then up to the system in place through ICE/DHS to prosecute/determine if the illegal can obtain deferred action or some other means of relief to be allowed to remain here.

You may be right in the fact that the case may not make it to court, it depends on the presiding judge to make that determination, he/she better have a good reason to not allow it to go to trial, or he/she may simply be biased against the officers and allow their own politics into their denial. One can only hope that none of this happens and that the officers are able to plead their case in court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2012, 06:49 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,362,768 times
Reputation: 6451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
From the OP it states: being reprimanded by superiors, or listening to superiors and violating their own oaths of office and a 1996 law that requires them to put those who entered the country illegally into deportation proceedings. Does this NOT demonstrate that they are directly and/or adversely affected?

Their work requirements impose that they detain/arrest illegal immigrants, ALL illegal immigrants they come into contact with, it is then up to the system in place through ICE/DHS to prosecute/determine if the illegal can obtain deferred action or some other means of relief to be allowed to remain here.

You may be right in the fact that the case may not make it to court, it depends on the presiding judge to make that determination, he/she better have a good reason to not allow it to go to trial, or he/she may simply be biased against the officers and allow their own politics into their denial. One can only hope that none of this happens and that the officers are able to plead their case in court.
Right you are again, it depends on the presiding judge. But as we all know by now, some judges are biased, and have a very biased viewpoint. Which does not help.

The way it has always been, should not be this way, but sometimes it is.

Politics should not, but has at times, influenced people on the decisions they make, i would only hope that the judge would be fair.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 03:49 PM
 
1,031 posts, read 2,028,752 times
Reputation: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar View Post
I am not aware of a simple traffic violator being charged with a felony offense in Federal Court. However, I am aware of illegal aliens being investigated by ICE and/or other Federal agencies, and ultimately being indicted for illegal re-entry (among other charges), which is a felony offense, certainly not analogous to a simple traffic violation.

It is my understanding ICE agents have filed this suit because they are being required to ignore the law. They are prohibited from even arresting illegal aliens, which is their duty as agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Not only are they unable to enforce the law, they are being reprimanded, and even threatened with the loss of their jobs/pension if they dare arrest an illegal alien. How can they "exercise discretion" if illegal aliens are now off-limits? Moreover, without having the authority to arrest and investigate, how can ICE agents know if an illegal alien is a violent criminal, an immigration absconder, or one of the so-called "otherwise law-abiding?" The answer is, of course, they can't.
It sounds like at a fundamental level we're talking about execution of duties, and that the boots on the ground should be given some leeway and discretion (although not absolute) how to do their job. At least that is the issue that creates my disagreement with what POTUS is doing.

I could withdraw the traffic question and substitute any informant or state's witness who could be prosecuted for any crime, even a felony, and a prosecutor decides it's worth it for a suspect's testimony to maximize prospects for a conviction on case 1 to erase the felony charge (or misdemeanor, or whatever) on case 2. How far does discretion of law enforcement and prosecutors go? How far should it go? I think the extremes on both ends most of us can agree on, that there are limits.

I agree they should not be prohibited from enforcing any law. But I also am willing to listen to the consequences my position would have on real life. Take my argument to the extreme, and all those ludicrous laws we see about wearing flip flops on a full moon could be enforced too. If there are examples of previous administrations doing something similar, I want to know to evaluate those examples' importance to my conclusion. I believe that before new laws are passed current laws should be enforced. And if you do not want a law enforced, withdraw it. But the country does not listen to me, lol... Maybe because it's too big for that. Maybe we're too big for a unified republic of 350 mill +, I don't think any free society (democratic republic, not the USSR) has become this populous, this vast geographically. It's become unwieldy. But, that's a digression for another day (big surprise, I know, lol).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top