U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
 
Old 01-28-2017, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,138 posts, read 13,651,906 times
Reputation: 22175

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby View Post
You are WRONG - The "fed" does have the Power to enforce US Law. The President does have the Power to issue directives to the DOJ and Homeland Security to enforce the US Laws on the books - in this particular case, it's a law signed by Bill Clinton in 1996. Part of that Law says the States may receive particular Grants and Funding to 'help' ICE. These Sanctuary Cities/States (California & Connecticut are now designated Sanctuary States) took the money, but did not use it properly.

Trump targets sanctuary cities in executive order |Washington Examiner - 1/25/17

It's true that the Federal Government can't "force" them to follow US Immigration Law (although Obama sued Arizona and won on that issue) - but they don't have to give them the Funding and Grants when they don't fulfill their obligations under those Grants.

It's a LOT of Money - these States/Cities were warned by letter from the Department of Justice at the direction of AG Loretta Lynch that they were on notice. The letter went out the end of May 2016. Though the federal government cannot legally compel states to comply with federal law, it is permitted to use financial rewards or incentives to encourage states to comply. This precedent was established in the 1992 Supreme Court case New York v. United States and has been upheld and strengthened since, and thus the Justice Departmentís guidance in this instance clearly falls under constitutional precedent.

Read more at: Sanctuary Cities & Federal Law: Congress


Three federal grants in particular would be in question for sanctuary cities: the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which provides reimbursements for the expense of incarcerating illegal aliens; Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), which funds community policing efforts; and Byrne-JAG grants, which fund miscellaneous spending for state and local law-enforcement agencies.

These Sanctuary States/Cities can do what they choose - they just won't get the money and there is still the chance that the DOJ will want a refund of the money they took and didn't use according to the LAW.
I read that COPS grants are being axed no matter what, but ICE detainers are issued without probable cause and they are not arrest warrants, so in order to penalize a state, the order that is refused must be a lawful one.

A State cannot be forced to take part in, or conduct deportation actions on behalf of the federal government.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania 1842 Federal Govt could not force states to implement or carry out fugitive slave act of 1793, ruled it was a federal law and the federal gov't ultimately had to enforce it.

New York V United States 1992 New York sued over coercive low level radioactive waste policy, the court ruled that the act's title provision offers states a choice between two unconstitutionally coercive alternatives, either accepting waste or regulating according to instructions of congress, the provision lies outside of Congress' enumerated powers and is inconsistent with the tenth amendment. O'Connor wrote in the majority opinion: Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enforce a regulatory program.

 
Old 01-28-2017, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,547 posts, read 17,572,968 times
Reputation: 16777
Quote:
Originally Posted by man4857 View Post
Proud Native Californian here, glad to see my home state fighting back. The street goes 2 ways in this town, not just 1.
Me too. I'm thinking that if you missed the sixties then you just may get a second chance. I just keep politics to myself here where I live. If only California wasn't so expensive I can't afford it.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:00 PM
 
Location: Places you dream of
20,288 posts, read 12,151,911 times
Reputation: 8802
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
I read that COPS grants are being axed no matter what, but ICE detainers are issued without probable cause and they are not arrest warrants, so in order to penalize a state, the order that is refused must be a lawful one.

A State cannot be forced to take part in, or conduct deportation actions on behalf of the federal government.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania 1842 Federal Govt could not force states to implement or carry out fugitive slave act of 1793, ruled it was a federal law and the federal gov't ultimately had to enforce it.

New York V United States 1992 New York sued over coercive low level radioactive waste policy, the court ruled that the act's title provision offers states a choice between two unconstitutionally coercive alternatives, either accepting waste or regulating according to instructions of congress, the provision lies outside of Congress' enumerated powers and is inconsistent with the tenth amendment. O'Connor wrote in the majority opinion: Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative process of the States by directly compelling them to enforce a regulatory program.
I cannot rep you anymore, but the facts, which I know, are true and I also know - if someone does commit a crime and the locals call the ERO - 48 hr I think, for ice to respond, because they will not pay for longer jail stay as a drunk & disorderly. This is all just a hot mess
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,138 posts, read 13,651,906 times
Reputation: 22175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibby View Post
You are WRONG - The "fed" does have the Power to enforce US Law. The
Of course they do, you are correct, but the feds do not have the power to require states to enforce federal law, there is plenty of case law to support that. Also, for at least the past 30 years ICE has refused to pay local jurisdictions the actual expense of keeping a person in jail on an ICE detainer, that has put a huge burden on local jails, ICE if they reimburse at all, do so at the rate of 15 cents on the dollar. Some jurisdictions can refuse to hold on ICE detainers and still come out ahead even if the Feds withhold grant money.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:02 PM
 
79,556 posts, read 33,727,711 times
Reputation: 15961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Do you have any citations? Because I'm not seeing it.
Supreme Court Overturns Key Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law

Arizona argued that the law cooperatively assists the U.S. with immigration enforcement, but the court mostly agreed with the Obama administration that key parts of the law encroach on the federal government's exclusive right to make policy on the matter.

Supreme Court Overturns Key Parts Of Arizona Immigration Law

The only point not turned over was because no one had actually been arrested yet.

What they ruled was that immigration enforcement was the federal government's domain and the states were to stay out of it.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
1,171 posts, read 799,148 times
Reputation: 253
Can California has their own IRS and collect federal taxes? I am assuming that is where most of the money comes to Feds.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:08 PM
Status: "I CRAVE Canine-stew" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Brawndo-Thirst-Mutilator-Nation
16,481 posts, read 16,601,030 times
Reputation: 12485
So dang PROUD of POTUS-Trump..............a man of action and decisiveness.

I would be happy with ZERO Snackbarians allowed into the USA for Trump's 8 years, and beyond.

So what if CA is having a hissy-fit, they will get over it when a little pressure is applied.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:25 PM
 
66,618 posts, read 30,402,539 times
Reputation: 8697
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
At least four federal courts have held that detaining a person on an 'ICE detainer' violates the 4th amendment.
BS. Since when is detaining a person who has violated a law a violation of the 4th Amendment?

If what you're saying were true, no police department in the country would be able to detain an individual wanted on an arrest warrant from another jurisdiction. And we all know that's done all the time.

Where do you all get your ridiculously absurd beliefs?
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,138 posts, read 13,651,906 times
Reputation: 22175
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
BS. Since when is detaining a person who has violated a law a violation of the 4th Amendment?

If what you're saying were true, no police department in the country would be able to detain an individual wanted on an arrest warrant from another jurisdiction. And we all know that's done all the time.

Where do you all get your ridiculously absurd beliefs?
They aren't my "beliefs" my statement is based on relevant case law. An ICE detainer is NOT an arrest warrant, that is the crux of the problem, they are nothing more than a "request to detain" they are not based on probable cause, and they are not a judicial arrest warrant. ICE has been aware that this is a problem for decades but they have failed to remedy the situation.

Here are the cases in which federal judges have ruled that holding a person solely on an ICE detainer is a violation of the arrestee's 4th amendment rights:

Galarza v. Szalczyk, a U.S. citizen was held on an ICE detainer after he should have been released. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Lehigh County, Pennsylvania did not have to enforce the detainer because it was voluntary. The Court found that the County could be found responsible for unlawfully holding Galarza for ICE because it was not required to comply with the detainer but instead chose to do so.

Morales v. Chadbourne, another U.S. citizen was held on a detainer after she should have been released. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that detaining someone beyond their release date is an arrest under the Fourth Amendment. The court also found that the Fourth Amendment requires ICE to have probable cause to issue such a detainer request

Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County, the Clackamas County Sheriff in Oregon held Ms. Miranda-Olivares on a detainer after she could have been released on bail, and then transferred her to ICE. The Federal District Court in Oregon held that Clackamas County had unlawfully detained Ms. MirandaOlivares and would have to pay her money for unlawfully holding her. It does not matter what immigration status Ms. Miranda-Olivares has. Being held on the detainer violated her Fourth Amendment right against unlawful arrest and detention.The court ruled that the detainer did not provide sufficient proof (probable cause) to allow the local jail to detain Ms. Miranda-Olivares for ICE

In October 2016, the Northern District of Illinois held that nearly all ICE detainers issued by the Chicago Field Office were invalid, but temporarily stayed the order cancelling all the current outstanding detainers. The court found that ICE has limited authority to arrest without a warrant, and that detainers on individuals in local custody generally exceed this authority. ICE needs to get a warrant to seek the arrest of an individual already in local custody, or else make an individualized finding of risk of escape prior to issuing the detainer. This decision does not reach detainers issued by other field offices, but the clear analysis applies equally across the country. Local jails should not rely on any ICE detainer as a basis for custody. ICE has requested local law enforcement to make hundreds of thousands of illegal arrests, and localities often pay the consequences.
 
Old 01-28-2017, 05:56 PM
 
66,618 posts, read 30,402,539 times
Reputation: 8697
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
They aren't my "beliefs" my statement is based on relevant case law. An ICE detainer is NOT an arrest warrant, that is the crux of the problem, they are nothing more than a "request to detain" they are not based on probable cause
They actually are based on probable cause. And courts have only ruled that they're not mandatory if the detainee will be held locally for more than 48 hours. Arrest warrants from other jurisdictions aren't mandatory, either.
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.


Closed Thread

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:32 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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