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.
As of yet I have not seen the typical state's rights, smaller government people defend the states in refusing to enforce federal law here.
I support the states right to refuse to enforce federal laws. The Feds should enforce federal laws.
On the other hand, all levels of government should cooperate. If IL has a someone in jail who is wanted for murder in TX, they should turn that person over to LE in TX.
I support the states right to refuse to enforce federal laws. The Feds should enforce federal laws.
On the other hand, all levels of government should cooperate. If IL has a someone in jail who is wanted for murder in TX, they should turn that person over to LE in TX.
And for murder, they will. States do work agreements in this sort of situation. States also work with the feds when someone has committed both federal and state crime(s).
But the fact remains that it is an agreement between the two governments, and generally neither is obligated to step aside for the other or to do the other's work - or to pay for the other's work.
Wrong again. Local LEs have the authority, but not the obligation to enforce it. Study up!
Where some confusion has existed in recent years is on the question of whether the same authority extends to arresting aliens who have violated civil provisions of the INA that render an alien deportable. This confusion was, to some extent, fostered by an erroneous 1996 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) of the Department of Justice, the relevant part of which has since been withdrawn by OLC. However, the law on this question is quite clear: arresting aliens who have violated either criminal provisions of the INA or civil provisions that render an alien deportable "is within the inherent authority of the states."1 And such inherent arrest authority has never been preempted by Congress.
I would hope they cooperate for all crimes. Why would they not cooperate?
Cooperate how, if they arrest them for a crime they detain them for trial and after serving time they are deported. Do you mean round them up, raid schools and businesses etc.., you do know that there is no obligation for locals to do the Feds job, don't you. FYI, those roundups are Not going to happen, Congress has already spoken on that "promise".
However, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP or
Border Patrol) regularly ask LLEAs to detain individuals in local jails without meeting these basic Fourth
Amendment requirements. ICE and CBP routinely provide LLEAs with immigration detainers (also
known as “holds”) with the expectation (or direct request) that the LLEAs will detain individuals after
they would otherwise be released, in order for ICE to assume custody.2
These immigration detainers
(DHS Form I-247) do not provide a constitutionally valid basis for an LLEA to arrest or detain an
individual beyond release of state custody. An LLEA who agrees to detain an individual based on an ICE
detainer or related request bears full responsibility (and liability) for that detention.3
I would hope they cooperate for all crimes. Why would they not cooperate?
Someone above pointed out that a crime may not be "important" enough for either state to go through the extradition process. Or a state or the feds may not CARE that another entity wants the person. If state A successfully tries a person for murder, would anyone care about those bad checks in state B? What would be the point of paying for an extradition and trial on the bad check charge?
Cooperate how, if they arrest them for a crime they detain them for trial and after serving time they are deported. Do you mean round them up, raid schools and businesses etc.., you do know that there is no obligation for locals to do the Feds job, don't you. FYI, those roundups are Not going to happen, Congress has already spoken on that "promise".
No, rounding them up is enforcement. They are not authorized to do that. Read my posts. I have clearly posted "cooperation", not "enforcement". There is a huge difference.
"Cooperation" is holding someone that another jurisdiction has a Fourth Amendment compliant and legal right to arrest. Meaning they have a warrant or probable cause of a crime.
"Enforcement" involves investigation and arrests or "rounding them up, raid schools and businesses" using your terms.
Someone above pointed out that a crime may not be "important" enough for either state to go through the extradition process. Or a state or the feds may not CARE that another entity wants the person. If state A successfully tries a person for murder, would anyone care about those bad checks in state B? What would be the point of paying for an extradition and trial on the bad check charge?
Now that's changing the topic entirely.
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.
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.
