Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/7/2010 7:59:43 AM EDT
Proposed ICE detention policy change opposed

Posted: Sep 05, 2010 2:28 PM CDT Updated: Sep 07, 2010 12:05 AM CDT

Reporter: Joel Waldman
Web producer: Sheryl Kornman, Brian Pryor

TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Letting illegal immigrants go free? Hard to believe but that could be the new federal mandate if a proposed ICE policy change is approved.

Here's the idea: If authorities pull someone over for a traffic stop and discover they are in the country illegally, authorities would be forced to let the illegal immigrant go without calling federal agents unless the individual is a convicted felon.

Even officers opposed to SB 1070 say this would set a bad precedent.

Sheriff Tony Estrada of Santa Cruz County says nothing in southern Arizona would change if the detention policy changed. He says that's because his deputies turn these kinds of cases over to Border Patrol anyway.

Just as some of the debate swirling around Arizona's new immigration law began to cool off, a possible new Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy has some mad hot.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu is very upset about possible policy changes to ICE that read in part, "Immigration officers should not issue detainers against an alien charged only with a traffic-related misdemeanor unless or until the alien is convicted."

Babeu said "now it appears what they have in some draft policies and their proposal is to water down any strength in the federal law whatsoever and this is clearly in direct opposition of what the people really want."

Even Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada, who leaned strongly against SB 1070, thinks this sort of federal policy change is suspect. "It is surprising they would make that decision. I would suspect once an individual is identified as being here illegally, some process would kick in...that would deport that person," he said.

Ariz. Sen. Jon Kyl weighed in, along with Texas Sen. John Cornyn, writing this to Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano:

"Based on our review of these memos, we are concerned that these new policies would circumvent, rather than promote the enforcement of, immigration laws pertaining to illegal aliens."

Laws these politicians and law enforcement officers fear are getting a little bit too lax.

http://www.kgun9.com/Global/story.asp?S=13104666
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:06:13 AM EDT
Surprise! Who didn't see this one coming?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:09:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 8:10:18 AM EDT by Chris_C]
There are MANY who would like nothing more than the whole illegal alien thing to go away.

It is so far out of control.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:41:10 AM EDT
I want to see it go away - back to the old country
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:43:42 AM EDT
Another Failure brought to you by the obama administration..
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:47:36 AM EDT
The Fed has taken over the lending field, the charitable giving field and now they're taking over the entire field of Comedy.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:47:52 AM EDT
So what becomes of ICE then?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:48:58 AM EDT



seriously, how do *i* become an "illegal"?


Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:49:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 8:49:38 AM EDT by Palm]
I would think they would be flight risks and would not be allowed to sign a personal recognises bond on the ticket to appear in court. They should be hauled down to the Judge at that point. I know that when I have been stopped for a traffic violation out of state, I had to go see the judge right at that point in time.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:50:06 AM EDT
Then I dont see a problem in reducing the ICE agency size by 70 or 80%
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:50:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Angelshare1:
So what becomes of ICE then?

Yup. Sounds like another govt organization that can get cut.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:52:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Palm:
I would think they would be flight risks and would not be allowed to sign a personal recognises bond on the ticket to appear in court. They should be hauled down to the Judge at that point. I know that when I have been stopped for a traffic violation out of state, I had to go see the judge right at that point in time.

Many agencies collect your bond (for the amount of the ticket) by check or charge, at the scene of the stop now...
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:53:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Angelshare1:
So what becomes of ICE then?


They go from:
Immigration
Customs
Enforcement

To:
Immigration
Customs
Knowingly
Ignoring
Every
Statute

Or, as I like to call them, ICKIES.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:55:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Palm:
I would think they would be flight risks and would not be allowed to sign a personal recognises bond on the ticket to appear in court. They should be hauled down to the Judge at that point. I know that when I have been stopped for a traffic violation out of state, I had to go see the judge right at that point in time.


Illegals that are encounterd, in most cases, have the right to plead their case to an immigration judge according to the INA. A local judge can't do anything as far as deport/ status/ etc...

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:03:21 AM EDT
They are already doing this

They are declining to charge illegals for immigration violation as long as they arent in for other crimes, thus they turn them lose
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:04:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SIG-shooter:
They are already doing this

They are declining to charge illegals for immigration violation as long as they arent in for other crimes, thus they turn them lose


Been happening in Houston for a bit now. Someone posted a link a couple of weeks ago.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:06:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DLaw:
Another Failure brought to you by the obama administration..

No shit
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:07:20 AM EDT
Yeah I think I'm going to just fly in my relatives from South Korea into Juarez, Mexico and just sneak them across the border, why bother doing it the legal way, even our govt doesn't give a fuck.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:08:40 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Stegadeth:
Originally Posted By SIG-shooter:
They are already doing this

They are declining to charge illegals for immigration violation as long as they arent in for other crimes, thus they turn them lose


Been happening in Houston for a bit now. Someone posted a link a couple of weeks ago.


As discussed in dozens of other threads on this same subject, there are 100's of reasons on why we don't/ wouldn't want to detain while they wait on a hearing.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:19:41 AM EDT
No need for hearings, GTFO. No need for lengthy detentions, GTFO. I talked to some guy the other day who said there is too much money and too many jobs at stake if we sealed the border. Like if we kicked out every illegal and sealed the border, the BP, DHS, and ICE would become extinct. Like the illegals would just give up, and all those federal jobs would be lost. Now ICE just wants to throw in the towel, what the fuck is next?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:25:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/7/2010 9:38:11 AM EDT by Chris_C]
Originally Posted By sixnine:
No need for hearings, GTFO. No need for lengthy detentions, GTFO. I talked to some guy the other day who said there is too much money and too many jobs at stake if we sealed the border. Like if we kicked out every illegal and sealed the border, the BP, DHS, and ICE would become extinct. Like the illegals would just give up, and all those federal jobs would be lost. Now ICE just wants to throw in the towel, what the fuck is next?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


Your 'some guy' doesn't know what he is talking about. BP would not become extinct.

ETA: Nor would ICE, or the Secret Service, etc...

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:27:02 AM EDT
I thought this was the standard policy. I seem to remember fifteen years ago Az. sheriffs were complaining that they would make an arrest and then no one from the government would show up to deport them.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:32:36 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Angelshare1:
So what becomes of ICE then?


It remains irrlevant
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:49:45 AM EDT
This is just to add some legitimacy to a practice they have long been doing anyway. Problem is, these agencies doing the "turn away don't look" routine are violating Article IV Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. So I guess we are supposed to accept their treason and just roll over.

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect
each of them against Invasion.”
—United States Constitution,
Article IV, Section 4
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:48:28 AM EDT
feed the hogs
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 10:52:01 AM EDT
not new in these parts
Top Top