Denver defends release of illegal immigrant later charged in murder - Polidicks

[quote]The Denver Sheriff's Department on Tuesday defended its release of an illegal immigrant after he posted bond on theft charges only to be arrested for murder weeks later, saying it had no authority to hold him. Ever Valles, 19, a Mexican national, was released from the Denver jail in late December. Last week he was charged by state prosecutors, along with another defendant, in the murder and robbery of a man at a light rail station this month. The case has drawn parallels to the 2015 murder of a 32-year-old woman, Kathryn Steinle, who was fatally shot at a San Francisco tourist site by a five-time deported Mexican immigrant. That case gave fuel to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, as the Republican candidate vowed to crack down on people entering the United States illegally. The sheriff’s department said that while the killing was a “tragedy,” once Valles posted bond it was required by law to release him. “Denver has never and will never condone dangerous or violent individuals being on our streets, immigrants or not,” the statement said. “However, detaining anyone without a criminal warrant is a violation of the Fourth Amendment” of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials said in a statement that after Valles was arrested, it placed a detainer with the Denver County jail to hold him until its agents could take him into federal custody. “The detainer wasn’t honored and he was released by the jail ... without prior notification,” ICE said. “Valles is a known gang member whose gang history is documented in the Colorado gang database.” Valles is charged along with Nathan Valdez, also 19, with aggravated robbery and first-degree murder in the shooting death of 32-year-old Timothy Cruz on Feb. 7. In 2014, Denver said it would not hold people in its jail at the request of ICE once they were eligible for release on the charges on which they were arrested. “If being a sanctuary city means that our law enforcement officers are expected to do the work of federal immigration authorities or violate the constitutional rights of any of our people, we reject that,” Hancock said in a video statement. [/quote] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-colorado-immigration-idUSKBN161077[/url] These sanctuary cities have a funny view imo on how they handle known violent criminals, who already committed a crime illegally entering here, needing a warrant to arrest them.

I don't feel like sanctuary cities should have ever been a thing. A government should only be concerned with looking out for the citizens of their own respective country, if people haven't taken the time to go through the process to become a citizen, why should they be able to benefit from it and stay there? We have borders and laws governing them for a good reason, having entire districts where you simply overlook your own laws and regulations sets a really unhealthy precedent for the country.

:snip: wooops fuckin read that one wrong

The dude posted bond. Under our fair and legal justice system, he was released because of that. Whether or not he should have been deported was another matter, but before then there was no indication that he was actually going to go and kill anyone, and since deportation was not going to happen he had a right to post bond.

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;51859548]The dude posted bond. Under our fair and legal justice system, he was released because of that. Whether or not he should have been deported was another matter, but before then there was no indication that he was actually going to go and kill anyone, and since deportation was not going to happen he had a right to post bond.[/QUOTE] I don't think there's anything wrong with letting someone out who posted bond, but he was also there illegally according to the article, and ICE even ordered the jail to hold them [QUOTE]U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials said in a statement that after Valles was arrested, it placed a detainer with the Denver County jail to hold him until its agents could take him into federal custody. “The detainer wasn’t honored and he was released by the jail ... without prior notification,” ICE said. “Valles is a known gang member whose gang history is documented in the Colorado gang database.”[/QUOTE] So basically immigration enforcement said to absolutely not let him out as he was a known gang member and he was wanted for federal custody and for no explicable reason they just let him out. Surely you're not allowed to just let someone post bond and leave when under a detainer by a federal agency?

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;51859548]The dude posted bond. Under our fair and legal justice system, he was released because of that. Whether or not he should have been deported was another matter, but before then there was no indication that he was actually going to go and kill anyone, and since deportation was not going to happen he had a right to post bond.[/QUOTE] That's a pretty fucking funny way of spinning it. ICE requested that the city of Denver detain him for deportation seeing as he's an illegal immigrant, Denver chose to ignore ICE's request and released him when he posted bond instead. He didn't just slip through the cracks, he was the result of Denver and their sanctuary city nonsense deliberately ignoring our immigration officials.

[QUOTE=Cureless;51859528]I don't feel like sanctuary cities should have ever been a thing. A government should only be concerned with looking out for the citizens of their own respective country, if people haven't taken the time to go through the process to become a citizen, why should they be able to benefit from it and stay there? We have borders and laws governing them for a good reason, having entire districts where you simply overlook your own laws and regulations sets a really unhealthy precedent for the country.[/QUOTE] Becoming a US citizen isn't easy if you're not naturally born here. Not to mention, you have to live in the US first in order to apply for citizenship. [quote]If you wish to become a US citizen and neither of your parents are US citizens, you’ll first need to immigrate to the United States and become a legal permanent resident. Once that is completed, a process that alone can take a few years, you’ll need to remain in the United States and establish permanent residency for five years, without extended absences. Once the five years are up, you will then be able to apply for naturalization. If you take active part in the American armed forces or are married to a US citizen, the residency requirement may be far smaller. For example, a person married to a US citizen may only need to wait three years after getting permanent residency in order to apply for US citizenship. Assuming that you already are a permanent resident and have established residency in the United States for the required amount of time, the actual US citizenship application process can take between six months to year, or even more. ... Once the application has been reviewed by the USCIS and has been accepted, you will be scheduled for an immigration test and interview. Again, how long it will take you to wait for the interview process will depend on your location and where you are filing for citizenship. Some districts have longer waiting lists than others. Once you have taken in the citizenship test for exam, you will need to wait between one day and 180 days, on average, to be able to take the oath of citizenship and become a citizen of the United States. Again, the district where you live will determine the waiting time. A large number of people applying for citizenship at the same time and at the same location as you may slightly delay your citizenship request.[/quote] [url]https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-citizenship/how-long-does-the-us-citizenship-process-take/[/url]

[QUOTE=TornadoAP;51859548]The dude posted bond. Under our fair and legal justice system, he was released because of that. Whether or not he should have been deported was another matter, but before then there was no indication that he was actually going to go and kill anyone, and since deportation was not going to happen he had a right to post bond.[/QUOTE] That isn't how it works. As someone who has worked in a jail once you get a notification from ICE that is it. Once the federal government says "hey keep this guy in custody because of x,y,z" you do it. Glad you're perfectly okay with a local jurisdiction defying a federal order which could have very easily saved someones life.

[QUOTE=Tudd;51859488]needing a warrant to arrest them.[/QUOTE] Sorry, is that funny or is that the legal requirement to arrest someone?

[QUOTE=MR-X;51859740]That isn't how it works. As someone who has worked in a jail once you get a notification from ICE that is it. Once the federal government says "hey keep this guy in custody because of x,y,z" you do it. Glad you're perfectly okay with a local jurisdiction defying a federal order which could have very easily saved someones life.[/QUOTE] I'm completely okay with ignoring an order to incarcerate someone for a civil offense. If ICE wants to come get them, then they can hurry their asses up and get him while he is in custody. Continuing to incarcerate people for civil offense at a local level is legally and ethically questionable at best.

[QUOTE=GunFox;51859760]I'm completely okay with ignoring an order to incarcerate someone for a civil offense. If ICE wants to come get them, then they can hurry their asses up and get him while he is in custody. Continuing to incarcerate people for civil offense at a local level is legally and ethically questionable at best.[/QUOTE] This isn't some case of someone get picked up and never having a criminal history get released later. They ignored a ICE detainer for someone who has been deported several times and is a known violent criminal and it someone died in the process. To me the local police failed to protect and do their duty. Explain that shit to the family of the person murdered.

[QUOTE=MR-X;51859880]This isn't some case of someone get picked up and never having a criminal history get released later. They ignored a ICE detainer for someone who has been deported several times and is a known violent criminal and it someone died in the process. To me the local police failed to protect and do their duty. Explain that shit to the family of the person murdered.[/QUOTE] The local police determined they didn't have the authority and had no interest in illegally detaining him. He was processed fully under their authority in the exact way he should've been. And it's not the job of local police forces to be federal officers. If ICE wanted him, they could get him themselves, not force a local government to do their job. ICE failed to do their job. They knew he was not going to be held and sat on their asses, so blame them. The local police, on the other hand, did theirs.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51860061]The local police determined they didn't have the authority and had no interest in illegally detaining him. He was processed fully under their authority in the exact way he should've been. And it's not the job of local police forces to be federal officers. If ICE wanted him, they could get him themselves, not force a local government to do their job. ICE failed to do their job. They knew he was not going to be held and sat on their asses, so blame them. The local police, on the other hand, did theirs.[/QUOTE] They had the authority to LEGALLY detain him once they received the retainer request from ICE. They CHOSE not to honor it because of politics, and I hope they get slammed for it.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51859736]Becoming a US citizen isn't easy if you're not naturally born here. Not to mention, you have to live in the US first in order to apply for citizenship. [url]https://www.us-immigration.com/us-immigration-news/us-citizenship/how-long-does-the-us-citizenship-process-take/[/url][/QUOTE] Immigration being hard is not a valid argument for illegal immigration.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51860164]They had the authority to LEGALLY detain him once they received the retainer request from ICE. They CHOSE not to honor it because of politics, and I hope they get slammed for it.[/QUOTE] They didn't honor because, as stated, they would not hold someone without a warrant. I don't know if you think we should amend the Constitution to give police the authority to lengthily hold people for whatever the government would like without charges, but I sure don't. Basically, no, they did not have the legal authority to detain this person for a period of time just because ICE asked them to. It's called the Fourth Amendment.

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;51860165]Immigration being hard is not a valid argument for illegal immigration.[/QUOTE] Illegal immigration, however, is a valid argument for making immigration less hard.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51860193]They didn't honor because, as stated, they would not hold someone without a warrant. I don't know if you think we should amend the Constitution to give police the authority to lengthily hold people for whatever the government would like without charges, but I sure don't. Basically, no, they did not have the legal authority to detain this person for a period of time just because ICE asked them to. It's called the Fourth Amendment.[/QUOTE] I can only imagine if people tried to use this absolutely nonsense argument with other federal agencies. 'They didn't honor the FBI's detainment request for a suspect on the Most Wanted list because, as stated, they would not hold someone without a warrant. Their fault if they couldn't get an agent to Bumfuck, North Dakota in thirty minutes, because there is no middle ground whatsoever between immediate release and indefinite detainment. I don't really know what the 4th Amendment is about or where the legal authority of federal law enforcement agencies is derived or what legal process actually goes into a detainment request, so this seems reasonable to me.' Start by reading [url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42690.pdf]an overview of the legal implications of a detainer notice[/url]. While the issue is far from clear-cut it is accepted by courts that ICE has the authority to request detainment of illegal aliens, who can be held for up to 48 hours pursuant to the detainer. Carrying out limited and specific detainment is the job of all federal law enforcement agencies and certainly not a violation of the 4th Amendment when due process is followed.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51860193]They didn't honor because, as stated, they would not hold someone without a warrant. I don't know if you think we should amend the Constitution to give police the authority to lengthily hold people for whatever the government would like without charges, but I sure don't. Basically, no, they did not have the legal authority to detain this person for a period of time just because ICE asked them to. It's called the Fourth Amendment.[/QUOTE] Way to go ignoring everything just pointed out. The guy had already committed a crime by being illegal and had an ICE retainer. He should have been detained.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51860302]I can only imagine if people tried to use this absolutely nonsense argument with other federal agencies. 'They didn't honor the FBI's detainment request for a suspect on the Most Wanted list because, as stated, they would not hold someone without a warrant. Their fault if they couldn't get an agent to Bumfuck, North Dakota in thirty minutes, because there is no middle ground whatsoever between immediate release and indefinite detainment. I don't really know what the 4th Amendment is about or where the legal authority of federal law enforcement agencies is derived or what legal process actually goes into a detainment request, so this seems reasonable to me.' Start by reading [url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42690.pdf]an overview of the legal implications of a detainer notice[/url]. While the issue is far from clear-cut it is accepted by courts that ICE has the authority to request detainment of illegal aliens, who can be held for up to 48 hours pursuant to the detainer. Carrying out limited and specific detainment is the job of all federal law enforcement agencies and certainly not a violation of the 4th Amendment when due process is followed.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Pg 19 of your source]For example, an alien subject to a detainer could be denied bond,130 or given a more restrictive custody or security designation, because of the detainer. Nonetheless, despite such effects, certain actions pursuant to a detainer would not appear to entail a seizure of the alien’s person, or a protected liberty interest (e.g., notifying ICE prior to releasing an alien, or in the event of the alien’s transfer or death). Holding a person who otherwise would have been released, in contrast, could be said to result in a seizure of that person and, as such, would implicate protected liberty interests. Such a hold is arguably the equivalent of a new arrest and thus requires independent authority. The authority underlying the initial arrest would not, in itself, permit the hold.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Pg 20]Arrests pursuant to warrants are presumptively reasonable, and ICE has broad authority to detain aliens for removal. In contrast, authority to hold aliens based on a belief they are removable appears to be more limited.[/QUOTE] So thanks for providing a source that backs up my point. As you stated, this issue is FAR from clear cut. ICE certainly has the authority to use detainers, but the situations in which they are legally allowed to is a very tricky question, and in this case the local government determined it was not within their legal authority and would have been an illegal seizure (Something your source specifically touches on). [QUOTE=Tudd;51860442]Way to go ignoring everything just pointed out. The guy had already committed a crime by being illegal and had an ICE retainer. He should have been detained.[/QUOTE] I'll make it real simple for you [b]That's not how it works. It's not that simple.[/b] Possibly having committed a crime isn't a basis for detainment without a warrant. You don't get arrested on pure suspicion, there needs to be an actual basis for your detention that isn't pulled out of thin air. Again, see the Fourth Amendment.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51860302]I can only imagine if people tried to use this absolutely nonsense argument with other federal agencies. 'They didn't honor the FBI's detainment request for a suspect on the Most Wanted list because, as stated, they would not hold someone without a warrant. Their fault if they couldn't get an agent to Bumfuck, North Dakota in thirty minutes, because there is no middle ground whatsoever between immediate release and indefinite detainment. I don't really know what the 4th Amendment is about or where the legal authority of federal law enforcement agencies is derived or what legal process actually goes into a detainment request, so this seems reasonable to me.' Start by reading [url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42690.pdf]an overview of the legal implications of a detainer notice[/url]. While the issue is far from clear-cut it is accepted by courts that ICE has the authority to request detainment of illegal aliens, who can be held for up to 48 hours pursuant to the detainer. Carrying out limited and specific detainment is the job of all federal law enforcement agencies and certainly not a violation of the 4th Amendment when due process is followed.[/QUOTE] I don't disagree with you but if somebody's on the FBI's most wanted list, I'm pretty sure they'd have a warrant out for their arrest

[QUOTE=Octavius;51860496]So thanks for providing a source that backs up my point. As you stated, this issue is FAR from clear cut. ICE certainly has the authority to use detainers, but the situations in which they are legally allowed to is a very tricky question, and in this case the local government determined it was not within their legal authority [B]and would have been an illegal seizure[/B] (Something your source specifically touches on).[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you just glossed over where the document explains that by granting bond and releasing the suspect, the local PD were [I]deliberately[/I] failing to comply with a legally sanctioned detainment request, which in [I]no way[/I] infringes on the 4th Amendment as you baselessly claimed. Federal courts have, as the document notes, upheld that the legal authority to issue detainment requests stems from their responsibility to police US borders, and so long as the detainment does not exceed 48 hours it is considered lawful. [QUOTE=Octavius;51860496]Possibly having committed a crime isn't a basis for detainment without a warrant. You don't get arrested on pure suspicion, there needs to be an actual basis for your detention that isn't pulled out of thin air. Again, see the Fourth Amendment.[/QUOTE] When there's clear evidence that the individual is an illegal alien and has violated immigration law, it's not a baseless detainment. The 4th Amendment does not protect illegal aliens from lawful, limited detainment pursuant to immigration law. You keep bringing up the 4th Amendment when it has no relevance to a properly sanctioned detainment request. It's like invoking the 4th to claim that you can't be held at the local jail. The 4th is a protection against [I]unreasonable[/I] search and seizure and I just gave you a source outlining in what contexts detainment is reasonable.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51860496]So thanks for providing a source that backs up my point. As you stated, this issue is FAR from clear cut. ICE certainly has the authority to use detainers, but the situations in which they are legally allowed to is a very tricky question, and in this case the local government determined it was not within their legal authority and would have been an illegal seizure (Something your source specifically touches on). I'll make it real simple for you [b]That's not how it works. It's not that simple.[/b] Possibly having committed a crime isn't a basis for detainment without a warrant. You don't get arrested on pure suspicion, there needs to be an actual basis for your detention that isn't pulled out of thin air. Again, see the Fourth Amendment.[/QUOTE] So Catbarf posts a source that says a warrant isn't always required for a retainer and you're response is "Thanks for proving my point! They couldn't hold him because they didn't have a warrant!"? Oh, and in that second quote, you forgot this: [QUOTE]However, while holds pursuant to detainers would appear to involve seizures of the alien’s person and protected liberty interests, they could still be found to be constitutional, depending upon the grounds for the hold. ICE can use Form I-247 to request holds on various grounds, including [B](1) a determination that there is reason to believe an individual is an alien subject to removal[/B]; (2) the initiation of removal proceedings; (3) a warrant of arrest for removal proceedings; and (4) a removal order.138 Different grounds could potentially raise different issues. [/QUOTE] Also, a little farther down: [QUOTE]Specifically, Section 287(a) of the INA provides that [a]ny officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General [currently the Secretary of Homeland Security] shall have power without warrant … to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any … law or regulation [governing the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens] and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States.144[/QUOTE] Your 4th amendment argument falls flat on it's face.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51860785]I'm not sure if you just glossed over where the document explains that by granting bond and releasing the suspect, the local PD were [I]deliberately[/I] failing to comply with a legally sanctioned detainment request, which in [I]no way[/I] infringes on the 4th Amendment as you baselessly claimed. Federal courts have, as the document notes, upheld that the legal authority to issue detainment requests stems from their responsibility to police US borders, and so long as the detainment does not exceed 48 hours it is considered lawful. When there's clear evidence that the individual is an illegal alien and has violated immigration law, it's not a baseless detainment. The 4th Amendment does not protect illegal aliens from lawful, limited detainment pursuant to immigration law. You keep bringing up the 4th Amendment when it has no relevance to a properly sanctioned detainment request. It's like invoking the 4th to claim that you can't be held at the local jail. The 4th is a protection against [I]unreasonable[/I] search and seizure and I just gave you a source outlining in what contexts detainment is reasonable.[/QUOTE] And I'm not sure if you simply glossed over your whole source, because you're ignoring all the sections that make the same exact argument I am making and support it as valid. I don't have the copy of the I-247 received by the authorities in Denver, and neither do you I assume (I'd love to see it if you do though), but their argument seems to follow the one noted and supported as valid by your own source. [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51860805]So Catbarf posts a source that says a warrant isn't always required for a retainer and you're response is "Thanks for proving my point! They couldn't hold him because they didn't have a warrant!"? Oh, and in that second quote, you forgot this: Also, a little farther down: Your 4th amendment argument falls flat on it's face.[/QUOTE] No, it does not. If you took any time to look at the document, you'd see they acknowledge the Fourth Amendment argument as valid, as shown in the sections I pointed to and others. Also, that first quote of yours itself acknowledges that different situations or "grounds could potentially raise different issues," and the Fourth Amendment argument is one of those issues, as is stated by that document a number of times. Additionally, from Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (A case where the detainee in question was to be held by the county, even if they posted bail) [QUOTE]There is no genuine dispute of material fact that the County maintains a custom or practice in violation of the Fourth Amendment to detain individuals over whom the County no longer has legal authority based only on an ICE detainer which provides no probable cause for detention.[/QUOTE] Overall, this isn't a new argument, it's one that has been validated in court previously. Don't try to act like I'm pulling it out of my ass when it's not only supported by his document, but also by court cases and legal groups like the ACLU. Again, seeing the actual I-247 would really settle this argument, because it could certainly allow us to better compare it to other cases and the law itself. Sadly, that's not a document we have in front of us.

[QUOTE=Octavius;51860887]because you're ignoring all the sections that make the same exact argument I am making and support it as valid[/QUOTE] Please point out where the document says 'local police can't hold someone for any length of time without a warrant because it would violate the 4th Amendment', which is what you actually claimed. You're moving goalposts.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51860985]Please point out where the document says 'local police can't hold someone for any length of time without a warrant because it would violate the 4th Amendment', which is what you actually claimed. You're moving goalposts.[/QUOTE] I'm not moving any goalpost, I'm saying that your source validates the argument of the authorities in Denver. Their argument, and mine by extension, was that detaining his individual when they should have been released would be a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. If you refer to that court case I spoke of, you'd see a ruling was made in favor of that understanding. Now, if the I-247 had been accompanied by a warrant (Or one of a few other legal items/notices to make it meet requirements), detaining the individual would have been legal. Without it though, holding them past the time which they should have been set free would constitute an illegal seizure since the local authority had resolved the case and did not have the authority to continue detaining the individual. This has already been recognized in court in a case that seems similar, so do you actually have anything to disprove it?

[QUOTE=Tudd;51860442]Way to go ignoring everything just pointed out. The guy had already committed a crime by being illegal and had an ICE retainer. He should have been detained.[/QUOTE] Being in the country without documentation is a civil offense. It carries no criminal penalty. Police do not handle civil offenses. That is the realm of the judicial branch. I don't want cops trampling all over the authority of the other branches of government. That is not inside the realm of their authority. [editline]22nd February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;51860985]Please point out where the document says 'local police can't hold someone for any length of time without a warrant because it would violate the 4th Amendment', which is what you actually claimed. You're moving goalposts.[/QUOTE] I am a cop. I can hold you for an investigative detention if I have particularized suspicion to believe a CRIME has been committed. That detention ends the instant my investigation ends. I can arrest you if I have probable cause a CRIME has been committed. I can also take you into protective custody under a complicated and fun set of rules. That is it. Where in there do you see anyone granting me the authority to arrest for civil violations? If you have a tenant not paying rent? No authority. Civil matter. Take it to court. I legally can do nothing. Neighbors arguing over property boundaries? Not my jurisdiction. Take it to court. Undocumented immigrants? I'll explain this shit to victim families all day. I will never apologize for operating within the legal confines set forth by the people that both grant me my authority and I have sworn to protect. That is literally my job.

[QUOTE=GunFox;51861375]Police do not handle civil offenses. That is the realm of the judicial branch.[/QUOTE] Well, federal courts seem to disagree in this context per the document I linked, which cites cases which have given ICE authority to issue detainment orders as part of their legal responsibility. Not to mention it's contrary to the de facto policies of police departments that follow legal detainment orders issued by federal agencies, which appears to be most of them. How, in your mind, does the system for deporting illegal immigrants work without any participation from police? Edit: I mean, you have plenty of evidence around you that police do, in fact, help ICE deport illegal immigrants, and the document I provided cites case law justifying it. So okay, maybe you personally believe that police shouldn't be involved in civil matters, and I understand where you're coming from- but it's pretty clear that that's not how the country works, and there's a helluva difference between 'facts of the law enforcement system' and 'GunFox's beliefs of how the law enforcement system should work'.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51862160]Well, federal courts seem to disagree in this context per the document I linked, which cites cases which have given ICE authority to issue detainment orders as part of their legal responsibility. Not to mention it's contrary to the de facto policies of police departments that follow legal detainment orders issued by federal agencies, which appears to be most of them. How, in your mind, does the system for deporting illegal immigrants work without any participation from police?[/QUOTE] The courts issue an arrest warrant for someone that is ordered to be deported. I assume at some point the police can also investigate someone suspected of being in the country illegally, but they're under no obligation to do so. ICE can also do its own investigations, but it's rarely worth their time. It's not a matter of 'no' police participation, it's a matter of involving the courts for civil offenses, and only engaging the police at the appropriate times.

[QUOTE=catbarf;51862160]Well, federal courts seem to disagree in this context per the document I linked, which cites cases which have given ICE authority to issue detainment orders as part of their legal responsibility. Not to mention it's contrary to the de facto policies of police departments that follow legal detainment orders issued by federal agencies, which appears to be most of them. How, in your mind, does the system for deporting illegal immigrants work without any participation from police? Edit: I mean, you have plenty of evidence around you that police do, in fact, help ICE deport illegal immigrants, and the document I provided cites case law justifying it. So okay, maybe you personally believe that police shouldn't be involved in civil matters, and I understand where you're coming from- but it's pretty clear that that's not how the country works, and there's a helluva difference between 'facts of the law enforcement system' and 'GunFox's beliefs of how the law enforcement system should work'.[/QUOTE] Ice may issue detainment *requests* not orders. Your link was pretty clear there. It isn't a matter of how I believe they should work. I mean I legally can't do that. I have the law. Cops get away with it in many cases. We get away with it because we deport the injured parties. Other states may have different laws. We do not have any law that provides that authority.

This is bullshit. Do I think the federal government should be able to nationalize local police to help them round up undocumented immigrants and their families, put them on a train and ship to Auschwit-I mean deport them? Fuck no. But do I think a local government should obey a federal order to detain a non-citizen violent gang member? [B]Absolutely[/B].