ADVERTISEMENT

Federal Govt. sues NJ, punishes NY

donnie_baseball

donnie_baseball

All World
Mar 31, 2006
8,908
4,226
113
I will have to find the links, but the Attorney General is suing the state of NJ over the refusal to cooperate with ICE on detaining undocumented immigrants who have committed a crime. Had a conversation with a lefty friend who complained, "we are a nation of immigrants," "...the cages..." etc. etc.

This really is a no-brainer, particularly after the case where the man who was arrested in NJ was released and murdered 3 people in Missouri. We're not talking about mass deportations here, it's about processing criminals in a way that isn't a threat to public safety. How can people be so blinded by political ideology disagree with that?

As far as the Office of Homeland Security holding privileges for travelers in NY, in response to similar "sancutary" policies enacted there, I am also OK with that. It seems punitive or retaliatory, but it makes sense. NY is a mess, combined with the bail reforms passed there, becoming increasingly dangerous, for cops and the citizenry. I have a couple of friends who are NYPD veterans, and what they tell me is VERY scary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afghan whigs, Section112 and HALL85
donnie_baseball said:
We're not talking about mass deportations here, it's about processing criminals in a way that isn't a threat to public safety. How can people be so blinded by political ideology disagree with that?
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. Should someone who was convicted of assault be reported to ICE and deported? Absolutely, yes... but the NJ law doesn't prevent notification to immigration authorities if they were held due to a first or 2nd degree offense.

The issue at hand is if someone was detained in NJ for matters that are not deemed a threat to public safety, should they be reported to immigration authorities? There is a debate to be had there for sure, but reasonable people can end up on both sides of that discussion without being blinded by political ideology.

donnie_baseball said:
As far as the Office of Homeland Security holding privileges for travelers in NY, in response to similar "sancutary" policies enacted there, I am also OK with that. It seems punitive or retaliatory, but it makes sense.
Click to expand...

There are other avenues the administration could pursue that could go after the actual NY laws they have an issue with. It is punitive, retaliatory and fairly stupid honestly.
 
Merge said:
It's not that simple. Should someone who was convicted of assault be reported to ICE and deported? Absolutely, yes... but the NJ law doesn't prevent notification to immigration authorities if they were held due to a first or 2nd degree offense.

The issue at hand is if someone was detained in NJ for matters that are not deemed a threat to public safety, should they be reported to immigration authorities? There is a debate to be had there for sure, but reasonable people can end up on both sides of that discussion without being blinded by political ideology.



There are other avenues the administration could pursue that could go after the actual NY laws they have an issue with. It is punitive, retaliatory and fairly stupid honestly.
Click to expand...

I think the answer to your question lies here:

https://www.mycentraljersey.com/sto...-3-missouri-murders-heading-trial/2853896001/

Agree with your last paragraph, it is all of that. Governors and AG's lining up to "resist" Trump by giving federal and state ID's to undocumented persons, and forcing local law enforcement to not cooperate with federal authorities is equally stupid. And dangerous.
 
Merge said:
The issue at hand is if someone was detained in NJ for matters that are not deemed a threat to public safety, should they be reported to immigration authorities? There is a debate to be had there for sure, but reasonable people can end up on both sides of that discussion without being blinded by political ideology.
Click to expand...

Since "deemed a threat to public safety" can be subjective, it's fairly simple (though you opine otherwise): If you are arrested and charged with a violent crime, you should be detained until trial. No special treatment to teach the Trump administration a lesson, no bail reform loopholes. It just so happens that a person with no documentation, an expired visa, or who has already been deported, and is now back in the country, is already in violation of the law.
 
donnie_baseball said:
Since "deemed a threat to public safety" can be subjective, it's fairly simple (though you opine otherwise): If you are arrested and charged with a violent crime, you should be detained until trial. No special treatment to teach the Trump administration a lesson, no bail reform loopholes. It just so happens that a person with no documentation, an expired visa, or who has already been deported, and is now back in the country, is already in violation of the law.
Click to expand...

The guy in question was held for 51 days until his criminal proceeding resolved without a conviction.

There is an emotional response to the idea that someone was murdered by someone who shouldn't be here, but a murderer is a murderer. Does it matter if the murderer is a citizen vs someone overstaying a visa by a day vs someone who came into the country illegally vs someone who's parents brought them here as a child?

If that guy was a citizen, held for 51 days and released and then killed his friends a year and a half later... are we supposed to be comforted that at least he was a citizen and deserved to be here?
 
Merge said:
The guy in question was held for 51 days until his criminal proceeding resolved without a conviction.

There is an emotional response to the idea that someone was murdered by someone who shouldn't be here, but a murderer is a murderer. Does it matter if the murderer is a citizen vs someone overstaying a visa by a day vs someone who came into the country illegally vs someone who's parents brought them here as a child?

If that guy was a citizen, held for 51 days and released and then killed his friends a year and a half later... are we supposed to be comforted that at least he was a citizen and deserved to be here?
Click to expand...

That's convoluted logic. Like Archie Bunker's response to his daughter's rant about gun violence: "Would it make you feel better, little girl, if they was thrown out of windows?"

If a member of your family was run over accidentally by a driver who didn't see them, versus someone who was blind drunk (or unlicensed), wouldn't there be a distinction to be made there?
 
donnie_baseball said:
That's convoluted logic.
Click to expand...

It really isn't. The question is if we should be deporting illegal immigrants who are not deemed to be a threat to public safety. NJ law says unless you are convicted of a 2nd degree crime (plus a few other), you are not deemed to be a threat to public safety.

Right now, you are just taking an horrible event and wrapping that around your beliefs on immigration while ignoring that there were thousands of illegal immigrants released in NJ who didn't go on to kill someone and proportionately illegal immigrants commit less crime than citizens do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bobbie Solo
Merge said:
It really isn't. The question is if we should be deporting illegal immigrants who are not deemed to be a threat to public safety. NJ law says unless you are convicted of a 2nd degree crime (plus a few other), you are not deemed to be a threat to public safety.

Right now, you are just taking an horrible event and wrapping that around your beliefs on immigration while ignoring that there were thousands of illegal immigrants released in NJ who didn't go on to kill someone and proportionately illegal immigrants commit less crime than citizens do.
Click to expand...

What are my beliefs on immigration, exactly?

If you are undocumented, and accused of a crime, you are in the position of being already in violation of the law, and now with another charge. Can you say, with any assurance, that involving ICE in these cases results in deportation, or are they able to do a more thorough background check, in order to assess the actual threat or lack thereof? I have no confidence in the law of NJ/NY to ascertain this, given the bail reforms -- and most of the county sheriffs would agree. Obviously the "horrible event" is easy for you to dismiss out of hand, but it's not the only case, and it certainly won't be the last.
 
donnie_baseball said:
I have no confidence in the law of NJ/NY to ascertain this, given the bail reforms
Click to expand...

Why? NJ has had the policy for years now. How many illegal immigrants have been released? How many have committed crimes after their release? Is the data any different for citizens vs not citizens in those scenarios? Does data support your confidence level?

donnie_baseball said:
Obviously the "horrible event" is easy for you to dismiss out of hand, but it's not the only case, and it certainly won't be the last.
Click to expand...

I'm not dismissing it, I am just not overreacting to it.

If an illegal immigrant is convicted of a crime, deport them.
If they haven't been convicted of a crime and are deemed to not be a threat, then I don't think we need to deport them. Does that mean we will always be 100% correct? No. But I don't really see a difference between letting that guy go vs letting a citizen go who then commits a crime.

The question ultimately is should we deport illegal immigrants who are not deemed to be a public threat.
As someone who supports amnesty, I would say no to that.
 
Merge said:
Why? NJ has had the policy for years now. How many illegal immigrants have been released? How many have committed crimes after their release? Is the data any different for citizens vs not citizens in those scenarios? Does data support your confidence level?



I'm not dismissing it, I am just not overreacting to it.

If an illegal immigrant is convicted of a crime, deport them.
If they haven't been convicted of a crime and are deemed to not be a threat, then I don't think we need to deport them. Does that mean we will always be 100% correct? No. But I don't really see a difference between letting that guy go vs letting a citizen go who then commits a crime.

The question ultimately is should we deport illegal immigrants who are not deemed to be a public threat.
As someone who supports amnesty, I would say no to that.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be a good idea for local law enforcement and ICE to share that information so we can make the best informed decision on each individual case? I'm just diving into this, but with sanctuary cities, you are creating environments for law enforcement agencies to work separately and in some cases against each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afghan whigs
HALL85 said:
Wouldn't it be a good idea for local law enforcement and ICE to share that information so we can make the best informed decision on each individual case? I'm just diving into this, but with sanctuary cities, you are creating environments for law enforcement agencies to work separately and in some cases against each other.
Click to expand...

This is my point. And Merge, I don't have the figures on how many undocumented people have been released, but if you listen to what the people in law enforcement in NYC (I believe the police union gave a vote of no-confidence to DeBlasio) and NJ, you would be more concerned.
 
HALL85 said:
Wouldn't it be a good idea for local law enforcement and ICE to share that information so we can make the best informed decision on each individual case? I'm just diving into this, but with sanctuary cities, you are creating environments for law enforcement agencies to work separately and in some cases against each other.
Click to expand...

Yes. ICE was aware that they were holding him though. They requested a detainer which would mean that when he would be released by the county, ICE would be notified and get an extra 48 hours to pick him up.

NJ takes the position that if the charged is not, or has not been convicted of a crime (2nd degree or worse) then they are not deemed to be a risk to the public safety and do not need to honor the detainer request.

If ICE had information that he was a threat to public safety, they could have presented that to the county or asked a judge for a deportation order.
 
donnie_baseball said:
This is my point. And Merge, I don't have the figures on how many undocumented people have been released, but if you listen to what the people in law enforcement in NYC (I believe the police union gave a vote of no-confidence to DeBlasio) and NJ, you would be more concerned.
Click to expand...

The police I have talked to about this are generally in favor of sanctuary cities.
 
Merge said:
Yes. ICE was aware that they were holding him though. They requested a detainer which would mean that when he would be released by the county, ICE would be notified and get an extra 48 hours to pick him up.

NJ takes the position that if the charged is not, or has not been convicted of a crime (2nd degree or worse) then they are not deemed to be a risk to the public safety and do not need to honor the detainer request.

If ICE had information that he was a threat to public safety, they could have presented that to the county or asked a judge for a deportation order.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about this specific case, but rather that we should be encouraging law enforcement agencies to share information and work together to determine the correct course of action. A blanket (not charged or convicted) of a second degree or worse can leave a lot of holes.
 
HALL85 said:
I'm not talking about this specific case, but rather that we should be encouraging law enforcement agencies to share information and work together to determine the correct course of action. A blanket (not charged or convicted) of a second degree or worse can leave a lot of holes.
Click to expand...

I'm not against data sharing at all. The job of the police is to keep their communities safe and if they have access to additional information that would help them accomplish that, I am all for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pirate6711
Just data
Merge said:
I'm not against data sharing at all. The job of the police is to keep their communities safe and if they have access to additional information that would help them accomplish that, I am all for it.
Click to expand...
I’m suggesting well beyond data sharing. At the very least Joint case review and disposition.
 
Merge said:
In my opinion, you are asking too much of law enforcement there and would really be no different than the local police getting the FBI involved with anyone they apprehend.

I agree with all of this below. From police chiefs on immigration enforement.

https://www.majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/2013_immigration_policy.pdf
Click to expand...
Why am I asking too much? You have two separate situations (a) Someone who is in this country illegally and (b) Someone that has charged with or broken a law; that should be looked at as a whole to make the best decision in each case. Your comparison isn't valid, since in most cases there is absolutely no reason for local police to get involved with the FBI. When there is (i.e. domestic terrorism) they do now.
 
HALL85 said:
Why am I asking too much? You have two separate situations (a) Someone who is in this country illegally and (b) Someone that has charged with or broken a law; that should be looked at as a whole to make the best decision in each case. Your comparison isn't valid, since in most cases there is absolutely no reason for local police to get involved with the FBI. When there is (i.e. domestic terrorism) they do now.
Click to expand...

See the link I posted above. Police chiefs believe it is asking too much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afghan whigs
HALL85 said:
All of these links are lame. They aren't happy since funding has been pulled, not because they support sanctuary status. And the one article is supported by 33 officials that represent less than 10% of the population.
Click to expand...

I have talked to cops in NJ and a retired detective from NY about it and all of them want better immigration laws but believe sanctuary cities help them do their jobs. It's anecdotal of course, but supported by information I could find on the subject as well as being in line with sound logic.

You don't want a community of people who may be able to help you solve crime afraid that if they speak up, they will be deported.
Illegal immigrants are also afraid to report crime that happens to them in fear of being deported.
 
Here is a larger problem of our society currently. The people who enforce right and wrong have been made the bad guys. Police, principals, teachers etc. Our society now believes that laws should not be enforced, kids in school who break the rules over and over again should not be expelled and so on. It's a huge problem IMO and the people who have to actually enforce the rules (not the ones who make the rules) are the ones who incur most of the trouble. It's truly unfortunate.

In the case of sanctuary cities state politicians (not law enforcement) usually are the ones that decide to become a sanctuary city and then they impose their mandate on law enforcement. This in itself is a huge problem. The politicians should instead be trying to change the laws not openly deciding to not enforce the laws.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afghan whigs, shu09 and HALL85
Merge said:
I have talked to cops in NJ and a retired detective from NY about it and all of them want better immigration laws but believe sanctuary cities help them do their jobs. It's anecdotal of course, but supported by information I could find on the subject as well as being in line with sound logic.

You don't want a community of people who may be able to help you solve crime afraid that if they speak up, they will be deported.
Illegal immigrants are also afraid to report crime that happens to them in fear of being deported.
Click to expand...
My experience with LEO and DA’s is diametrically opposed. And there is no data to support the argument about the community coming forward...just an unproven theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: donnie_baseball
Section112 said:
In the case of sanctuary cities state politicians (not law enforcement) usually are the ones that decide to become a sanctuary city and then they impose their mandate on law enforcement. This in itself is a huge problem.
Click to expand...

This isn't meant to come across with snark, but do you have examples? The sanctuary cities in NJ that I know of typically have police chiefs who are on board with the policy.
 
HALL85 said:
My experience with LEO and DA’s is diametrically opposed. And there is no data to support the argument about the community coming forward...just an unproven theory.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/04/cri...-due-to-immigrant-fears-says-aclu-report.html

The findings are based on survey responses from 232 law enforcement officers in 24 states as well as hundreds of others across all 50 states, including judges, prosecutors, survivor advocates and legal service providers.

“Prosecutors surveyed stated that in prior years, as cooperation between prosecutors and immigrant communities increased, survivors of crime were increasingly willing to come forward and assist law enforcement in prosecuting cases,”
 
Merge said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/04/cri...-due-to-immigrant-fears-says-aclu-report.html

The findings are based on survey responses from 232 law enforcement officers in 24 states as well as hundreds of others across all 50 states, including judges, prosecutors, survivor advocates and legal service providers.

“Prosecutors surveyed stated that in prior years, as cooperation between prosecutors and immigrant communities increased, survivors of crime were increasingly willing to come forward and assist law enforcement in prosecuting cases,”
Click to expand...
A report by the ACLU??? Merge, you need to stop throwing these links out that don't really say what you are suggesting or are initiated by a group with a clear agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: afghan whigs
HALL85 said:
A report by the ACLU??? Merge, you need to stop throwing these links out that don't really say what you are suggesting or are initiated by a group with a clear agenda.
Click to expand...

When you don't like the data, attack the source.

The fact is, there are lots of studies which show that immigrants do not trust ICE and have less trust in a community working with ICE as opposed to ones who do not. Many of those studies would of course be pushed by groups who are in favor of sanctuary cities. Still better than anecdotal evidence within this thread.

This thread has taken lots of twists and turns, but my basic premise as someone who supports amnesty is that illegal immigrants who are here should be allowed to stay here and given a path to citizenship. It's just not feasible to kick them all out, and it doesn't help them or citizens to just keep kicking the can down the road.

The details of that can be worked out but there should be a period of time where they have to meet certain criteria and can not be convicted of a crime. Increase border security, and find better methods to track those who overstay a visa. In the meantime, if someone has committed a crime I have no issue turning them over to ICE. If they were not found to be guilty of a crime, then they do not need to be turned over to ICE.
 
Merge said:
When you don't like the data, attack the source.

The fact is, there are lots of studies which show that immigrants do not trust ICE and have less trust in a community working with ICE as opposed to ones who do not. Many of those studies would of course be pushed by groups who are in favor of sanctuary cities. Still better than anecdotal evidence within this thread.

This thread has taken lots of twists and turns, but my basic premise as someone who supports amnesty is that illegal immigrants who are here should be allowed to stay here and given a path to citizenship. It's just not feasible to kick them all out, and it doesn't help them or citizens to just keep kicking the can down the road.

The details of that can be worked out but there should be a period of time where they have to meet certain criteria and can not be convicted of a crime. Increase border security, and find better methods to track those who overstay a visa. In the meantime, if someone has committed a crime I have no issue turning them over to ICE. If they were not found to be guilty of a crime, then they do not need to be turned over to ICE.
Click to expand...
I think most people support a path to citizenship and the extremes on both sides are the minority. Another stain on our two party do-nothing Congress. They all care so much, but just kick the can down the road year after year.

I go back to my original premise....if ICE and LEO were collaborating and managing these arrest effectively, we would be reducing the crime rate and building confidence in the entire community. Building firewalls between agencies and a climate where there are constant jurisdiction battles does little or nothing to help the public - legal or illegal.
 
HALL85 said:
.if ICE and LEO were collaborating and managing these arrest effectively, we would be reducing the crime rate and building confidence in the entire community. Building firewalls between agencies and a climate where there are constant jurisdiction battles does little or nothing to help the public - legal or illegal.
Click to expand...

Local police are responsible for public safety and determine the risks. They should have access to the most relevant information to make that judgement. If the person they are holding is a threat to public safety, then they should be turned over to immigration authorities... but that is what they are doing already, and crime rates generally across the country have been on a decline for decades so I don't think it is wrong to say local authorities have been effective here.
 
Merge said:
Local police are responsible for public safety and determine the risks. They should have access to the most relevant information to make that judgement. If the person they are holding is a threat to public safety, then they should be turned over to immigration authorities... but that is what they are doing already, and crime rates generally across the country have been on a decline for decades so I don't think it is wrong to say local authorities have been effective here.
Click to expand...
All law enforcement is responsible for public safety and local police don't have access to all of the information of an arrested party. If you were on vacation and had a medical emergency, wouldn't you want the attending physician to have access to your electronic medical record and be able to speak with your personal physician? Better decisions with data and context. Pretty much common sense.
 
HALL85 said:
All law enforcement is responsible for public safety and local police don't have access to all of the information of an arrested party. If you were on vacation and had a medical emergency, wouldn't you want the attending physician to have access to your electronic medical record and be able to speak with your personal physician? Better decisions with data and context. Pretty much common sense.
Click to expand...

Yes. Local law enforcement should have access to all available information, and they can determine the best course of action in the interest of their responsibility which is public safety, not necessarily immigration enforcement.

Not sure why there is a debate here. I'm not against improvements or anything. Give the police the tools they need to do their job.

Same with a doctor on vacation. Give them the access to the information they need to do their job.
 
Merge said:
Yes. Local law enforcement should have access to all available information, and they can determine the best course of action in the interest of their responsibility which is public safety, not necessarily immigration enforcement.

Not sure why there is a debate here. I'm not against improvements or anything. Give the police the tools they need to do their job.

Same with a doctor on vacation. Give them the access to the information they need to do their job.
Click to expand...
You keep leaving out one important step to get the best result, but we know why you continue to do so. Will have to agree to disagree.
 
We want the same result. The extra step should be unnecessary and redundant if the police have access to the information they need to do their job.

They can escalate it to immigration authorities based on risk.
 
Merge said:
We want the same result. The extra step should be unnecessary and redundant if the police have access to the information they need to do their job.

They can escalate it to immigration authorities based on risk.
Click to expand...
Do we? I doubt that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Halldan1

NY Mets host the Deaf awareness day (July 30, 2023)

Replies
5
Views
459
Pirate Hoops Chat
Halldan1
Halldan1
A

2023 Recruiting

Replies
124
Views
8K
Treasure Trove
Aross1995
A
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back