You know I don’t want that. I think my position has been pretty clear. You just don’t want to acknowledge it.
Federal Govt. sues NJ, punishes NY
- Thread starter donnie_baseball
- Start date
lol. What are you talking about? You're just used so disagreeing with me that you're sure there must be some significant difference in our view here. There isn't.
We have the same goal in that people who are not citizens and are a threat to public safety should not be allowed to stay in the country. We want the police to have the best information available to them to make decisions. I believe that can be accomplished through data sharing. You think it can be accomplished through a joint case review with another agency.
First of all, you haven’t characterized the difference accurately . Care to go back and read again? Or save everyones time and stop with the silliness. Time to move on.
Last edited:
Nah, I'm good. Getting a bit nitpicky.
I want local enforcement to have the best information available to them in order to protect their local communities.
My opinion is about as worthless as yours in regards to how the police chiefs see that responsibility so we can leave it there.
I want local enforcement to have the best information available to them in order to protect their local communities.
My opinion is about as worthless as yours in regards to how the police chiefs see that responsibility so we can leave it there.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Illegals should be deported. They are taking jobs from Americans in many industries like landscaping, trucking, etc.
There are self-made hard working Americans who run businesses in these industries who are being now undercut on pricing and losing business because illegals are offering rock bottom prices because they dont pay for insurance, etc, that they legally are required to do. There are no repercussions for the illegals that do this.
There are self-made hard working Americans who run businesses in these industries who are being now undercut on pricing and losing business because illegals are offering rock bottom prices because they dont pay for insurance, etc, that they legally are required to do. There are no repercussions for the illegals that do this.
If you want a talking point with zero analysis, sure. Unfortunately you are leaving out a ton of information.
Beyond being impracticable if not impossible, it would be devastating to our economy if we deported all illegal immigrants.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
Zero analysis, I have friends who own businesses in these industries who are being hurt by competition that doesnt follow the laws, and are driving down wages bigtime. I assume you're a white collar worker who doesnt compete with illegals coming into your line of work.
That is true. I am not competing with illegal immigrants for a job but it's a much larger discussion than a few of your friends.
We currently have more working illegal immigrants than people unemployed. If they all were gone tomorrow, many of those jobs go unfilled. Labor prices go up, production goes down. Consumer prices rise which decreases consumption. We would be well on our way to a depression. I understand why your friends would be frustrated. I don't know their individual situations so I can't comment, but getting rid of illegal immigrants wouldn't actually fix anything for them and would probably make things significantly worse.
What they are really saying is that they wish politicians addressed the issue years ago so they could be on a level playing field today and I agree with that sentiment.
The operative word there is "detained" and so, IMO, absolutely yes.
The scenario I am talking about is someone being detained for reason X. In the course of the interview process during the detention, law enforcement determines there is an unrelated (to X) warrant on the person. Guess what. The other agency gets notified. If the other agency requests they be held for extradition, the detaining agency complies.
For me, no different with immigration status. Notify ICE. If it is a simple visa expiration, ICE is not going to request further detention. If it more than that and ICE says hold them until we can come get them, then yes. Then let ICE put them through a process which may or may not end up in deportation depending on the circumstances.
This cheap labor argument doesn't cut it. H-2A and H-2B permits are there for orchards, farms, golf courses, etc.
I think that is where the confusion/disagreement in this discussion lies.
How would law enforcement determine there is an unrelated issue? (I am going to go with the assumption that you answer will be checking a database, so correct me if I am wrong there)
Why can it not be the same procedure for an illegal immigrant?
In my opinion, police officers should have access to the best and most useful information to keep their communities safe.
If you got pulled over on April 16th, should the police check with the IRS if you have paid your taxes or filed an extension?
I think that gets to the point of my argument. Let the police worry about keeping their communities safe however best they see fit. If they deem an illegal immigrant to be a threat, they will detain them for ICE. If they don't deem them to be a threat, they will not detain them for ICE.
I think that is a fairly reasonable approach.
In regards to what?
There are a few hundred thousand here on work visa's at a given point in time. There are about 20x - 30x that number of illegal immigrants working in the US. If they were gone tomorrow, it would absolutely devastate our economy.
Yes. Systems.
In PA, we use CPIN and CLEAN.
Other things like PSP's interest markers are used right from the MDT in the patrol car. "Lersonon is known to have a firearm in the glove compartment"
That would of course depend on how many dependents you claimed on your schedule D.
That was sarcasm. The example was ridiculous.
Right. So we are in agreement on that then.
Give police access to the database and if there is something bad, ICE should be contacted.
How you get from a to b is mind-boggling.
do you seriously think if we implement the aforementioned policy to check for immigration status on Tuesday then on Wednesday 600,000 immigrants will be deported by close of business?
From the content in your own postings some 95% of these people would never be subject to detention because they're law abiding illegals.
No one said anything about seeking out and rounding up illegals.
"IF detained."
Remember that
part of it?
Like 85 said, SMH.
Who determines what "something bad" is? How hard is it to deal with it locally if nothing comes up and call ICE if something does and figure out best path.
This is what happens when you jump in when I am having two different conversations with two different people.
Knies was saying deport them all.
My economic responses were to him.
The police do. They have defined it already.
If they have access to the ICE database and "nothing comes up" why are doing anything else?
Let me try to give you a simple example.
Scenario 1: Bethlehem police pull over illegal alien for speeding and find no outstanding warrants...they ticket and deal with it in their municipality.
Scenario 2: Bethlehem police pull over illegal alien for speeding and he has a warrant for theft in Allentown and assault in Newark. Call ICE and determine best path of action.
This really shouldn't be this hard....but I'm sure you will make it that way.
Scenario 1: Bethlehem police pull over illegal alien for speeding and find no outstanding warrants, and no issues within the ICE database...they ticket and deal with it in their municipality.
Why is that not enough?
You're making an additional administrative step of making local police in charge of immigration enforcement, which should be redundant if they have access to the data.
Because it's not just about the ICE data base. I believe that local police and ICE should review all data when there is any outstanding warrant. If they have an outstanding warrant, they have broken a law for 1) the commission of a crime and 2) for being here illegally. Let the two governing agencies determine what best to do. It's not about being redundant...it's about doing what's best.
When you say "I believe that local police and ICE should review all data " -
The way I am reading that is that you want two people to read the same information. Is that correct? Or are you saying the police and ICE should not have access to the same information?
Somewhat in agreement.
In the case of a warrant, there is no judgement needed. It is protocol.
For the various degrees of illegals, the protocol would have to developed, agreed to and enforced.
When possible technology could be used but it is not the same as using a system like PA's CPIN. For CPIN, you can key in a SSN or a fingerprint and look for a hit. After that, things decay. You can try name and DOB but there are issues with that.
With an illegal there is no SSN. If they have no ID, you would have to use Fingerprint. Perhaps facial recognition but that is not there now.
You would have to start with strategy and intent and then back into the method to enforce.
Some examples: Pulled over for a traffic stop. No ID whats over. I mean - NoID. Not "I'm sorry officer, I live at 22 Main St.and just ran out for some milk and left my walled home"
but, "me no speak-a-da english". No ID. Me live "over there somewhere". For this, I say bring them downtown, detain them until yo can find out who they are. Run fingerprints. Call ICE. Send a prints and photo. Go from there.
I am not against that. I am saying we should make sure the police the tools they need to make their determination about public safety.
The "calling ICE" step has me a little confused if the guy has no ID or anything though. What does that phone call accomplish assuming they have the same access to the same data?
ICE should be involved when the police feel there is a threat to public safety and the person deserves to be deported.
The addition of checking the ICE database is a step in right direction.
I would go further because just checking that does not handle the illegals that are not in the database.
Scenario 1A. I have an illegal and get a positive match in the ICE database and ICE says do not hold him. Then let him go.
Scenario 1B. I have an illegal and do not get a positive match in the ICE Database. Hold and contact ICE for resolution. Put limits on it. I can hold for X hours and If ICE does not respond, take fingerprints, photos, DNA, try to get a good address and phone number, and then let him go. If I deem the person to be a threat, I can hold for Y hours/days.
For all you bleeding hearts, trying going to any other country and get picked up by the police without any ID. Guess where you are sleeping that night? I talking France, Germany,Italy, and not just North Korea.
"ICE, this is Detective Smith in Hackensack. I got an illegal here we picked up on traffic violation but found a firearm in the vehicle. Do you want me send prints and photos?"
"Detective, this is Agent Johnson with ICE. Yes. Hold him until we can run those".
"Smith, Johnson here calling you back. Nothing came back on the prints. Can you hold him until tomorrow and we will come pick him up and process him here when we get him"
That’s perfectly reasonable.
what started this thread going down this rabbit hole was when someone is detained, ICE is contacted but the person in question has not been convicted of a crime which is deemed to be a threat to public safety.
should the police be required to hold him for ICE to pick him up if the police deem the guy is not a risk to public safety?
what started this thread going down this rabbit hole was when someone is detained, ICE is contacted but the person in question has not been convicted of a crime which is deemed to be a threat to public safety.
should the police be required to hold him for ICE to pick him up if the police deem the guy is not a risk to public safety?
There is not a comprehensive answer to that.
Scenario A.
Precinct gets a call from reporting a disturbance in the 2nd floor apartment. The call is made by the 1st floor apartment. Police send a patrol car. After some questioning we find out that the husband is an illegal from El Salvador. He has been here 24 months. He works at the fish market off the books. The woman is a US citizen and common law wife to the man. The 9 year girl is the woman's daughter from another father. The 6 month old baby is the daughter of the couple. They had a loud argument but the woman says she is not in danger and she is Ok to stay in the house. No sign of guns or drugs. Unkempt apartment but not unhealthy.
What do you do?
My opinion:
Take the guy down to the precinct. Fingerprints, photos, and DNA. Contact ICE. Send over the prints and photos. DNA to follow.
ICE says they have nothing on him. Given ICE now knows they guy has a reasonable address and job, ICE tells the cop to tell the man to report in within 30 days to the ICE office. Provide the guy the address and instructions. Take the guy home.
When he shows up at the ICE office, start the process to evaluate his situation. He is free to come and go while the process plays out. He may end up deported and may not.
If he does not show up in 30 days, issue a warrant for his arrest. Go to the house and arrest him. Confine him in the County Jail and start the same process.
At the core of my thinking about this is that entering this country illegally is a crime and not a trivial crime. Yes it a misdemeanor the first time, but that does not mean that you simply pay a fine and then are allowed to stay. You pay the fine and then you face a deportation hearing.
So go back to the Scenario A. A possible outcome is the guy pays a fine, you issue the guy a temporary visa and put him on a path to citizenship. I say a path, not an instant citizenship. If he succeeds, fine, if not, sayonara
You could tweak that scenario a thousand different ways, many of which would end in deportation. So be it.
Last edited:
A guy enters a ski resort. Does not buy a lift ticket. Rides up the lift 4 times until he is caught. Its a misdemeanor. Theft of services. He has no money. Can't pay for a lift ticket.
Do you think after he is issued his summons that the resort then allows him to stay and keep skiing?
The bleeding hearts would like to envision the beautiful movie around this poor kid who dreams of being an Olympic hopeful and has to sneak into the resort so he can practice. Some day he will win a gold medal for his homeland, Croatia, where he escaped from tyranny and made his way to the US.
That's not reality.
Beyond all of the hypotheticals that we can come up with, the point from this thread ultimately comes down to that in certain towns, they have taken the stance that the police will not honor detainer requests from ICE if the police have determined that the person in question is not a threat to public safety.
These towns have taken the stance that illegal aliens are a part of their community and should not fear that interactions with police will result in deportation unless they have committed a crime.
I personally believe that is a reasonable approach.
If you don't, that is fine, but I wouldn't automatically say one of us is being unreasonable (which was my original objection in this thread)
On the larger immigration question itself, I am not even that liberal.
I believe we should get all of them here on the books. Allow a path to citizenship for those who are here and have not been involved in criminal activity. Improve border security and technology to monitor immigration and anyone who did not register by X date gets deported. Anyone from here on who enters illegally gets deported. etc.. I'm basically George W Bush on this issue.
I believe we should get all of them here on the books. Allow a path to citizenship for those who are here and have not been involved in criminal activity. Improve border security and technology to monitor immigration and anyone who did not register by X date gets deported. Anyone from here on who enters illegally gets deported. etc.. I'm basically George W Bush on this issue.
Yes, I am quite comfortable agreeing to disagree.
I don't think Police should pick and choose what laws they want to enforce and which agencies they are going to cooperate with. I alos think this new banner of "public safety" is our only job is a recent phenomenon spawned out of the political environment. Someone with an expired driver's license is not a threat to society, yet you will get cited for it. Someone who steals are car, burglarizes a house, vandalizes a store is not a threat to public safety yet they will get arrested.
That being said, I thing the police stance on this is two fold.
One, in some cases it is job security and career aspirations trumping duty. What I mean is the if you want to be police chief and the major is a liberal then you need to adopt liberal enforcement polices.
Two, in other cases it is a matter of resources and practicality. If your department is understaffed and you have a large illegal population, you have to pick and choose your battles. Arresting someone for spitting on the sidewalk is not at the top of your list.
