Sheriff: Trump Wants Us To Break The Law http://www.thedailybeast.com/sheriff-trump-wants-us-to-break-the-law The Trump administration is pushing sheriffs to keep illegal immigrants in jail for longer than is constitutionally allowed—and it's putting sympathetic sheriffs in a tough spot. Funny that the bigots in the Trump Administration are not going after employers, like Crooked Donnie, who hire the undocumented workers.
So your complaint is that ICE is takjng too long to come up with a work around for the detainers to hold criminal illegals?
Apparently, some sheriffs do not want to be placed into the position of breaking the law under pressure from the Trump Administration. My complaint is that this country does not go after lawbreaking employers who hire the undocumented workers.
No we don't and we should be. That has nothing to do with ICE not finding a solution for holding criminal aliens though. I can't imagine how this is so difficult.
Clearly some sheriffs have a problem. Remember, if the sheriff breaks the law, he/she could be prosecuted.
Here's the problem. The case sited that is used to suggest detainers are unconstitutional is misrepresented. The problem, Ernesto Galarza was a US Citizen not an illegal alien. Detaining those who've entered illegally or overstay their visa is legal. Mr Galarza was detained illegally because he was a Citizen. The county was held libel because they detained a US Citizen illegally. www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/123991p.pdf
Man wrongly jailed settles suit against Lehigh County Ernesto Galarza was held for three days after ICE issued detainer. June 02, 2014|By Peter Hall, Of The Morning Call A New Jersey native mistakenly jailed for three days as a suspected illegal immigrant has settled his lawsuit against Lehigh County for $95,000, his attorneys said. Ernesto Galarza of Allentown also received a total of $50,000 in earlier settlements with the federal government and city police for their roles in the incident. http://articles.mcall.com/2014-06-0...alarza-immigration-detainers-warren-institute Now, this ruling does give legal justification and pause when counties hold on detainer. That's the story, not that courts have said holding illegals on detainer is 'unconstitutional.'
I'm not blaming them for not complying or the WH for trying to push them to hold them. I'm blaming ICE for not figuring out a way to get this figured out legally.
The sheriffs should simply ship the people to the White House - we all know that Trump has all the answers.
Sheriff of Pinellas County, a....Sanctuary County haha. http://drrichswier.com/2015/07/09/forget-sanctuary-cities-florida-has-7-sanctuary-counties/
Obviously we need more ICE agents and better coordinating moving them to a federal facility. A simple legal solution would be for cities and counties to lease a portion of their jails to the federal government and contact for the local law enforcement to run that section. Private jails and contracting with local governments for jailing is 100% legal. Thus, the constitutional issue is resolved by ICE, as federal law enforcement, issuing a "warrant" for the undocumented migrant, and to be moved into the "federal" part of the local jail. Legal issue solved as the person now is being held by ICE and the federal government, not local Sheriff.
Yes it is. It is ubber white Democrat territory. In Florida, it is sheriffs departments, not local police, that are the law enforcement power. In lower population countries the are the most powerful governmental entity of all.
From your mouth, to Donald's ears. Unfortunately, it'll have to be through executive order since Congress isn't in the mood to do productive things.
That's right. These are Nullification Cities. DoJ Scores A Court Win Over Sanctuary City Grant Policies . The City of Richmond, California managed to get their case in front of a federal judge already. It didn’t go well for them at all. A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a 'sanctuary' city in California challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order withholding grants from jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities The city of Richmond, Calif., filed suit in March challenging the constitutionality of the order. U.S. District Judge William Orrick dismissed the case Monday, finding Richmond did not have standing to challenge the law. In his ruling dismissing the case, Orrick explained the city had not demonstrated that it had reason to believe Trump’s order would be enforced against them, and therefore didn’t have standing to bring a case. So the case was tossed, but the judge in this case didn’t make any sort of ruling over whether or not the DoJ policy is constitutional. All he really said was that the question was moot because Richmond lacked the proper standing to bring the challenge.
California back on the state nullification wagon to protect illegal aliensJ All of a sudden, nullification is cool again!
The key points of the (California) act are that the federal government must: Ask for a warrant or subpoena before granting ICE access to a worksite or employer documents or information. Notify employees before an audit of employee records such as I-9 forms, by hand if possible, within 72 hours of receiving notice of the inspection. If the employee is unionized, written notice must simultaneously be provided to the collective bargaining representative. Provide employees with a copy of the inspection results, by hand if possible, within 72 hours of receipt[.] unless specifically ordered, Employers will be prohibited from re-verifying the employment eligibility of a current employee to do so by federal law[.] Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/california_back_on_the_state_nullification_wagon_to_protect_illegal_aliens.html#ixzz54qNPjli2
Where does the constitution limit the power of government to hold undocumented immigrants who are being held for breaking the law by being in the country illegally?
There would be nothing to protect if not for lawbreaking employers like Crooked Donnie. Furthermore every city and state is a sanctuary for lawbreaking employers.
Well, lost of folks service the illegal population: Employers that hire them, landlords that rent to them, banks that lend to them and so forth. Why out of all the folks that enable the illegal to live among us, would you single out employers?
