Law California Is Now Officially A Sanctuary State For All Illegal Immigrants

[panamaican]

do you work in law enforcement?


I arrest a suspect for [insert a california penal code crime here], book him to county jail for processing, we run federal check and that suspect is on ICE deportation list, ICE is notified, we hold the suspect in county jail wait for ICE to come get him. We charge ICE hourly for the detainees and if ICE doesn't want him then we cut the suspect lose (citation-in-lieu-of-detention depending on the severity of crime).
that's just a gist of it.

so what's exactly is the "cost" to city/county/state law enforcement....other than the community is minus one criminal?

I don't work in law enforcement. I don't need to in order to understand the distinction between federal law and state law when it comes to immigration.

As for the cost, every time you run the federal check you are spending state time on a federal responsibility. Do you bill ICE every time an officer takes it upon himself to contact ICE prior to the booking?

There's a whole range of ICE/local law enforcement collaboration that takes place over the course of a year, much of it unofficial but undertaken to help both groups get better overall results. Do you back bill ICE for all of it?

 

[Rod1]

I want the Government (no matter which party they affiliate with) to be Pro-Legal Immigration and clamp down on Illegal Immigration.

[/QUOTE]

Yet you oppose immigration reform.

 

[panamaican]

yes and no. you are 50% right

immigration violation is a civil violation only if it is unlawful presence. for example, someone enters united states legally on a b1/b2 tourist visa and overstays his tourist visa

immigration violation is a criminal violation if it is an improper entry. for example, hopping over the border fence to avoid inspection by a u.s. immigration officer

Sure, but the local officers don't police illegal entry. So when you stop some criminal and arrest him, you're not arresting him for entering illegally. When you contact ICE later to check his status, you're not checking how they entered (the crime), only if their current presence is lawful (the civil violation).

 

[panamaican]

Still waiting for @panamaican to enlighten this Californian police officer about how things REALLY works in California law enforcement.

I've already done so. I'm sorry, I rarely come back to these threads after I've made my point. You can disagree with the points I make but my retyping them over and over again isn't going to change that, it just wastes my time.

 

[Arkain2K]

Yet you oppose immigration reform.

Is that why I'm still here patiently waiting for all the promises in it to be carried out? Because I "oppose" to them?

 

[Toothless King]

Sure, but the local officers don't police illegal entry. So when you stop some criminal and arrest him, you're not arresting him for entering illegally. When you contact ICE later to check his status, you're not checking how they entered (the crime), only if their current presence is lawful (the civil violation).

agree. local police should not ask/question immigration status of the people they encounter every day because that is not our job, but it's a different story when that person gets charged and booked for a crime under California penal code. the issue is this new Sanctuary law prevents local police from contact federal authority all together.

 

[Rod1]

Is that why I'm still here patiently waiting for it to be carried out? Because I "oppose to it"?

Its a 31 years old law which clearly failed in many aspects yet your idea of compromise is not an open debate between all political forces by draconian implementation of a 31 years old law which has clearly failed in so many aspects? Then you get surprised when California uses a draconian interpretation of the Constitution to fuck with the federal government as hard as it can?

Why are you so vehemently opposed to re-opening the debate?

 

[nostradumbass]

LOL @ "Democrats need the votes"

I'm pretty sure they have California locked up and, as we know, the popular vote doesn't mean shit with the electoral college.

I'm so shocked that conservative critics are so electorally daft.

Turns out the presidency isn't the only election.

 

[panamaican]

agree. local police should not ask/question immigration status of the people they encounter every day because that is not our job, but it's a different story when that person gets charged and booked for a crime under California penal code. the issue is this new Sanctuary law prevents local police from contact federal authority all together.

It's not their job with criminals either. It's the feds job. The fed has simply outsourced it to the states. Just because local police are asking/questioning immigration status doesn't change that they're asking/questioning about a federal civil violation, not a state violation. It is state officers investigating a purely federal law.

That's why you turn them over if you find an illegal, because your state courts have no authority to process the immigration violation. You lack the jurisdiction, even though you're conducting the stops and the initial inquiries.

 

[Toothless King]

It's not their job with criminals either. It's the feds job. The fed has simply outsourced it to the states. Just because local police are asking/questioning immigration status doesn't change that they're asking/questioning about a federal civil violation, not a state violation. It is state officers investigating a purely federal law.

That's why you turn them over if you find an illegal, because your state courts have no authority to process the immigration violation. You lack the jurisdiction, even though you're conducting the stops and the initial inquiries.

huh? you do know they have (had) ICE DRO liaison in county jail, right? they are the one who process arrested criminals for immigration status, not the jail deputy.

local police don't question immigration status from the people we arrest.

 

[Trotsky]

Turns out the presidency isn't the only election.

The presidency is literally the only election where having undocumented immigrants could reasonably be said to help lol, even if marginally and pretty clearly meaninglessly.

 

[panamaican]

huh? you do know they have (had) ICE DRO liaison in county jail, right? they are the one who process arrested criminals for immigration status, not the jail deputy.

local police don't question immigration status from the people we arrest.

A liaison precisely because the state lacks the jurisdiction and need the federal authority present.

Running the check is what I'm referring to. That's a check against a federal civil violation. When you detain them waiting for ICE, you are detaining them for a federal civil violation. None of it is about state law, it's just using state resources - the officers to run the check, the jails to hold the detainees while they wait.

We can argue this six ways till sundown, none of it changes that the law being violated is strictly the federal, not state. None of it changes that the unlawful presence is a civil violation and not a criminal one. And none of it changes that it's still state officers, not federal officers, who are making the initial inquiries and overseeing the detainment until the state criminals are transferred to federal authority for processing on a completely separate federal civil violation.

I'm not arguing that the system is ineffective. It is effective but we shouldn't confuse the 2 groups working together as both groups having the same legal responsibilities either to the state or to the fed.

 

[Arkain2K]

Its a 31 years old law which clearly failed in many aspects yet your idea of compromise is not an open debate between all political forces by draconian implementation of a 31 years old law which has clearly failed in so many aspects? Then you get surprised when California uses a draconian interpretation of the Constitution to fuck with the federal government as hard as it can?

Why are you so vehemently opposed to re-opening the debate?

Because I know better than buying into politicians' new promises before the old ones are fulfilled, especially when so many of them are now openly against the very idea of a secure national border, which is an absolute must for any Illegal Immigration Amnesty program to actually work.

Rhetorics aside, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans truly want to stop the illegal flow through the borders in any meaningful sense. That is the reason why we have people who have been deported 3, 5, even 10 times and are still here.

Once the promises in Step 1 are fulfilled, then we can talk about Step 2. Without that, politicians gonna start selling "Reform v3" as as soon as v2 is passed, knowing full well none of them would actually intend to follow it through.

 

[Toothless King]

A liaison precisely because the state lacks the jurisdiction and need the federal authority present.

Running the check is what I'm referring to. That's a check against a federal civil violation. When you detain them waiting for ICE, you are detaining them for a federal civil violation. None of it is about state law, it's just using state resources - the officers to run the check, the jails to hold the detainees while they wait.

We can argue this six ways till sundown, none of it changes that the law being violated is strictly the federal, not state. None of it changes that the unlawful presence is a civil violation and not a criminal one. And none of it changes that it's still state officers, not federal officers, who are making the initial inquiries and overseeing the detainment until the state criminals are transferred to federal authority for processing on a completely separate federal civil violation.

I'm not arguing that the system is ineffective. It is effective but we shouldn't confuse the 2 groups working together as both groups having the same legal responsibilities either to the state or to the fed.

so if I arrest a person for a burglary/theft/assault, book him into county jail for processing, ICE DRO liaison interviews that person and finds out that person is undocumented, then I should cut him lose for him to go back on the street so he can commit more crimes because it's not my 'job' to hold him there for ICE to deport him?


also, my jail charges ICE hourly for every detainee we hold. so what's exactly are the "state resources" are you talking about here?

 

[Rod1]

Because I know better than buying into politicians' new promises before the old ones are fulfilled, especially when so many of them are now openly against the very idea of a secure national border, which is an absolute must for any Illegal Immigration Amnesty program to actually work.

These are different politicians, its a 31 years difference.

Rhetorics aside, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans truly want to stop the illegal flow through the borders in any meaningful sense. That is the reason why we have people who have been deported 3, 5, even 10 times and are still here.

Once the promises in Step 1 are fulfilled, then we can talk about Step 2.

The best way to stop illegal immigration is to open legal paths that fulfill the market conditions on the ground to begin with.

Also, im not really criticizing your point im for the most part an economic liberal but i also recognize that some people put more weight on the social aspect. What i am criticizing is that if you dont want to budge one inch thendont act surprised when those that disagree with you refuse to budge too.

In this day and age, it seems "compromise" means "The other side must see my truth and act 100% in accordance with me".

 

[panamaican]

so if I arrest a person for a burglary/theft/assault, book him into county jail for processing, ICE DRO liaison interviews that person and finds out that person is undocumented, then I should cut him lose for him to go back on the street so he can commit more crimes because it's not my 'job' to hold him there for ICE to deport him?


also, my jail charges ICE hourly for every detainee we hold. so what's exactly are the "state resources" are you talking about here?

I covered the resources issue earlier, there's more collaboration, official and unofficial, between ICE and local LEO's than just the detainment and I doubt that you're billing ICE for all of it.

As for your first paragraph, should you release him? That's up to your state and irrelevant to the point that I'm making - my point is that while you're holding him, you're holding him for a federal violation, not a state one. And you're holding him for a civil violation, not a criminal one.

So, if your state decides it no longer wants to hold people for federal civil violations within state facilities then your state is well within it's legal mandate to do so, as long as it doesn't violate or disregard properly sourced federal warrants and such related legal documents along the way.

What should you do? I assume you should do what your state wants and not what the fed wants since you're a state LEO and not a federal one.

 

[Bloodworth]

It was wrong of California to do that......

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

As a law enforcement officer at the state level, I don’t understand how any law enforcement agency could willfully disregard an ICE retainer. I understand not wanting to be involved in doing their job for or with them, but if you already have someone in custody and they ask you to continue to hold them and you disregard that it’s just disgusting. Now instead of just picking up a custody the ICE agents must spend more money and manpower to put themselves and community members in harm’s way to reapprehend someone you just had in custody. What’s the sense in that?

 

[Toothless King]

I covered the resources issue earlier, there's more collaboration, official and unofficial, between ICE and local LEO's than just the detainment and I doubt that you're billing ICE for all of it.

As for your first paragraph, should you release him? That's up to your state and irrelevant to the point that I'm making - my point is that while you're holding him, you're holding him for a federal violation, not a state one. And you're holding him for a civil violation, not a criminal one.

So, if your state decides it no longer wants to hold people for federal civil violations within state facilities then your state is well within it's legal mandate to do so, as long as it doesn't violate or disregard properly sourced federal warrants and such related legal documents along the way.

What should you do? I assume you should do what your state wants and not what the fed wants since you're a state LEO and not a federal one.

are you for REAL? what is your experience with California law enforcement? where do you get security clearance to know about "collaboration" and "official and unofficial" between ICE and local LEO?

We charge ICE hourly for every undocumented detainee. so again, please explain to us about the cost to California tax payers. We receive million of dollars every year from ICE for holding their detainees (well, not anymore)

also, local LEOs hold prisoners for federal violation all the time. last month we arrested and booked a guy wanted by the FBI and US Marshall for robbing a bank back in the east coast. yet, we cannot hold undocumented criminals for ICE? The decision to make California a sanctuary state is a political decision, not a common sense and/or public safety decision.

 

[Tiny]

That was the last bipartisan attempt at reforming immigration, i dont really mind about the details.

Im merely pointing out that if you dont want to budge then you cant expect the other side to budge either.

Currently their is a process. Anyone can go through the process and become an immigrant legally.

Reform could perhaps adjust the time or the cost but it shouldnt make the process much easier or exploitable.

I wouldnt have budged on that bill either.