Doesn't honor a request to hold or doesn't honor a court order? Surely, you understand those are two different things.
So, Iowa City is a sanctuary city for Illegals
- Thread starter IowaNiceHawk
- Start date
Doesn't honor a request to hold or doesn't honor a court order? Surely, you understand those are two different things.
He honors holds based on warrants.
He, along with other democrat sheriffs do not honor administrative holds that are 100% legal/codified into U.S. Code. He is stroking the ACLU at the expense of public safety.
Or he's telling the Feds to put their money where their mouth is. How is public safety at risk? These holds would be for people that otherwise have no reason to be in jail. They is nothing stopping ICE from getting detainers. They don't because, you know, that's like expensive and stuff.
It was more an acknowledgement that I don't have expertise beyond reading what was copied and pasted in here and allowing for the possibility that people who do might know instances where it's not quite as clear as you paint it.
And by "100% legal", he, along with legal counsel, question whether it would violate the Constitution, specifically Iowa's.
But I'm glad you decided just how legal it was.
Every sheriff in Iowa honored ICE administrative holds for years, including Bill McCarthy.
Pure politics driven by sanctuary city proponents changed this and the democratic sheriffs came right in line with the marching orders.
Shameful.
Depends what we teach the little bastards
Or he decided to be a better steward of your tax dollars and stopped doing something not required of him for free. You strike me as the cut wasteful government spending type that would approve of such a move. Are you telling us you only want to cut spending on stuff you don't like? There is something shameful.
Taxed by the county and the Feds so it makes no difference to me if the county has to pay a couple extra days of incarceration while ICE determines if they want to go forward with administrative deportation proceedings.
That doesn't change their concern regarding the legality, Constitutionality, of non-judicially-ordered holds. Legal opinions have changed over time.
But I guess you are just calling them liars.
Apparently, the Leftists here have chosen to bury their heads in the sand, rather than
care to address the horrible situations, like Kate Steinle, murdered by an Illegal in
San Fran
More New Info for interested parties regarding your Sanctuary Cities:
Today:
The same executive order also included provisions to provide DHS with more resources to combat illegal immigration, end what the Trump team calls “catch-and-release” policies, and prioritize the deportation of illegal immigrants who violate other laws.
Another order is aimed at helping federal immigration agents crack down on illegal immigration, by restoring the so-called Secure Communities program, directing the State Department to use its leverage to ensure illegal immigrant criminals are taken back by their country of origin – and moving to strip federal grant money to sanctuary states and cities that “harbor” illegal immigrants.
The latter move is sure to trigger a backlash from the hundreds of jurisdictions that have such policies in place. But critics have blasted those policies in the wake of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants who were effectively protected from deportation by local jurisdictions.
Today:
The same executive order also included provisions to provide DHS with more resources to combat illegal immigration, end what the Trump team calls “catch-and-release” policies, and prioritize the deportation of illegal immigrants who violate other laws.
Another order is aimed at helping federal immigration agents crack down on illegal immigration, by restoring the so-called Secure Communities program, directing the State Department to use its leverage to ensure illegal immigrant criminals are taken back by their country of origin – and moving to strip federal grant money to sanctuary states and cities that “harbor” illegal immigrants.
The latter move is sure to trigger a backlash from the hundreds of jurisdictions that have such policies in place. But critics have blasted those policies in the wake of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants who were effectively protected from deportation by local jurisdictions.
Any law enforcement officer that fails to cross-reference ICE databases is wasting tax dollars spent on building the databases in the first place. ICE databases contain records of violent criminals and repeat offenders. Local law enforcement choosing to disregard ICE protocols would be like the TSA failing to cross reference passenger lists with Interpol or the No Fly List and declaring airports and airplanes as sanctuaries for travelers. Sanctuary cities are shameful and endanger American citizens in many cases by protecting violent or repeat criminal offenders from prosecution or deportation.
Teach them how to get into the country legally to start.
The Lefty pols, even in Iowa City should be ashamed of their 'oh, we
as elitist pinheads, will decide which laws to follow'.
as elitist pinheads, will decide which laws to follow'.
From what I remember that wasn't a "Sanctuary issue", as ICE had, iirc, refused to pick him up.
I love when you pretend that you'd actually be ok with increased legal immigration.
And if you aren't ok with an increase, stop pretending that going about it "legally" is somehow a fix.
Local law enforcement share fingerprint data with the FBI or ICE who have immigration databases similar to the CODIS DNA database or criminal databases used by local, state & federal law enforcement. ICE notifies the law enforcement agency if any of the fingerprints match a record flagged in the ICE/FBI databases.
I'm for eliminating illegal immigration and severely reducing legal immigration.
Even if they are criminals or carrying infectious diseases or trafficking drugs or humans?
Still see no need there smart guy?
Where do you think the heroine and cocaine in our communities comes from dipshit?
The ones being charged with crimes are being held. Many jails are no longer holding people after charges are resolved so that ICE can decide what to do. The burden is on ICE to seek detainer orders. Exactly as it should be.
It's the obligation of the law enforcement agency to hold the individual for 48 hours if ICE notifies local authorities of a match. It's the responsibility of law enforcement to not violate federal law by releasing known criminals back into the general population so these offenders can slip back into the shadows and avoid prosecution simply because they don't agree with immigration policies.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1357272/il...eleased-by-border-patrol-charged-with-murder/
nothing to see here. obama was doing a bang up job!
What do you think that article proves? It says he was released on a notice to appear by the Border Patrol. What does that have to do with a sanctuary city?
Actually, it's not an obligation. It's a request that the person be held for 48 hours. There is nothing preventing ICE from getting a detainer order in place before the person is eligible for release from jail on whatever charged they were booked on. ICE doesn't want to pay for housing inmates so they are trying to shame counties into footing that bill.
That is inaccurate. ICE can place an administrative hold per US Code. Just because some democratic sheriffs elect to not honor them, does not change that fact.
no it wasn't...what history did you study?
Native Americans.....Spanish/Portugese and French were all here before "we" were....
States received a total of $210 million in 2016 alone specifically for CAAP (criminal alien assistance program) on top of billions of dollars designated towards other programs. When local, county, state officials refuse to cooperate they are in essence stealing from the federal government and not the other way around. More importantly they are cheating the taxpayers whose tax dollars fund the program. For the record ICE does have holding facilities but it would not be cost effective to build detention centers specifically for ICE when facilities already exist at the state and local level, facilities that also receive some amount of federal funding unless they are privately owned and operated.
And that hold is simply a request, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a violation of the law to not honor the request. It's not a court order being ignored.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
