Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

#571

Post by Gabriel54 »

hypeatei wrote: post #547
Gabriel54 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (see: Printz v. United States). So the supreme court struck a reasonable compromise between federal and state interests. I am not a lawyer, but I am certain that this precedent does not give states the right to actively obstruct federal agents from doing their job , that is, to enforce federal immigration law .

> does not give states the right to actively obstruct federal agents Who said they had that right and when did this happen?

The warrant of the judge's arrest strongly suggests that she did not think it was appropriate for ICE to arrest Ruiz and took actions to prevent it from happening.

Re: FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

#572

Post by dylan604 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #544
dylan604 wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think those that have been opposed to current gun laws would be nearly as proficient at the use of their newly acquired weapon as opposed to those that have been collecting them for years? This just made up militia will be woefully untrained to handle anything. At least those that have their meeting in the woods practice to whatever extent they do, but that would be so much more than this recent trip to the sp…

> Do you think those that have been opposed to current gun laws would be nearly as proficient at the use of their newly acquired weapon I don’t own a gun and I’m a better shot than half those militia types. The purpose of the guns isn’t to shoot them, it’s to deter. By the time it’s WACO, one side’s marksmanship isn’t really relevant.

You can have 20 assault style weapons in your gun safe, but if that's where they are they do not act as a deterrent. They are only a deterrent when they are ready to be used. The purpose of a gun is to be shot. Confusing this is just some very excessive bending of logic. The intent of the shooter is an entirely different matter. They were not manufactured and then sold/purchased just to be in a display case. That's just what someone decided to with their purchase.

Re: FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

#573

Post by goatlover »

tintor wrote: post #481
kstrauser wrote: post #406

Part of the reason why I support "sanctuary cities" is that it's better for everyone if undocumented immigrants feel safe talking to the police. Imagine someone broke into my car and there was a witness who saw the whole thing. I want them to be OK telling the cops what happened. I want them to be OK reporting crimes in their neighborhood. I want them to be OK testifying about it in court. I want them to be OK callin…

[flagged]

You ever consider what's fair to the undocumented, given the likelihood they're fleeing bad conditions in their home country? I'd be fine with providing them documentation without fear of deportation since they're already here. But I don't think that's what one political party currently in power wants to do.

Re: FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

#574

Post by rekttrader »

lupusreal wrote: post #198
chews wrote: post #22

There are two types of warrants being talked about here, traditional judge signed warrants and "administrative"/"ICE" warrants. The first one carries the ability to perform a search and possible detainment subject to the 4th amendment protections, the latter allows for discretion under the 4th amendment (this may be an viewed as an unconstitutional search) the Judge exercised their discretion with respect for constit…

> It's a sad day in America when people do actually enforce the rules get trapped by other rules. The people who enforce the rules being bound by the rules is precisely the way it is meant to work. Of course, it remains to be seen if any laws were actually broken.

You’re making the innocent till proven guilty argument, detainment somehow stands in the way of that.

Re: FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

#575

Post by dang »

jawiggins wrote: post #291

The AP article [1] has the full complaint linked, the crux of the case seems to be around the judge allowing the defendant to leave through a back entrance ("jury door") when they were aware agents were waiting in the public hallway to make an arrest as they exited. " 29. Multiple witnesses have described their observations after Judge DUGAN returned to her courtroom after directing members of the arrest team to the…

Thanks - I've changed the URL to that article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/04/25/... above.

Re: FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

#576

Post by dfxm12 »

Centigonal wrote: post #193
kemayo wrote: post #16

> He accused Dugan of “intentionally misdirecting” federal agents who arrived at the courthouse to detain an immigrant who was set to appear before her in an unrelated proceeding. It sounds like the arrest isn't because of any official act of the judge, but rather over them either not telling the ICE agents where the person was or giving them the wrong information about their location. There are some pretty broad law…

What would have been the right move for Dugan here, according to ICE? Can a judge legally detain a defendant after a pre-trial hearing on the basis of "there are some agents asking about you for unrelated reasons?"

According to ICE? "Comply with whatever we say". It's obvious that the current admin is operating autocratically, outside the law.

Re: FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

#577

Post by openasocket »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #535
SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah my mistake, regardless calling people here illegally criminals is disingenuous given the potential offense committed.

Is your argument really "misdemeanors aren't crimes"? Imagine, "someone knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to you or with criminal negligence the person causes bodily injury to you by means of a deadly weapon". Would you not consider yourself the victim of a crime in that case? Because that's just third degree assault - a misdemeanor(at least, here in Colorado)

The act of being in the country without a valid visa is not a crime, it is a civil infraction. Entering the country illegally (i.e. sneaking through the border) can be a crime, but around 50% of undocumented immigrants entered the country legally (e.g. entering on a student visa and not leaving when it expired). And very often, unless border patrol catches you on your way in, you aren't going to be prosecuted for illegal entry.

And the difference between a misdemeanor and a civil infraction is not a matter of splitting hairs. Here's some differences:

1. In a criminal case, you need to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, the standard is simply a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not. If there is a 51% you are here illegally and a 49% chance you aren't, you get deported.

2. In a criminal case if you can't afford a lawyer one may be appointed to you. In a civil case you have to either pay for a lawyer yourself or represent yourself. This has serious consequences for people. If a child ends up in immigration court and their families can't afford to hire an attorney, they have to represent themselves. Even if they are 4 years old: https://gothamist.com/news/4-year-old-migrant-girl-other-kid...

3. You might assume that immigration judges are just like any other judge and are part of the judicial branch, a so-called "Article III Court" (referring to Article III of the Constitution). But immigration judges are not Article III courts. They report to the head of the Department of Justice, who has hiring and firing powers over them. Meaning the prosecutor arguing for your deportation and the judge deciding your case both report to the US Attorney General

Re: FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

#578

Post by foldr »

Miner49er wrote: post #403
dionian wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be interesting to hear if there was another valid reason for this

There doesn't have to be, it's up to the prosecution to prove the reason was to aid him in avoiding arrest. The judge doesn't have to provide an alternate reason.

I’m not trying to defend this arrest, but that’s not really how it works. If there’s an obvious illegal motivation for doing X and the person who did X can’t supply a plausible alternative explanation, then a jury may conclude that X was done with the illegal motivation.

Say that I take an item from a store. That’s only a crime if I did it with the intent of stealing it. But the prosecution doesn’t really have to “prove” in any practical sense that I had that intention. If I don’t have a plausible story about why else I did it, then I’ll probably be found guilty.

Re: FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

#579

Post by bradley13 »

tmpz22 wrote: post #352
bradley13 wrote: post #316

[flagged]

If the facts come out that the charge is flimsy or legally unsound AND protocol and precedent was breached, such as it being very atypical to haul a nonviolent offender (the judge) from a courthouse, would you change your mind? Will you follow up on the facts of this case or do you already know everything you need to know?

She sent the agents out of the hearing, where they waited for the guy to come out. After the hearing, she told him to leave via the jury door, to avoid the agents.

Pretty clear cut. What about you? Given the facts, will you defend her?

Re: FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

#580

Post by mmooss »

The issue here is not the facts of this incident. The issue is an attempted expansion of power and reduction in the liberty to dissent.

The Trump administration have been talking for weeks, maybe months, of finding ways for US attorneys to prosecute local officials who do not support Trump's immigration policy. Note that they also are threatening punishment through budget and policy.

Also, realize that immigration is just the first step:

* It's the first step in legitimizing mass prejudice - including stereotypes, in this case of non-wealthy immigrants - and hatred, and legitimizing that as a basis for denying people their humanity, dignity, and rights.

* It's a first step to legitimizing government terror as a policy tool.

* It's a first step in expanding the executive branch's power - I suspect chosen because the executive branch already has a lot of power in that domain. Note their claim to deny any check on their power by Congress (through the laws, which are made by Congress, and funding, which is appropriated by Congress) and the courts.

* It's a first step to expanding federal power vis-a-vis the states.

The next steps will be to use those now-legitimate tools on other groups, other forms of power, etc.

Part of the way it works is corruption: people make an exception or support it because it's following the herd, because opposing it is harder and sometimes scary, because they don't like this particular group and it seems legitimate in some way ....

Then when they turn these weapons on you, what standing do you have to disagree? I think in particular of politically vulnerable communities who are going along with these things or saying, 'not our problem' - you're next. That's where "First they came for the socialists ..." etc. comes from. (And you'll note that, not coincidentally, they are also coming for some socialists now and laying the groundwork for more, but most people don't like the socialists anyway so that's fine!)

Post reply on HN