661–670 of 1001 posts
This seems bad in a sea of events that seem bad. I have no deep admiration for judges, but the motivation for this seems deeply ideological, and I don't see a bright future where judges are arrested by the Gestapo based on ideological differences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1071 That's a general applicable law that prevents anyone - judge or not - from interfering with an apprehension.
That applies to warrants for arrest. The standard warrant ICE operate with is a civil warrant, and does not confer any actual authority to arrest an individual.
Interfering with an ICE apprehension is illegal. That's what this judge did, which is why the FBI arrested her.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People in this country have rights, regardless of how they entered. You either believe in the constitution and it's application to all citizens and non-citizens or you're a fascist. I'm not going to quibble on any other bits of misdirection or failure to read other people's posts. Pick your side.
I've heard that accusation so frequently from people who have zero concern about the constitution, let alone even know what it says, that I honestly struggle not to laugh. I quite obviously reject your framing, and believe that there is a real discussion about how to properly adhere to the constitution in the face of conflicting considerations. But you do you.
ICE has absolutely no business in state courthouses. The federal interest in enforcing immigration law should not be placed above the state's interest in enforcing equal protection under the law. Consider the case of a undocumented rape victim. Do they not deserve justice? Are we better off letting a rapist go free when their victim cannot testify against them because they were deported? I think not and I do not want…
> Are we better off letting a rapist go free when their victim cannot testify against them because they were deported? That's not an actual outcome that would occur. Cases can proceed if the victim is unavailable. Do we let a rapist off because their victim had an untimely death? Obviously not. In the case of a deportee, if we have a sworn statement from them, or can remotely depose them, then their testimony would b…
In a world where we deport people without due process to subcontracted megaprisons in El Salvador “if” is doing a lot of work.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This over-simplifies our federal system to the point of uselessness. The Federal Government is responsible for immigration. It's their job to set policies and adjudicate immigration issues. Local and State Law Enforcement are not responsible for -- and indeed it is outside of their powers to enforce immigration laws. Supreme Court precedent is that states cannot be compelled by Congress to enforce Immigration law (se…
> 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 .
Controlling the border from foreign enemies is a far cry from the Federal government asserting the right to determine who gets to simply live and work within the states.
The Supreme Court makes a mockery of 10th amendment on so many issues, whether it's drugs, healthcare, immigration, gun control...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's another argument that you touched on in your last paragraph that I think deserves to be underlined, which is about proper accountability. Imagine an undocumented immigrant who commits a serious crime, like murder. Do you want the local prosecutors to go after them, and send them to jail for a long time? Or do you want ICE to go after them, in which case they ... get deported and wind up living free in another…
Undocumented immigrants who are charged with murder should not be deported without a trial first. If found guilty they would typically serve their sentence before facing deportation (though perhaps this is different now) Though I personally don't see the point in making people who are going to be deported anyway serve a sentence... taxpayers would then be paying the bill for both their incarceration and their deporta…
Undocumented immigrants are taxpayers.
[flagged]
A key point here, which the judge brought up with the ICE agents, is that they only had an "administrative warrant".[1] An “ICE warrant” is not a real warrant. It is not reviewed by a judge or any neutral party to determine if it is based on probable cause. "An immigration officer from ICE or CBP may not enter any nonpublic areas—or areas that are not freely accessible to the public and hence carry a higher expectati…