Live data from Hacker News

FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

apnews.com

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811
post #361

This is part of a broader pattern of the incompetent thugs at ICE taking advantage of other, actual functioning and useful parts of government to help them do their work for them. It's not just courts, it's citizenship hearings, it's the IRS, it's schools. They're trying to send a message not to push back or get in their way. It's not about this particular judge, they are sending a message that they will go after sch…

Generally, I share these concerns. At the same time, this story is very new. In any case, looking at the primary sources is important. See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69943125/united-states-... . I'm not a lawyer, but the criminal complaint does appear to be, more or less, within the realm of normal. Now, putting aside that complaint, the decision to arrest Dugan is questionable for sure. My current understa…

I truly do not understand why this administration continually gets the benefit of doubt from the HN audience.

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

#812
post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They found a technicality on which they could arrest her, so they arrested her because they wanted to arrest her If by technicality you mean correctly identifying that the judge intentionally adjourned the suspect's court proceedings and directed them through a non-public exit in order to evade a lawful deportation of a domestic abuser who had already been deported once, yes, it was a "technicality". The short form…

Hold up, all that stuff is completely unattested (and would have to be facts tried before a jury anyway). ICE does not have the power to decide on whether someone is a "domestic abuser" or whatever. They were just serving a warrant. But more: What if the suspect was in court on an immigration concern? The judge would have been empowered to enjoin the deportation, no? You agree, right? That's what courts do? In which…

>Hold up, all that stuff is completely unattested (and would have to be facts tried before a jury anyway).

I mean, it was going to be attested until the judge decided to adjourn his proceedings and push him out the back door to avoid ICE. He's charged with domestic abuse.

>But more: What if the suspect was in court on an immigration concern?

Based on my limited understanding of immigration law I'd agree that there's probably a valid mechanism for the judge to legally intervene in the deportation to let the immigration concern be addressed -- but that isn't what happened here. The defendant was there for a criminal charge of domestic abuse and the judge essentially canceled his hearing and snuck him out the back to prevent ICE from executing a legal order to deport someone who is here illegally and has already been deported once before.

>The point of the Rule of Law is that you don't empower individuals to make decisions about justice, ever.

That's why the judge is being arrested, because she as an individual skirted legal process to interrupt a lawful deportation (allegedly).

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

#814
post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are in favor of rehabilitation but you want to gatekeep it? Undocumented immigrants are taxpayers.

No, I'm in favour of rehabilitation and setting people up for success, and also not deporting people who have undergone a rehabilitation process. If we are going to incarcerate people under the current system (which doesn't serve to rehabilitate, and thus only serves to remove people from the general public who may be a danger to said public), then I think we shouldn't bother for people who are going to get deported…

If someone can be rehabilitated, they should be.

If someone can't be rehabilitated, they should be contained[0]

| If they need to be contained, we have additional concerns with deportation.

| | If they are being deported freely to another country (i.e. not through extradition), then we are doing (at least) similar harm to another as to what harm would be if we just let them go in our own country. Personal ethics aside, this creates disorder and enemies. It is one thing if extradition is attempted and this is the result after failure, but it is another if the process doesn't happen. This is analogous to capturing all the rattlesnakes in my backyard and throwing them into yours. "Not my problem" isn't so accurate when I piss you off and now I have a new problem which is you being pissed at me and seeking your own form of justice. In the short term, being an asshole is an optimal strategy, but in the long term is really is not.

| | If they are being extradited to another country and that country is known to torture or do things that we do not believe are humane to their inmates, then I similarly agree we should not extradite and it is better to contain here. The blood is still on your hands, as they say.

Extradition (distinct from deportation) is the right move when it is believed the criminal will face the rule of law, fairly and in accordance to our own ethics (how we would treat our own).

I see no situation in which extra-judicial deportation (or extradition!) is the right course of action. It is also critical to recognize that mistakes happen. Even if cumbersome, the judicial process reduces the chance for mistakes. It's also worth noting that, by design, the judicial system is biased such that when mistakes occur there is a strong preference that a criminal is left unpunished rather than an innocent be prosecuted (an either or situation). We want to maximize justice, I doubt there is many who do not. But when it comes down to it, there is a binary decision at the end of the day "guilty or not guilty." We engineer failure into the judicial system just like we do in engineering. You do not design a building to fail, but you do design a building such that when it does fail, it is most likely to fail in a predictable manner which causes the least harm. And if you don't want to take my word on it, you can go consult Blackstone, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and many others. Because at the end of the day, I'm not the one who created this system, but I do agree with their reasoning.

[0] Not killed, because if we are wrong about the inability the rehabilitate then the cost is higher than the cost of custodianship.

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

#815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the constitutional crisis. You are taking ICE's/the administration's perspective and assuming it is cogent which leads you to conclusion that doesn't support justice and instead supports the end of constitutional rule in the US. The administration is in open violation of supreme court rulings and the law. They have repeatedly shown contempt for the constitution. They have repeatedly assumed their own supremac…

Then don't fight these battles where they are in the right, fight them where they are in the wrong. Taking this fight here just gives all the advantage to Trump and his regime, fight them where it is easy to win.

Salami slicing is the first page of the present day authoritarian play book.

Here's an excerpt from They Thought They Were Free, a book about the mindset of ordinary Germans experiencing the rise of the Nazi Government:

Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don’t want to act, or even talk alone; you don’t want to “go out of your way to make trouble.” Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, “everyone” is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, “It’s not so bad” or “You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.”

And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

...

But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds of thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions, would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the “German Firm” stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all of the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

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

#816

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…

Replace illegal immigration with any other crime. What if a witness to a murder is an accused thief? Should we let thefts go unpunished because it may implicate their testimony in more severe crimes? What we actually do is offer the person reduced sentencing in exchange for their cooperation but we don't ignore their crime. In terms of illegal immigrants, if they haven't filed any paperwork, or haven't attempted to l…

> we don't ignore their crime

And no one is asking the relevant authorities to ignore their duties to enforce immigration policy. They're just saying that state and local courts and police aren't the relevant authorities, and that they'd prefer to have the rest of the apparatus of government function with and for undocumented people.

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

#817

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Though I personally don't see the point in making people who are going to be deported anyway serve a sentence Because 'come here, do crime, get a free flight home' sets up a very bad incentive structure for bad actors? Because deportation is not a punishment?

It is also critical in how we define justice. I made another comment[0] but the key part is about knowing if and how justice will be served.

I think people are conflating deportation and extradition. Deporting is the act of sending them somewhere else. Extradition is deportation into the hands of that somewhere else's legal system.

I think it is critical to recognize the distinction. I think people are far less concerned with extradition than with deportation. Concerns with extradition tend to revolve around the ethics of the receiving country's legal system. "There is still blood on your hands" as one might say. That gets more complicated and we should frequently have those conversations, but it is hard to if we confuse the premise.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43798954

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

#818
post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. A quick search suggests that there are 11 million undocumented people in the United States, or about 3% of the population. A healthy society does not harbor 11 million people without documentation so they can be exploited by employers for cheap labor, not given proper health care and labor rights.

Yet it's interesting how we put the blame and punishment on the people being taken advantage of, and not the employers who are exploiting them. If both parties are breaking the law shouldn't we at the very least ensure that the business owner who is exploiting any number of workers is held to the same standard as an undocumented person whose only crime was not having the proper paperwork?

Because it would hurt our little elitist exceptionalist hearts if we gave an H1B to a construction worker. There are low wage industries that could use such a program, but our little hearts can't take it because "its not the best and brightest".

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

#819
post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

United States Code, Title 8, § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) (2023) > (1)(A) Any person who […] > (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation; […] > sha…

So, based on the affidavit and the facts presented in the article, we know this doesn't apply to the Judge.

> Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan is accused of escorting the man and his lawyer out of her courtroom through the jury door last week after learning that immigration authorities were seeking his arrest.

Perhaps you’re a lawyer with greater insight into this issue than I have. The actions described in the article satisfy the plain reading of the terms “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection.”

The intuitive reading seems to be further corroborated by the case law:

> The word "harbor" […] means to lodge or to aid or to care for one who is secreting himself from the processes of the law. The word "conceal" […] means to hide or to secrete or to keep out of sight or to aid in preventing the discovery of one who is secreting himself from the processes of the law.

> *The statute proscribes acts calculated to obstruct the efforts of the authorities to effect arrest of the fugitive,* but it does not impose a duty on one who may be aware of the whereabouts of the fugitive, although having played no part in his flight, to reveal this information on pain of criminal prosecution.

Emphasis mine.

https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual...

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

#820
post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> obstructed an arrest by changing standard procedure Which sounds awfully novel to me. You really want to tear down the structure of democracy over this kind of nitpicking on "procedure"? I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office.

> I remain horrified that people I really thought were normal Americans are willing to burn it all down just so they don't have to hear Spanish spoken in their doctor's office. The GP (or GGP, I forget) was discussing very specific legal technical details surrounding the judge's actions, the nature of the warrant and permissible locations for serving the warrant. I was pretty interested in that discussion - even thou…

Rule of law and its "equal, impartial, consistent enforcement" is totally a discretionary thing and very much by democratic support. The federal government has stopped enforcing low-level marijuana possession pretty much whole-sale, unless of course you show up at the wrong protests (see Timothy Teagan). Most people seem to think this is just dandy.

I would say you would actually destroy "democracy" if you enforced the rule of law.

Post reply on HN