FBI arrests judge accused of helping man evade immigration authorities

Judge thinks ICE is illegally abducting people. The ideas are laid out pretty clearly in the grandparent comment. It’s not clear what is right and wrong because ICE is skipping due process and rendering people to foreign prisons.

Based on the alleged facts, the Judge is guilty of obstruction not harboring. I don’t know why he would hide an illegal from ICE. Especially someone breaking the law which a judge is sworn to uphold.

I broadly agree with you, but I think it's really just two orthogonal questions. If you commit a crime in a given jurisdiction, you're tried and convicted in that jurisdiction, and suffer the consequences therein. Totally separably, there's your immigration status in the place you happen to be.

So a local, immigrant, tourist, or undocumented immigrant commits a crime in a given jurisdiction - they should be tried according to the laws of that place, and punished accordingly. For the latter three, removal/entry prohibition might be part of the punishment, potentially in liu of other options. For petty crime e.g. drunk and disorderly or whatever, that's probably fine? But clearly freedom abroad is weak punishment for more heinous crimes, and those perpetrators should serve their sentences prior to removal

Similarly, a local, immigrant, tourist, or undocumented immigrant is charged with a crime in another jurisdiction. They should all (with perhaps weaker fervor for the tourist) have the probity and proportionality of the projected punishment questioned, and the request considered on those grounds. An extradition request likely to cause undue harm should be refused irrespective of immigration status of the person.

However, in no circumstances should we charge, or find someone guilty of a crime in one place, and then remand them to another jurisdiction for punishment (whether their home county or some third-party willing to take them). Here lies the illiberal madness in which we find ourselves.

Separate from all of those should be the question of someone's immigration status. Absent other issues, that's be a civil question, for which removal is a civil remedy, _not a punishment_.

Like I said, as someone who has been charged for something I factually did not do, you’re just parroting the Trump line, “these are bad people, criminals”.

He may well have committed battery. But again, not convicted. But hey, go ahead and assume criminality. Why even bother with court?

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

I'm guessing you're not understanding me. Regarding the strength and validity of the FBI's criminal complaint, I'd probably say there is maybe a 20% chance it will hold up in court, but I'm very uncertain about even my estimate. I don't know the law well in this case. Do I think the FBI was politically motivated in bringing this case? Yes, with a high probability (>80%). Do I think the agent in particular who filed the case (presumably a special officer with a long track record) is doing her job reasonably well Yes, I would guess so with P>60%. Are people around the special agent putting pressure on her to comply with Trump's priorities? Probably, P>60%. Again, these are all guesses, but they show that I'm trying to break the issue apart. It isn't just one entity (e.g. "The Administration") versus Judge Dugan here.

I'm not defending the Trump administration. My goal is to understand the situation as clearly as I can without using motivated reasoning. I want to understand what is likely to happen next. It would be emotionally convenient if this situation was clear cut and obvious. It isn't. It is multifaceted and complicated. There is a history of federal immigration officials clashing with local courts.

This also might be a difference of mindset/approach. To the degree you are in a soldier mindset your goal will be to persuade. To the degree you are in a scout mindset, your goal will be to understand. Right now, I'm focusing on the latter.

Do you disagree with the importance of reading the evidence, including the primary documents? (I'm guessing not). Do you disagree with the Bayesian logic of combining your priors with the evidence. (I'm guessing not.)

>> It is probably wise to give this at least a few hours of detailed analysis by legal experts before we jump to conclusions or paint it with a broad brush.

Do you disagree with the part above? My is claim is broad: In this case -- and in most cases -- it is wiser to synthesize information with a clear head. Rushing to judgment is usually a mistake. Disagree?

Most of us are far from experts on the interaction between immigration enforcement and local courts.

I'm not sure if/where we actually disagree. Odds are good we both expect the Trump administration's claims to be dubious at best. I call this my prior. But I'll also read the evidence and see and try to update rationally.

The phrase "benefit of the doubt" can be problematic. I am not trying to force things into yes/no categories. It is usually unwarranted to assign a 0% probability to real-world events. There is at least a small chance that Dugan worked in opposition to the ICE agents. Did she have a legal basis for doing so? A moral basis? Did she break the law? What law? These are just some of my questions. I don't know the answers. Do you? If so, how do you know them and how confident are you?

I'm curious about these details. I'm not looking to rush to "pick a side". Reality can be messy. For example, Trump can be a deplorable autocrat _and_ a local judge can mess up. Both can simultaneously be true.

I'm on the side of promoting due process and a sensible understanding of the Constitution. I don't need to rush to attach my identity to any particular point of view about a situation that I don't understand well yet. This way of viewing the world isn't as common -- most people feel the need to pick a tribe -- but it is very important.