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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by macinjosh »

grafmax wrote: post #863
macinjosh wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't change the fact that if this man was deported, according to the law, the first time he was arrested (he was previously arrested), then my Mom would be able to make us Thanksgiving dinner again, her favorite thing in the world, or it was. The whole group is violating the law by overstaying visas or sneaking in the country, etc. Why is all of that OK to just let happen?

I’m very sorry about what happened to your mom. What has happened to her is not fair to her or you. However regarding immigration law, the reality is that this law isn’t designed to distinguish between people who are dangerous and people trying to survive. It effectively lumps millions of hardworking people into the same category as violent offenders, without concern for justice or safety. Trump scapegoats undocument…

Blah blah blah. I don’t care. They shouldn’t break our rules if they want to live here.

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

#962

Post by gosub100 »

ein0p wrote: post #930
gosub100 wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I don't believe 90% of what they say about Trump. As soon as he took office in 2017 it was so obvious that MSM was paid to absolutely destroy him. Then in 2021 suddenly everyone single problem wasn't due to the president anymore.

I woke up to this in 2016 when theretofore beloved public figure Donald Trump turned into literally Hitler immediately after he descended down that elevator in the Trump tower, all without changing a single opinion he'd ever held. And it's been unrelenting ever since.

and he was a former democrat! I'm not saying he's perfect, I'm not saying he's sophisticated, or that he hasn't said some stupid things. No way, there are way better republican candidates. But TDS is real.

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

#963

Post by firesteelrain »

int_19h wrote: post #941
firesteelrain wrote: post #903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illegal immigrant gets due process when they go in front of an immigration judge. This particular judge doesn’t get to pick and choose who gets due process (nor hide illegal immigrants / criminals from ICE)

Immigration "courts" (which are administrative, so basically sham) make a mockery of due process. These are literally places where they put 3 year olds on trial without legal representation.

That’s sad. Why did their parents send them across the border with mules?

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

#964

Post by ModernMech »

lostmsu wrote: post #786
jmull wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is, people are breaking the law all the time, that law is rarely enforced, yet no one seems to be calling for a widespread crackdown on speeding. The previous poster calls on us to be concerned about crimes and criminals leading to more crimes, but we already live in a country where very large numbers of “criminals” are driving around all over the place, yet it doesn’t seem to be a problem. You might ask yo…

> You might ask yourself why it’s supposed to be a big problem for one kind of law but not for another. It is not a hard question. Speeding has already been determined to be of lesser harm and therefore the law calls for lesser punishment for violations.

> Speeding has already been determined to be of lesser harm

Determined by whom? Each year, speeders kill more people than illegal immigrants.

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

#965

Post by os2warpman »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #919
Animats wrote: post #602

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…

>> An “ICE warrant” is not a real warrant False.

An ICE warrant is for civil offenses.

Like operating a non-conforming radio transmitter.

If my buddy is in my backyard blasting out Freebird 24x7 on a transmitter that can reach 201 feet instead of the unlicensed maximum of 200 feet and the FCC knocks on my door looking for him and I tell them to go fuck themselves, should I be arrested?

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

#966

Post by FireBeyond »

nonethewiser wrote: post #920
FireBeyond wrote: post #888

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>you’re just parroting the Trump line, “these are bad people, criminals”. They got a warrant based on evidence that he entered illegally then arrested him. That's following the process. We can argue if showing up in court for battery charges is a good look. But it has nothing to do with whether or not ICE could arrest him.

Don’t backpedal, “we can argue if it’s a good look”. You are the one who brought up the battery charges in the sense of “look at the kind of person she’s helping evade ICE”.

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

#967

Post by lincon127 »

pseudo0 wrote: post #498
dudeinjapan wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm… why didn’t the agents just wait patiently until the proceeding was done?

They did, read the complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wied.11... The judge got upset that they were waiting in the public hallway outside the courtroom.

Reading through that, it does seem like a very hasty decision on the judge's part. But then again, I don't know what else you're supposed to do if you think the warrant for the arrest is based on an unjust premise (Which Dugan presumably thought, otherwise I have no idea why she'd act the way she did). This does make it pretty clear that the arrest of the judge is justified, unless there are some special provisions for judges that I'm unaware of that allow judges to be exempt from title 18 code 1071 and code 1505, which is entirely possible since the most relevant thing about US law I know is jurisprudence. Barring that possibility, what should be more on the top of everyone's minds is how this is resolved in court.

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

#968

Post by dragonwriter »

mindslight wrote: post #899
dragonwriter wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've got National Guards under the command of state governors for a reason. Yes, but that reason is not for rebellion against the federal government, which is why their equipment and training is governed by the federal government and the President can by fiat order them into federal service at which point he is the C-in-C, not the government. Most states do also have their own non-federal reserve military force in…

If the federal government is no longer beholden to the law because the king executive refuses to follow or enforce inconvenient laws, would it be appropriate to consider it a rebellion? It seems more like basic law enforcement to me. I was under the impression that state governors could refuse to federalize their National Guards. A quick read on Wikipedia points to the Constitution saying it would take Congress for t…

> I was under the impression that state governors could refuse to federalize their National Guards.

They cannot, under the Constitution. Of course, at the point the National Guard is being mobilized to prevent actions of the federal government, we are deep into a constitutional crisis and a short distance from a (possibly very brief) active civil war.

> A quick read on Wikipedia points to the Constitution saying it would take Congress for the federal government to take command unilaterally.

Congress has already done so , setting rules which require only a Presidential determination to invoke [0], and Presidents have used the authority so granted specifically to deal with very much the same state rebellion scenario you suggest, notably Eisenhower in 1957 when the Arkansas National Guard was deployed to prevent the implementation of a federal court order integrating Central High School in Little Rock: Eisenhower did the one-two punch of federalizing the entire Arkansas National Guard, ordered them away, and also deployed the Army (101st Airborne) to enforce the order. [1]

[0] in the Insurrection Act; the specific relevant provision is at 10 USC § 252: “Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.” (emphasis added)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

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

#969

Post by guywithahat »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #24

This feels like a “break glass in case of emergency” kind of moment. Sure there are no details yet, but I’m trying to imagine details which would make me think “that arrest makes sense.” If I were in Milwaukee I’d be in the streets.

Generally speaking, if you lie to cops or other federal agents you can be arrested on a number of grounds, including obstruction of justice, interfering with an arrest, or concealment.

The dumb part about this is the judge sends people to jail ever year for doing exactly this. She knew what he was doing was illegal, she just didn't care.

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

#970

Post by mindslight »

dragonwriter wrote: post #968
mindslight wrote: post #899

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the federal government is no longer beholden to the law because the king executive refuses to follow or enforce inconvenient laws, would it be appropriate to consider it a rebellion? It seems more like basic law enforcement to me. I was under the impression that state governors could refuse to federalize their National Guards. A quick read on Wikipedia points to the Constitution saying it would take Congress for t…

> I was under the impression that state governors could refuse to federalize their National Guards. They cannot, under the Constitution. Of course, at the point the National Guard is being mobilized to prevent actions of the federal government, we are deep into a constitutional crisis and a short distance from a (possibly very brief) active civil war. > A quick read on Wikipedia points to the Constitution saying it w…

I mean, we're deep into a constitutional crisis right now - the president has asserted himself to be a king unbeholden to the law, and installed loyal supplicants who agree with that interpretation. So the check of the judiciary (required for individual liberty, among other things. and as imperfect as it was) is effectively dead.

I keep looking for angles where we can organize bottom-up within existing governance structures to resist this anti-American tyrant, that won't just result in an escalation where any resistance is attacked and the chaos then used as fuel for more support of authoritarianism (like the police riots of 2020). Something besides the single obvious lever of getting Congress on board with impeachment.

At any rate thank you for responding. By your other comments I knew you'd be able to point to something specific. The National Guards could certainly still play a role in defending the United States as this conflict escalates, but that baseline dynamic creates a much higher bar to clear.

Post reply on HN