(bolding mine)
Guys, I think I found the holy grail – Bone used the R-word (or a variation on it, anyway)!
Maybe we can be friends after all, Mr. Bone! We can join together and talk about what we find reasonable, and what we find unreasonable, and bridge our differences, and this eminently reasonable discussion will flower into mutual understanding, affection, and love, to serve as an example to debaters the world over!
Nice try, but no. I was using the language that BPC used (my bold):
He states that comparisons are unreasonable. I’m stating the position as stipulated, not making an assessment.
Don’t resist so much! Just let it happen. Let the reasonableness flow over you. I promise, it’s far better than you imagine!
There is no context where a US Citizen, who presents his ID, SS card and Birth Cert. to authorities should then be imprisoned for 26 days over a civil immigration violation.
People who actually commit crimes, who have actual victims of their actions, and have been found guilty in a court of law frequently spend less time in jail than that.
Ultimately, this is the problem with ICE. They act under the rules of law enforcement, their targets are people who commit civil infractions, but the actions they take are comparable to those taken against hardened criminals who represent a danger to society. Imprisonment without bail, and often without legal representation, until they are done processing your case, to their internal satisfaction.
It’s the law enforcement equivalent of a blank check. ICE decides who is “probably” illegal. ICE decides to detain them without a right to bail. ICE decides when they are satisfied enough to release them.
It would be great if these things could resolve quickly. I’d say when there are conflicting documents it would take some time to resolve. 26 days seems too long, but 3-7 doesn’t. I seem to have lost the cite, but my reading was that about 80% of people that claim citizenship are actually determinated to not be citizens, so false claims are not rare.
That’s not my problem, that’s ICE’s problem, one they should attempt to solve without imprisoning American Citizens for multiple weeks because their papers failed to meet ICE’s lofty standards. If they can’t manage it currently, they should scale back their operations so they can both process claims quickly, and not detain people in terrible conditions.
BTW, that cite you reference suggests that 20% of people claiming to be citizens are actually American Citizens being wrongly imprisoned. Name some other type of imprisonment where we are OK with 20% of those imprisoned being factually innocent?
How far down the road does this have to go before you find comparisons to Nazis acceptable in your eyes?
Would the number of people that make the claim and the number of people that actually are U.S. citizens be available?
California, for felony arrests, only 2/3 result in conviction. I guess you could quibble about whether never charged / charges dismissed / not guilty are “factually innocent” or not, but I’d be surprised if those same quibbles didn’t apply to suspected illegal immigrants.
How many of those were actually imprisoned, and of those how many were factually innocent?
I suppose you’d have to define your terms a bit better before I could provide you more of an answer. I view an arrest as a form of imprisonment, so I’d say “all of them”, but do you not (view an arrest as a form of imprisonment)? As for “factually innocent”, how are you deciding that? Does a “not guilty” verdict count? What about when the prosecutor drops the charges, or decides to never file them in the first place? Or does “factually innocent” require a Duke Lacrosse rape hoax style mea culpa on behalf of the prosecutors?
“ICE released Watson in November 2011”. Watson v. United States, 865 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2017)
His award for false imprisonment was overturned in 2018. In June I made a thread about Mr. Watson and equitable tolling, “[THREAD=877472]Watson v. United States, a U.S. citizen gets $0 after 3 1/2 years in ICE custody[/THREAD]”.
Mr. Watson waited 27 days before being brought before a judge. The rest of the time can be attributed to an error in law on the government’s part, which has since been rectified.
~Max
It’s not illegal to carry your possessions in public places, and it’s not illegal to walk without citizenship papers or ID.
If ICE can stop an immigrant for being in public without breaking the law, then they can also stop and arrest you, a citizen, for doing it. The only thing protecting you from being singled out is if you happen to be white.
It’s a common misconception that Nazi totalitarianism started with gun confiscation. That’s a myth. It started by the state empowering law enforcement to make people prove that they weren’t threats, that their property was theirs, and that they had a right to be in public spaces and go about their business. And of course by also restricting those rights from certain ethnic groups.
We haven’t given ICE the sweeping powers that the Nazis did, but we’re letting them arrogate those powers to themselves.
You can argue that this isn’t the same as shoving people into the gas chambers, but plenty of Holocaust survivors have observed that where we are now, is how it started back then, and it’s better not to let it get that far.
I agree that this is a more important problem. If the detainees were able to quickly get out and sue for false imprisonment, ICE would be forced to be more careful about who they detain.
There should be no more than twenty-four hours between the point of apprehension and binding before a judge. If there aren’t enough judges to handle those cases (there aren’t), it is impossible to preserve due process and uphold whatever interpretation of the law calls for so many apprehensions.
~Max
As I said before, these citizens accused of civil violations are treated like accused felons.
The felons above are at least offered a bail hearing in front of a judge, and are guaranteed legal representation, guaranteed a trial before a jury of peers, without even quibbling about factually innocent vs. not charged/convicted. Do such niceties or separations of power exist in an ICE detention center?
It’s not illegal to go running at night in a ski mask, but if there’s a jewelry store nearby with broken windows and an alarm going off, I’m not going to fault a cop for seeking to arrest that person.
Maybe I’m just bad at examples. Can you think of any situation where ICE would have probable cause for an arrest without a warrant, or do you agree with the OP?
This is not true. See below.
The Wiki is a little poor, but you can see from the bolded part (my bolding) that the government bears the burden of first establishing the person’s category. Only after that can the burden shift to the detainee, based on their now-established non-LPR status, to show that they are nevertheless lawfully present.
Also, a more general thread response: the law concerning arrests discussed in this thread so far ranges from incorrect to partially correct. So far no one has it completely right.
In general, criminal arrest warrants are not required if an officer has probable cause, including under the collective knowledge doctrine*, and the suspect is in a public place. A warrant is required, except in special circumstances, to arrest a person inside a residence.
An officer does not have to have observed the person committing a crime, and it doesn’t have to have just happened, as long as there is probable cause and the suspect is in public when apprehended.
ICE does not get, and is not required under present law to get, a criminal arrest warrant from a judge. They do have administrative warrants, which, as the letter mentions, certain ICE officials can issue.
There are, obviously, many ways for ICE to have PC to arrest people for being subject to removal. (Having a previous adjudication of removal, information from a source providing PC of unlawful presence, circumstantial evidence, etc.) But, it seems like it would be pretty rare outside of the close vicinity of a border, for there to be PC just by looking at someone.
Not seeing the mistake. My first post was more general, with the second having greater detail.
I was expecting a quote describing how Mr. Carillo was born in Mexico, had been previously arrested for carrying a concealed weapon and again for sending pornographic material to a minor. Whatever the reason, ICE did not have a record of his citizenship, so Mr. Carillo appeared to be a particularly bad illegal immigrant. ICE is on the record saying Mr. Carillo triggered an “[a]lert generated based on current priority assessment”. The article reads: “Had Carrillo in fact been an immigrant living in the country illegally, his convictions would have made him a priority to be arrested and deported under policies implemented by President Obama under which ICE targeted serious criminals for arrest.”
I am neither surprised nor am I disturbed that ICE arrested and detained Mr. Carillo. I would rather they have arrested him sooner, actually. I am disappointed that he had to spend four days in detention instead of one or two at most. I would also strongly prefer for the court to appoint attorneys for everyone apprehended in such cases.
Mr. Carillo took a settlement so we will never know for sure if ICE did their due diligence, or if they made a mistake or forgot to record a previous encounter, or some other similar thing.
~Max
As I understand it this amounts to, “X was born outside the United States and we do not have a record of X’s citizenship/lawful resident status”?
~Max