Let the right-wing whining begin!
Well if the lamestreet news would cover things like this, I would have used them as sources but as usual, they ignore it.
Yes, most of them are good.
But some are bad. Why should California democrats shield criminals from being deported?
I mean imagine the scenario of an Oakland police. A guy is about to be let out of jail for serving a sentence for say assault. He is also in the country illegally. Why NOT hand them over to ICE so he can then be deported?
So if I have have a family member hurt by an illegal, and I am angry and want them deported, that makes me a white nationalist?
It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for local or state law enforcement to hold people on the say-so of ICE. The courts have said this repeatedly. If ICE can’t bother to send officers to pick them up when they’re released, that’s ICE’s problem. It’s lazy law enforcement to expect local authorities to violate the Constitution just because ICE doesn’t want to be there to pick them up.
“Lamestreet” – that’s clever. Did you come up with that all by yourself? :rolleyes:
(And the reason they didn’t cover it was because it was, as pointed out, not true.)
By “criminal” do you mean someone who actually commits crimes in the U.S. or are all illegal immigrants criminals by definition?
It’s not the job of Oakland PD to determine if someone is in the country legally, is it? I suppose if ICE wants to take custody of him, the burden is on ICE to be ready to do so the day of his release, not on the Oakland PD to hold the guy until ICE finds it convenient to send someone to pick him up.
Personally, I think it would be good policy to have a person convicted of a violent or serious offense be deported after their sentence. But I don’t see why states should really care that much about nonviolent offenders needing to be deported.
Like, some guy here illegally has a job, supports his family, pays taxes, and happens to get arrested for having a joint in his pocket. I don’t particularly think there is an imperative for local authorities to enforce a law they have no jurisdiction over if they generally believe that the guy is overall making a contribution to the community.
If Federal law enforcement wants to do its own job and find the guy and deport him, well, thats their job and I can understand that ICE will prioritize its law enforcement role over actually caring whether the community is improved with that person remaining there, strictly as a practical matter.
To say it another way, I think most people are starting to come to the conclusion that zero tolerance enforcement of laws is a substitute for judgment and reason. Since localities have the luxury of being able to exercise judgment in such cases, I’m not bothered by it if they do. But just as I think zero tolerance policies are kind of dumb, I would also agree that total tolerance policies are also unwise.
But question for you: do you support zero tolerance policies in general?
California doesn’t shield criminals from being deported. Where did you get that idea?
Are you seriously defending that Breitbart article? No one frigging booed the parents of murdered kids. How the hell can you possibly believe that?
it does mean that you are the victim of fallacious reasoning. The Idea that a crime committed by an undocumented immigrant is a crime that wouldn’t have happened if that immigrant was not here, is not born out by any data. Cities of equal size and equal economic status have an equal number of major crimes, regardless of their population demographic. That specific person wouldn’t have hurt you, it’s true, but someone else, native or other, would have hurt some other victim. You may feel better by having that person deported, but it does nothing for the overall crime rate.
The tack that many use - that doing more to prevent illegal immigration and doing more to deport the undocumented, would reduce crime is just wrong. And wanting to punish an entire ethnic community for the actions of it’s criminals can be seen as racist.
mc
It would never happen unless they’re parents of kids murdered by a mass shooter who are advocating more restrictive gun laws, and then the boo-ers are usually right-wingers.
Let the left-wing whining begin!
Yes, discussing constitutionality is exactly the same as “Whyyyy is this message board SOO UNFAIR to right-wingers?!”
Yeah, stupid left-wingers whining about “rights” and “the constitution.” Plargh.
Yeah, I’m simultaneously proud and not-proud of that one.
Fortunately, you and the rest of the SDMB don’t get to decide what is or is not Constitutional.
Nobody does, it’s purely a matter of opinion. Some people, though, have the authority to put their opinions into force.
None of those people are here, of course.
No, it’s not, it’s a matter of law.
And interpretations of law are based on opinion. This isn’t math or science where there’s some demonstrable and repeatable correct answer; what one court rules as constitutional can be readily ruled unconstitutional by a different court or even the same court a decade later.