|
On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 05:58 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2015 05:52 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] can you explain to me how they are supposed to get an arrest warrant for a civil deportation procedure? and if the sanctuary laws didnt apply to this guy, why is the sheriff saying he didnt cooperate due to the sanctuary law? also, whats more universal a form than a civil deportation order (you know, what the federal courts have for immigration matters)?
not sure why you keep questioning my employment. i have been a lawyer for ten years. i work with fortune 10 companies who have bureaucratic rules that would blow your mind. not to mention my experience with the courts, including in California where i practice. whats your grown up job? I mean, I worked in a probation office where a Judge of 25 years told the DA that the detainer didn't allow the sheriff's office to hold anyone. A request to detain does grant the police the right to arrest someone or hold them longer for in indefinite period of time. But hey, its MA so maybe your laws are magic and sheriffs can just hold people for unlimited periods of time while ICE get its shit together. Also, why didn't just deport him while he was in jail? Wouldn't that be the time to get that shit done, when he is locked in a room and easy to find? On July 09 2015 05:56 KwarK wrote: [quote] Doing exactly this kind of bullshit admin all day. If you want someone to do something you fill out their paperwork the way they like it filled out. I'm amazed you haven't learned that in 10 years of doing your job although the chances are good that you pay someone like me to solve these problems for you. My grown up job description might as well be "making things work the way the better paid people think they should by knowing how they actually work". I am 100% sure if the court clerks told him to file something a specific way, he would do it even if he knew it was wrong and could prove it. the federal gov't was holding him before they transferred him to SF to face criminal charges. why do you think they had no right to hold him after SF was done with him? i am not sure you understand MA, CA or federal laws. arent you a paralegal? Because he had served his time. Why ICE took him to face "criminal charges" a dumbass 20 y.o. possession charge anyone would know would get dropped (what would they do with a conviction anyway?) is what undermines any idea that this is SF fault. ICE didnt take him to SF. Why would ICE get involved in state criminal matters? So U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which had Lopez-Sanchez in its custody in March after his release from federal prison, turned him over to San Francisco deputies. Source they released him to SF at SF's request. and? It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course). ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe.
|
On July 09 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:10 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 05:58 Plansix wrote: [quote] I mean, I worked in a probation office where a Judge of 25 years told the DA that the detainer didn't allow the sheriff's office to hold anyone. A request to detain does grant the police the right to arrest someone or hold them longer for in indefinite period of time.
But hey, its MA so maybe your laws are magic and sheriffs can just hold people for unlimited periods of time while ICE get its shit together. Also, why didn't just deport him while he was in jail? Wouldn't that be the time to get that shit done, when he is locked in a room and easy to find?
[quote]
I am 100% sure if the court clerks told him to file something a specific way, he would do it even if he knew it was wrong and could prove it. the federal gov't was holding him before they transferred him to SF to face criminal charges. why do you think they had no right to hold him after SF was done with him? i am not sure you understand MA, CA or federal laws. arent you a paralegal? Because he had served his time. Why ICE took him to face "criminal charges" a dumbass 20 y.o. possession charge anyone would know would get dropped (what would they do with a conviction anyway?) is what undermines any idea that this is SF fault. ICE didnt take him to SF. Why would ICE get involved in state criminal matters? So U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which had Lopez-Sanchez in its custody in March after his release from federal prison, turned him over to San Francisco deputies. Source they released him to SF at SF's request. and? It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course). ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe. The point is when the ICE decide to deport people? Straight up, when do they make the call. They had a deportation order and could have deporting him at any time. They had to be aware that SF has a sanctuary law, as its been on the books for a while. If they really wanted to enforce the order, why allow him into the custody of a city that they know will ignore their requests?
|
On July 09 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:10 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] the federal gov't was holding him before they transferred him to SF to face criminal charges. why do you think they had no right to hold him after SF was done with him?
i am not sure you understand MA, CA or federal laws. arent you a paralegal? Because he had served his time. Why ICE took him to face "criminal charges" a dumbass 20 y.o. possession charge anyone would know would get dropped (what would they do with a conviction anyway?) is what undermines any idea that this is SF fault. ICE didnt take him to SF. Why would ICE get involved in state criminal matters? So U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which had Lopez-Sanchez in its custody in March after his release from federal prison, turned him over to San Francisco deputies. Source they released him to SF at SF's request. and? It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course). ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe. The point is when the ICE decide to deport people? Straight up, when do they make the call. They had a deportation order and could have deporting him at any time. They had to be aware that SF has a sanctuary law, as its been on the books for a while. If they really wanted to enforce the order, why allow him into the custody of a city that they know will ignore their requests? i am not entirely convinced the ICE made that decision as opposed to the BOP. the news articles dont have that level of detail. he should have just been deported, not sent to SF. that really is besides the point though and doesnt address the real issue of the sanctuary laws.
|
On July 09 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Because he had served his time. Why ICE took him to face "criminal charges" a dumbass 20 y.o. possession charge anyone would know would get dropped (what would they do with a conviction anyway?) is what undermines any idea that this is SF fault. ICE didnt take him to SF. Why would ICE get involved in state criminal matters? So U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which had Lopez-Sanchez in its custody in March after his release from federal prison, turned him over to San Francisco deputies. Source they released him to SF at SF's request. and? It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course). ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe. The point is when the ICE decide to deport people? Straight up, when do they make the call. They had a deportation order and could have deporting him at any time. They had to be aware that SF has a sanctuary law, as its been on the books for a while. If they really wanted to enforce the order, why allow him into the custody of a city that they know will ignore their requests? i am not entirely convinced the ICE made that decision as opposed to the BOP. the news articles dont have that level of detail. he should have just been deported, not sent to SF. that really is besides the point though and doesnt address the real issue of the sanctuary laws.
What's besides the point is trying to link this guy and sanctuary laws. If you want to talk about sanctuary laws, talk about sanctuary laws, don't use this tragedy to score political points.
|
On July 09 2015 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] ICE didnt take him to SF. Why would ICE get involved in state criminal matters? So U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which had Lopez-Sanchez in its custody in March after his release from federal prison, turned him over to San Francisco deputies. Source they released him to SF at SF's request. and? It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course). ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe. The point is when the ICE decide to deport people? Straight up, when do they make the call. They had a deportation order and could have deporting him at any time. They had to be aware that SF has a sanctuary law, as its been on the books for a while. If they really wanted to enforce the order, why allow him into the custody of a city that they know will ignore their requests? i am not entirely convinced the ICE made that decision as opposed to the BOP. the news articles dont have that level of detail. he should have just been deported, not sent to SF. that really is besides the point though and doesnt address the real issue of the sanctuary laws. What's besides the point is trying to link this guy and sanctuary laws. If you want to talk about sanctuary laws, talk about sanctuary laws, don't use this tragedy to score political points. you dont think there is a link between this guy and S.F.'s ordinance?
|
United States40776 Posts
On July 09 2015 06:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] [quote] Source they released him to SF at SF's request. and? It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course). ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe. The point is when the ICE decide to deport people? Straight up, when do they make the call. They had a deportation order and could have deporting him at any time. They had to be aware that SF has a sanctuary law, as its been on the books for a while. If they really wanted to enforce the order, why allow him into the custody of a city that they know will ignore their requests? i am not entirely convinced the ICE made that decision as opposed to the BOP. the news articles dont have that level of detail. he should have just been deported, not sent to SF. that really is besides the point though and doesnt address the real issue of the sanctuary laws. What's besides the point is trying to link this guy and sanctuary laws. If you want to talk about sanctuary laws, talk about sanctuary laws, don't use this tragedy to score political points. you dont think there is a link between this guy and S.F.'s ordinance? No, because they weren't refusing to cooperate. They were asking for the correct paperwork which is something in no way exclusive to Sanctuary Law cities.
|
On July 09 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:13 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Because he had served his time. Why ICE took him to face "criminal charges" a dumbass 20 y.o. possession charge anyone would know would get dropped (what would they do with a conviction anyway?) is what undermines any idea that this is SF fault. ICE didnt take him to SF. Why would ICE get involved in state criminal matters? So U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which had Lopez-Sanchez in its custody in March after his release from federal prison, turned him over to San Francisco deputies. Source they released him to SF at SF's request. and? It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course). ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe. The point is when the ICE decide to deport people? Straight up, when do they make the call. They had a deportation order and could have deporting him at any time. They had to be aware that SF has a sanctuary law, as its been on the books for a while. If they really wanted to enforce the order, why allow him into the custody of a city that they know will ignore their requests? i am not entirely convinced the ICE made that decision as opposed to the BOP. the news articles dont have that level of detail. he should have just been deported, not sent to SF. that really is besides the point though and doesnt address the real issue of the sanctuary laws. The main issue is the detainer isn't a court order:
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/issue_brief_-_what_ice_isnt_telling_you_about_detainers.pdf
They have also been challenged as not being a court order or constitutional:
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/faulty-legal-arguments-behind-immigration-detainers
As stated several times, the detainer does empower the local police to prolong detention and they are prohibited from arresting anyone for violations of immigration law. ICE needs to use an immigration arrest warrant(as cited in the article above) and enforce the law. Not expect local law enforcement to do it for them or just hold people until they decide to show up. Or maybe show up while the person is in custody and get shit done then.
But I would stop acting like these detainers are settled law, because they are clearly not.
|
On July 09 2015 06:54 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] [quote] Source they released him to SF at SF's request. and? It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course). ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe. The point is when the ICE decide to deport people? Straight up, when do they make the call. They had a deportation order and could have deporting him at any time. They had to be aware that SF has a sanctuary law, as its been on the books for a while. If they really wanted to enforce the order, why allow him into the custody of a city that they know will ignore their requests? i am not entirely convinced the ICE made that decision as opposed to the BOP. the news articles dont have that level of detail. he should have just been deported, not sent to SF. that really is besides the point though and doesnt address the real issue of the sanctuary laws. What's besides the point is trying to link this guy and sanctuary laws. If you want to talk about sanctuary laws, talk about sanctuary laws, don't use this tragedy to score political points. you dont think there is a link between this guy and S.F.'s ordinance?
What do you mean "a link" between this guy and SF's ordinance? Either way, there's lot's of links, it's stupid to try to pin everything on the one you are envisioning with SF's ordinances.
Which you have been told several times isn't what it seems you think it is.
|
On July 09 2015 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:22 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] they released him to SF at SF's request. and? It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course). ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe. The point is when the ICE decide to deport people? Straight up, when do they make the call. They had a deportation order and could have deporting him at any time. They had to be aware that SF has a sanctuary law, as its been on the books for a while. If they really wanted to enforce the order, why allow him into the custody of a city that they know will ignore their requests? i am not entirely convinced the ICE made that decision as opposed to the BOP. the news articles dont have that level of detail. he should have just been deported, not sent to SF. that really is besides the point though and doesnt address the real issue of the sanctuary laws. What's besides the point is trying to link this guy and sanctuary laws. If you want to talk about sanctuary laws, talk about sanctuary laws, don't use this tragedy to score political points. you dont think there is a link between this guy and S.F.'s ordinance? What do you mean "a link" between this guy and SF's ordinance? Either way, there's lot's of links, it's stupid to try to pin everything on the one you are envisioning with SF's ordinances. Which you have been told several times isn't what it seems you think it is. honestly, what i have been told by people uneducated in the law really means very little to me when it comes to legal matters. the ordinance is clearly the reason why he was let go without notification to ICE, and if you (in the royal sense) dont see that, i feel sorry for you, but i wont belabor the point.
|
On July 09 2015 06:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:16 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] ICE didnt take him to SF. Why would ICE get involved in state criminal matters? So U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which had Lopez-Sanchez in its custody in March after his release from federal prison, turned him over to San Francisco deputies. Source they released him to SF at SF's request. and? It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course). ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe. The point is when the ICE decide to deport people? Straight up, when do they make the call. They had a deportation order and could have deporting him at any time. They had to be aware that SF has a sanctuary law, as its been on the books for a while. If they really wanted to enforce the order, why allow him into the custody of a city that they know will ignore their requests? i am not entirely convinced the ICE made that decision as opposed to the BOP. the news articles dont have that level of detail. he should have just been deported, not sent to SF. that really is besides the point though and doesnt address the real issue of the sanctuary laws. The main issue is the detainer isn't a court order: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/issue_brief_-_what_ice_isnt_telling_you_about_detainers.pdfThey have also been challenged as not being a court order or constitutional: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/faulty-legal-arguments-behind-immigration-detainersAs stated several times, the detainer does empower the local police to prolong detention and they are prohibited from arresting anyone for violations of immigration law. ICE needs to use an immigration arrest warrant(as cited in the article above) and enforce the law. Not expect local law enforcement to do it for them or just hold people until they decide to show up. Or maybe show up while the person is in custody and get shit done then. But I would stop acting like these detainers are settled law, because they are clearly not. what about a deportation order, which is what the article says they had?
|
On July 09 2015 07:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:54 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course).
ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe. The point is when the ICE decide to deport people? Straight up, when do they make the call. They had a deportation order and could have deporting him at any time. They had to be aware that SF has a sanctuary law, as its been on the books for a while. If they really wanted to enforce the order, why allow him into the custody of a city that they know will ignore their requests? i am not entirely convinced the ICE made that decision as opposed to the BOP. the news articles dont have that level of detail. he should have just been deported, not sent to SF. that really is besides the point though and doesnt address the real issue of the sanctuary laws. What's besides the point is trying to link this guy and sanctuary laws. If you want to talk about sanctuary laws, talk about sanctuary laws, don't use this tragedy to score political points. you dont think there is a link between this guy and S.F.'s ordinance? What do you mean "a link" between this guy and SF's ordinance? Either way, there's lot's of links, it's stupid to try to pin everything on the one you are envisioning with SF's ordinances. Which you have been told several times isn't what it seems you think it is. honestly, what i have been told by people uneducated in the law really means very little to me when it comes to legal matters. the ordinance is clearly the reason why he was let go without notification to ICE, and if you (in the royal sense) dont see that, i feel sorry for you, but i wont belabor the point.
lol. Well, I am clearly more familiar with the part we're talking about. You obviously aren't familiar with how these custody things go, how they bounce around inmates or release them because the place they are going doesn't want to pick them up and/or the place releasing them doesn't want to drop them off. Or when they try to make one institution hold someone because they are a problem inmate so they will dig up an open warrant in another jurisdiction and drop them off so they are someone else's problem.
The list of these twisted 'custody battles' goes on and on. I imagine unless you actually talk to inmates or the people who run the prisons it's hard to know about though.
|
On July 09 2015 07:45 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:57 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2015 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On July 09 2015 06:39 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:34 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2015 06:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 09 2015 06:20 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] [quote] Source they released him to SF at SF's request. and? It's not really a request, SF had an open warrant and if you drop em off they have to take them, so they did then dismissed the charges. ICE didn't have to, and ICE knew what was going to happen when they dropped him off (The release not the murder of course). ICE didnt have to what? Give him to SF... I'm starting to think you're not familiar with how these things typically go? im certainly not familiar with the basis of your statements about what the ICE did and didnt have to do, and did and did not know. i am certainly willing to review it if it isnt just based on what you believe. The point is when the ICE decide to deport people? Straight up, when do they make the call. They had a deportation order and could have deporting him at any time. They had to be aware that SF has a sanctuary law, as its been on the books for a while. If they really wanted to enforce the order, why allow him into the custody of a city that they know will ignore their requests? i am not entirely convinced the ICE made that decision as opposed to the BOP. the news articles dont have that level of detail. he should have just been deported, not sent to SF. that really is besides the point though and doesnt address the real issue of the sanctuary laws. The main issue is the detainer isn't a court order: https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/issue_brief_-_what_ice_isnt_telling_you_about_detainers.pdfThey have also been challenged as not being a court order or constitutional: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/faulty-legal-arguments-behind-immigration-detainersAs stated several times, the detainer does empower the local police to prolong detention and they are prohibited from arresting anyone for violations of immigration law. ICE needs to use an immigration arrest warrant(as cited in the article above) and enforce the law. Not expect local law enforcement to do it for them or just hold people until they decide to show up. Or maybe show up while the person is in custody and get shit done then. But I would stop acting like these detainers are settled law, because they are clearly not. what about a deportation order, which is what the article says they had? But did they send it was the detainer?
Sheriff Mirkarimi said the city’s ordinance allowed him to respond to the federal authorities only when he had a court order or warrant.
Or is the sheriff lying? Because every single article I am reading right now quotes the sheriff saying that is what he needed to hold him. What are the chances of the ICE agent being a dumb ass and just checking the easy, commonly used top box on the form and sending it without a copy of the order?
I would also point out that sheriffs are never thrilled about enforcing on copies of court documents and I really doubt that ICE sent the certified original copy. But maybe they went above and beyond the call of duty.
|
Phreak --- How does sovereign immunity work in CA with regards to civil claims that might be brought against the city?
|
On July 09 2015 10:01 xDaunt wrote: Phreak --- How does sovereign immunity work in CA with regards to civil claims that might be brought against the city? this is not easily answered and there are a lot of nuances that would need to be known to answer (e.g., are they suing under federal law, state law, who are they suing, etc.). here is the code:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=00001-01000&file=815-818.9
i am very curious to see whether a wrongful death complaint is filed. i think it likely will be filed.
|
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee speaks publicly about deadly Pier 14 shooting
SAN FRANCISCO (KTVU) - San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee is speaking publicly about the firestorm surrounding last week's deadly shooting on Pier 14, and San Francisco's "Sanctuary City" ordinance.
"I'll be championing everything I can do to fulfill those gaps in honor of Kate Steinle's life," Mayor Lee said.
Thirty-two-year old Kate Steinle was shot and killed last Wednesday night as she strolled on Pier 14 with her father.
The man charged with her murder, 45-year old Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, is an undocumented immigrant who was released from county jail months before the shooting.
Mayor Lee said better communication could have prevented her death.
"A simple phone call from the Sheriff letting them (ICE) know we're about to notify them of a release of someone they gave us custody of would have been preventive of this," Lee said. He also had words for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "I also have questions, too, about what's the role of Homeland Security when they handed over to our custody someone who had a two decades old drug offense."
ICE brought Sanchez to San Francisco to face a 20-year old drug charge for allegedly possessing $20 worth of marijuana. The charge was dropped and Sanchez freed, without honoring an ICE detainer.
"To use city resources to contact ICE is against our Sanctuary City ordinance," asserted Supervisor John Avalos. He said the Mayor needs to pick a side. "So either he's for the ordinance or he's not for the ordinance. He can't be on both sides of the ordinance, depending on the political winds that are happening right now."
Mayor Lee said he will be speaking with The Department of Homeland Security's Priority Enforcement Arm in the coming days, "about whether there be a better level of information sharing, cooperation if you will." http://wn.ktvu.com/story/29506395/san-francisco-mayor-ed-lee-speaks-publicly-about-deadly-pier-14-shooting
|
"I also have questions, too, about what's the role of Homeland Security when they handed over to our custody someone who had a two decades old drug offense."
ICE brought Sanchez to San Francisco to face a 20-year old drug charge for allegedly possessing $20 worth of marijuana. The charge was dropped and Sanchez freed, without honoring an ICE detainer.
See what I was saying?
|
I want to see a copy of that ICE detainer. The sheriff says he didn’t have an order, but he might just be lying. Though that would be amazingly short sighted since ICE will have a copy of what was sent.
|
On July 10 2015 02:47 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 10:01 xDaunt wrote: Phreak --- How does sovereign immunity work in CA with regards to civil claims that might be brought against the city? this is not easily answered and there are a lot of nuances that would need to be known to answer (e.g., are they suing under federal law, state law, who are they suing, etc.). here is the code: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=00001-01000&file=815-818.9i am very curious to see whether a wrongful death complaint is filed. i think it likely will be filed. I don't think that there would be a federal claim available. This doesn't seem to fit under 1983. This is more of a negligence claim, which is going to be state law. And glancing at the code, it looks like California's sovereign immunity has a ton of holes in it (Bravo, California trial lawyer lobby). In particular, 815.6 seems to be the exception that will be used.
|
Kate Steinle Lawsuit Has Political Reverberations in Washington Over Illegal Immigration
As the family of a woman allegedly slain by an undocumented immigrant filed a claim today in advance of a lawsuit over her death, a fierce debate in Washington over the practice of so-called "sanctuary cities" is expected to consume Congress after members return from their summer recess.
Congress has been working on legislation known as "Kate's Law," after Kate Steinle, the victim of the attack in San Francisco that made national headlines earlier this summer. It would end federal funding for so-called sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration actions.
San Francisco, where Steinle was killed, is one of those cities, which is why the Steinle family filed a claim against the city's sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, as well as the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
"The system failed our sister," Brad Steinle, Kate's brother, said at a family news conference today, fighting back tears. "And at this point nobody has taken responsibility, accountability. And nothing has changed."
Two months since Kate's murder in early July at San Francisco's Pier 14, the bill that bears her name is still stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A staff member for Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Pat Leahy said the Senate would take it up when lawmakers return from recess, but Beth Levine, a spokeswoman for Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley said that the committee is also exploring other options because "the Democrats have not indicated a willingness to help pass legislation." She did not elaborate.
The House is considering companion legislation, introduced by Rep. Matt Salmon of Arizona.
"Kate's Law" would bar sanctuary cities from accessing more federal grants than are already available to them and increase penalties for individuals who re-enter the United States after deportation. It's not clear how much bipartisan support the bill would receive -- a similar bill passed the House in late July, with the votes divided largely along party lines.
The case is also figuring heavily on the presidential campaign trail. Donald Trump released a video on Instagram featuring images of undocumented immigrants accused of murder, including Francisco Lopez Sanchez, the convicted felon who allegedly killed Kate Steinle, juxtaposed with Jeb Bush calling illegal immigration "an act of love."
The parents of Kate Steinle have found themselves at the center of the sanctuary cities debate.
Jim Steinle testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in July, urging lawmaker to pass legislation like Kate's Law that would keep undocumented immigrants like Sanchez, a convicted felon who had been released from prison, from remaining in the country.
"Our family realized the complexity of immigration laws. However, we feel strongly that some legislation should be discussed, enacted or changed to take these undocumented immigrant felons off our streets for good," Jim Steinle said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/kate-steinle-lawsuit-political-reverberations-washington-illegal-immigration/story?id=33461835
|
|
|
|