Hey, there! Log in / Register
Who's uncooperative? We're uncooperative, at least with ICE
By adamg on Wed, 03/22/2017 - 9:54am
WGBH reports that ICE has labeled nine New England communities a "uncooperative" when it comes to just handing over undocumented aliens. Boston, Cambridge and Somerville all made the list.
Vestigial Suffolk County, though, doesn't make the list - perhaps because, as we learned from the story of the two Irish guys from Quincy, the Suffolk County sheriff's department continues to stow immigrants in exchange for ICE payments.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
As a Somervillain...
....YAY!!!!!!
Good - we are always first in
Good - we are always first in leading the way for the rest of the country.
"uncooperative"
Uncooperative = not doing someone else's job.
The feds are welcome to wait by the courthouse/prison door if they're so inclined. Local cops enforce local and state laws, the Feds can enforce the federal ones.
In that case, the same local
In that case, the same local governments should receive any federal funds.
The cop-out argument is a double-edged sword.
In that case
The Federal Government should not receive any tax money in excess of what we get back.
Since they already take far more to pay for FAILING red states than they give us back, we should just stop paying then.
Some day we will stop paying them
The more the federal government's priorities diverge from those of our communities, the less relevant it becomes. It will some day become entirely irrelevant, at the rate it is going; when the day comes when the federal government ceases to do anything to to contribute to the essential business of government, it will be ignored by the people of Massachusetts and other states and regions who will find other ways of getting their needs met.
That's fine
But that also means local residents shouldn't pay any federal taxes.
Good luck with that.....
I know you guys love your illegals and all, but the tax thing might not work out so well. Give it a whirl and let me know.
Whirl this
Whirl this.
Whirl this? Weird...
The subject in my original comment was not paying federal taxes, was it that difficult to follow for you?
Didn't mean to exclude you from this exercise... You should also give it a whirl and let me know how it goes.
Yeah it's asinine, right?
Just as asinine as local governments not receiving any federal funds over this.
It's worth a shot....
Maybe they won't notice you're not paying federal taxes, who knows.
Local governments defying federal laws don't deserve federal funds....seems pretty straightforward but we'll agree to disagree I guess.
Please show me the federal law
that states detainers are mandatory. Hint: There isn't one.
Courts have directly ruled that they are not mandatory, and DHS has actually removed the word "required" from related forms. The Supreme Court has also weighed in that they violate the 10th Amendment (New York v. United States; Printz v. United States), and there have been 4th Amendment issues in play as well that could hurt cities that comply. With a legitimate warrant or court order, its a different story. But in the majority of cases we see and hear about, these cities are not legally required to comply.
TL;DR: Executive Order 13768 is glorified blackmail.
Immigration laws....
I should've been more specific, my apologies. There are no specific laws that say detainers are mandatory..... (I do like the italics, really drives the point home). Who is responsible for enforcing immigration laws? This is from the ICE website:
"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety."
ICE enforces federal laws; if this agency makes a request of a city/town and they choose to ignore it, why should they receive federal funding again? It's clearly not mandatory; towns keep doing it and nobody gets arrested. If they want to keep refusing federal agency requests, they should receive $0.00 in federal funds......period. Seems like they're defying federal laws by doing so, but whatever.
This is all a moot point anyway - the plethora of illegals and their myriad contributions will stimulate their local economies to immeasurable heights....no funding needed.
I kind of love it though....we defy requests of federal agencies and then bitch that they don't want to give us money.....entertaining stuff.
Once again
We won't bitch that the federal government doesn't even give us back our 50 cents of every dollar we give them IF we don't give them any money at all!
We already give more than we get back. Time to sing O Canada if they are going to take all our money and subsidize idiots who won't pay their own way, dear.
Once again what?
First off, thanks for calling me "dear" again. Always warms my heart.
The Feds have screwed us since the beginning of time. I don't understand what you're talking about. We've always given more than we get back. Is this a new concept?
Just stumbled upon this.....
You probably won't get this, but take a look if you do:
“Some states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate this enforcement of immigration laws,” Sessions said earlier today. “This includes refusing to detain known felons under federal detainer requests or otherwise failing to comply with these laws.”
“Such policies can not continue.”
He went on to quote 8 U.S. code 1373, which declares local and state officials cannot go against the federal government’s actions on immigration.
Uhh
Have you actually read the code?
It says that no person or agency may restrict or prohibit sending, requesting, receiving, verifying, or maintaining information on status.
This code covers transfer of information. It is literally titled "Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service," and has nothing to do with refusing to comply with detainers and/or "holding" people for ICE.
Breaking this law:
ICE: "Does he/she have legal status?"
Sanctuary city: "Go away."
Not breaking this law:
ICE: "Does he/she have legal status?"
Sanctuary city: "Nope."
ICE: "Detain them for us"
Sanctuary city: "Nope."
Shocker that we disagreed on this...
I have a bad habit in that I infer "common sense" things sometimes. I guess it depends on one's interpretation of that.
Carry on, sir.
Lets be honest
If it concerned a 'progressive' federal law, you and others would be singing a very different tune.
Wouldn't be any tune to sing
Because a progressive law wouldn't pull something like this.
He might have a point
Liberals love taxes, so maybe every time someone gets pulled over* the cop should detain them until there's a full IRS background check. Since this all is about Following The Law and not hassling minorities, I can't imaging conservatives could even gripe.
*for the sake of argument, let's assume a local driver is getting pulled over
hypo.....
Seriously, what if I knew of illegal Russian and Polish immigrants who were living in public housing displacing black residents who have been a part of the Roxbury community their entire life.
Would it be wrong to report them?
Report them to the housing authority
Those are the rules that these people violated in getting that housing.
Leave the gestapo out of it.
Nope
DHCD funded public housing allows for eligibility for undocumented individuals.
HUD also allows for said undocumented individuals to reside in federally funded properties, as long as there is at least one eligible citizen or resident status member of the household. The rent is heavily pro-rated to reflect the proportion of documented/undocumented according to a very specific calculation.
So, no. No one is illegally tying up public housing. If those undocumented families weren't eligible for state-funded housing, they would be homeless. Homeless families in MA are guaranteed shelter. And we all know that simple math has proven that subsidized housing for a family costs a whole hell of a lot less than housing them in a shelter.
The role of county sheriffs
As do other county sheriffs throughout the Commonwealth, thereby extending the definition of "for-profit prisons". Not only that, but there seems to be a practice of deliberately relocating detainees to county lockups farther away from their homes, which would have the effect of denying them a certain amount of support and resources. The proposed Massachusetts Safe Communities Act would cover state police, local police, and campus police but NOT county sheriffs (who, since the abolition of the county government system, seem to largely operate without much restraint or oversight).
people's rights and cause for detention
I know for a fact Bristol, Plymouth, and Suffolk Co sheriffs rent cells, food service and security and administration to ICE for undocumented immigrant detainees. I've heard Franklin Co does too.
My concern is that ICE is indiscriminate ("gloves-off") in who they detain and whether the person's rights are upheld.
City of New York has a standard, a list of violent crimes an undocumented person has been charged or convicted of will be detained for, none others.
We should pressure Sheriff Thompkins to disclose the reasons he's holding each and every undocumented immigrant and the length of their incarceration by Suffolk Co.
Walsh has been holding press conferences about this a promising to give his office up. See if he'll speak up for this information on behalf of people detained in Suffolk Co.
Yup
They do. From what I have heard, they currently have 66 ICE detainees, who are from the Hartford area.
That's mine as well. Most Americans are unaware that all people in the US are entitled to some kind of due process, regardless of their immigration/documentation status. ICE detentions seem to flagrantly violate this. Even if people don't give a damn about undocumented people, they should care enough about your own (eroding) rights to be alarmed at this.
It might be worth checking with ACLU Massachusetts - I know they're working on this, and I get the impression that it might be best to make sure that any pressure tactics don't disrupt their efforts to obtain due process for the detainees.
Due process rights apply to
Due process rights apply to criminal proceedings. Since immigration violations are civil, violators are "detained", not arrested.
This is one drawback of it not being "illegal to be illegal".
That's not what it says
Not really. Here's the actual text:
Originally, in the Magna Carta:
And in Amendment 5 to the U.S. Constitution:
There are numerous studies
There are numerous studies that show that by the time someone is pulled over for DUI, they've already driven drunk dozens if not hundreds of times. It's not the exception, it's the rule. Statistically speaking this man has driven drunk many times before and he finally got caught. Thanks to our asanine DUI laws here, if he wasn't caught up with ICE he'd be free to go on his own recognizance, which we know based on statistics means he will continue to drive drunk.
Second DUI conviction then we talk about interlock devices but nothing's stopping him from driving his friends car. Odds are he'll never get another DUI, continue to drive drunk, and if everyone is lucky, won't plow into a cop doing construction duty at 3am on the expressway.
If someone is both here illegally, and driving drunk, no, I have no problem with him being deported. Our system does not properly handle DUIs. In Europe and the Middle East they are taken seriously. Hell, maybe he'll even get the help he obviously needs.
You know who almost never, ever gets a DUI? Someone that had "just three beers" and is right over the limit. I can't say it enough. Statistics have long ago solidified that people who are getting DUIs are alcoholics and are driving drunk ALL THE TIME. I DONT WANT TO GET HIT HY A DRUNK DRIVER AND BE DEAD. OUR LEGAL SYSTEM CANNOT HANDLE DUIs effectively. Please send him back to his home country.
This is ridiculous
Handing over every undocumented resident NO
Handing over violent felons who lack documentation YES
Read the sanctuary city language - most of it is aimed at NOT COOPERATING WITH ICE WHEN THERE IS NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT TO DO SO.
The rest of this stuff is gestapo bullshit.
Maybe I'll walk into an ICE office and demand that they cooperate with me by handing over several of their number for a clown posse? They wouldn't be legally required to, but in saying "no" I would have to decide that they were UNCOOPERATIVE with the US citizenry.
See how that garbage works?
Suffolk doesn't make the list?
So...a little confused the write up says Boston makes the list and Suffolk County doesn't make the list? Suffolk county is almost entirely comprised of Boston. And Quincy is given as an example but Quincy is in Norfolk county.
F--- ICE.
There is no significant immigration problem in this country. I'd zero out ICE in an instant if I had the power to do so. If people commit crimes, let the local police deal with them. Otherwise, nobody who comes to this country is anything but a producer of wealth who benefits us all.
My city is uncooperative with ICE
I demanded that they plow my driveway, even though it isn't their job, and they said no.