US 2024 Presidential Election

[Schadrach]

Similarly, what is presented as "not honoring ICE detainers is - as I already said but you evidently failed to read - declining to hold people past their release date solely for ICE unless there’s a judicial warrant. (As without a judicial warrant that's a Fourth Amendment violation, which is to say against the law).

That word "judicial" seems to trip up a lot of the people mad about that policy - they either don't understand the difference between a judge and an ICE employee signing a warrant or think ICE should uniquely be able to sign their own warrants because reasons.

 

[Trunkage]

Lol. You've said some wacky things, but "language isn't a valuable skill, it's just an attribute" is pretty telling.

Are you deliberately misreading or trying to be an idiot?

 

[Trunkage]

I literally quoted him saying something that is not true...

At best, I could say that you took a quote, stripped it of context and presented it as meaning something else. Mainly because this is what you do to everyone else

 

[Trunkage]

That word "judicial" seems to trip up a lot of the people mad about that policy - they either don't understand the difference between a judge and an ICE employee signing a warrant or think ICE should uniquely be able to sign their own warrants because reasons.

They dont believe in checks and balances. They call it red tape

 

[tstorm823]

Are you deliberately misreading or trying to be an idiot?

No, your comment was really that ridiculous.

 

[Chimpzy]

Trump says he doesn't think about Americans' financial situation during Iran negotiations

President Trump told reporters that he doesn't think about Americans' financial situations during negotiations about the war with Iran. "Not even a little bit," he said, emphasizing that he only thinks about Iran not acquiring a nuclear weapon.

www.nbcnews.com

Yes, splendid. This is the way.

 

[Trunkage]

No, your comment was really that ridiculous.

I said a bunch of incompetent people were picked because they spoke English over people who are competent but can't speak English

Can you point to where I said anything like "language isn't a valuable skill, it's just an attribute" ?

 

[Hades]

Trump says he doesn't think about Americans' financial situation during Iran negotiations

President Trump told reporters that he doesn't think about Americans' financial situations during negotiations about the war with Iran. "Not even a little bit," he said, emphasizing that he only thinks about Iran not acquiring a nuclear weapon.

www.nbcnews.com

Yes, splendid. This is the way.

At least its honest. Trump is a sociopath, traitor and corrupt bussinessman. Of course he does not think about financial problems plaguing the plebs. I don't even blame him that much for it. The blame lies more with people who ought to know he thinks like this yet still insisted on inflicting him on the US.

What did they think the guy gloating during the election about having the literal richest guy on earth pillage the US government would think about THEIR finances?

 

[tstorm823]

I said a bunch of incompetent people were picked because they spoke English over people who are competent but can't speak English

Speaking the language that allows you to communicate with the people you need to is a manner of competence. If you have a job that requires communication with specifically English-speaking people, you cannot be competent at it without speaking English.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Trump says he doesn't think about Americans' financial situation during Iran negotiations

President Trump told reporters that he doesn't think about Americans' financial situations during negotiations about the war with Iran. "Not even a little bit," he said, emphasizing that he only thinks about Iran not acquiring a nuclear weapon.

www.nbcnews.com

Yes, splendid. This is the way.

"But he's such a man of the people!" - idiots talking about a member of the elite they profess to hate

 

[BrawlMan]

Trump says he doesn't think about Americans' financial situation during Iran negotiations

President Trump told reporters that he doesn't think about Americans' financial situations during negotiations about the war with Iran. "Not even a little bit," he said, emphasizing that he only thinks about Iran not acquiring a nuclear weapon.

www.nbcnews.com

Yes, splendid. This is the way.

"But he's such a man of the people!" - idiots talking about a member of the elite they profess to hate

MAGA people are sad nobody wants to be around or hang out with them.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And? That you are dissatisfied with the volume means jack diddly and does nothing to justify ICE's actions. That's because ICE's purview is enforcing immigration law. Never mind that ultimately what you're complaining about isn't a substantive change in the process but instead streamlining the scheduling for that process.

You're essentially arguing that the system should be intentionally hobbled with deliberate inefficiencies because you want those inefficiencies to act as an bottleneck to artificially limit the number of cases that even get heard.



That's just plain false. Sanctuary city policies do not entail 'criminals back on the streets for really no reason outside of not wanting to cooperate with ICE'. That's genuinely slanderous propaganda that the Trump Administration has been asserting without basis to attack cities for not racially profiling perceived immigrants as de-facto criminals, using incidents for which they've already paid their debt to society (such as traffic violations from years ago) as a pretext to accuse them of criminality, and/or refusing to derail proper legal proceedures (such as bail or releasing if no charges are pressed) just on ICE's say-so. They do not release them just because they 'don't want to cooperate with ICE'. They release them because that's what the law requires under the circumstances.

Similarly, what is presented as "not honoring ICE detainers is - as I already said but you evidently failed to read - declining to hold people past their release date solely for ICE unless there’s a judicial warrant. (As without a judicial warrant that's a Fourth Amendment violation, which is to say against the law).

Those seeking asylum do not have to be granted access to the US for their cases to be heard.

There's numerous instances of criminals being put back on the streets because ICE detainers were not honored. If ICE detainers are unconstitutional as you say they are, then they wouldn't be a thing because they would be unconstitutional.

That word "judicial" seems to trip up a lot of the people mad about that policy - they either don't understand the difference between a judge and an ICE employee signing a warrant or think ICE should uniquely be able to sign their own warrants because reasons.

They dont believe in checks and balances. They call it red tape

DHS/ICE have their own judges and courts that reside in the executive branch, they do not use the judicial branch for such things.

At best, I could say that you took a quote, stripped it of context and presented it as meaning something else. Mainly because this is what you do to everyone else

He said that a majority of people want less immigration and the polls literally say the opposite.

 

[Agema]

Correct, because I understand the deficiency of ad hominum criticism.

You selectively employ it against ideologies you disapprove of, like most people: you've littered this forum with hundreds of ad hominems. And thus how telling it is you selectively ignore it for racists.

 

[Silvanus]

If ICE detainers are unconstitutional as you say they are, then they wouldn't be a thing because they would be unconstitutional.

If murder was illegal, it wouldn't exist 'cos it would be illegal! So it must be legal. QED losers.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

If murder was illegal, it wouldn't exist 'cos it would be illegal! So it must be legal. QED losers.

A government agency issuing something that is unconstitutional is not a thing...

 

[Asita]

Those seeking asylum do not have to be granted access to the US for their cases to be heard.

Once again: What you were complaining about for CBP One was it being used to assist in scheduling the case to be heard at all. Its point and purpose in this context is to let people request appointments for their cases to be heard in an orderly fashion.

There's numerous instances of criminals being put back on the streets because ICE detainers were not honored. If ICE detainers are unconstitutional as you say they are, then they wouldn't be a thing because they would be unconstitutional.

...Phoenix, this is literally our conversation right now:

You: "Sanctuary cities put criminals back on the streets just to spite ICE by rejecting their detainers."
Me: "No...that's a mischaracterization of the cities following the law by not holding people past their release date unless there is cause or a judicial warrant, which is constitutionally required. The law required that since neither of those conditions was met, the people had to be released from custody."
You: "Well if that was the case then those ICE detainers wouldn't be honored!
Me: "Which is precisely why they were not."

Or to put it more directly:

Me: "They didn't release them 'just because they didn't want to cooperate with ICE'. They released them because they legally had to."
You: "Nuh-uh! If they legally had to, they wouldn't hold them!"
Me: "...Correct. Which is why they didn't."

Your argument is self-refuting.

The point you are still missing is that an ICE detainer alone is not sufficient legal basis to continue custody, so therefore when lawful custody ends the person must be released unless there's a warrant or other authority that provides basis beyond ICE's say so. And that what's being misrepresented as so-called Sanctuary Cities "not honoring ICE detainers and allowing criminals back on the streets for really no reason outside of not wanting to cooperate with ICE" is actually the cities rightly recognizing that the detainer alone was insufficient legal basis to hold the people in question.

Now, ICE detainers are real federal requests, but courts have repeatedly found that holding someone beyond their lawful release time solely on the basis of an ICE detainer, without probable cause or a judicial warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment.

That’s exactly why many "sanctuary" jurisdictions have their policies: because of those lawsuits and court rulings.

It's not that they "refuse to cooperate" because they "like criminals" or "don't want to cooperate with ICE". It's that they cannot legally continue detaining someone after the law otherwise dictates they must be released.

Also, saying "criminals are put back on the streets" is rhetorically misleading. In many of these cases, the person:

1) already served their sentence,
2) posted bail,
3) had charges dropped,
or
4) otherwise reached the point where state/local law required release.

Because that's what our legal system demands. If the law says that the person is free to go, the courts cannot keep them incarcerated just because ICE sent out an administrative warrant as a detainer. Overriding that requires a judicial warrant.

An ICE detainer is not the same thing.

An ICE detainer is a civil request that a local jail incarcerate someone until ICE can take custody. Local law enforcement is bound by the Fourth Amendment, which requires probable cause for continued detention.

So let me spell this out for you in plainly, because this is important:

If a person’s state/local custody authority has ended (sentence completed, bail posted, charges dropped, etc.), then the government can’t keep holding them solely on a civil ICE detainer without risking unconstitutional detention.

Local authorities generally can’t hold someone past their scheduled release time solely on a detainer request without a judicial warrant, because doing so can implicate the Fourth Amendment That’s why such detainers are honored when there is independent legal authority to continue custody (such as a judicial warrant or statutory basis), and not honored when that basis for continued incarceration does not exist.

So let's break that down:

• If someone is still serving a sentence or is being held on local charges, ICE involvement doesn’t override that process.
• If someone is eligible for release (charges dropped, bail posted, sentence complete), the jail often must release them under the law.
• ICE may still arrest them afterward, but the local jail may not legally be allowed to extend detention just on request.

You're acting as if not honoring ICE detainers amounts to early release from lawful custody, when that's just not the case. Detainers ask that the jail hold a person beyond their normal release time. It's not releasing someone early, ignoring a court sentence, or freeing someone who otherwise has a legal basis to be held.

What it means is that the jail releases the person when their local legal custody ends (sentence complete, bail posted, charges dropped, etc.) and does not extend detention solely on ICE’s request.

 

[Schadrach]

There's numerous instances of criminals being put back on the streets because ICE detainers were not honored.

Immigration violations are civil, not criminal. Being an illegal immigrant does not make you a criminal by definition. Or are you saying law enforcement is releasing people they otherwise would have held for normal criminal enforcement reasons solely because ICE requested they be held?

If ICE detainers are unconstitutional as you say they are, then they wouldn't be a thing because they would be unconstitutional.

I find it wild to watch current right wingers argue in favor of the idea that federal troops should be able to sign their own warrants to disappear anyone they want, and once in custody should be allowed to ship them off to torture camps in foreign countries indefinitely with no real process all because they can't imagine it ever being abused because it's right wingers doing it. Bonus points because those same federal troops have claimed in court that race or saying something in a language that is not English are grounds to detain someone.

 

[Thaluikhain]

A government agency issuing something that is unconstitutional is not a thing...

 

[Silvanus]

A government agency issuing something that is unconstitutional is not a thing...

I believe you yourself have argued that Biden did unconstitutional things.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Once again: What you were complaining about for CBP One was it being used to assist in scheduling the case to be heard at all. Its point and purpose in this context is to let people request appointments for their cases to be heard in an orderly fashion.



...Phoenix, this is literally our conversation right now:

You: "Sanctuary cities put criminals back on the streets just to spite ICE by rejecting their detainers."
Me: "No...that's a mischaracterization of the cities following the law by not holding people past their release date unless there is cause or a judicial warrant, which is constitutionally required. The law required that since neither of those conditions was met, the people had to be released from custody."
You: "Well if that was the case then those ICE detainers wouldn't be honored!
Me: "Which is precisely why they were not."

Or to put it more directly:

Me: "They didn't release them 'just because they didn't want to cooperate with ICE'. They released them because they legally had to."
You: "Nuh-uh! If they legally had to, they wouldn't hold them!"
Me: "...Correct. Which is why they didn't."

Your argument is self-refuting.

The point you are still missing is that an ICE detainer alone is not sufficient legal basis to continue custody, so therefore when lawful custody ends the person must be released unless there's a warrant or other authority that provides basis beyond ICE's say so. And that what's being misrepresented as so-called Sanctuary Cities "not honoring ICE detainers and allowing criminals back on the streets for really no reason outside of not wanting to cooperate with ICE" is actually the cities rightly recognizing that the detainer alone was insufficient legal basis to hold the people in question.

Now, ICE detainers are real federal requests, but courts have repeatedly found that holding someone beyond their lawful release time solely on the basis of an ICE detainer, without probable cause or a judicial warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment.

That’s exactly why many "sanctuary" jurisdictions have their policies: because of those lawsuits and court rulings.

It's not that they "refuse to cooperate" because they "like criminals" or "don't want to cooperate with ICE". It's that they cannot legally continue detaining someone after the law otherwise dictates they must be released.

Also, saying "criminals are put back on the streets" is rhetorically misleading. In many of these cases, the person:

1) already served their sentence,
2) posted bail,
3) had charges dropped,
or
4) otherwise reached the point where state/local law required release.

Because that's what our legal system demands. If the law says that the person is free to go, the courts cannot keep them incarcerated just because ICE sent out an administrative warrant as a detainer. Overriding that requires a judicial warrant.

An ICE detainer is not the same thing.

An ICE detainer is a civil request that a local jail incarcerate someone until ICE can take custody. Local law enforcement is bound by the Fourth Amendment, which requires probable cause for continued detention.

So let me spell this out for you in plainly, because this is important:

If a person’s state/local custody authority has ended (sentence completed, bail posted, charges dropped, etc.), then the government can’t keep holding them solely on a civil ICE detainer without risking unconstitutional detention.

Local authorities generally can’t hold someone past their scheduled release time solely on a detainer request without a judicial warrant, because doing so can implicate the Fourth Amendment That’s why such detainers are honored when there is independent legal authority to continue custody (such as a judicial warrant or statutory basis), and not honored when that basis for continued incarceration does not exist.

So let's break that down:

• If someone is still serving a sentence or is being held on local charges, ICE involvement doesn’t override that process.
• If someone is eligible for release (charges dropped, bail posted, sentence complete), the jail often must release them under the law.
• ICE may still arrest them afterward, but the local jail may not legally be allowed to extend detention just on request.

You're acting as if not honoring ICE detainers amounts to early release from lawful custody, when that's just not the case. Detainers ask that the jail hold a person beyond their normal release time. It's not releasing someone early, ignoring a court sentence, or freeing someone who otherwise has a legal basis to be held.

What it means is that the jail releases the person when their local legal custody ends (sentence complete, bail posted, charges dropped, etc.) and does not extend detention solely on ICE’s request.

Asylum seekers using the app were being allowed into the country just because they used the app.

If these ICE detainers are unconstitutional, they issue thousands of these, and many jurisdictions do honored them, then surely there's a case where a judge has ruled these are unconstitutional and that would require ICE to cease issuing these detainers. Where is this simple proof to show that this is unconstitutional? Instead of writing paragraphs explaining how wrong I am, just link to proof of said thing being unconstitutional.

Immigration violations are civil, not criminal. Being an illegal immigrant does not make you a criminal by definition. Or are you saying law enforcement is releasing people they otherwise would have held for normal criminal enforcement reasons solely because ICE requested they be held?



I find it wild to watch current right wingers argue in favor of the idea that federal troops should be able to sign their own warrants to disappear anyone they want, and once in custody should be allowed to ship them off to torture camps in foreign countries indefinitely with no real process all because they can't imagine it ever being abused because it's right wingers doing it. Bonus points because those same federal troops have claimed in court that race or saying something in a language that is not English are grounds to detain someone.

There's numerous instances of illegal immigrants being released back to the streets after serving a sentence for a criminal crime because the police didn't hand them over to ICE.

I didn't say I liked the process, I'm just explaining how it works. ICE does not need to utilize the judicial branch at all, that's how the law/act was written.

I believe you yourself have argued that Biden did unconstitutional things.

All presidents do but if something is ruled to be unconstitutional, you can't keep doing it. If ICE detainers are unconstitutional, how are they still able to issue them?