Why do people flee from ICE?

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

Could you please clarify what you mean in step one? It sounds like you are saying a deportation comes first then a hearing is held. Did you mean to say the word detained?

 

Not everyone accused of immigration crimes receives a hearing in front of an immigration judge. They have been using a fast track system more and more that allows an officer to make the decision instead of a judge and where no lawyer is allowed. 

 

I just feel like immigration crime should be treated like any other crime. The same due process rules should apply to all alleged criminal activity. 

 

 


These aren't steps but several differnent reasons to be deported.

 

In #1 that is a convicted criminal.  Felonies and misdeamonors are deportable offenses.  They get a hearing with their attorney in immigration court.  If the judge finds grounds that person is deportable.

 

The next are people being deported after a final order of deportation has been given.  The illegal getes a hearing with an attorney with an immigration judge.  If the judge determines there are grounds for deportation they get deported.  If the illegal doesn't show up for the hearing they forfeit their hearing rights.

 

In spite of what some people claim; nobody gets deported without a hearing. So they get due process.  And immigration courts are legal.

 

I'm not going to listen to, let alone obey, ANY of your demands.

 

So once again kevin lies.

Originally posted by: tom

I'm not going to listen to, let alone obey, ANY of your demands.

 

So once again kevin lies.


You obeyed my command! Good doggy!

 

There are hundreds of reports of ICE detainees' civil rights being ignored. I can't make you intelligent enough to look them up.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

..........But I do have a question. Of course, Trump has given carte blanche as well as total legal immunity to his thugs. But can't the states prosecute them? Why haven't they?

 

Also...can't ICE as well as the individual thugs be sued in civil court for damages regarding violations of civil rights? Why hasn't that happened?..............

 

 


Yes. State prosecutors can charge federal agents with crimes. 

 

FBI agent Lon Horiuchi was charged for the unjustified killing of Vicky Weaver and the shooting of Kevin Harris and Randy Weaver. 

 

The federal government sued claiming immunity under the supremacy clause and other things. Ultimately the court ruled in favor  of the State of Idaho and said the prosecution can continue.

 

By the time the ruling was issued the State of Idaho had a new prosecutor that decided to drop the charges. 

 

As for civil cases federal agents have qualified immunity against 1983 lawsuits. Qualified immunity can be overcome if the actions are "clearly established" as violations. 

 

What "clearly established" means it's still being debated. 

 


Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

Yes. State prosecutors can charge federal agents with crimes. 

 

FBI agent Lon Horiuchi was charged for the unjustified killing of Vicky Weaver and the shooting of Kevin Harris and Randy Weaver. 

 

The federal government sued claiming immunity under the supremacy clause and other things. Ultimately the court ruled in favor  of the State of Idaho and said the prosecution can continue.

 

By the time the ruling was issued the State of Idaho had a new prosecutor that decided to drop the charges. 

 

As for civil cases federal agents have qualified immunity against 1983 lawsuits. Qualified immunity can be overcome if the actions are "clearly established" as violations. 

 

What "clearly established" means it's still being debated. 

 


I'm surprised there haven't been enough cases to make this settled law. I would have thought that there would be lots and lots of precedents.

 

Now that I think of it, it might be fairly rare in US history that a federal agent commits a clear crime and the federal government refuses to prosecute him. It would take a President who has no respect or regard for the law.

 

Like we have now.

 

I would think that a federal refusal to prosecute would render the immunity clause moot. If the feds refuse to execute a duty, then the states should be ipso facto able to assume it.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

I'm surprised there haven't been enough cases to make this settled law. I would have thought that there would be lots and lots of precedents.

 

Now that I think of it, it might be fairly rare in US history that a federal agent commits a clear crime and the federal government refuses to prosecute him. It would take a President who has no respect or regard for the law.

 

Like we have now.

 

I would think that a federal refusal to prosecute would render the immunity clause moot. If the feds refuse to execute a duty, then the states should be ipso facto able to assume it.


There are other examples of federal agents breaking a law and not being prosecuted. 

 

The argument that the supremacy clause shields federal actors from criminal prosecution is erroneous from the start. There is nothing in the plain reading of the text that would suggest any sort of immunity. It simply states that state and local laws cannot supersede federal laws or treaties made in accordance with the Constitution. 

Originally posted by: tom

Was he deported?  No.  Accidents like this happen all the time with law enforcement


You seem to think the only thing that matters is whether he was deported. I never mentioned anyone being deported, but you chose to bring it up as a strawman to create a rebuttal to my post.

 

I hold law enforcement to a much higher standard than you do. Is it because he's asian it's OK to invade his home without a warrant?

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

There are other examples of federal agents breaking a law and not being prosecuted. 

 

The argument that the supremacy clause shields federal actors from criminal prosecution is erroneous from the start. There is nothing in the plain reading of the text that would suggest any sort of immunity. It simply states that state and local laws cannot supersede federal laws or treaties made in accordance with the Constitution. 


Then why are clear violations of the law by federal agents so rarely prosecuted? Like now?

Originally posted by: MaxFlavor

You seem to think the only thing that matters is whether he was deported. I never mentioned anyone being deported, but you chose to bring it up as a strawman to create a rebuttal to my post.

 

I hold law enforcement to a much higher standard than you do. Is it because he's asian it's OK to invade his home without a warrant?


I wonder if Tom would be forgiving of the "accident" if he was thought to be guilty of a crime, dragged away and imprisoned, and a week later his captors said "Oopsy" and kicked him out into the street without so much as an apology.

 

To answer your question, because Tom won't, he indeed does think that not being white means you have no civil rights.

 

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Then why are clear violations of the law by federal agents so rarely prosecuted? Like now?


I don't really know. Part of me feels it's because The federal government has been allowed to grow much larger and stronger than intended over the years. 

 

The federal government (unconstitutionally IMHO) is in a position of being able to control and withhold funding given to the states. States are scared to lose funding or to otherwise alienate the feds.

 

I don't believe the framers ever intended for the federal government to be funding the states, I think they fear this very thing. 

 

Constitution wasn't quite strong enough in its limitation of power to the executive but that's a different story altogether. 

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now