ICE Detainers Unconstitutional

Discussion in 'In the News' started by Nemo, Jul 24, 2017.

  1. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    12,798
    814
    113
    At least per the Massachusetts State Constitution.

    Nemo

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/mass-supreme-court-ruling-ice-detainers/


     
  2. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    Except for the federal law broken by crossing the border illegally...
     

  3. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    Which isn't a state violation.
     
  4. codegeek

    codegeek codegeek reincarnate

    901
    9
    18
    right. States are under no obligation to enforce Federal law, nor are they under any obligation to help the Federal government violate our Constitutional rights.
     
  5. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    Illegal immigrants have no more rights than any other felon. A cozy cell and 3 budget meals a day until transportation to their country of origin is arranged.
     
  6. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    So, lemme get this straight....

    If a foreign spy were to be found in Massachusetts by a state or county law enforcement official, they would be powerless to apprehend such spy?
    What if it were a North Korean 'death squad'?

    If a Massachusetts law enforcement officer happened to come upon a goose hunter with a pickup bed full of Canada geese (protected under the Federal Wildlife Act) out of season, he'd be powerless to do anything because the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts and the Code of Massachusetts Regulations do not specifically make it illegal in the state of Massachusetts?


    I need a little guidance on this one.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
  7. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Sigh. You didn't read the case, did you?

    The law in question does not even attempt to enforce or impose an obligation upon the states. It is merely a request, and participation by state officers is voluntary.

    Massachusetts, the state in question, was not under any obligation. The officers in question voluntarily complied with the federal request for a hold.

    The illegal alien criminal who was arrested on a state criminal charge, ROBBERY, after it was dismissed, was held in a city cell longer (the request is for "up to two days") due to a federal immigration civil detainer. This is to give the feds time to get over there and get him. The feds wanted to remove this particular criminal from the United States. This removal process is strictly civil in nature.

    The state was not objecting to any of this.

    The illegal alien's lawyer objected to him being held once the robbery charge was dismissed.

    This is not a federalism decision. Rather, the court held that Massachusetts law does not provide any authority for holding illegal aliens on federal immigration detainers once a case is dismissed. This is because the detainers are civil and not criminal in nature. That's it. Nothing more. The legislature in Massachusetts could fix this if they want to do so. In addition, if the feds had criminal charges against him, the result would have been different.

    By the way, the dismissal was technical in nature, not a determination that the illegal alien was not guilty of robbery.

    Interesting note: The illegal alien at issue in this case was taken into federal custody and deported. :rotfl:
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2017
  8. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    You didn't read the case, either. :)
     
  9. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    So long as the feds get there very, very quickly . . .
     
  10. mrhutch

    mrhutch Well-Known Member

    1,423
    188
    63
    The faster the better
     
  11. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    12,586
    1,694
    113
    For starters they probably entered the country legally.........
     
  12. codegeek

    codegeek codegeek reincarnate

    901
    9
    18
    I don't usually read the "cases" as it is not my area of expertise. I usually wait for someone much smarter than I, such as yourself, to come along and explain it to me.

    I didn't say it did. My response was more directed at the comment above mine and was a simple statement of fact. Now, one can argue that my comment may lack relevance to the topic at hand, and in the future, I'll try to keep closer to the bulls eye.
     
  13. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    I realized that before I wrote my post, but I thought the information I was writing would be of value anyway, since I did not expect anybody else was actually reading the case, either.
     
  14. Taurus92

    Taurus92 Well-Known Member

    9,458
    111
    63
    Seriously, what does this have to do with RUSSIANS? Nothing else matters. News flash!

    I bet if they found a Russian here illegally, they would have no problem holding them, and it would be news for months.