SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Massachusetts highest court rules that courts and police in the state can't enforce immigration detainers issued by the Federal Government.
Main Page The Lounge Massachusetts highest court rules that courts and police in the state can't enforce immigration detainers issued by the Federal Government.Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Member |
Well we're one step closer to a banana republic. http://www.bostonherald.com/ne...tts_immigration_case | ||
|
| Member |
might want to check your thread title ... the wording is convoluted ----------------------------------- Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. | |||
|
| Member |
Fixed....spell check | |||
|
Member |
OK.....the Feds can play their game. No more Federal Funding for Mass. if they're going to OVERTLY disobey Federal Immigration law. Simple fix.....next! "If you’re a leader, you lead the way. Not just on the easy ones; you take the tough ones too…” – MAJ Richard D. Winters (1918-2011), E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil... Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel." - Isaiah 5:20,24 | |||
|
Tinker Sailor Soldier Pie |
They're saying that they can't? As in they are forbidden by the State from enforcing immigration law? WTH? ~Alan Acta Non Verba NRA Life Member (Patron) God, Family, Guns, Country Men will fight and die to protect women... because women protect everything else. ~Andrew Klavan | |||
|
| Member |
Need the SF lawyers. What's the difference between a civil immigration detainer, a criminal detainer, and a criminal arrest warrant? Being here illegally is a civil, not criminal issue???? | |||
|
Member |
Great news. I'm telling all my illegal friends Mass just became a sanctuary state. ========================================== Just my 2¢ ____________________________ Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right ♫♫♫ | |||
|
| Member |
Feels like we're coming back to the states rights vs federal rights. I thought that got hashed out about 150 years ago. | |||
|
| Member |
Not a lawyer but how it was explained to me is that a detainer is nothing more than a piece of paper asking you to hold someone. A detainer has not been signed by a judge and does not have any criminal charges backing it up. State and local govt. dont want to be responsible for these people when there are no criminal charges. If you know the person is illegal and you know their identity and are issuing a detainer in their name why not just make it an arrest warrant. Seems this would solve the entire problem. I just cant figure out the reason why they only want to issue a detainer and not warrants. There has to be more to it. | |||
|
Age Quod Agis |
Not particularly surprising. I have read only the article, not the ruling, but the way I read it is that Massachusetts does not have the legal power to hold someone in custody absent a criminal warrant. That's it. Most immigration violations are civil in nature; like a traffic ticket, or an IRS fine. The court is saying that Massachusetts does not have the legal power to hold someone in custody for a civil matter. Fundamentally, this is a conservative decision. The court didn't find that the state didn't have to hold the person, it found that it did not have the power to hold them. I.e., Massachusetts would have to pass a law empowering its law officers and courts to arrest and hold persons in the state at the request of federal authorities for federal civil matters. You don't want this. You don't want a state empowered to help the feds collect EPA fines, IRS fines and penalties, etc. In this case, it's an immigration matter, but it isn't a sanctuary thing, it's a state power thing, and in this case it is a limitation on state power which we generally regard as a good thing. "I vowed to myself to fight against evil more completely and more wholeheartedly than I ever did before. . . . That’s the only way to pay back part of that vast debt, to live up to and try to fulfill that tremendous obligation." Alfred Hornik, Sunday, December 2, 1945 to his family, on his continuing duty to others for surviving WW II. | |||
|
| Help! Help! I'm being repressed!  |
I think this would be the answer, but it is up to the locals to want to participate. https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/287g | |||
|
Step by step walk the thousand mile road |
As I understand it, Artie is dead on. Now, the feds can play this game too. 8 USC § 1325 - Improper entry by alien provides for a criminal penalty for entering the US in contravention of our immigration laws. Thus, all ICE needs to do to render the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling moot is establish a policy that says everyone, without exception, believed to be in the US in contravention of our laws, will have a criminal warrant issued under 8 USC 1325. That punts it back into a criminal status, and the Massachusetts Supreme Court says they ca hold people on those charges until the matter is resolved. Nice is overrated "It's every freedom-loving individual's duty to lie to the government." Airsoftguy, June 29, 2018 | |||
|
Equal Opportunity Mocker |
Will that work, since entering vs staying here is the issue? ________________________________________________ "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving." -Dr. Adrian Rogers | |||
|
Don't Panic |
In other words, if the State's done holding you, they won't continue to hold you, absent evidence the Feds want you for a criminal offense. That seems logical, actually. I did not know they were issuing civil papers for immigration holds.  Perhaps the Feds need to up their game and issue criminal warrants/detainers rather than civil ones for these folks. | |||
|
| Member |
The ruling makes sense to me. I don't trust this state enough for them to be able to hold me or anyone else without a warrant. Let the fed issue an arrest warrant. Problem solved. | |||
|
Ammoholic |
What about those that enter legally and then overstay their visas? Jesse Sic Semper Tyrannis | |||
|
Member |
Time to build the wall on the Southern border of New Hampshire "You know, Scotland has its own martial arts. Yeah, it's called Fuck You. It's mostly just head butting and then kicking people when they're on the ground." - Charlie MacKenzie (Mike Myers in "So I Married an Axe Murderer") | |||
|
Irksome Whirling Dervish |
The detainer was more or less a working courtesy between state and fed LEO organizations requesting a heads up if someone the feds wanted was going to be released. It was a request and not a command or an order. Just a working courtesy. You can and properly should request an arrest warrat but that requires the affiant to fill out the affidavit and then go find a judge who will sign it. Then you can have your perp but his still being there requires timing of sort to be standing at the jail when he's released. You can release someone anytime within a 24 hour window and still call it a timely release just like you get credit for a day served if you're booked a minute before midnight. The point is that if the state or local agency has a directive not to honor the detainer hold requests, they likley aren't going to accomodate the feds even if the fed obtain a warrant. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
SIGforum.com Main Page The Lounge Massachusetts highest court rules that courts and police in the state can't enforce immigration detainers issued by the Federal Government.
Main Page The Lounge Massachusetts highest court rules that courts and police in the state can't enforce immigration detainers issued by the Federal Government.© SIGforum 2024