Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

 

There’s simply nothing to do with illegal immigrants who keep getting arrested over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Lots of second guessing, maybe the seventh time is a charm. Nothing would stick. 

Also, we are really committed to building community trust, so much so that we promise we won’t call la migra on suspected gun felons who frighten victims into leaving the country unless we ABSOLUTELY are required to by law. If we don’t have to, we won’t. That’s how committed we are to community trust.

What is the motivation here to look for ways to excuse the clearly inexcusable? If you are looking for how democracy dies, then admissions that it cannot be used to deliver even the bare minimum of functional governance, and that failure is preferable is a good place to start. I promise there were ample opportunities to jail or remove this person without violating any fundamental rights. 

Posted

That's a bit of a straw man.

The premise is that this guy is a dangerous criminal and should have been detained by ICE, else he wouldn't have committed a murder.

The first part is debatable until after he committed the murder.  Whether an ICE detainer would have stopped it is also speculation.  All of it an amazing application of hindsight bias, like most bail decisions that come under fire.

And we're not talking about whether the guy should have been deported, vel non.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 

There’s simply nothing to do with illegal immigrants who keep getting arrested over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Lots of second guessing, maybe the seventh time is a charm. Nothing would stick. 

Also, we are really committed to building community trust, so much so that we promise we won’t call la migra on suspected gun felons who frighten victims into leaving the country unless we ABSOLUTELY are required to by law. If we don’t have to, we won’t. That’s how committed we are to community trust.

What is the motivation here to look for ways to excuse the clearly inexcusable? If you are looking for how democracy dies, then admissions that it cannot be used to deliver even the bare minimum of functional governance, and that failure is preferable is a good place to start. I promise there were ample opportunities to jail or remove this person without violating any fundamental rights. 

That is a complete non-sequitur to the posts your responding to. Your turn to justifying authoritarian, rights infringing policies at every turn is very disturbing.  

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

That is a complete non-sequitur to posts your responding to. Your turn to justifying authoritarian, rights offending policies at every turn is very disturbing.  

Not every turn, but when it comes to criminal types of any stripe, he's a regular Bill Otis.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That is a complete non-sequitur to the posts your responding to. Your turn to justifying authoritarian, rights infringing policies at every turn is very disturbing.  

Can you explain what right would have been violated by calling ICE and having this person removed before he killed someone instead of after? 
 

You can just put criminals in jail and deport non-authorized immigrants who keep getting arrested. It’s really fine. 

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Can you explain what right would have been violated by calling ICE and having this person removed before he killed someone instead of after? 
 

You can just put criminals in jail and deport non-authorized immigrants who keep getting arrested. It’s really fine. 

1) holding someone without a warrant is a violation of rights. 


2) If you're a precog that can predict crime, maybe it makes sense to prejudge. We don't get to do that here in the USA. 

 

3) Whether he should have been deported before is irrelevant here.

 

4) The release here despite the requested hold isn't really the result of an immigrant friendly policy. It is the result of an administrative and cost one. ICE issues these holds and then never collects. These shifts the costs of holding someone from the federal system to state and local authorities.

 

5) More importantly, ICE holds lack any due process protections. ICE doesn't have to prove the person is an immigrant. It doesn't have to prove they could be legally deported. You could be arrested tomorrow for a traffic violation. ICE could then request you be held pending deportation. That ICE has no legal authority to do that would be irrelevant. That ICE may never both to collect you would be irrelevant. Under your distorted and authorities view of the world, you could be disappeared to prison without any consideration by judge or jury. You may recognize where that system is "justice" is practiced. But it isn't supposed to be in the USA. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It is a neat trick for DAs to constantly drop charges on an unauthorized immigrant and then claim that it’s just prejudice and authoritarianism to want someone to be in jail and/or deported. 
 



image.png.86367989f28dc26711dc892d83dd8270.png

 

How on earth is that responsive? I don't give a shit if he gets deported. I don't know why they dropped the previous charges. Usually it is because, and I know this is crazy, they either didn't have sufficient evidence or the person was actually, you know, innocent. 

Again, your posts address a point no one is making. But if due process doesn't protect the worst among us, if doesn't protect anyone. Maybe you want to live in a country where anyone can be disappeared off the streets without process. I don't. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

How on earth is that responsive? I don't give a shit if he gets deported. I don't know why they dropped the previous charges. Usually it is because, and I know this is crazy, they either didn't have sufficient evidence or the person was actually, you know, innocent. 

Again, your posts address a point no one is making. But if due process doesn't protect the worst among us, if doesn't protect anyone. Maybe you want to live in a country where anyone can be disappeared off the streets without process. I don't. 

It didn’t get prosecuted bed cause the Fairfax DA regularly declines to prosecute cases for political reasons. He’s made it clear that putting people who do crimes in prison is a bigger problem than the crime they do. 

Deportation and detention by ICE is not a violation of due process. We do this regularly. We did it before Trump. We will do it after Trump. 
 

Sending something to CECOT is a violation of due process. Sending you to your home country, if you don’t have authorization to be in America, is not a violation of due process. It’s not even a criminal punishment. 
 

You seem to be under the impression that there is no happy medium between putting a bag on someone’s head and disappearing them forever and you know—- just putting people who don’t have a visa or or a green card and keep getting arrested on a plane back home. Seven strikes and you’re out maybe? 

Posted

I don't think anyone's saying this guy shouldn't have been deported.  That's not the issue here.

The tweet implies that if they's just honored the immigration hold, he wouldn't have committed murder.

So, people have offered legitimate reasons for not honoring immigration holds.

People have also questioned whether the narrative that this guy is a dangerous criminal is accurate, apart from any other bases for deportation.

And, if it's so important to deport criminals instead of making a public spectacle out of deporting otherwise innocent people, they could have sent a couple of guard people down from DC to pick this guy up.  Or a couple of ordinary ICE agents.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

It didn’t get prosecuted bed cause the Fairfax DA regularly declines to prosecute cases for political reasons. He’s made it clear that putting people who do crimes in prison is a bigger problem than the crime they do. 

Deportation and detention by ICE is not a violation of due process. We do this regularly. We did it before Trump. We will do it after Trump. 
 

Sending something to CECOT is a violation of due process. Sending you to your home country, if you don’t have authorization to be in America, is not a violation of due process. It’s not even a criminal punishment. 
 

You seem to be under the impression that there is no happy medium between putting a bag on someone’s head and disappearing them forever and you know—- just putting people who don’t have a visa or or a green card and keep getting arrested on a plane back home. Seven strikes and you’re out maybe? 

Stop being dense. I don't care if he is deported. I really truly don't. But I absolutely know people should not be forced to stay in jail because ICE requested a hold. There is absolutely zero due process associated with that. Again, you could be arrested for a traffic violation tomorrow and ICE could request you be held indefinitely. Do you think that is proper? Do you think that is due process? 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Stop being dense. I don't care if he is deported. I really truly don't. But I absolutely know people should not be forced to stay in jail because ICE requested a hold. There is absolutely zero due process associated with that. Again, you could be arrested for a traffic violation tomorrow and ICE could request you be held indefinitely. Do you think that is proper? Do you think that is due process? 

And they don't have a great record of accuracy in their determinations of who should be held or not.

Funny thing, though.  The detention request does say its only 48 hours.  So, if that were routinely followed, this would be less offensive. https://immigrantjustice.org/for-attorneys/resources/form-1-247a-immigration-detainer-sample/

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Stop being dense. I don't care if he is deported. I really truly don't. But I absolutely know people should be forced to stay in jail because ICE requested a hold. There is absolutely zero due process associated with that. Again, you could be arrested for a traffic violation tomorrow and ICE could request you be held indefinitely. Do you think that is proper? Do you think that is due process? 

What if we just did the 48 hours that comes with a standard ICE hold, and maybe a phone call. Just try it on for size. Maybe only when the person has been arrested for a gun crime to start off. 
 

Quote

People have also questioned whether the narrative that this guy is a dangerous criminal is accurate, apart from any other bases for deportation.

Are you serious with this? He was arrested on a gun charge, his victim got scared and fled the country, and he shot someone a day after getting out of jail. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

What if we just did the 48 hours that comes with a standard ICE hold, and maybe a phone call. Just try it on for size. Maybe only when the person has been arrested for a gun crime to start off. 
 

Are you serious with this? He was arrested on a gun charge, his victim got scared and fled the country, and he shot someone a day after getting out of jail. 

What if ICE went to the trouble of getting an actual warrant? Try to follow actual due process rather than just make shit up because it would be more convenient to disappear people? Why not try that? Why are you wasting time arguing a strawman (not wanting any deportations) to justify authoritarian bullshit? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What if ICE went to the trouble of getting an actual warrant? Try to follow actual due process rather than just make shit up because it would be more convenient to disappear people? Why not try that? Why are you wasting time arguing a strawman (not wanting any deportations) to justify authoritarian bullshit? 

A detainer for 48 hours is not “disappearing people” and have been executed for years under all sorts of administrations. It’s not a violation of due process. Now that is a fucking straw man. 
 

You do realize that actual deportation warrants aren’t signed by judges right? 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

A detainer for 48 hours is not “disappearing people” and have been executed for years under all sorts of administrations. It’s not a violation of due process. Now that is a fucking straw man. 
 

You do realize that actual deportation warrants aren’t signed by judges right? 

They have always been a problem. Again, the reason the hold requests aren't a honored is because ICE rarely bothers to follow through. The holds just get reissued, leaving detainees in limbo without any due process, and leaving local authorities with the bill. Holds are an invention. They are made up. They mean absolutely nothing. If getting a warrant isn't a big deal, then why aren't you mad about ICE not doing that?  Stop being lazy and fucking think. 

Please, tell me, why can't ICE just get a warrant? Why is that a problem for you?

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Like 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Please, tell me, why can't ICE just get a warrant? Why is that a problem for you?

Because I was satisfied that this tool used by presidents Bush and Obama did not turn the U.S. into an authoritarian hellscape, and I believe that a lot of the meltdowns over it are what led to a very strong reaction the other way. I have a long enough memory to remember these accusations lobbed against Obama. I believe you are confusing advocacy with reality when it comes to the rationale for not cooperating on this stuff. 

I would happily settle for “48 hours, then you get cut loose. No extensions.”  I’d happily settle for just a phone call (which many counties won’t do). 

Posted
Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

Because I was satisfied that this tool used by presidents Bush and Obama did not turn the U.S. into an authoritarian hellscape, and I believe that a lot of the meltdowns over it are what led to a very strong reaction the other way. I have a long enough memory to remember these accusations lobbed against Obama. I believe you are confusing advocacy with reality when it comes to the rationale for not cooperating on this stuff. 

I would happily settle for “48 hours, then you get cut loose. No extensions.”  I’d happily settle for just a phone call (which many counties won’t do). 

If we want to make that an official thing with all due process protections associated with it, I'd be perfectly fine with it too. But it isn't just 48 hours. And never has been. It is whatever time frame they want, however many times they want it.  Just because it has been done in the past doesn't mean it was ever proper. It is a dangerous process without any procedural safeguards. When people are being detained for months at a time based upon these hold requests, you're god damn right I'm going to sound an alarm bell. There is a simple, established procedure for someone to be legally held pending deportation. It provides some level of assurance that the government has sufficient information to justify the detention, striking that constitutional balance between protecting rights and the concerns of the state  Why don't we make the government follow that rather than let it do whatever the fuck it wants because it is easier? 

Posted

I think you are conflating the 48 hour detainer with actual ICE detention once removal proceedings are initiated. I do not see an epidemic of people held for months or weeks on ICE detainers in local jails. I think the burden needs to be on you to show some data that is actually happening with regularity.  

Posted
Just now, 956 Worldwide said:

I think you are conflating the 48 hour detainer with actual ICE detention once removal proceedings are initiated. I do not see an epidemic of people held for months or weeks on ICE detainers in local jails. I think the burden needs to be on you to show some data that is actually happening with regularity.  

1) you think wrong. I'm not.

2) Twice already posted that and you skipped over it while you were busy attacking strawmen 

3) I actually don't give a shit if it is happening regularly at all. If it happens one time, it is bad. And if the process is subject to easy abuse, it is bad. If the process is not rooted in, you know, laws, it is bad. This is all of those things. It is just a practice ICE decided it could do and everyone went along with it.

4) you still refuse to answer my question. Why not make the government do the thing the law actually says it needs to do? Why exactly do we need to let ICE just make up its own rules? If you want a 48 hour hold law, pass one. Doesn't seem that unreasonable, does it?

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Twice did not post any data, he posted a link to the detainer form itself which also had a link to a settlement explainer. In neither one is there any data that local jails are holding people regularly for months on ICE detainers. I welcome that data if it exists. It has not been provided and I haven’t seen it. 

https://immigrantjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/gonzalez_settlement_explainer_4-16-25.pdf

The executive branch does not have to pass a law for every action it takes to further efficiency in implementing laws Congress passed. I’m unaware of any decision holding the detainer request itself to be unconstitutional or illegal. I have seen some courts side with some plaintiffs, mostly after the 48 hour hold. 
 

I think that is separate from how any single administration misuses procedures. 

 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The executive branch does not have to pass a law for every action it takes to further efficiency in implementing laws Congress passed. I’m unaware of any decision holding the detainer request itself to be unconstitutional or illegal. I have seen some courts side with some plaintiffs, mostly after the 48 hour hold. 
 

I think that is separate from how any single administration misuses procedures. 

 

My sweet summer child, let me introduce you to administrative law and process that accompanies its creation. Yes, even the executive branch has to jump through hoops in order to make regulations implementing a law. More importantly, the law has to actually authorize the executive's actions. 

48-hour detainers are, per the implementing regulation, voluntary requests to state and local authorities. Congress has not authorized the executive branch to actually detain someone without probable cause for removal, nor could it do so constitutionally. A voluntary request is not itself unconstitutional (actually, it can be without probable cause, see below). But agreeing to comply with one absolutely can be. And multiple courts have found constitutional violations when complying with such detainers and the attendant liability that goes with them. That is precisely why you have settlements. And that's why local authorities don't comply with them. Because when they listen to feds and don't have probable cause to detain someone, it is locals that are liable for the damages. 

Some cases for you to read since you apparently think there are no cases and no problem:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/12-3991/12-3991-2014-03-04.html (compliance with detainers aren't compulsory, and will not protect local authority from liability for complying with the detainer in violation of constitutional rights)

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-55175/20-55175-2020-09-11.html (where the settlement came from, certified classes related to unconstitutional enforcement of detainers)

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/14-1425/14-1425-2015-07-17.html (4th amendment requires probable cause to issue a detainer, no qualified immunity)

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10567130403344047032&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr (county violated 4th amendment by complying with detainer request without probable cause)

 

There are plenty more. What is disturbing is how many of these involve actual citizens being detained.  In short, detainer requests are bullshit. They have been issued in mass, bullshit fashion (read the full gonzalez opinion for a taste of that). They have been issued against citizens. People's rights have been violated. Any local authority complying with one without having independently satisfied itself that probably cause exists risks substantial liability. 

But sure, you think there is no problem so let's just have all local authorities lock anyone up that ICE asks, due process and facts be damned. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Like 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

My sweet summer child, let me introduce you to administrative law and process that accompanies its creation. Yes, even the executive branch has to jump through hoops in order to make regulations implementing a law. More importantly, the law has to actually authorize the executive's actions. 

48-hour detainers are, per the implementing regulation, voluntary requests to state and local authorities. Congress has not authorized the executive branch to actually detain someone without probable cause for removal, nor could it do so constitutionally. A voluntary request is not itself unconstitutional (actually, it can be without probable cause, see below). But agreeing to comply with one absolutely can be. And multiple courts have found constitutional violations when complying with such detainers and the attendant liability that goes with them. That is precisely why you have settlements. And that's why local authorities don't comply with them. Because when they listen to feds and don't have probable cause to detain someone, it is locals that are liable for the damages. 

Some cases for you to read since you apparently think there are no cases and no problem:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca3/12-3991/12-3991-2014-03-04.html (compliance with detainers aren't compulsory, and will not protect local authority from liability for complying with the detainer in violation of constitutional rights)

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/20-55175/20-55175-2020-09-11.html (where the settlement came from, certified classes related to unconstitutional enforcement of detainers)

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/14-1425/14-1425-2015-07-17.html (4th amendment requires probable cause to issue a detainer, no qualified immunity)

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10567130403344047032&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr (county violated 4th amendment by complying with detainer request without probable cause)

 

There are plenty more. What is disturbing is how many of these involve actual citizens being detained.  In short, detainer requests are bullshit. They have been issued in mass, bullshit fashion (read the full gonzalez opinion for a taste of that). They have been issued against citizens. People's rights have been violated. Any local authority complying with one without having independently satisfied itself that probably cause exists risks substantial liability. 

But sure, you think there is no problem so let's just have all local authorities lock anyone up that ICE asks, due process and facts be damned. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

None of those involve peiple who were detained in local jails for months or even weeks, or “disappeared off the street.”
 

They are people mistakenly or (as ruled in a decision) improperly detained for a few days, in any event less than a week. You argued that the former was happening.  The latter is a problem, certainly, but it is notably less egregious than the former and there are also tweaks and safeguards that can be implemented to prevent it. It is notable that Fairfax will refuse to do even the mild, settlement approved route of placing a phone call notification when someone is being released. 
 

I am going to nope out of this convo because you have a deep aversion to simply admitting you were mistaken about a significant question (or at least that the question isn’t settled); instead identifying a different problem and claiming that’s what you mean all along. It is exhausting and an unproductive way to have a conversation. 

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

None of those involve peiple who were detained in local jails for months or even weeks, or “disappeared off the street.”
 

They are people mistakenly or (as ruled in a decision) improperly detained for a few days, in any event less than a week. You argued that the former was happening.  The latter is a problem, certainly, but it is notably less egregious than the former and there are also tweaks and safeguards that can be implemented to prevent it. It is notable that Fairfax will refuse to do even the mild, settlement approved route of placing a phone call notification when someone is being released. 
 

I am going to nope out of this convo because you have a deep aversion to simply admitting you were mistaken about a significant question (or at least that the question isn’t settled); instead identifying a different problem and claiming that’s what you mean all along. It is exhausting and an unproductive way to have a conversation. 

You haven't read any of those cases. I know you haven't because this one: Roy v. Los Angeles County 2:12-cv-09012 (C.D. Cal.) | Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, involving a man detained for 80+ days is literally part of the Gonzalez case I gave to you. It was also provided to you earlier in the thread. 

You've refused to engage this topic honestly. You've had to lie and reframe my concern as merely being about people jailed for months or weeks. I've been very clear that my concern is about lack of due process and procedural safeguards and a process that is ripe for abuse. Unconstitutional detention of any length is a problem. As the cases show, that occurs regularly with detainers precisely because the process is flawed. You've had to lie and reframe everyone else's argument as not wanting this man to be deported. No one has said that. No one in this thread has indicated they care if ICE had deported him some time in the past. The question asked was WHY this person was released from a hold. The answer, as I and others have given you, is that detainers are routinely ignored because (1) they are not mandatory, (2) state and local authorities have been found liable for violation of constitutional rights when they comply with the ICE request, and (3) it the state and local authorities are the hook for the bill when ICE never bothers to pick the person up. All of this is discussed in excruciating detail in the cases I provided you. The cases also discuss how ICE started automating the detained process 20-years ago, going from an infrequently used tool to one where requests are generated automatically based upon some simple database look ups. A single error your location of birth in a database anywhere can you get you labeled as a potential illegal immigrant subject to an ICE hold. No one has to actually know or have done the slightest bit of checking to confirm whether or not you're a citizen. We know that is the case because it has a literally happened and ICE has admitted it has happened. 

If ICE wants people detained, there is an actual legal route to make that happen rooted in actual law. It did not do that here. Maybe it should have. Instead it choose to do this thing that it has no express authority to do and makes the local governments pay for the bill when ICE routinely fucks up (under the generous interpretation that these are mistakes). Answer the question: why is it unfair to ask ICE to use the process that is actually in the law? Why aren't you mad at ICE for not doing that? For not picking this person up earlier? Why is your anger directed solely at local law enforcement that was actually following the law so that people weren't held without probable cause? 

I agree with you one point: this process could be tweaked and safeguards implemented. That would require an actual law be passed that would pass constitutional muster. So why not do that? Why do you insist that ICE must have this power that is nowhere in the law? Why do you insist that local authorities have to comply with a thing that has no basis in law and protections of due process? 

Why don't you do this, admit you're wrong. Admit you don't know what you're talking about, that you don't understand the law or due process, and apologize to me . Maybe then you'll restore some of the respect I've lost for you over the last couple of days. Maybe you don't care. But I think a past version of you would have. 

Edited by Dahobbs

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...