U.S. Says Sheriff Could Face Prosecution for Releasing Immigrant

[j-mac]

He doesn't need to.

Compliance in this case means that when a judge issues an order for removal, compels local and state law enforcement to carry it out, not just ICE itself.

Nah, it's amazing. Actually local and state LE do NOT have to comply with a Federal Judges order, I was floored to learn that.

 

[Marener]

Well, shocking enough for me, I looked it up, and a Sherriff doesn't have to comply with a Federal Judges order. That's crazy.

I'd bet money you felt different during the whole Sherriff Arpiao fiasco....But anyway...

Kudos to you for digging deeper.

The Sheriff Arpaio fiasco was FAR different. Specifically in that Sheriff Arpaio was violating the constitution through his law enforcement practices. So when a federal judge tells him he's violating the constitution, he has to listen.

Hold that person so that ICE could do their job as tasked by the Federal Judge that ordered the man deported from the country.

The local police must have legal authority to hold someone in detention. If not, they're violating habeus corpus. ICE requests do not constitute legal authority. I don't actually know what ICE gave this local sheriff, but for the record, the sheriff says they notified ICE of when the guy was being released and ICE wasn't there.

Yeah, ok....That make you feel better?

A glimmer of hope for the future.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope. Local and state law enforcement do not remove illegal immigrants. What are you expecting the sheriff to do? Charter a flight and fly them to Mexico?

ICE will carry out the removal. Obviously.

Want to try again?

 

[Marener]

View attachment 1073064

You still haven’t said what they’re being ordered to do.

Stop wasting my time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nah, it's amazing. Actually local and state LE do NOT have to comply with a Federal Judges order, I was floored to learn that.

Don't be floored. Don't be misled.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You still haven’t said what they’re being ordered to do.

Stop wasting my time.

Remove criminal aliens.

What about this is so hard for you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[TemplarKormac]

Stop wasting my time.

It's your time to waste, not mine. I'm not keeping you here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Well, shocking enough for me, I looked it up, and a Sherriff doesn't have to comply with a Federal Judges order. That's crazy.

Where did you learn this precisely?

I am interested to learn what you learned.

 

[Marener]

Remove criminal aliens.

What about this is so hard for you?

Nope. Local law enforcement does not remove criminal aliens. Never have. Never will.

That is not what this story is about.

Stop making shit up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Copied from Grok:


The notion that state and local law enforcement might not be obligated to comply with federal removal orders stems from several sources and misconceptions:

1. Tenth Amendment Arguments:
   • Some argue based on the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves powers to the states not delegated to the federal government or prohibited by the Constitution. Proponents of state sovereignty might interpret this amendment as giving states the right to not enforce certain federal laws or court orders, particularly in areas not explicitly mandated to the federal government.
2. "Anti-Commandeering" Doctrine:
   • The U.S. Supreme Court has established the "anti-commandeering" doctrine, notably in cases like New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997). These cases held that the federal government cannot compel state officials to administer or enforce federal regulatory programs. This has been interpreted by some to mean states are not required to actively assist in federal immigration enforcement, including removal orders.
3. Sanctuary Policies:
   • Some cities and states have adopted "sanctuary" policies, which limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts. These policies often include not using local resources to help enforce federal immigration laws or not sharing information with ICE unless required by law. While these policies don't defy federal court orders directly, they reflect a political stance on immigration enforcement.
4. Misinterpretation of Federalism:
   • There's a misunderstanding or selective interpretation of federalism where local jurisdictions might believe they can choose when to comply with federal directives based on local political or ethical considerations.
5. Public Perception and Media:
   • Media coverage and public discourse can sometimes simplify or misrepresent the legal nuances, leading to a public belief that state and local governments have more autonomy than they legally do in these matters.
6. Political Rhetoric:
   • Politicians and activists might use rhetoric that suggests states can opt out of federal mandates, especially on contentious issues like immigration, to appeal to certain voter bases or to express opposition to federal policy.
7. Selective Enforcement:
   • The reality of enforcement can be complex. Even though there's a legal obligation, practical enforcement might not always occur uniformly or immediately, leading some to perceive or argue that there's no obligation at all.
8. Legal Challenges and Delays:
   • There have been instances where states or localities have challenged federal authority in court, leading to temporary non-compliance while cases are adjudicated, reinforcing the perception of autonomy.

However, despite these arguments and perceptions:

• Legal Obligation: The law is clear that federal court orders must be followed, and non-compliance can lead to contempt charges or other legal repercussions.
• Direct Federal Enforcement: The federal government can enforce removal orders directly through agencies like ICE or U.S. Marshals if state or local cooperation is not forthcoming.

In essence, while there are debates about the extent of state and local involvement in federal immigration enforcement, the legal obligation to comply with federal court orders remains, with the above points contributing to the public's mixed understanding of this obligation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nope. Local law enforcement does not remove criminal aliens. Never have. Never will.

That is not what this story is about.

Stop making shit up.

See my previous response.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Q: So, if a sheriff refuses to comply with an order, is he breaking the law?

A: If a sheriff refuses to comply with a federal court order, including a removal order:

• Yes, legally speaking, the sheriff would be breaking the law. Here's why:

1. Federal Court Authority: Federal courts have the power to issue orders that are binding on all within their jurisdiction, including state and local officials like sheriffs.
2. Supremacy Clause: Under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, federal law, including court orders, takes precedence over state law or local policy. A refusal to comply with a federal court order would be a direct conflict with this clause.
3. Contempt of Court: Refusal to comply with a federal court order can lead to contempt charges. Federal courts have inherent authority to punish contempt, which can result in fines or imprisonment for the individual official involved.
4. Statutory Violations:
   • 18 U.S.C. § 401 allows federal courts to punish contempt of their authority.
   • 18 U.S.C. § 242 criminalizes the deprivation of rights under color of law, which could apply if the refusal to comply with a court order directly impacts someone's legal rights.
5. Oath of Office: Sheriffs, like all law enforcement officers, swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States. Refusal to comply with a federal court order could be seen as a violation of this oath.

----

Looking at you, Marener.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Stop making shit up.

Oh, that's rich coming from you.

Do you somehow think state and local authorities enacting sanctuary policies are not making shit up?

Spare me the false indignance.

 

[Mac-7]

How are they refusing to cooperate?

This thread is about the Tompkins County Sheriff who released an illegal alien criminal instead of turning him over to ICE

Sheriff Friendly is an elected official so the buck stops with him in this case

 

[Marener]

This thread is about the Tompkins County Sheriff who released an illegal alien criminal instead of turning him over to ICE

Sheriff says he told ICE to pick him up but was not legally able to hold him as he had completed his sentence.

Trump’s DoJ are thugs trying to intimidate people who are following the constitution.

 

[Mac-7]

Sheriff says

That sounds plausible on the surface

But he may have to prove it in court

 

[Marener]

That sounds plausible on the surface

But he may have to prove it in court

It's been 2 weeks and Trump is already using the DoJ to persecute good Americans whom he doesn't like.

 

[Mac-7]

It's been 2 weeks and Trump is already using the DoJ to persecute good Americans whom he doesn't like.

I dont like Sheriff either

He’s lucky be in a very liberal corner on a very liberal state

So he may get away with it in the end

We’ll just launch a few arrows at him and see what sticks to the unAmerican SOB

 

[Marener]

We’ll just launch a few arrows at him and see what sticks to the unAmerican SOB

You’re every bit the authoritarian we said you were.

Always have been.