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

[Mac-7]

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

Always have been.

Legal arrows

The sheriff broke the law

 

[BackAgain]

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...

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

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

An immigration judge isn’t really a judge. That is: they are not article 3 judges. They are mere “administrative” judges.

But an order of removal remains a federal jurisdictional matter. But, given the supremacy clause, the sheriff may be in deep shit.

 

[otto105]

Legal arrows

The sheriff broke the law

How?

 

[Marener]

Legal arrows

The sheriff broke the law

It doesn’t really matter if that’s true. He opposed dear leader and he must pay.

Isn’t that right, authoritarian?

 

[Marener]

But an order of removal remains a federal jurisdictional matter. But, given the supremacy clause, the sheriff may be in deep shit.

Has nothing to do with supremacy clause.

 

[Mac-7]

How?

He released an illegal alien felon instead of holding him for ICE

 

[otto105]

He released an illegal alien felon instead of holding him for ICE

Under what law was he required to hold him?

 

[Mac-7]

Under what law was he required to hold him?

Yes, we think so

 

[otto105]

Yes, we think so

You think what

 

[Mac-7]

You think what

The sheriff was required to hold an illegal alien criminal till ICE picked him up

 

[otto105]

The sheriff was required to hold an illegal alien criminal till ICE picked him up

Required by what law?

 

[Mac-7]

Required by what law?

We’ll find out

The DOJ the means to hold the the sheriff accountable

 

[j-mac]

Kudos to you for digging deeper.

Yeah, I'd like to think if I truly don't know something, I'll look it up.

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.

Without re hashing the whole Arpiao thing, I'd just say that the standard doesn't shift when the situation is slightly different....But the fact, in my mind anyway, is that these situations are not all that different. Arpiao was overstepping his bounds by enforcing immigration, at least that was the argument. I believe anyway, that both local, and Federal forces should work together on this matter.

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.

Would you agree that LE has some latitude in detention times, up to, what is it 48, or 72 hours? Now, I wasn't there, and don't know these people, but it seems through the story, that ICE notified the Sherriff, and the Sherriff expedited the release to beat ICE to their office. Therefore in my mind would be obstructing ICE Duties.

Is that what you people want? Our LE agencies working at cross purpose with each other?

A glimmer of hope for the future.

Meaning what? That you think that shows I'll see things your way? Nah....Just trying to be an honest broker...

 

[Blaster]

Prosecute Mayors and governors of Sanctuary Cities/States who refuse to cooperate with the raids, too. By refusing to cooperate they are willfully obstructing justice.

I agree.

 

[j-mac]

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

View attachment 1073071

And I agree. I think that the Feds would have to prove that the Sherriff released this guy for the sole purpose of thwarting ICE from taking custody of him....

 

[j-mac]

Where did you learn this precisely?

I am interested to learn what you learned.

I googled "Does a Sherriff have to comply with a Federal Judges order"

Now, it does say that the Judge can hold anyone, including the Sherriff in contempt for not complying.

 

[j-mac]

An immigration judge isn’t really a judge. That is: they are not article 3 judges. They are mere “administrative” judges.

But an order of removal remains a federal jurisdictional matter. But, given the supremacy clause, the sheriff may be in deep shit.

Yeah, it's complicated...What upsets me, is that we are supposed to be working together in this country...And we are talking about "Criminal Illegals" in this country....It is shocking that some in LE wouldn't want them out of their community.

 

[otto105]

We’ll find out

The DOJ the means to hold the the sheriff accountable

If there is no law to hold them accountable under, how will they do it? The local sheriff is not responsible for immigration enforcement.

 

[Failzero]

California Sheriffs will help ICE / BP / HSA and Federal LEOs and it will bring anti Colonialist Marxists there to heel ( But Chicago LEOs are scared to go against their pro Illegal Leadership there and will need serious repercussions to fall in line )

 

[otto105]

California Sheriffs will help ICE / BP / HSA and Federal LEOs and it will bring anti Colonialist Marxists there to heel ( But Chicago LEOs are scared to go against their pro Illegal Leadership there and will need serious repercussions to fall in line )

Under what law?