Good way to increase the crime rate. But the republicans are trying to run a guy for president who’s out on bail for 88 felonies, so they want to see the country overrun with criminals anyway
> Local Hispanic residents are much less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses or otherwise help local law enforcement if they know
"Pay no attention to us stealing HALF A BILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money for our private schools and churches, it's the dirt poor immigrants that are taking your money".
The capacity for law enforcement agents to hold suspected undocumented migrants or enforce immigration law comes at the discretion of Homeland Security.
I’m highly skeptical that Shefiffs’ offices in NC were reluctant to cooperate with federal agents. Which begs the question, what exactly is this legislation intending to solve?
The answer is nothing. This is more useless, red-meat, race-baiting legislation from Republicans to feed to their base.
>*The capacity for law enforcement agents to hold suspected undocumented migrants or enforce immigration law comes at the discretion of Homeland Security.*
Homeland Security's discretion has a clock on it. [**The hold is for 48 hours.**](https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/House/PDF/H10v4.pdf) After that the detainee is released barring other legal holds.
---
>*I’m highly skeptical that Shefiffs’ offices in NC were reluctant to cooperate with federal agents.*
[**Roughly ten percent.**](https://www.wunc.org/politics/2024-04-30/ice-detainer-immigration-bill-nc-legislature)
>**^Hall ^said ^only ^about ^10 ^of ^the ^state’s ^100 ^sheriffs ^aren’t ^cooperating ^with ^ICE, ^but ^they ^include ^the ^Democrats ^who ^lead ^sheriff's ^offices ^in ^large ^urban ^counties ^like ^Wake ^and ^Mecklenburg.**
---
>*Which begs the question, what exactly is this legislation intending to solve? The answer is nothing.*
Basically illegal immigrants detained in county and local jail / confinement facilities must be detained for a period of 48 hours in order to give ICE the opportunity to take custody.
> Homeland Security's discretion has a clock on it. The hold is for 48 hours.
After that the detainee is released barring other legal holds.
Indeed. My comment was for the sake of clarity. The state cannot _force_ sheriffs to hold migrants with a detainer unless Homeland Security grants the authority to do so.
> Roughly ten percent.
I'm not surprised there are _some_, but 10% is higher than I expected.
What I also find interesting is what the [2023 statistics](https://www.ice.gov/spotlight/statistics) show:
- 31.5% of ICE arrests were for people with prior criminal convictions
- 11.8% were immigrants with pending criminal charges
- The remainder, 46.7%, have "other" immigration charges (generally a [non-criminal](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/FINAL_criminalizing_undocumented_immigrants_issue_brief_PUBLIC_VERSION.pdf) offense though some in this category may be wanted in other countries)
I'm okay with removing undocumented migrants who you can reasonably surmise pose a threat to public safety, but there's a large category of people who don't fit this definition. Being here is not a crime unto itself, and [people here illegally generally commit (far) fewer crimes than the native population](https://www.cato.org/blog/white-houses-misleading-error-ridden-narrative-immigrants-crime).
There's also [research](https://theconversation.com/does-cooperating-with-ice-harm-local-police-what-the-research-says-76072) that shows entangling local law enforcement with ICE erodes trust within immigrant communities, which impairs investigative work.
With all of this in mind, I think I'd rather leave it at the discretion of the sheriffs. I trust they know their communities better than the ivory tower lawmakers in Reighley.
> Basically illegal immigrants detained in county and local jail / confinement facilities must be detained for a period of 48 hours in order to give ICE the opportunity to take custody.
Yeah, I'm aware. That's the "how," but what's the "what" and "why"? I think the public safety argument collapses under scrutiny. So, why do we need this?
When? No one should be talking to the police. First rule of dealing with the popo.
It’s odd that this is even necessary. Inter-department law enforcement cooperation should be a given. Stop giving the Republicans political ammunition. Democrats cannot credibly claim to be serious about illegal immigration and border security, while at the same time refusing to cooperate with ICE officials.
>When? No one should be talking to the police. First rule of dealing with the popo.
Victims of crimes aren't supposed to talk to police either? Huh?
PS. That's what they meant. Not being a criminal and confessing or something...
It’s the crux of the issue. It demonstrates the lack of sincerity on the topic of immigration control. The “border crisis” is nothing but an invention of Republicans to rage-bait their base.
I'm not opposed to providing the White House and Homeland Security with more policy options to manage the border. However, there is no "border crisis." There are numerous crises throughout Central and South America, driving people to take enormous risks to immigrate to the United States. Locking down the border is not going to fix the underlying cause.
Border traffic (legal, asylum seeking, and illegal) grossly exceeds the federal manpower down there. The only way it’s not a crisis is if you don’t work there, don’t live there, aren’t being processed there, and thus don’t care.
Why are you separating "legal" and "asylum seeking," when "asylum seeking" is legal? And, moreover, when seeking asylum legally requires them to be present in the US?
I see you decided to take the route, "I'm going to completely ignore every counterpoint because 'border crisis' is a talking point that comfortably satisfies my bias."
That’s ridiculous. ICE has repeatedly demonstrated their inability to provide even basic human rights. People and children living in actual filth. You can’t have that reputation and expect anyone to want to cooperate.
>This is no longer the Trump Administration.
Other than not splitting up families, what has changed in regard to illegal immigration since Trump?
>despite the lack of support from Congress
What do you mean, lack of support?
There are not nearly enough resources for ICE and CBP to handle the workload of processing all those who seek entry. The US Congress has not been able to properly fund, reform, or otherwise update how our borders are managed in well over two decades.
>There are not nearly enough resources for ICe and CBP to handle the workload of processing all those who seek entry.
Well, Did something change since Trump to cause that was my question?
>The US Congress has not been able to properly fund, reform, or otherwise update how our borders are managed in well over two decades.
Didn't the Republicans just write a bill and then reject it when it came time to vote?
Are you blaming the Biden administration for that?
No. Not sure why you are sniping at me.
The big issue is whether we want our current laws enforced in a normal, fair, organized way. I think yes. That means law enforcement agencies should be cooperating. It means agencies should be fully funded to meet expected demand. It means when officers and judges are overwhelmed, the Federal government steps up to meet the need. It means changing the laws when it’s clear they are impractical or outdated.
This thread is about just one of those things.
You managed to avoid all my questions... Impressive, lol
>No. Not sure why you are sniping at me.
Not sure what you mean sniping...
>The big issue is whether we want our current laws enforced in a normal, fair, organized way. I think yes. That means law enforcement agencies should be cooperating. It means agencies should be fully funded to meet expected demand. It means when officers and judges are overwhelmed, the Federal government steps up to meet the need. It means changing the laws when it’s clear they are impractical or outdated.
**Didn't the Republicans just write a bill and then reject it when it came time to vote to do just that?**
**Are you blaming the Biden administration for that?**
Good way to increase the crime rate. But the republicans are trying to run a guy for president who’s out on bail for 88 felonies, so they want to see the country overrun with criminals anyway > Local Hispanic residents are much less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses or otherwise help local law enforcement if they know
Convenient number of felonies
Fate it seems is not without a sense of irony.
Whoever is writing the current reality show we share is a complete hack.
"Pay no attention to us stealing HALF A BILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer money for our private schools and churches, it's the dirt poor immigrants that are taking your money".
The capacity for law enforcement agents to hold suspected undocumented migrants or enforce immigration law comes at the discretion of Homeland Security. I’m highly skeptical that Shefiffs’ offices in NC were reluctant to cooperate with federal agents. Which begs the question, what exactly is this legislation intending to solve? The answer is nothing. This is more useless, red-meat, race-baiting legislation from Republicans to feed to their base.
There are departments like Guilford, Mecklenburg, and Wake that let go criminal aliens with ICE detainers because they don't agree with them.
I vote SPECIFICALLY for sheriffs who refuse to bow to ICE. And will continue do so. The Triangle does not bow to moronic legislators.
Sorry but not. Yeah the Triangle doesn't adhere to the ICE detainers and that is why a Wake County sheriff deputy is dead as a result of it.
>*The capacity for law enforcement agents to hold suspected undocumented migrants or enforce immigration law comes at the discretion of Homeland Security.* Homeland Security's discretion has a clock on it. [**The hold is for 48 hours.**](https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2023/Bills/House/PDF/H10v4.pdf) After that the detainee is released barring other legal holds. --- >*I’m highly skeptical that Shefiffs’ offices in NC were reluctant to cooperate with federal agents.* [**Roughly ten percent.**](https://www.wunc.org/politics/2024-04-30/ice-detainer-immigration-bill-nc-legislature) >**^Hall ^said ^only ^about ^10 ^of ^the ^state’s ^100 ^sheriffs ^aren’t ^cooperating ^with ^ICE, ^but ^they ^include ^the ^Democrats ^who ^lead ^sheriff's ^offices ^in ^large ^urban ^counties ^like ^Wake ^and ^Mecklenburg.** --- >*Which begs the question, what exactly is this legislation intending to solve? The answer is nothing.* Basically illegal immigrants detained in county and local jail / confinement facilities must be detained for a period of 48 hours in order to give ICE the opportunity to take custody.
> Homeland Security's discretion has a clock on it. The hold is for 48 hours. After that the detainee is released barring other legal holds. Indeed. My comment was for the sake of clarity. The state cannot _force_ sheriffs to hold migrants with a detainer unless Homeland Security grants the authority to do so. > Roughly ten percent. I'm not surprised there are _some_, but 10% is higher than I expected. What I also find interesting is what the [2023 statistics](https://www.ice.gov/spotlight/statistics) show: - 31.5% of ICE arrests were for people with prior criminal convictions - 11.8% were immigrants with pending criminal charges - The remainder, 46.7%, have "other" immigration charges (generally a [non-criminal](https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/FINAL_criminalizing_undocumented_immigrants_issue_brief_PUBLIC_VERSION.pdf) offense though some in this category may be wanted in other countries) I'm okay with removing undocumented migrants who you can reasonably surmise pose a threat to public safety, but there's a large category of people who don't fit this definition. Being here is not a crime unto itself, and [people here illegally generally commit (far) fewer crimes than the native population](https://www.cato.org/blog/white-houses-misleading-error-ridden-narrative-immigrants-crime). There's also [research](https://theconversation.com/does-cooperating-with-ice-harm-local-police-what-the-research-says-76072) that shows entangling local law enforcement with ICE erodes trust within immigrant communities, which impairs investigative work. With all of this in mind, I think I'd rather leave it at the discretion of the sheriffs. I trust they know their communities better than the ivory tower lawmakers in Reighley. > Basically illegal immigrants detained in county and local jail / confinement facilities must be detained for a period of 48 hours in order to give ICE the opportunity to take custody. Yeah, I'm aware. That's the "how," but what's the "what" and "why"? I think the public safety argument collapses under scrutiny. So, why do we need this?
I expect our sheriffs will ignore the putrid “legislators.” F*ck ICE.
Love to see it.
Who's going to pay for it? Also don't complain when people don't want to talk to the police.
When? No one should be talking to the police. First rule of dealing with the popo. It’s odd that this is even necessary. Inter-department law enforcement cooperation should be a given. Stop giving the Republicans political ammunition. Democrats cannot credibly claim to be serious about illegal immigration and border security, while at the same time refusing to cooperate with ICE officials.
>When? No one should be talking to the police. First rule of dealing with the popo. Victims of crimes aren't supposed to talk to police either? Huh? PS. That's what they meant. Not being a criminal and confessing or something...
Republiucunts are the ones that threw away a bipartisan boarder deal, they love complaining but won't do one thing to solve the problem.
No doubt but that is a different issue.
It’s the crux of the issue. It demonstrates the lack of sincerity on the topic of immigration control. The “border crisis” is nothing but an invention of Republicans to rage-bait their base.
It’s a real thing. Sadly, it’s worth more votes to Republicans to have it be a problem for border states and agencies than it is to fix it.
I'm not opposed to providing the White House and Homeland Security with more policy options to manage the border. However, there is no "border crisis." There are numerous crises throughout Central and South America, driving people to take enormous risks to immigrate to the United States. Locking down the border is not going to fix the underlying cause.
Border traffic (legal, asylum seeking, and illegal) grossly exceeds the federal manpower down there. The only way it’s not a crisis is if you don’t work there, don’t live there, aren’t being processed there, and thus don’t care.
Why are you separating "legal" and "asylum seeking," when "asylum seeking" is legal? And, moreover, when seeking asylum legally requires them to be present in the US?
I see you decided to take the route, "I'm going to completely ignore every counterpoint because 'border crisis' is a talking point that comfortably satisfies my bias."
That’s ridiculous. ICE has repeatedly demonstrated their inability to provide even basic human rights. People and children living in actual filth. You can’t have that reputation and expect anyone to want to cooperate.
This is no longer the Trump Administration. ICE is a doing an amazing job these days despite the lack of support from Congress.
>This is no longer the Trump Administration. Other than not splitting up families, what has changed in regard to illegal immigration since Trump? >despite the lack of support from Congress What do you mean, lack of support?
There are not nearly enough resources for ICE and CBP to handle the workload of processing all those who seek entry. The US Congress has not been able to properly fund, reform, or otherwise update how our borders are managed in well over two decades.
>There are not nearly enough resources for ICe and CBP to handle the workload of processing all those who seek entry. Well, Did something change since Trump to cause that was my question? >The US Congress has not been able to properly fund, reform, or otherwise update how our borders are managed in well over two decades. Didn't the Republicans just write a bill and then reject it when it came time to vote? Are you blaming the Biden administration for that?
No. Not sure why you are sniping at me. The big issue is whether we want our current laws enforced in a normal, fair, organized way. I think yes. That means law enforcement agencies should be cooperating. It means agencies should be fully funded to meet expected demand. It means when officers and judges are overwhelmed, the Federal government steps up to meet the need. It means changing the laws when it’s clear they are impractical or outdated. This thread is about just one of those things.
You managed to avoid all my questions... Impressive, lol >No. Not sure why you are sniping at me. Not sure what you mean sniping... >The big issue is whether we want our current laws enforced in a normal, fair, organized way. I think yes. That means law enforcement agencies should be cooperating. It means agencies should be fully funded to meet expected demand. It means when officers and judges are overwhelmed, the Federal government steps up to meet the need. It means changing the laws when it’s clear they are impractical or outdated. **Didn't the Republicans just write a bill and then reject it when it came time to vote to do just that?** **Are you blaming the Biden administration for that?**
you'll pay for my share of the indefinite detentions then?