- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
NY set to pass most extreme sanctuary policies as Hochul, Albany Dems near anti-ICE deal
Posted on 5/1/26 at 10:36 am
Posted on 5/1/26 at 10:36 am
think the DOJ would have a problem with this?
NY set to pass most extreme sanctuary policies as Hochul, Albany Dems near anti-ICE deal
ALBANY – New York is set to pass its most extreme sanctuary policies yet – as Gov. Kathy Hochul and Albany Democrats hone in on a deal that could impose sweeping bans on cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE.
Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) confirmed “95%” of an anti-ICE immigration package has been agreed upon between Hochul and state legislators as part of ongoing state budget talks – including etching New York’s first statewide sanctuary law restricting how law enforcement can interact with immigration authorities.
“I think we all want to deal with the aggressiveness, or the over-aggressiveness, let’s say, of ICE. But we also understand that there should always be due process,” Heastie told reporters Wednesday.
Gov. Kathy Hochul and legislative leaders are forging ahead with legislation to put statewide sanctuary policies on New York’s books for the first time.
Narrow, but still crucial, details about how the law would function are still being hammered out.
Hochul recently revealed that she had agreed with the legislature’s request to ramp up her initial anti-ICE proposal, which she had released in January amid heightened fury against President Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.
“I want to say that ICE has no reason to be involved in any civil enforcement,” Hochul said last week.
Hochul’s original proposal had included:
Banning local governments, like Nassau County, from signing formal “287-g” agreements with ICE to deputize officers and keep detainees in local jails on federal immigration charges.
An experimental new legal tool aimed at giving New Yorkers the ability to sue federal agents in state court for a violation of their constitutional rights.
Restricting access to ICE from “sensitive” locations like schools, hospitals and churches.
LINK
NY set to pass most extreme sanctuary policies as Hochul, Albany Dems near anti-ICE deal
ALBANY – New York is set to pass its most extreme sanctuary policies yet – as Gov. Kathy Hochul and Albany Democrats hone in on a deal that could impose sweeping bans on cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE.
Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) confirmed “95%” of an anti-ICE immigration package has been agreed upon between Hochul and state legislators as part of ongoing state budget talks – including etching New York’s first statewide sanctuary law restricting how law enforcement can interact with immigration authorities.
“I think we all want to deal with the aggressiveness, or the over-aggressiveness, let’s say, of ICE. But we also understand that there should always be due process,” Heastie told reporters Wednesday.
Gov. Kathy Hochul and legislative leaders are forging ahead with legislation to put statewide sanctuary policies on New York’s books for the first time.
Narrow, but still crucial, details about how the law would function are still being hammered out.
Hochul recently revealed that she had agreed with the legislature’s request to ramp up her initial anti-ICE proposal, which she had released in January amid heightened fury against President Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis.
“I want to say that ICE has no reason to be involved in any civil enforcement,” Hochul said last week.
Hochul’s original proposal had included:
Banning local governments, like Nassau County, from signing formal “287-g” agreements with ICE to deputize officers and keep detainees in local jails on federal immigration charges.
An experimental new legal tool aimed at giving New Yorkers the ability to sue federal agents in state court for a violation of their constitutional rights.
Restricting access to ICE from “sensitive” locations like schools, hospitals and churches.
LINK
17
Posted on 5/1/26 at 10:40 am to djmed
Cool. You hear that everyone ? Ship all your illegals to NY state.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 10:45 am to djmed
Just don't understand how this is constitutional.
Immigration law is a federal matter.
Immigration law is a federal matter.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 10:46 am to medium_okra
quote:
You hear that everyone ? Ship all your illegals to NY state.
That's exactly what I heard!
Posted on 5/1/26 at 11:07 am to bigjoe1
quote:
Just don't understand how this is constitutional.
Immigration law is a federal matter.
One of the big, if not biggest, issue is sheriffs holding people in jail on immigration warrants. This is the cooperation that DHS talks about - and when a state/county refuses to hold people on that basis they are called a "sanctuary" jurisdiction.
Their (the sanctuary people) argument is that a person held in a county jail is there based on a judicial officer - a magistrate or a judge - signing off on their incarceration Likewise, the inmate's release is determined by the judiciary, not the state. So, the judicial branch tells the executive branch - the sheriff - the inmate is to be released by noon on May 1, 2026. The sheriff receives a warrant from DHS that says inmate is wanted for immigration violations, hold that inmate until May 3, 2026 when DHS will come down and take custody of the inmate.
The constitutional issue is whether that DHS warrant is valid because the warrant is not a Judicial warrant, it is a warrant issued by the Executive. The sanctuary people say obeying the executive warrant is a constitutional violation because the executive cannot just order people detained without judicial review.
What I think is odd is that this has not been litigate yet - at least I have never heard of a case about it. You would think the ACLU or someone would take the case of a someone being held on an administrative warrant and challenge such a detention. Maybe they think/know they will lose? I guess something similar could be said going the other way - why hasn't DHS brought a lawsuit against a county/state?
Posted on 5/1/26 at 11:09 am to djmed
This post was edited on 5/11/26 at 8:45 am
Posted on 5/1/26 at 11:09 am to JimEverett
never mind - i found a few cases
Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (2014): A federal court in Oregon ruled that the county violated the Fourth Amendment by holding a woman for 19 hours after she should have been released. The court clarified that DHS detainers are voluntary requests and that local law enforcement can be held liable for damages if they choose to honor them without independent probable cause of a new crime. Galarza v. Szalczyk (2014): The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, was not required to comply with an ICE detainer. In this case, Ernesto Galarza, a U.S. citizen, was held for three days despite having his Social Security card and driver's license. The court ruled that the county could be held liable for the unlawful detention because it was not "mandated" by the federal government to hold him. Roy v. County of Los Angeles (2020): This was a massive class-action settlement where L.A. County agreed to pay $14 million to thousands of people who were unlawfully detained on ICE holds. The lawsuit argued that the Sheriff’s Department violated constitutional protections by denying bail or delaying release based on these administrative requests.
Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (2014): A federal court in Oregon ruled that the county violated the Fourth Amendment by holding a woman for 19 hours after she should have been released. The court clarified that DHS detainers are voluntary requests and that local law enforcement can be held liable for damages if they choose to honor them without independent probable cause of a new crime. Galarza v. Szalczyk (2014): The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, was not required to comply with an ICE detainer. In this case, Ernesto Galarza, a U.S. citizen, was held for three days despite having his Social Security card and driver's license. The court ruled that the county could be held liable for the unlawful detention because it was not "mandated" by the federal government to hold him. Roy v. County of Los Angeles (2020): This was a massive class-action settlement where L.A. County agreed to pay $14 million to thousands of people who were unlawfully detained on ICE holds. The lawsuit argued that the Sheriff’s Department violated constitutional protections by denying bail or delaying release based on these administrative requests.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 11:28 am to JimEverett
/God damn our courts are full of worthless activist judges.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 12:20 pm to JimEverett
quote:
detained without judicial review.
It is my understanding that each of these people have a final order of deportation - is there a local judicial entity that can declare that order invalid?
Posted on 5/1/26 at 12:46 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County
bullshite ruling 8 cfr 287.7 says upon request they SHALL detain for up to 48 hours.
quote:
Galarza v. Szalczyk (2014)
He was a fricking US citizen.
quote:
Roy v. County of Los Angeles
Held beyond 48 hours.
This post was edited on 5/1/26 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 5/1/26 at 12:51 pm to JimEverett
This is one of the best explanations I have read on this. Very concise on the overall issue 
Posted on 5/1/26 at 12:55 pm to djmed
I'm sure this will really help NYC's $5.4B budget deficit.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 12:57 pm to djmed
As if it wasn't already clear that dems will go to any lengths to stay in power despite how it affects real Americans.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 1:49 pm to djmed
You are picking the fly shat out of the pepper, with legal notices and what warrant etc.
Its pretty simple, you are part of the United States or you arent. If you want to play this nonsense. There is no legal premise that gives NY state access to the SWIFT banking system, just remove them for a few hours and ask them if they want sanctuary status. Or remove any access to interstate commerce, including the internet and phone service. Have the FAA revoke the license of anyone who lands at an airport in NY. If they dont want to be part of the Unilted States, make it so.
Its pretty simple, you are part of the United States or you arent. If you want to play this nonsense. There is no legal premise that gives NY state access to the SWIFT banking system, just remove them for a few hours and ask them if they want sanctuary status. Or remove any access to interstate commerce, including the internet and phone service. Have the FAA revoke the license of anyone who lands at an airport in NY. If they dont want to be part of the Unilted States, make it so.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 1:58 pm to djmed
Very simple two-fold approach:
1) challenge these laws in courts
2) deposit/transfer every captured illegal that is not immediately deported into New York.
1) challenge these laws in courts
2) deposit/transfer every captured illegal that is not immediately deported into New York.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 2:19 pm to djmed
quote:
sweeping bans on cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE
They really, really, really, really need to hold onto their bought-and-paid-for voter base.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 2:23 pm to JimEverett
Why is an illegal alien afforded constitutional protection?
Posted on 5/1/26 at 2:32 pm to JimEverett
quote:
The constitutional issue is whether that DHS warrant is valid because the warrant is not a Judicial warrant, it is a warrant issued by the Executive. The sanctuary people say obeying the executive warrant is a constitutional violation because the executive cannot just order people detained without judicial review.
So if a police officer pulls you over and arrests you for a DUI for example by your logic they cannot hold you because no judicial warrant has been issued yet.
That premise also presumes that a person in this country illegally has rights that supercede their violaion of our sovereign border rights.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 2:34 pm to trinidadtiger
quote:
There is no legal premise that gives NY state access to the SWIFT banking system, just remove them for a few hours and ask them if they want sanctuary status. Or remove any access to interstate commerce, including the internet and phone service.
Fight fire with fire
Posted on 5/1/26 at 2:41 pm to Tantal
quote:
NYC's $5.4B budget deficit.
And this is with the feds sending over $7B to NYC alone.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News