- 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
0
Posted on 5/1/26 at 2:58 pm to GetmorewithLes
quote:
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.
just to be clear, it is not my logic - I was/am just trying to make their point as best I can.
But you bring up a good point, a lot of people are arrest and go days without seeing a judicial officer, so they are sitting in jail for 48-72 hours (maybe even longer in some cases) just on the basis of an executive officer's judgment.
The difference though is that in the DUI case the person is being arrested for a criminal offense, not a civil offense in th case of the immigration detainer warrant.
And in my opinion that gets to the heart of the tension on these things and goes far in answering this
quote:
That premise also presumes that a person in this country illegally has rights that supercede their violaion of our sovereign border rights.
At least one big reason so much of immigration enforcement is labeled as civil in nature as opposed to criminal is that when a person is accused of a crime certain rights apply. One of the big ones is the 6th Amendment right to counsel as well as the presumption of innocence. If immigration enforcement was treated as criminal enforcement then any accusation of being in the country illegally would presuppose that the person is here legally (presumption of innocence) and the person accused would have court-appointed counsel if they needed. Congress knew this would bog down the system, cost a huge amount of money and most likely make enforcement of immigration law close to impossible.
So that, imo, is the source of the tension.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 3:47 pm to djmed
Sounds like a clear indication that cleaning up the voter rolls (getting rid of deceased voters) may put the Dem/Marxist strong hold in jeopardy.
I suspect many of the blue states will start competing for voters… I mean… illegals!
I suspect many of the blue states will start competing for voters… I mean… illegals!
Posted on 5/1/26 at 3:48 pm to djmed
Perfect. Let’s round up all the illegals and dump them in New York.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 3:49 pm to JimEverett
quote:
The constitutional issue is whether that DHS warrant is valid
No it isn’t.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 3:51 pm to JimEverett
Oregon and California. 
you mean the 9th circuit? And one 3rd circuit case? amazing you didn’t post anything from the 5th. Or the SCOTUS.
Not to mention, you don’t even understand the facts of the cases you posted.
you mean the 9th circuit? And one 3rd circuit case? amazing you didn’t post anything from the 5th. Or the SCOTUS. Not to mention, you don’t even understand the facts of the cases you posted.
This post was edited on 5/1/26 at 3:53 pm
Posted on 5/1/26 at 4:00 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
No it isn’t.
How is it not? There is clearly legal disagreement on the constitutionality of these administrative detainers.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 4:12 pm to JimEverett
quote:
How is it not? There is clearly legal disagreement on the constitutionality of these administrative detainers.
Wrong. The cases you posted have nothing to do with the detainers being unconstitutional. They are about detainers lasting more than 48 hours. Find me a case that says detainers by ice are unconstitutional.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 4:21 pm to djmed
Easy solution. Pull all federal funding for New York. Then dump every illegal from all over the country in New York city and Albany first then save some to dump in every county that voted for Kamala in the last election. Problem solved.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 4:30 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Wrong. The cases you posted have nothing to do with the detainers being unconstitutional. They are about detainers lasting more than 48 hours. Find me a case that says detainers by ice are unconstitutional.
You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am saying there are constitutional issues with detainers - not making the definitive statement that detainers themselves are unconstitutional. Of course they are not. But several circuits have held that law enforcement who honor detainers are liable for constitutional violations. Like Morales v. Chadbourne in the 1st circuit.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 4:34 pm to JimEverett
quote:
am saying there are constitutional issues with detainers - not making the definitive statement that detainers themselves are unconstitutional. Of course they are not. But several circuits have held that law enforcement who honor detainers are liable for constitutional violations. Like Morales v. Chadbourne in the 1st circuit.
Guessing that’s another detainer lasting more than 48 hours without looking it up. Am I right?
ETA: haha. Even worse. A us citizen detained….and it was a probable cause issue. Not a constitutional one. Holy shite, dude.
The ruling literally states detainers are legal if issued with probable cause.
quote:
not making the definitive statement that detainers themselves are unconstitutional. Of course they are not.
Should have stopped there.
This post was edited on 5/1/26 at 4:39 pm
Posted on 5/1/26 at 5:01 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
ETA: haha. Even worse. A us citizen detained….and it was a probable cause issue. Not a constitutional one. Holy shite, dude.
Wait, probable cause is not a constitutional issue Holy shite dude,
And why does the citizenship of the person matter on the other end - the custodial agent? A sheriff often doesn't know the immigration status of someone in their custody. That gets to the heart of why a sheriff might decide on a policy of not honoring any detainer requests because they can be held liable for constitutional violations (like lack of probable cause).
Those are very clearly constitutional issues like I have been saying.
quote:Again, I have never said detainers are illegal. They are simply requests. Has a court ever ordered a sheriff to abide by a detainer warrant? In the 1sst circuit, and others, they are merely requests because of the constitutional problems. Maybe a court has ordered a sheriff to comply with one?
The ruling literally states detainers are legal if issued with probable cause.
This post was edited on 5/1/26 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 5/1/26 at 5:20 pm to JimEverett
quote:
At least one big reason so much of immigration enforcement is labeled as civil in nature as opposed to criminal is that when a person is accused of a crime certain rights apply. One of the big ones is the 6th Amendment right to counsel as well as the presumption of innocence.
You raise the $64 question... if Feds apprehend a person in the USA and determine that they are here illegally do they have the legal right to escort them to the nearest border and "deport" them.
I believe many on here me inlcuded that they can based on recent cases. There are many that however believe that person is due process and has rights.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 5:29 pm to GetmorewithLes
I dont know. I think you are right given some facts. Other facts might allow due process to attach. But if the latter is true it is not what most of us think about when we think of due process. For example, i think in most situations the burden is on the immigrant
Posted on 5/1/26 at 5:36 pm to djmed
If Dems don’t like something they don’t try to work through established processes to try and get it changed, they just declare themselves a “sanctuary”.
Posted on 5/1/26 at 5:41 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Wait, probable cause is not a constitutional issue Holy shite dude,
dude. You said there is a question as to whether an ice detainer is constitutional. That’s not the question. The only constitutional question here, like in every other case, is if the procedure was correctly followed. Not the detainers. If you think we don’t know you weren’t referring to constitutional procedure and were referring to the constitutionality of “administrative detainers” you are a complete moron. Don’t try to hide from your claims now. Holy shite dude.
It is ok for a non-lawyer to misinterpret case law as poorly as you did. No biggie and no need to double down. Just say oops. Holy shite dude.
quote:
And why does the citizenship of the person matter on the other end - the custodial agent?
It really doesn’t if the issue is probable cause.
quote:
sheriff often doesn't know the immigration status of someone in their custody. That gets to the heart of why a sheriff might decide on a policy of not honoring any detainer requests because they can be held liable for constitutional violations (like lack of probable cause). Those are very clearly constitutional issues like I have been saying.
The case you listed held the ice agents liable. Not the sheriff. The cases where local law enforcement was held responsible was because they detained the illegal for more than 48 hours.
Again. No-one will hold your inability to distinguish these cases. You aren’t a lawyer. Perhaps just give up on this thread.
quote:
In the 1sst circuit, and others, they are merely requests because of the constitutional problems.
oh boy. This post was edited on 5/1/26 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 5/1/26 at 6:23 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You said there is a question as to whether an ice detainer is constitutional
I didn't say that, but I am not going to go back and forth on it. You win the internet war.
Bit to pull the "you are not a lawyer card after saying this:
quote:
A us citizen detained….and it was a probable cause issue. Not a constitutional one
What sort of bottom feeing toilet tier law school teaches that probable casue is not a constitutional issue? Hope you do not practice criminal law.
quote:
The case you listed held the ice agents liable. Not the sheriff. The cases where local law enforcement was held responsible was because they detained the illegal for more than 48 hours.
Again. No-one will hold your inability to distinguish these cases. You aren’t a lawyer. Perhaps just give up on this thread.
For a lawyer you sure don't know shite
Jury Awards Against Suffolk County Sheriff
Posted on 5/1/26 at 6:26 pm to djmed
Well, that will just speed up the destruction of NY.....and that is what the DEMS want! A weak, bewildered population that cant think or do for themselves!
Have at it NY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Have at it NY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 5/1/26 at 6:31 pm to JimEverett
quote:
What sort of bottom feeing toilet tier law school teaches that probable casue is not a constitutional issue? Hope you do not practice criminal law.
you said the detainers on their face caused constitutional issues. Every single case in the history of ever has procedural constitutional issues. Trying to pretend you meant otherwise is just pathetic. quote:
Hope you do not practice criminal law.
I don’t practice anymore. In-house is the way to go. I did prosecute my first two years. Very aware probable cause is a constitutional issue in every single case. It’s a procedural issue.
You, however, stated that there are constitutional issues with “administrative detainees” on their face. Don’t run from it now. Defend that position.
quote:
For a lawyer you sure don't know shite
Yikes. I read your “Latino Justice” link. (I am Mexican, by the way, before you call me racist) and once again you don’t know what you’re reading. That ruling hinged on the fact that ICE is required to provide notice of the reason for the detainer and that was not done. Once again a procedural defect.
I’m in an airplane. I have all the time in the world to continue to prove your legal acumen. Which is zero.
This post was edited on 5/1/26 at 6:34 pm
Posted on 5/1/26 at 6:43 pm to JimEverett
quote:
Other facts might allow due process to attach. But if the latter is true it is not what most of us think about when we think of due process. For example, i think in most situations the burden is on the immigrant
Trump Admin won some cases regarding sending illegals back pending review. When there is legitimate issue of asylum things get muddied some.
But obviously it is a different case if the person I mentioned in my previous example is a person who has been here for a long time like 10-20 yrs versus somebody fresh off the cartel bus.
There is one thing that is in direct conflict with the case you stated regarding not having a judicial warrant. We see case after case of detainers being denied for people who already have a deportation order from the immigration court.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News