re: NY set to pass most extreme sanctuary policies as Hochul, Albany Dems near anti-ICE deal

quote:

---

Yes, complying with them raises constitutional issues You even said as much when you erroneously said probable cause is not a constitutional issue.

---

Wrong. There is no question as to their constitutionality. And your insistence on your disingenuous attempt to lump procedural constitutionality (which is present in every single case ever…dummy) and the constitutionality of detainers on their face is such a stark contrast in issues, only a complete moron could conflate the two. Yet you managed to do it. Again…you have zero legal training. No shame in not knowing the difference. No shame in posting case after case while completely missing the reason for the judgements. However, quadrupling down from your place of complete ignorance is just bizarre behavior.

quote:

---

Thank God.

---

if there is one thing you’re known for around here it’s your legal acumen. How will I ever get over the fact the a complete moron with zero legal education doesn’t think I am a good attorney based upon his misunderstanding of very basic concepts? It’s going to be tough…but I’ll make
It.

quote:

---

That is not what you said. Own it Own it Own it. Dipshit.

---

It’s precisely what I said. Your inability to understand that is not a me problem.

Let’s get you on record once and for all and end this silly game you are playing.

Are ice detainers on their face unconstitutional? Thats a yes or no question. If you say “no,”. I will accept your apology and move on. If you say “yes”, I will enjoy continually explaining to you how you don’t understand the cases you’re citing. Either way…should be fun.

quote:

---

It was more than that, but that is a due process defect - a constitutional issue.

---

Correct. A procedural defect. Not a constitutional question on the validity of detainers. How you can’t wrap your mind around that after all of this is baffling.

quote:

---

Wrong. There is no question as to their constitutionality

---

There are certainly constitutional issues surrounding their enforcement, which is what I have said from the start.

quote:

---

procedural constitutionality (which is present in every single case ever…dummy)

---

This is such a stupid statement it makes fairly certain you are not a lawyer. Following proper procedure is a huge part of constitutional law. To dismiss as you are doing shows a clear lack of knowledge of the subject.

quote:

---

It’s precisely what I said. Your inability to understand that is not a me problem.

---

Sadly I understand it. A person on the internet claiming to be a lawyer says something as stupid as

quote:

---

….and it was a probable cause issue. Not a constitutional one

---

quote:

---

A procedural defect.

---

Right, just a procedural defect - which can never be a constitutional issue, right?

quote:

---

It a procedural defect doesn’t negate the underlying constitutionality of the case at hand

---

This makes no sense. A procedure that violates the constitution doesn't negate the underlying constitutionality of the case at hand. That is nonsensical.

quote:

---

Are ice detainers unconstitutional on their face? This was your initial argument.

---

How many times do I have to answer that question? I said no before, and I will say it again, in fact i don't think I ever did make that claim. You have never showed me where I said it or what exactly I said.

My point all along has been that sheriffs who receive a civil detainer from ICE are faced with serious constitutional issues if and when they enforce the warrant. And I have been clear that the tension rests largely with the fact that detainers are civil warrants, not criminal, and they are not judicial warrants, instead issued by the Executive.

Oh -so not only are you dumb as shite, especially for a self-proclaimed brilliant lawyer, but you are disingenuous as well. For what reason, to score points on a message board?

Why only quote part of what I wrote?

Here is the full quote:

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.

---

Let me explain as I would to a child, a retarded child: A judicial warrant is issued by an impartial judge. An impartial judge is not part of the government, that is why they are impartial. A detainer warrant issued by ICE/DHS is not issued by an impartial judge, it is issued by a branch of the government.
Sheriffs routinely receive warrants to hold inmates longer than what a previous judicial officer has ordered. When a Sheriff receives a judicial warrant ordering him to detain an individual in such a situation then the Sheriff is largely, if not entirely, shielded from Constitutional issues/violation when he executes the warrant. The affiant and even the Magistrate might not be shielded, but as long as there are not obvious facial defects on the judicial warrant the sheriff is protected.
Not only that, but a Sheriff that refuses to honor a judicial warrant can be found in contempt by the Court that issued the warrant.
Not so with ICE Detainer warrants
When a sheriff receives a civil detainer warrant from ICE the protections shielding him from potential constitutional violations can and do largely vanish, though not entirely, when he executes such a warrant. See the Oregon case I posted earlier where the county sheriff was found liable even when holding a person for less than 48 hours.
Likewise, the sheriff is not in danger of being found in contempt for a refusal to honor the civil warrant. Hence, I think it is fair to say that many Sheriffs and others question their validity. There are many sheriffs and jurisdictions that flat out ignore detainer warrants and there are no consequences at all. I mean if they cannot be enforced their validity seems up in the air at best.
There have been cases where sheriffs have been found liable for enforcing detainer warrants on their face. I posted one and there are others. Sure, liability might be found on "procedural" issues. But procedural issues make up the bulk of constitutional law issues.
Bottom line is that sheriffs who enforce ICE Detainer warrants open themselves up to potential constitutional issues that just don't exist when enforcing a judicial warrant, and they do not open themselves up to contempt actions when they refuse to enforce a detainer warrant while they do open themselves up when they refuse to enforce a judicial warrant.
And describing the landscape doesn't mean I think the detainer warrants are unconstitutional in general. Federal courts treat them as requests, although maybe there is a circuit that treats them as more than a request, I do not know. Some States attempt to require compliance, though I am not sure if any locality has challenged that.
Regardless, there is a lot of legal debate about the enforcement of detainers that leaves some issues surrounding them up in the air. Most lawyers who are not dumbasses trying to flex their limited legal acumen on an internet message board know that.

I thought immigration judges fall under the executive branch, not judicial branch. These people have had due process, it’s just the people who protest their incarceration don’t understand the system put in place.

quote:

---

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.

---

sounds like treason to me. Pass the law then arrest everyone that voted to pass it.

quote:

---

I’d love for you to link a single post where I called myself brilliant.

---

You made it personal on the basis of your self-proclaimed legal education - which based on shite you have said in this thread you vastly overpaid for (if you aren't lying, which is most likely).

quote:

---

Ok. So state your position. Are ice detainers unconstitutional or not?

---

I can't help it if you cannot read. You really shouldn't self-proclaim your legal education when you have the reading comprehension skills of a retarded monkey.

quote:

---

Wait what?

---

My lord - so probable cause isn't a constitutional issue and judges are part of the government? You sure are brilliant.

quote:

---

48 hours.

---

What? That 48 hours is part of the statutory language for a detainer? (Have you read the statute? You probably should, but based on what you have said you would not understand it.) Also ,in the statute it states that the detainer is a "request" And as courts have pointed out and ruled - the statute does not mandate anything, it requests. Adherence to the request is not required - that is exactly why a sheriff who adopts a policy of honoring the requests, even for no more than 48 hours, is flirting with constitutional violations - my point throughout this thread.

I referenced the Miranda-Olivares case - that was a 4th Amendment violation (just a mere procedural issue, not a constitutional violation, right) for a sheriff holding a person for 19 hours - which is under 48 hours, stated because that is probably difficult math for your self-proclaimed legal mind. Although it is self-proclaimed on a message board, so who knows.