Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DHS decertifies Arizona sheriff for immigration enforcement

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by DAL View Post
    They don't have to give him authority to enforce federal law.
    Maybe when they want his departments help in other matters he could say that back to them.
    The liberal politician has the only job where they go to the office to work for everyone but those who pay their salary.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by creolecop View Post
      I guess not your from NY. I'v been there once to New York city and I'm sure now enlish is a 3rd language there, and most in New York are content with giving their state away to left wing nuts and illegals.
      Sorry, I thought that was funny

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by LT Dangle View Post
        Nor do they do that.
        Uh, yeah they do.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by madchiken View Post
          Uh, yeah they do.
          Uh,,,, no, they don't.

          OK,,,,,, lets play your way. Where in the magical DHS is said "authority" granted from?

          Comment


          • #20
            OK, I am bored.... tired of waiting to play your way. Here is your education for the day.


            Originally posted by CenterForImmigrationStudies View Post
            (Because I am too lazy to write it myself.)

            The preliminary question is whether the states have inherent power (subject to federal preemption) to make arrests for violation of federal law. That is, may state police, exercising state law authority only, make arrests for violations of federal law, or do they have power to make such arrests only insofar as they are exercising delegated federal executive power? The answer to this question is plainly the former.

            The source of this authority flows from the states’ status as sovereign entities. They are sovereign governments possessing all residual powers not abridged or superceded by the U.S. Constitution. The source of the state governments’ power is entirely independent of the U.S. Constitution. See Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 193 (1819). Moreover, the enumerated powers doctrine that constrains the powers of the federal government does not so constrain the powers of the states. Rather, the states possess what are known as "police powers," which need not be specifically enumerated. Police powers are "an exercise of the sovereign right of the government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the people…" Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905). Essentially, states may take any action (consistent with their own constitutions and laws) unless there exists a prohibition in the U.S. Constitution or such action has been preempted by federal law.2

            It is well established that the authority of state police to make arrests for violation of federal law is not limited to those situations in which they are exercising delegated federal power. Rather, such arrest authority inheres in the States’ status as sovereign entities. It stems from the basic power of one sovereign to assist another sovereign. This is the same inherent authority that is exercised whenever a state law enforcement officer witnesses a federal crime being committed and makes an arrest. That officer is not acting pursuant to delegated federal power. Rather, he is exercising the inherent power of his state to assist another sovereign.

            Abundant Case Law. There is abundant case law on this point. Even though Congress has never authorized state police officers to make arrest for federal offenses without an arrest warrant, such arrests occur routinely; and the Supreme Court has recognized that state law controls the validity of such an arrest. As the Court concluded in United States v. Di Re, "No act of Congress lays down a general federal rule for arrest without warrant for federal offenses. None purports to supersede state law. And none applies to this arrest which, while for a federal offense, was made by a state officer accompanied by federal officers who had no power of arrest. Therefore the New York statute provides the standard by which this arrest must stand or fall." 332 U.S. 581, 591 (1948). The Court’s conclusion presupposes that state officers possess the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for federal offenses. The same assumption guided the Court in Miller v. United States. 357 U.S. 301, 305 (1958). As the Seventh Circuit has explained, "[state] officers have implicit authority to make federal arrests." U.S. v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 548 (7th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, they may initiate an arrest on the basis of probable cause to think that an individual has committed a federal crime. Id.

            The Ninth and Tenth Circuits have expressed this understanding in the immigration context specifically. In Gonzales v. City of Peoria, the Ninth Circuit opined in an immigration case that the "general rule is that local police are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes," 722 F.2d 468, 474 (9th Cir. 1983). The Tenth Circuit has reviewed this question on several occasions, concluding squarely that a "state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations," United States v. Salinas-Calderon, 728 F.2d 1298, 1301 n.3 (10th Cir. 1984). As the Tenth Circuit has described it, there is a "preexisting general authority of state or local police officers to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws," United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295 (10th Cir. 1999). And again in 2001, the Tenth Circuit reiterated that "state and local police officers [have] implicit authority within their respective jurisdictions ‘to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal law, including immigration laws.’" United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3d 1188, 1194 (citing United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294, 1295). None of these Tenth Circuit holdings drew any distinction between criminal violations of the INA and civil provisions that render an alien deportable. Rather, the inherent arrest authority extends generally to both categories of federal immigration law violations.

            HHHHhhhmmmmm.... No magical DHS pixie dust anywhere in there.
            LT Dangle
            Banned
            Last edited by LT Dangle; 10-08-2009, 10:43 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by LT Dangle View Post
              Uh,,,, no, they don't.

              OK,,,,,, lets play your way. Where in the magical DHS is said "authority" granted from?
              INA 287(g)

              http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/fa...gfactsheet.pdf

              Let me throw this in to help you:

              The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), effective September 30, 1996, added Section 287(g), performance of immigration officer functions by state officers and employees, to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This authorizes the secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.

              Comment


              • #22
                This might help as well:

                (g) (1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, the Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State line s to detention centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to extent consistent with State and local law.



                (2) An agreement under this subsection shall require that an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State performing a function under the agreement shall have knowledge of, and adhere to, Federal law relating to the function, and shall contain a written certification that the officers or employees performing the function under the agreement have received adequate training regarding the enforcement of relevant Federal immigration laws.



                (3) In performing a function under this subsection, an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the Attorney General.



                (4) In performing a function under this subsection, an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State may use Federal property or facilities, as provided in a written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or subdivision.


                (5) With respect to each officer or employee of a State or political subdivision who is authorized to perform a function under this subsection, the specific powers and duties that may be, or are required to be, exercised or performed by the individual, the duration of the authority of the individual, and the position of the agency of the Attorney General who is required to supervise and direct the individual, shall be set forth in a written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or po litical subdivision.



                (6) The Attorney General may not accept a service under this subsection if the service will be used to displace any Federal employee.



                (7) Except as provided in paragraph (8), an officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State performing functions under this subsection shall not be treated as a Federal employee for any purpose other than for purposes of chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, (relating to compensation for injury) and sections 2671 through 2680 of title 28, United States Code (relating to tort claims).



                (8) An officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State acting under color of authority under this subsection, or any agreement entered into under this subsection, shall be considered to be acting under color of Federal authority for purposes of determining the liability, and immunity from suit, of the officer or employee in a civil action brought under Federal or State law.



                (9) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require any State or political subdivision of a State to enter into an agreement with the Attorney General under this subsection.



                (10) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement under this subsection in order for any officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a State-


                (A) to communicate with the Attorney General regarding the immigration status of any individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States; or



                (B) otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by madchiken View Post
                  INA 287(g)

                  http://www.ice.gov/doclib/pi/news/fa...gfactsheet.pdf

                  Let me throw this in to help you:
                  Not sure how something dated in 1996 authorizes an agency created in 2001 to do anything.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Also, this is an internal DHS document and policy, not the law of the land.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by LINY View Post
                      Honestly I could care less about Joe and his work in stopping illegals from crossing the border. Everything else I can disagree on with him to some extent.
                      You, and I mean this with all due respect - and it's also coming from someone who grew up in NYC, with that said, if you feel that way, you have no firsthand idea of what we're dealing with here.
                      "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Orwell

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by tony.o View Post
                        Maybe when they want his departments help in other matters he could say that back to them.
                        Do you honestly think any Officer out here will deny help to DHS/BP/ICE? Most LEO's on the line think differently from those in the office.
                        "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Orwell

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by creolecop View Post
                          I guess not your from NY. I'v been there once to New York city and I'm sure now enlish is a 3rd language there, and most in New York are content with giving their state away to left wing nuts and illegals.

                          Wow, been to NY once and can automatically know the 8 million that live there. Think again.
                          "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Orwell

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by LT Dangle View Post
                            Not sure how something dated in 1996 authorizes an agency created in 2001 to do anything.
                            Well lets see.... I'm going to assume that somewhere, sometime in the past 8 years they amended the law to say Sec. of DHS instead of AG of the US. Otherwise I think I would have a tough time arresting people at work since the laws were all written before my agency was created...

                            Originally posted by LT Dangle View Post
                            Also, this is an internal DHS document and policy, not the law of the land.
                            Did you miss where I posted the law right out of the INA? That is the law of the land.

                            Maybe you missed this post: click here for INA 287g
                            madchiken
                            Relocation Expert
                            Last edited by madchiken; 10-09-2009, 07:36 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by rangerdanger View Post
                              You mean most Democrats?
                              Yeah, but I wanted to sound impartial.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by LINY View Post
                                Honestly I could care less about Joe and his work in stopping illegals from crossing the border. Everything else I can disagree on with him to some extent.
                                "Now I get to wait". Just a thought. If you make it to Backgrounds with NYPD, your Investigator is quite likely to check some of your Internet activity.Should he/she see some of what you're posting here, your "wait" could be very long. You're certainly entitled to your opinion on any given subject, but a little discretion might be in order. Of course, if you're not serious about a career in LE, post away. As I said, merely a thought.

                                Comment

                                MR300x250 Tablet

                                Collapse

                                What's Going On

                                Collapse

                                There are currently 3780 users online. 237 members and 3543 guests.

                                Most users ever online was 158,966 at 05:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

                                Welcome Ad

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X