Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules ICE detainer requests are illegal
The Washington Examiner ^ | July 24, 2017 | Kelly Cohen

Posted on 07/25/2017 12:50:00 PM PDT by detective

The highest court in Massachusetts ruled Monday it is illegal under state law for local law enforcement officers to hold people on detainer requests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

An ICE detainer is as a voluntary request to hold a person in custody for up to two days while ICE looks into the person's immigration status. States that do not adhere to the detainers say the person's criminal proceedings have already been settled and holding them for 48 hours longer violates their constitutional rights.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: ice; illegals
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last
To: detective

What hypocrites. State laws were pooh-poohed by the left when they worked WITH federal law to counter illegal immigration.

“States rights” is now superior?! LOL!!!


21 posted on 07/25/2017 1:11:59 PM PDT by fwdude (Democrats have not been this angry since Republicans freed the slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

AGain, can we kick states OUT?


22 posted on 07/25/2017 1:12:42 PM PDT by fwdude (Democrats have not been this angry since Republicans freed the slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: detective; ExTexasRedhead

When you look at ALL the states that are in opposition to the principles on which this country was founded and sadly it’s a long list, MASSACHUSETTS, it at the pinnacle of the pile of $hit they represent. It is the fountainhead of everything that’s wrong with our country. And for the entirety of my almost 77 years, it’s ALWAYS been on the top of the pile.
As for this court’s ruling, it will be interesting when the Federal Courts are brought in. The idea that a state would want to help protect criminals is beyond comprehension.


23 posted on 07/25/2017 1:20:11 PM PDT by vette6387
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy

Total Kabuki that is, each state can decide as they have what if any penalty there is for possession. In Colorado and other states who have done so there is no override to stop a company firing you for testing dirty

It is ridiculous to put it in the same tier as Heroin on the drug schedule, just keeps agents employed as it did post prohibition when alcohol was made legal again


24 posted on 07/25/2017 1:20:47 PM PDT by 100American (Knowledge is knowing how, Wisdom is knowing when)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: detective

It’s illegal to hold people suspected of committing a crime?

Well, that certainly changes things.


25 posted on 07/25/2017 1:23:13 PM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

The crappy reporting doesn’t mention anything about the defendant named LUNN. He is not a US Citizen, although he has been in the USA, admitted legally as a refugee from Cambodia, and has been seemingly on a “green card” since 1985.

He has been in trouble with the law many times and on the DHS radar for at least 10 years

In sum, the MA Supreme Court is saying - the larceny charges against Lunn were dismissed by the State, so therefore he is not involved in a criminal case. MA Supreme Court says Federal Immigration is a civil matter, so the MA police have no right to hold him, regardless of Feds/ICE request.

I’m also wondering why ICE then simply doesn’t go and get LUNN on their own?

The article is extremely unclear - simply painting it as a victory against ICE and Trump.


26 posted on 07/25/2017 1:32:04 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Skywise

Exactly.


27 posted on 07/25/2017 1:34:30 PM PDT by Ray76 (DRAIN THE SWAMP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8

The thought is that making it a criminal offense would raise the burden of proof required to process through the judicial system. Not saying that I agree, just sharing what the given excuse is.


28 posted on 07/25/2017 1:35:23 PM PDT by csivils
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: detective
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IV > § 1226. Apprehension and detention of aliens

(a) Arrest, detention, and release

On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section and pending such decision, the Attorney General—

...

(e) Judicial review

The Attorney General’s discretionary judgment regarding the application of this section shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the Attorney General under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole.

-PJ

29 posted on 07/25/2017 1:43:15 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (The 1st Amendment gives the People the right to a free press, not CNN the right to the 1st question.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detective

Just remember, this is the court that started Gay marriage.
Look where that got us.


30 posted on 07/25/2017 2:08:36 PM PDT by mistfree (It's a very uncreative man who can't think of more than one way to spell a word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detective

Massachuttes is not America. The people there are Neoeuropeans


31 posted on 07/25/2017 2:13:47 PM PDT by Thibodeaux (Democrat calls for kumbaya must be met with their blood on the ground)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: detective

What was this court “high” on?


32 posted on 07/25/2017 2:21:38 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Good morning FR! Is Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg still breathing?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

Exactly.


33 posted on 07/25/2017 2:46:44 PM PDT by Bigg Red (Vacate the chair! Ryan must go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: detective; All
”… violates their constitutional rights [???]."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Based on both Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, and also the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Section 1 in Minor v. Happersett, illegals aren’t necessarily protected by constitutionally enumerated rights.

Only citizens are protected by rights which the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect imo.

In fact, note that the Court argued that being a citizen didn’t automatically give women the right to vote, many states not allowing women to vote in those days.

Insights welcome.

34 posted on 07/25/2017 2:54:34 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bulwinkle

Never gonna happen.


35 posted on 07/25/2017 3:17:47 PM PDT by onedoug ( KEK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Skywise

It was the idiots on the Mass. SJC who started the whole legal/judicial move to gay marriage, by ruling that the Mass. Constitution (originally drafted by John Adams) sanctioned gay marriage. That was the first big domino, IIRC.


36 posted on 07/25/2017 3:21:39 PM PDT by Enchante (Searching throughout the country for one honest Democrat....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Crack down on pot users, obviously.

...and seize their assets

37 posted on 07/25/2017 3:50:59 PM PDT by montag813 (ue)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: detective

That’s fine, shut off all Federal funds to Mass, including federal retirement and social security. The court will change its mind pretty quick.


38 posted on 07/25/2017 4:04:12 PM PDT by Uncle Sam 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Law Abiding Citizen anyone?


39 posted on 07/26/2017 7:22:52 AM PDT by Maverick68 (T)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-39 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson