Now it’s official

You live in a fantasy land where you and your liberal friends decide what constitutes basic human rights. I live in the real world where the US Constitution and applicable law determines what rights you have. The sixth amendment to the US Constitution guarantees a speedy trial but does not define speedy. A series of court cases have adjudicated that persons suspected of a crime may be held for short periods of time before charges are brought. While this time period varies from state to state 72 hours seems the norm.

Your contention that local law enforcement cannot determine immigration status or enforce federal immigration law is also wrong. Federal immigration law explicitly authorizes state and local police officers to enforce various provisions of the immigration law, including civil provisions, under three circumstances. The first involves a written agreement between the U.S. attorney general and a state or municipality in which state or local officers are deputized as immigration officers under federal supervision at state or local expense. The second involves the declaration by the U.S. attorney general of an emergency due to an influx of aliens. The third concerns the enforcement of a specific criminal provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). So, outside of criminal acts or a declared “state of emergency” it is Fairfax County’s decision whether its law enforcement officers will enforce federal immigration laws.

Rather than dreaming up “basic human rights” that exist in your mind we should get back to the facts and discuss what Fairfax County should do with regard to the enforcement of Federal immigration law.

They must be paid by the comment, because they seem to attack nearly every article published in the last few months, and most of the commenters too.

Face it. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Yes, it’s easy to see you lack knowledge, as you typically resort to the personal attack when you can’t refute an argument, and soon thereafter you accuse others of the ad hominen attack. Very weak.

And he will tell you the opposite with great indignation.

It doesn’t matter whether he knows or doesn’t know. The idea is to concoct something that can be put into print. Fiction is fine. Over time, the comments lack consistency and become contradictory – and thus the troll is exposed.

If you were even slightly paying attention, you would not only know that I have been active on the LC boards since the Too Conservative days, you would also have no problem knowing who I am (most old regulars do) nor where I live nor what my profession is. So pull yourself up the bootstraps and quit your whining.

I’m sure my posts DO wreak havoc with echo acoustics. Also, “conservation and denate”… lol… that was very funny (if unintentional).

Joined? I haven’t any notion of who he is, but he and I agree on occasion, which is likely because like the average Virginian we are more to the center.

“The first involves a written agreement between the U.S. attorney general and a state or municipality in which state or local officers are deputized as immigration officers under federal supervision at state or local expense.”

Which does not exist. Therefore, they do not have the right to charge them.

Also, the 48-72 hours is how long they have to charge you after an arrest. In no case can they detain you for questioning in excess of a few hours (usually just a few minutes) without an arrest warrant. This is outlined in the 4th, btw, illegal search and seizure.

You are incorrect. This authority is delegated to local law-enforcement under section 287(g) of US Immigration Code. Thus, they have jurisdiction, same as they would if the crime were kidnapping, or bank robbery, which are both Federal offenses. Fairfax County is CHOOSING not to enforce the law. Therefore, they are aiding and abetting the furtherance of law-breaking, which is the very essence of conspiracy. They are complicit in any future crime the criminal illegal alien goes on to commit, because the continued presence of the illegal alien is an ongoing crime.

Some rapists are deemed an “ongoing danger to the community”, and are civilly committed upon completion of their criminal sentences. The SCOTUS has upheld this practice in Kansas v. Crane. The court ruled that the presence of certain sexual predators in the community represented an continued threat to the safety of the community at-large, and the public had a compelling interest which trumped the individual rights of the criminals who had completed their sentences. It did not constitute a violation of their civil rights.

Considering the recidivism rates of convicted illegal aliens are much higher than the general population, the public has a compelling interest in seeing them deported. Fairfax, and other sanctuary jurisdictions are failing in their primary responsibility to the community.

Fairfax is choosing not to participate in 287(g). You argue they “don’t have the authority”. I counter, they don’t have it, because they choose not to exercise it. To exercise it, all they have to do is ask. Your argument fails in the face of reality.

Excuses are like butt-holes. Everyone has one, and they all stink.

So suck it…troll.

“it seems like it the Feds who want the help here”

Yeah…you tell that to all the needless victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens. Murder victims. Rape victims, Manslaughter victims.

In your vag-tastic rush to defend the PC actions of Fairfax, you seem to forget that the role of law enforcement isn’t adjudicate whether or not a law is “good” or “bad”. The role of law enforcement is to enforce the law.

No one is advocating for Fairfax to begin immigration sweeps. This would be outside of the scope of their responsibility.

So, by your rationale, if Fairfax is holding a fugitive from justice from another jurisdiction, say Maryland, who has outstanding warrants for some violation of Maryland law, they should just ignore Maryland’s request to hold the fugitive until they can take him into custody? Just turn him back into the Fairfax community, simply because they have no sworn responsibility to uphold Maryland law?

I hope Sessions puts Fairfax at the bottom of the DOJ goody list. Fairfax deserves everything it gets.

A detainer is the same as an out of state warrant, you twit.

In the case you dishonestly cite, Morales the detainer was illegal because Morales had a certain immigration status: He was a naturalized citizen. This doesn’t make holding illegal aliens or those on a revoked visa on detainer illegal. I didn’t lose. You lied in an attempt to prove your point, you pissant commie.

The charge would be being unable to prove citizenship….. The entire point of the article. Don’t be obtuse.

They are not out of the their jurisdiction. It’s only by the piss poor leadership the Sheriff and local politicians that they have decided not to hold illegals for 48 hours to give ice the time to pick them up. If you can’t grasp that, you are being obtuse.

“Could be”, refer to my prior posts.

It does work both easy on that though.
The issue of illegal immigration has left Va law enforcement politically hanchuffed.
I have friends on law enforcement who find these folks in traffic stops and in some cases ICE does not come get them.
When they are released on traffic charges they don’t show to court.
This facetious leadership shouldn’t be messin up location law enforcement.
It is time long due for the legislature to get their act together.
Limbo is clear stupidity.

It is on the borderline disgusting not to enforce local or state laws because the Fed falls short.
Then to hold the on immigration violations until the Fed picks them up *should* be tested in The Commonwealth.
I would like to see a court ruling. I wonder did Arizona have a ruling ?

Check out the vote on hb1106
Five Va Republicans vote No thus protecting the illegal employment of
MS-13

I certainly did not suggest they are entitled to the same rights. I simply recited the fourteenth amendment. Some states do permit non-citizens to vote; Maryland is one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_foreigners_to_vote_in_the_United_States

The states do not get to decide for federal elections. Not permitted in federal elections since 1996.

An example from the US Sup Ct: Texas law requires school attendance. This law applies to citizens and non-citizens alike.

No, Steve, I didn’t say what equal protection means and neither did I say all laws are covered by a guarantee of equal protection.

Steve, I quoted the 14th Amendement and I quoted an article in The Hill that observes the wide scope of the Fourteenth Amendment. I am neither a lawyer nor a judge and I leave to the courts the full interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Nonetheless, I interjected it because of the meandering discussion that simply failed to note the US Constitution and the provision that applies. Its plain language makes the point: All persons — here legally or not — are entitled to equal protection under the law. The James Madison quote is important: Our founders knew what they intended this to cover, and that is all persons in the jurisdiction and not limited to citizens of the US.

The US Constitution should be revered here of all places. Quoting it should always be welcome, especially where it applies squarely to the discussion, as it does this one.

From The Hill:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

“The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: “that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional]
protection and advantage.”

“More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that “due process” of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is “unlawful, involuntary or transitory.”

“Twenty years before Zadvydas, the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Texas could not enforce a state law that prohibited illegally present children from attending grade schools, as all other Texas children were required to attend.”

“The court ruled in Plyler that:

The illegal aliens who are … challenging the state may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection clause which provides that no state shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ Whatever his status under immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of the term … the undocumented status of these children does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying
benefits that the state affords other residents.”

“A decade before Plyler, the court ruled in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973)
that all criminal charge-related elements of the Constitution’s amendments (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and the 14th) such as search and seizure, self-incrimination, trial by jury and due process, protect non-citizens, legally or illegally present.”

“Three key Supreme Court decisions in 1886, 1896 and 1903 laid the 14th Amendment basis for the consistent ruling of the court that aliens, legal and illegal, have constitutional protection in criminal and certain civil affairs in the justice system.”

“In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the court ruled that:

Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet,
if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons of similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution [the 14th Amendment].”

“In Wong Win v. United States (1896), the court ruled that:

It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

“In summary, the entire case of illegal aliens being covered by and protected by the Constitution has been settled law for 129 years and rests on one word: “person.” It is the word “person” that connects the dots of “due process” and “equal protection” in the 14th Amendment to the U.S Constitution and it is those five words that make the
Constitution of the United States and its 14th amendment the most important political document since the Magna Carta in all world history.”