Deport the Criminals First — Part Fourteen of an Ongoing Series: Illegal Alien Stands Accused of Killing Three People While Out on Bail Instead of Being Held on Immigration Violations
[“Deport the Criminals First” is a recurring feature on this blog, highlighting crimes committed by illegal immigrants — with a special focus on repeat offenders. I argue that, instead of arresting illegal immigrants who work hard for a living, we should use our limited immigration enforcement resources to target illegal immigrants who commit crimes in this country.]
Via Allah comes news of another depressing entry in the series:
A Peruvian national in the U.S. illegally and who was previously charged with raping a 5-year-old girl pleaded not guilty Friday in the execution-style slayings of three young college students, a day after he surrendered to the Newark mayor.
. . . .
Immigration officials apparently were aware of Carranza’s illegal status since his prior arrests, according to Essex County Sheriff Armando Fontoura.
And what did they do? Allowed him to go free on bail:
According to court records obtained by The Star-Ledger of Newark, Carranza was indicted twice this year in April on aggravated assault and weapons charges and in July on 31 counts including aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than 13. He was free on bail on the indictments.
And wasn’t being kept in custody on an immigration hold??
The government had the power and duty to hold him in custody if he was here illegally. According to reports, a fourth victim survived and helped identify him. Fingerprints also tie him to the scene. If he is indeed one of the killers, a failure on the part of our federal immigration officials may well have cost three people their lives.
When will it stop??
People should call NJ senators, the Newark Mayor, the NJ Governor . . . .anyone and complain about these preventable deaths.
SPO (62ca0c) — 8/10/2007 @ 11:42 amThis is so egregious I hardly want to believe it. The blood IS on the judge’s hands if he kills or rapes again.
This liberal judge lets a murderer rapists walk the streets… when the power is there to stop them and they have every right to protect your country by enforcing existing immigration laws.
What pain, terror, destruction, and death did that judge release into the community — or wherever this illegal immigrant / alleged rapist murderer chooses to go next?
The judge… should feel deep shame, and won’t.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 12:23 pmWhy blame the judge?
Blame immigration officials.
Patterico (938eed) — 8/10/2007 @ 12:31 pmI may be misunderstanding.
So the bail was justified?I doubt this considering he was on bail when he was indicted on 31-counts including aggravated sexual assault on a 13-year old.
Okay, that, by itself, should give the judge pause and cause him to be held without bail. Or am I not getting how your system works in practice? Was the judge’s decision justifiable?
YES, as I overlooked, the immigration officials should have held him, absolutely, without a doubt.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 12:35 pmDoesn’t the prosecutor report or recommend anything in these cases? Methinks some blame lays there also.
John425 (eae6ea) — 8/10/2007 @ 12:39 pmPerhaps when a family member of a high profile politician is killed, raped, or otherwise horribly assaulted. Then again, perhaps not.
Horatio (a549f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 12:39 pmThe Feds could start a 50% tax on all money transfers to Mexico. The tax would both help fund law enforcement and reduce the economic incentives to illegally come to the USA.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 8/10/2007 @ 12:40 pmDo I have to point out any of the economic or political problems with that, the most “protectionist” suggestion ever?
One, that would stop all money transfer which would reduce the flow of goods, labor, capital and hurt both countries’ economies.
Second, do you think the party that implemented your daft idea would ever get a vote from anyone who identified themselves as being hispanic — or someone like myself who believes all people should be treated equally — again?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 12:43 pmThen if I were in the “illegal alien biz”, I’d set up a company in Costa Rica, for example, have the money transferred to me, and then to the individual in Mexico (of course after taking my cut which would be significantly less than the 50% tax).
Are you suggesting that the Feds tax all transfers to any country in Latin America?, If so, I’d move my business to another country, not in LA.
Your suggestion, while it may have merit on the surface, is easily circumvented.
Horatio (a549f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 12:45 pmAre we sure immigration officials were aware, in spite of the sheriff’s statement?
Newark is a sanctuary city. How did NIS find out, did they read about Carranza in the newspaper and decide to check his status?
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 8/10/2007 @ 12:48 pmJust out of curiosity, do you really believe that, or do you believe in protected classes of people who are more equal than the non-protected ones?
Horatio (a549f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 12:50 pmI really believe that everyone should be judged on the content of their character (as evidenced by their actions or refraining from certain actions) as stated by Martin Luther King.
By a person’s actions, we can begin to judge, to “discriminate”. Otherwise, yes, I believe that.
Taxing all money flow to one of your largest trading partners at 50% would be the height of hella dumb.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 12:52 pmSure sounds like a hate crime to me. A Hispanic gang executing some innocent Black kids? C’mon, MSM…this is a hate crime.
Patricia (549779) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:01 pmLet me clear up a few things:
The judge almost certainly had to grant bail.
The prosecutor almost certainly had no idea the guy was illegal. What do you want him to do: guess? Use paranormal powers?
Glen, it doesn’t matter if it’s a sanctuary city. Nothing — I repeat, *nothing* — legally prevents immigration officials from setting up shop in the jail and screening all inmates for their immigration status.
It’s a resource issue entirely — and that’s where the sanctuary city issue comes in. Local law enforcement can (and should) help.
But make no mistake: primary and perhaps exclusive blame goes to immigration officials. Not the judge. Not the prosecutor. Not police.
Immigration officials.
Patterico (570e97) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:05 pmFair enough – I’ve encountered individuals who state they believe in “equality” to the detriment of “liberty”. But that’s another discussion for another time
Horatio (a549f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:09 pmPatterico, Ace said:
I guess my point is how is the immigration department doesn’t have the resources to set up shop in every courtroom in the country and screen all inmates… I’m not sure there is the political will to take this step although I have no problem with it personally.
If, and it’s a big if, Ace and Glen Wishard are right, that Newark didn’t assist the immigration authorities at all… well, where does the bulk of the blame lie?
And if the immigration department doesn’t have the resources to patrol courthouses, then mustn’t they rely on assistance from local authorities? I mean, to blame officials if it’s a resource issue and they really don’t have the resources… perhaps we should be looking at funding and policy at a higher level, and laws relating to “sanctuary cities”.
The cities get their legal authority from their state, I gather, much the same way our cities do. Do the states have the legal right to circumvent federal immigration and border control policies?
My country is more federal than yours — I can easily imagine a Liberal government being weak on immigration, but I can’t imagine the provinces getting away with refusing to assist the federal government in an area solely under its jurisdiction. Not if they wanted to see a federal dime again.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:14 pmMen make themselves unequal — the state shouldn’t do it for them.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:15 pmChristoph,
The only way that locals could possibly help is with training by the feds and access to federal databases.
Why, it’s arguably *illegal* for locals to interfere in immigration matters without explicit sanction from the feds.
Don’t talk to me about resources until ICE allocates every single agent they have to this problem.
Last I heard L.A. County had two — two! — for 170,000 inmates per year.
Any attempt to blame locals for what any *knowledgeable* person knows is primarily a federal responsibility let’s the feds off the hook.
It makes me angry.
Learn something about the issue before you blame the locals. I already explained the problem with sanctuary cities. It’s a problem, but a minor one. Please don’t let the real parties off the hook.
Blame immigration officials.
Blame Bush.
Patterico (02bb5a) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:26 pmHow is asking questions heavily laced with qualifiers to someone who has studied the issue more than you have “blaming the locals”?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:28 pmI don’t care to get in a fight about this. Does someone asking questions that seem to suggest a point of view get to evade responsibility for their arguments by stating the argument in the form of a question?
Just asking.
Patterico (66e9a4) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:31 pmHow can you determine someone’s flight risk, which would seem to be part of determining bail, without knowing what country they’re a citizen of and if it isn’t the US, without knowing their status here?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:34 pmOK, that may be overly harsh. Maybe you’re just seeking information. If so, try to phrase your questions as questions and not arguments and I’ll treat them as such.
To the extent that you appear to be *arguing* for blaming locals first, I will get annoyed. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if you say you’re just seeking info.
Patterico (3fcae5) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:36 pmI agree, however, we have a nasty habit in these United States of making some people more equal than others by means of legislation
Horatio (a549f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:39 pmPablo,
Such information is relevant, but the judge doesn’t always get it.
The judge needs ICE in the jails to help make these determinations.
Patterico (6f4fec) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:39 pm“I don’t care to get in a fight about this. Does someone asking questions that seem to suggest a point of view get to evade responsibility for their arguments by stating the argument in the form of a question?”
Evade responsibility for their argument?
Did I come across as someone who definitively knew all the answers… or as someone who was attempting to find them?
When in our discussions do you recall me trying to avoid responsibility for my argument?
Just asking.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:41 pmYes — you could blame INS (ICE now), but you would be wrong. The blame rests with Congress.
While the guy is in the country illegally — its something the Congress refers as only making him “subject to deportation”. Only after there is an “order of removal” is he not entitled to a bail hearing.
The reality is that in these situations, the fact that the guy was granted bail in state court is going to drive the decision making by the immigration court. ICE may well have had an immigration hold on him, but an Immigration Judge is going to grant him bail from detention when New Jersey granted him bail from the criminal proceedings, because he was not yet subject to an “Order of Removal.”
It remains an egregious travesty that more states have not followed the lead of the federal government by doing away with “bail schedules”, and replacing them with individualized bail determinations. In federal court every defendant must be interviewed by a Pretrial Services Officer, who then does an investigation into their background, including a careful examination any prior criminal record, to determine whether that person presents a threat to the community or a risk of flight if they are released on bail.
Too many states — although I don’t know if New Jersey remains one of them — continue to have fixed bail “schedules” where specific crimes have set bail amounts, and the defendant can post bail and be released before any judge has an opportunity to review the wisdom of such a release.
wls (48cbad) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:41 pmlet me also say that agree with you that the Feds bear an enormous amount of the responsibility for the litany of such cases we keep seeing. But in this one, I don’t understand how this guy made bail.
Indicted twice for a laundry list of things and illegal, how can he not be considered a flight risk and a danger to the community?
On the one hand, I’d like to know what his bail was. On the other, I’m afraid I’d throw up if I were to find out. In fact, I threw up a little noting that he’s now being held in lieu of $1 million bail.
Conceivably, if the money were to be had, this guy could be walking the streets again tomorrow.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:43 pmI just saw your follow-up comment. Yes, I asked questions leaning toward a particular point of view (espoused by someone else I read about 20-minutes previously, but not wedded to it) and with an open mind and in an attempt to get more information.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:44 pmOh, and I still am arguing the local officials should not have a sanctuary city and should assist the feds who have limited resources. The feds shouldn’t have to bypass local officials’ intransigence:
The local officials shouldn’t make it difficult for ICE because they don’t support federal immigration policy.
However, my viewpoint doesn’t mean I wasn’t asking questions to get more info with an open mind. I was.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:50 pmPablo,
Are you assuming that judges can simply deny bail in assault, weapons, or rape cases if they think the defendant is a flight risk?
Not so in California. There are very few ways a suspect could be held without bail in California. Among the ways: if the defendant is charged with a special circumstance murder (N.B. not just any run-of-the-mill murder, for which bail schedule is, I believe, $1 million), a probation violation — or an immigration hold.
That last is what should have happened in this case. That’s why the feds deserve your derision — not the judge.
Patterico (12b73f) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:50 pmI agree with your last comment that’s the way things are. You would know. On this topic, my point, Pablo’s, and hopefully yours is that it’s too bad judges don’t have more latitude in denying bail.
I take back what I said about the judge because I was wrong as the law is applied in California. Thanks for educating me on this unfortunate score.
See, this time you had an iron-clad statement from me and I don’t mind stepping back from it, reversing myself, if new facts come to light. Why you thought questions were iron-clad arguments, I’m not sure. Other commentators, I guess. I don’t approach things that way.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:54 pmWLS,
If I hear that ICE had a hold and an immigration judge granted bail, I’ll redirect my anger at the immigration judge. I don’t expect I will hear that, but you never know.
Obviously no illegal being held on an immigration hold should ever, ever get bail. Isn’t that perfectly obvious?
If you’re saying the law *requires* it, that’s one thing. If not, no judge should ever grant bail to someone facing deportation.
I don’t claim to be an expert about the nuts and bolts of federal immigration proceedings. I know the California criminal justice system, and I know what the law *ought* to be for bail for illegals facing deportation. As for what it is and why, I’m open to instruction.
Patterico (670e33) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:57 pm#8
Do I have to point out any of the economic or political problems with that, the most “protectionist” suggestion ever
Yes, I would like some “protection” from criminals. Do I have to point out that illegal immigration is one of our nation’s largest costs. It ensures that future American’s will not have Medicare, social security or a quality public education.
Taxing all money flow to one of your largest trading partners at 50% would be the height of hella dumb.
Or maybe it would force Mexico to undergo political reforms so that it does not dump 15% of its population on the USA and expect American citizens to provide for their education, health care, etc. In the past 40-50 years, thru political reforms many countries have managed to vastly improve their citizen’s lives without dumping them in the USA. It is past time Mexico and other Latin American countries do it.
Second, do you think the party that implemented your daft idea would ever get a vote from anyone who identified themselves as being Hispanic — or someone like myself who believes all people should be treated equally — again?
So your suggestion is to surrender the US to pandering politicians? Such courage and a pretty daft position.
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 8/10/2007 @ 1:57 pmOr maybe it would force the GOP to undergo political reforms from its lengthy period in opposition.
No, hardly, Mr. Non Sequitur. You should enforce your border, build fencing and electronic security measures where appropriate, enforce and enhance existing lawyers against employers who hire illegal aliens, depart the criminals first, deport others where found as a firm statement to the world the United States is open to legal immigrants who respect the law, but not illegal ones who don’t, and perhaps follow Patterico’s suggestion to have ICE at court houses.
But not penalizing an entire country with a 50% tax on capital. Makes no economic sense, makes no political sense, and opens you up to allegations of racism fair or otherwise.
Certainly, bye bye Hispanic vote and I couldn’t blame them. A party that did that would lose my vote if I had the franchise.
Your party will never do that. It’s an extreme position. Hold to it as much as you like because it’s just going to remain a fantasy.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:04 pm*existing laws… existing lawyers are beyond hope of enhancement anyway!
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:05 pmPatterico,
So, is that only a consideration in determining the amount of bail?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:15 pmI apologize for deigning to speak for you, Pablo. I only meant I’m sure you agree the law should give judges more ability to deny bail to high risk of committing violence / high risk of flight offenders, not that you necessarily agreed with Patterico that the judge did the right thing.
I have absolutely no knowledge of how California applies bail here and Patterico does so I assume he’s right. Which is distressing.
You make all the good points about why this creep should be remanded until trial without even involving ICE. Failing that, immigration hold. Definitely.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:21 pmand by “offenders” I mean “accused”
😉
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:22 pm# 32 — Patterico:
I don’t know if ICE had a hold on him or not. My point is that it wouldn’t have mattered. The fact that the guy was granted bail on the criminal charges is going to drive the decision making on granting bail from detention on his deportation claim.
There are limited circumstances where a person subject to deporation is going to be held without bail pending his deportation proceeding. When there is an “Order of Deportation” entered, most of the time bail is denied. That is why many illegals agree to “Voluntary Deports” — meaning they waive any proceedings and agree to be transported back to the border where they walk across.
When an “undocumented” person is taken into custody, and are “subject” to deportation, but an “Order of Deporation” is not yet entered, they are entitled to a bail hearing, and they are allowed to remain free on bail pending their status determination if they can satisfy an immigration judge that they are not a flight risk or danger to the community.
What happened here? A guy was released on bail by the State of New Jersey which had charged him with a litany of violent crimes. Apparently, the State of New Jersey was satisfied that he wasn’t a flight risk or danger to the community under the terms and conditions of release they imposed upon him. Why should an immigration judge come to a different conclusion when the only issued before the immigration court is the matter of the guy’s status? Is it the role of the immigration judge to save the residents of Neward (or LA) from the idiotic decisions of the bail statutes that are within their power to change?
You say someone in the country illegally shouldn’t be released. Well, I’d be willing to wager just about anything you wanted to put up that I’m more doctrinaire conservative than you are, but I would challenge you to articulate how you would make a factual determination as to an arrestee’s immigration status prior to an adjudicatory proceeding on that question, and still respect the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Due Process Clause in the context of immigration matters.
No matter how much we might want it to be the case, we do not have summary status procedures where persons without legal status are taken from the back of Border Patrol vehicles and loaded into buses headed for the border. There are procedural safeguards that Congress and the Courts have imposed on the Executive Branch’s operation of the immigration enforcement system. One of those is that persons detained pending deportation examination, but not yet subject to an order of removal, are entitled to a bail determination.
wls (48cbad) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:31 pmOnce more I point out that the US is not serious about stopping illegal immigration or engaging in activities that make reform in Mexico their only option.
Horatio (a549f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:31 pmWhy oh why do we give constitutional protections to anyone except US citizens and legal residents? Insanity.
Oh well, if we can’t own slaves, at least we have a voluntary slave class (sarcasm intended)
Horatio (a549f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:34 pmOf course this took place in NJ, not CA, and I knew that, but had a brain expulsion of gas. Not relevant to the core ideas, but anyway…
I think wls makes an excellent point:
Yes, I wish the immigration judge had done exactly that, just like I wish the statues were different, and I wish the law wasn’t broken in the first place.
And I do not know how the whole immigration hold business works. It obviously doesn’t work well and should work much closer to how Patterico and Michelle Malkin envision it. Just like bail granting decisions should work closer to how Pablo and I see it.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:38 pmI agree with the concern over illegal immigrants causing such crimes.
But whether illegal alien or not, this fellow was indicted in April on aggravated assault and weapons charges and 3 months later in July on 31 counts including aggravated sexual assault of a child younger than 13.
Is it really the norm for such a person to be walking the streets free on bail? If so, why shouldn’t I get a permit to carry and purchase an appropriate weapon ASAP?
I had such an impulse about a year ago when a child was hit by an errant shot a block from my house, across from a school. The person who fired the shot had missed the same intended target a year earlier. And jails are filled with innocent people???? I don’t get it.
I heard about this crime previously.
Four friends home from college,
forced to line up kneeling,
all shot in the head at point blank range,
miraculously one manages to survive and eventually crawls from the scene.
I imagine there is a lot of blame to pass around.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:38 pmhttp://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/08/after_an_intense_fourday_inves.html
Like she doesn’t owe the community any answer.
steve (6830b3) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:40 pmYeah, obviously. Regardless of what the courts do. Defending yourself is your moral duty.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:41 pm#37 — Christoph
You have struck here on a point that is critical and little understoood. In many states — California included as Patterico points out — the legislatures have created bail “schedules” which set forth specific dollar amounts of bail on specific crimes. As I understand it — and Patterico will correct me if I describe it incorrectly — that bail schedule sets the defendant’s bail initially. The prosecutor can file a motion in the court to have the defendant’s bail amount increased to take into consideration specific facts and circumstances that make the bail schedule amount inappropriate. The defense can do the same thing in an effort to get the bail amount reduced.
But, this allows a defendant to be “bailed out” by friends or family within hours of arrest in many instances.
The feds don’t do it that way. There is no bail schedule, and the decision as to whether a defendant gets bail, and in what amount, is made individually for every defendant in every case, based on a report by a PreTrial Services Officer, and only after a hearing where the Prosecutor and Defense Attorney can make their views known.
Judges can detain a defendant in custody on any crime if the judge determines there are no conditiosn or combination of conditions that will minimize the flight risk or danger to the community posed by the defendant if released. The judge is always informed of the defendant’s criminal record, prior instances of failing to comply with court orders, and his “ties to the community” where arrested. I’ve had many defendants in fraud cases detained because the judge decided leaving them out on bail would unjustifiably risk the public being victimized again by the same person while awaiting trial.
wls (48cbad) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:42 pmChristoph, we seem to be wondering the same things here. No harm, no foul.
In Massachusetts, if you’re accused of even threatening violence, you can be held pending a “dangerousness hearing” and beyond depending on the outcome. Not long ago, I saw this happen to a Chinese gentleman whose wife had accused him of threatening her. He was not charged with any crime, she was simply pulling a restraining order on him. She mentioned that he had been in the Chinese Army, that his cousin owns a gun and that she was afraid he was going to kill her and their children.
He came to the RO hearing in custody and left in custody, to wait in jail for such a hearing. No charges, no crime alleged, nothing but her word and her fear.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:43 pmThat child was 5.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:45 pmThanks, Pablo.
wls, you go on to make many excellent points about the federal bail system. In short, it should be followed. It’s ridiculous to automatically or nearly automatically grant bail on a set bail schedule or any amount of money without considering the seriousness of the alleged offense, the accused’s danger to the community, ties to the community, and previous compliance with court orders.
C’est absoulement fou. Or for the non-Canadians here, it’s absoultely crazy!
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:50 pmThis article suggests that federal immigration officials did not know about Carranza or his illegal status after his earlier arrests:
But they do now:
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 2:52 pmWell, that changes things.
YES, as Patterico points out, ICE could have had agents at the jail. In the case of a sanctuary city out to thwart the federal government’s solemn obligation (however seriously its Congress and President take it) to protect its citizenry from violent foreign nationals, perhaps it should make an extra effort to do so.
But to say local officials shouldn’t receive at least some (considerable amount of) blame is hard to justify:
No, it doesn’t.
Primarily responsibility rests with the President for enforcing existing laws and that hasn’t been done too well. Equally, congress has to get serious to write better laws and fund enforcement.
Criticizing local officials (and I mean the mayor and city councilors, not the police, etc., who have to follow policies they may not agree with) is entirely appropriate if the facts are as DRJ suggests.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:01 pmAlso — criticizing state legislators and Governors (and the citizens of said states!) for keeping bail provisions that don’t protect their fellow citizens… fair critique.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:03 pmIt would be nice if the federal government required that local authorities contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents when they arrest someone who appears to be in the country illegally.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:17 pmIf the illegal aliens who are committing criminal acts in the US are deported, they will only
Ross (56a0a8) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:24 pmreturn to the US illegally again and commit
more crimes.
I say that if an illegal is convicted, he should receive legal penalty for the crime and be
incarcerated here in the US, rather than deportation for them to come across illegally again.
It would also be comforting to know that there’s a system available that would allow locals to determine immigration status easily.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:24 pmBut they do now:
Since Larchira Carranza’s surrender on Thursday, federal immigration authorities have placed a detainer on him, requiring that immigration authorities be notified if he is ever released from custody, said Adam Puharic, a spokesman for the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
Comment by DRJ
Can I request that a whole lot of people be notified if he is ever released from custody?
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:25 pmThere is a great legal system in place in the
Ross (56a0a8) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:27 pmUnited States. Unfortunately, we are the victims of shyster lawyers and corrupt judges who hand out lenient, if any sentences. When will the
American people wake up and demand that judges
be held accountable for their actions?
We need more prisons, corrections officers, and more police.
We also need more deterrents to crimes, perhaps like California’s 3 strike law. Commit 3 crimes and you go to prison for life.
“Like she doesnt owe the community any answer.”
Well, steve, the gang here appears to have decided that it’s a local prosecutor’s job to notify federal immigration officials when someone is in the country illegally.
Of course, as a local prosecutor, I’m telling you that it is completely and utterly insane to place that responsibiity on us, because WE DON’T KNOW and it’s not our JOB to know.
But why listen to me, just because I know what I’m talking about. The locals are at fault for failing to do the feds’ job.
The gang says so.
Patterico (d4a899) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:28 pmRoss,
I think the idea is for illegal immigrants to serve time for their crimes prior to deportation. And I still hold out hope that the US will continue to tighten the borders so that getting back the next time will be harder to do.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:30 pmI live in Tucson, ARIZONA and am 1 hour away from the border. Things are bad here and worse in
Ross (56a0a8) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:32 pmPhoenix. At least Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Phoenix
has a hotline to report illegal aliens. Of course, he receives flak but at least Sheriff Joe is trying to help. I am tired of all these liberals and people saying illegals have rights.
If they are not here legally, and not American citizens, they are NOT entitled to the same rights as citizens.
Hi DRJ. Illegals are pouring over the border here. I have seen border police in Tucson
Ross (56a0a8) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:33 pmapprehending illegals in the Mexican part of town.
I’m told Christoph failed to notify prosecutors that the guy had been charged with a crime.
Patterico (da54e2) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:36 pmAnd we want this expense picked up by the US taxpayer because…?
Until we view those engaged in illegal immigration as an act of war on the part of Mexico, we’re not serious. We are mentally masturbating and acting upon our feelings…
Horatio (a549f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:37 pmAbout the only way I ever find out a dedendant is illegal is if the probation report says he has an INS hold.
Patterico (218ab0) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:40 pmPatterico,
I think it’s the job of all law enforcement to work together on this issue. As long as federal, state, and local authorities continue to say it’s the other guys problem, nothing will happen. The reality is that local law enforcement is more likely to come in contact with illegal immigrants on a daily basis.
You may be right that one answer is to give local law enforcement access to the federal database. However, in the Ramos-Compean transcript, there was testimony that the the Border Patrol used the El Paso police database instead of the federal database. If the Border Patrol doesn’t even use the federal database, I for one trust local law enforcement’s abilities to discern a suspect’s status more than I trust an overworked ICE agent.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:41 pmI’m suggesting that it should be part of the examination the court does before determining whether to grant bail. I can accept the fact that it is not, though that won’t change my opinion of whether it should be.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:41 pmRoss,
I live in West Texas. I feel your pain.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:42 pmThen that’s a problem that needs fixing yesterday.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:43 pmIs that Patterico at Comment #58 or an impostor?
nk (48899d) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:46 pm#34 Christoph,
When countries are being invaded, they do not successfully defend themselves by providing the invaders with tax breaks and economic incentives to continue the invasion. If the United States does not eliminate the economic incentives of this invasion, we will simply become a Northern province of Mexico.
Just think, it was only a few years ago, you didn’t have to “press one for English.”
Perfect Sense (b6ec8c) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:49 pmThis is just a question, I’m not making an argument here. I’m “agnostic” changed my mind, it evolved into an argument:
Don’t you and/or the police, at some point in your investigation, make a serious effort to establish the accused criminal’s identity?
And when you do that, doesn’t a person’s citizenship status one way or another become known? If not often, then at least occasionally?
When it does, as a prosecutor, if you realized the person can’t be held for bail, wouldn’t you notify ICE of the fact?
Newark is a sanctuary city. Might you not conclude they are less likely to notify ICE?
And as I said previously:
So maybe we’re not blaming the prosecutor as a person… but, in addition to stationing ICE at jails:
…wouldn’t it be nice if local officials were not discouraged by the sanctuary cities they work for from notifying ICE when they became aware of a violent illegal alien?
I’m not trying to be a jerk. I could be wrong at any of these steps, one of which depends on what came before it. Where am I going wrong?
Are you saying you never know if someone is an illegal alien or not? Why? Local city policy or is it just impossible for some reason?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:50 pmHey, your “strike” feature didn’t work. The first sentence will appear as gibberish because of it. Should read:
This is just a question, <strike>I’m not making an argument here. I’m “agnostic”</strike> changed my mind, it evolved into an argument:
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:52 pmYour position is extreme, Perfect Sense (it amounts to near-war with Mexico and a long one at that). How do you imagine carrying out your policy in a democracy with the electorate the way it is, not the way you think it should be?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:54 pmDRJ,
There’s no question that there needs to be cooperation and nobody desires it more than me. The premier example is Costa Mesa, where local sheriffs got training from federal officials on how to help.
The feds just absolutely have to be involved, though, and it’s THEIR job. Blaming law enforcement is just uncalled for, and it’s a distraction from any real solution.
If someone ever passed though my courtroom and killed someone and turned out to be illegal, and someone blamed ME for not telling the feds, I’d be tempted to punch that person in the nose.
Patterico (ccc3b3) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:54 pmPablo,
I’d love to be able to hold every violent criminal without bail. I’m just telling you, the reality is that it doesn’t happen. Has anyone noticed Phil Spector is out of custody?
Most murderers get bail. (Few make it.)
Patterico (376adb) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:57 pmFor all of you arguing that Pat’s up a tree on blaming the Feds rather than the judge, he’s right. Any judge in a “sanctuary city” would refuse to free someone with an immigration hold, but to get the hold you need an FedGuv presence. If the Feds are unwilling to get in the face of the “think globally, act locally” spit-in-the-man’s-eye types, there’s nothing a judge can do.
The Bush Admin doesn’t now and likely never did have the slightest inclination of really cracking down on illegal immigration. You all need to listen to L.A. talkhosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou skewer, barbecue, and glaze former DHS undersecretary Asa Hutchinson back in 2005 after a shockingly successful illegal sweep in Southern California was ordered shut down at the insistence of La Raza and the Mexican government. He reveals himself to be a dishonest hack with no answers whatsoever dancing to the tune of his masters.
L.N. Smithee (810432) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:57 pmI believe you. However, as Pablo says, that’s a problem that needs fixing tout de suite.
Anticipating that, I also ask this series of questions:
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:58 pmwls,
I would treat deportation proceedings like probation violations are treated in California. The judge makes a preliminary finding that the defenant has violated probation based on the probation report, and the defendant is held without bail.
Patterico (e7b928) — 8/10/2007 @ 3:59 pmI wouldn’t blame you for taking personal affront. That’s why I’m asking questions about what your city policy on this is, and mentioning mayors, councilors, state legislators, etc. I’ve said several times I wouldn’t blame a prosecutor or police officer for following their instructions.
I’m curious where the opportunity for improvement lies. How can no one in trying to determine a criminals identity so they can stand trial, surely an important step, hardly ever comes across the criminal’s citizenship status?
Maybe it just doesn’t come out. But that seems strange. I’m thinking it might be more likely someone isn’t telling you for whatever reason.
Wrong? Feel free to rip my position. But certainly those are some of the outstanding questions many of us in the gang have.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 4:02 pmCLARIFICATION: I’ve said several times I wouldn’t blame a prosecutor or police officer for following their instructions… or acting on knowledge they don’t have.
I guess, why don’t they have that knowledge? Some local police desire to assist the feds in enforcing immigration laws and some cities tell them not to. I gather.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 4:07 pmThe only thing I’m disagreeing with is the assertion that the feds are solely to blame. I don’t care who gets blamed first.
This is a horrendous crime. It was committed by an illegal who was out on bail for another horrendous crime. I think the people of Newark have a right to expect that their local authorities will do everything in their power to protect them from people like this. Instead of harboring people like Carranza, Newark and New Jersey should be demanding that ICE do something about them.
Granted, the feds are the feds, and they screw the pooch all the time. They don’t have all their people allocated the way they should. But do you seriously expect them to open an office in every jail in the country?
The feds are guilty of incompetence. The locals are guilty of putting politics ahead of public safety in an egregious manner. Pile as many additional charges on ICE as you want, but don’t acquit the sanctuary cities because they are guilty as bleeding hell.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 8/10/2007 @ 4:12 pmPatterico,
I know the topic hits close to home and it makes sense for you to consider how it might affect you as prosecutor. However, I encourage you to step back and consider that most of this discussion focuses on the role of police and sheriff’s offices, not prosecutors, in identifying illegal immigrants.
Christoph makes a good point that law enforcement routinely tries to identify detained or arrested persons so illegal status might become known at this point. In addition, as Ross notes, people like Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaijo affirmatively try to identify if defendants are illegal immigrants. All we ask is that law enforcement do what it can.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 4:25 pmPhil Spector isn’t an illegal with a criminal history under indictments on 31 counts including the rape of a 5 year old. The odds of Phil Spector not showing up for trial are near zero. The odds of him harming someone else while on bail are near zero.
Phil Spector is neither the flight risk nor the danger to the community that Jose Carranza is. He is not “every violent criminal”. If the judge has a bail schedule he’s obliged to follow that forces him to release a POS like this, then that is the fault of the state legislature.
Do we know that the feds knew this guy existed? Both sides need to be communicating on these things, and it isn’t the fault of one side that it doesn’t happen. It also isn’t the fault of the cogs in the two machines. It’s the fault of those who designed/legislated them.
As has been noted, Joe Arpaio seems to have found a way. We need more Joe Arpaios.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 4:52 pm#78 Patterico:
Yeah? What do you do the first time Jesus Lopez-Gonzales is detained without bail on a preliminary judicial determination because his DOB matches a previously deported alien with a crminal record, only to later find that the particular Jesus Lopez-Gonzales detained pending deportation was actually born 19 years ago in a farmhouse in Salinas — making him a US citizen — but that no birth certificate or Social Security number was ever obtained by his parents for him because they were in the country illegally?
Our citizen Jesus Lopez-Gonzales may have no good way to “prove” his citizenship in a timely fashion, but you would have him detained based on his name, ethnicity, DOB, and lack of papers — which the law doesn’t require citizens to possess. And he gets no opportunity for bail while the matter is being sorted out?
A person released on probation or parole has a diminished liberty already. They have all kinds of restrictions on their actions and movements, and loss of liberty is the consequence for violating those conditions. So, a preliminary determination that they have done so is sufficient due process to deprive them of liberty pending a final determination.
Apples and oranges.
wls (48cbad) — 8/10/2007 @ 4:53 pm“I know the topic hits close to home and it makes sense for you to consider how it might affect you as prosecutor. However, I encourage you to step back and consider that most of this discussion focuses on the role of police and sheriffs offices, not prosecutors, in identifying illegal immigrants.”
First of all, the issue is not ” how it might affect [me] as prosecutor” but fairness. If prosecutors don’t know a defendant’s illegal status, it’s simply unfair to talk about blaming them. And unlike virtually every commenter here, I actually have some knowledge about what we get to find out.
You say Christoph “Christoph makes a good point that law enforcement routinely tries to identify detained or arrested persons so illegal status might become known at this point.” Law enforcement generally scans a person’s fingerprints into a system to verify that their RAP sheet is truly theirs. RAP sheets don’t generally tell you that someone is illegal. As for the prosecution, the extent of our “investigation” into a defendant’s “identity” generally consists of making sure that guy over in the defendant’s chair is the guilty guy. If you think the prosecution routinely does some kind of background work-up on a defendant which includes his immigration status, you are sorely mistaken.
Glen Wishard implies I have let sanctuary cities off the hook. I challenge Glen Wishard to show me where I have done that. I have explicitly discussed sanctuary cities in this thread and the proper extent of their responsibility — which, once an alien is in custody, is very low compared to the feds. I have railed against Special Order 40 and sanctuary cities on this site and would like greater cooperation. But you folks are letting the feds off the hook, largely because you have a lot of misconceptions about the system and think all locals know every illegal coming through court is illegal. I’ll try to say this as clearly as possible: WE DON’T KNOW THAT. WE DON’T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO KNOW IT. Take the word of someone who cares.
Patterico (519c4d) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:16 pm“A person released on probation or parole has a diminished liberty already. They have all kinds of restrictions on their actions and movements, and loss of liberty is the consequence for violating those conditions.”
People here illegally have fewer rights than someone on probation. Namely, we can kick them out of the country, while we can’t do that to probationers.
“Our citizen Jesus Lopez-Gonzales may have no good way to prove his citizenship in a timely fashion, but you would have him detained based on his name, ethnicity, DOB, and lack of papers which the law doesnt require citizens to possess. And he gets no opportunity for bail while the matter is being sorted out.”
Our citizen Jesus Lopez-Gonzales may have no good way to prove his that he isn’t in violation of probation in a timely fashion, but you would have him detained based on his name, ethnicity, DOB, and probation report — not subject to cross-examination or any other sort of adversarial testing? And he gets no opportunity for bail while the matter is being sorted out??
NAZI!!
But that’s how the system works. The fact that you can hypothesize a situation where a mistake has been made does not make any valid point about the system generally. If there is enough for INS to put a valid hold on the guy, and no reason to believe the hold is wrong, the guy should be held without bail pending the hearing.
Patterico (7e8ccc) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:23 pmAgreed. No one said otherwise.
Makes perfect sense. Where is ICE’s budget to station agents at all criminal court houses or jails to do a work-up on all defendants? If they should be doing this now within current budgetary restraints, what should they be cutting out that they are already doing? Also, the criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Does ICE need probable cause to do said immigration work-ups en masse?
I don’t know. I’m just asking.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:28 pm“If they should be doing this now within current budgetary restraints, what should they be cutting out that they are already doing?”
There is a suggestion at the head of this post, and indeed at the head of every such post.
But in case you missed it, I’ll give you the short answer:
Everything.
They should cut out everything else until they have this covered.
Of course, you may have identified a class of illegals that should be targeted for deportation *before* those illegals who commit crimes in this country.
I breathlessly await the explanation of who they are. Which illegals should we target before the criminals, Christoph?
Patterico (81b570) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:40 pm“Phil Spector isnt an illegal with a criminal history under indictments on 31 counts including the rape of a 5 year old.”
Nope. Just an accused murderer.
Patterico (ef89aa) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:42 pmICE needs no PC to do immigration checks in jail.
Patterico (661319) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:43 pmWell put, Patterico. I’ll agree with that.
My remaining questions on this front are about probable cause. What criteria would you use for ICE to choose who to investigate? All criminal defendants? That would be fair and equitable, but does ICE not have to have some type of probable cause they violated immigration law and, if they do, what would it be?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:47 pm“Yeah? What do you do the first time Jesus Lopez-Gonzales is detained without bail on a preliminary judicial determination because his DOB matches a previously deported alien with a crminal record, only to later find that the particular Jesus Lopez-Gonzales detained pending deportation was actually born 19 years ago in a farmhouse in Salinas making him a US citizen but that no birth certificate or Social Security number was ever obtained by his parents for him because they were in the country illegally?”
If there isn’t a fingerprint system for identify the true identity of illegals, there should be.
Patterico (26b28b) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:48 pmPatterico,
Should local law enforcement notify ICE if it suspects a defendant is illegal?
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:49 pm“Should local law enforcement notify ICE if it suspects a defendant is illegal?”
It sounds like an easy yes answer, but explain to me how it comes up. Absent an illegal volunteering such information, to someone who knows ICE doesn’t know, it seems this would happen rarely.
Patterico (b61c01) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:55 pm“ICE needs no PC to do immigration checks in jail.”
I got your answer after the bell, because wasn’t included with your original reply.
Okay. Agreed. If so about the probable cause, ICE should make their top priority (but I don’t want them to stop such things as fighting human trafficking) immigration checks against all criminal defendants in jail.
You should read The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference by Malcolm Gladwell (if you haven’t already).
Most people completely misunderstand what the “Tipping Point” is as he uses it. He advocates an integrated approach dealing with several factors at once to create or counter a social epidemic. He also discusses the types of people essential to make behavioral change happen across large numbers of people.
And illegal immigration (predominantly) from Mexico surely is a social epidemic as much as anything else.
I can agree with you that is priority #1 yet, and it will seem contradictory, but is not when you understand the mechanism of social epidemics, still believe resources MUST be placed by ICE on other fronts even if that means siphoning some off of priority #1.
To use a somewhat unrelated, but still intriguing military analogy, there’s the principle of mass: Napoleon was famous for it. Maximum force at the point of engagement. And that’s what you propose.
But if you don’t have some troops keeping the Empire running at home, protecting your supply line, or otherwise tending to business you will STILL get p3wned.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 5:59 pmMoot because you explained no probable cause is required for jailed inmates. Does this mean imprisoned (convicted) or jailed awaiting trial incidentally?
I think it means both, but I want to clarify.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:01 pm“[D]oes ICE not have to have some type of probable cause they violated immigration law and, if they do, what would it be?”
I don’t know how ICE does its identification of illegals. But there should be as much info on an inmate at a jail as there is of an employee at a business. ICE can simply look at the identifying info the jail already collects at the jail for starters. No PC needed.
This isn’t that hard. It’s a question of priorities. The feds have the mandate and the information. Until they reallocate resources to make this their top priority, I have no sympathy for them. None. It’s the top decisionmakers I hold responsible.
And I feel for any prosecutor or local policeman who gets violent crimes pinned on them by ignorant people who assume this is a local function. It isn’t. It just isn’t. I want to see locals help to the extent possible, but the feds have to help make that happen. And it’s ultimately their responsibility.
Patterico (c5aabf) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:04 pmIt’s just that you said that it didn’t matter that Newark was a sanctuary city, and that the problem with sanctuary cities was a very minor one.
I realize that you were referring to this particular case, and ones like it, and not making a general statement. But I think our disagreement is a matter of degree.
The United States has avoided Europe’s spiking crime rates partly due to our strong local law enforcement, which is being straight-jacketed by political interests.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:07 pmICE doesn’t need probable cause when an inmate is in jail: Do you mean convicted criminals or accused people awaiting trial or both?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:13 pmGlen, you claimed I said the feds “are solely to blame.”
Let’s have a discussion where we don’t hyperbolically mischaracterize the other guy’s position, shall we? It will certainly save me a lot of aggravation.
If you want to call Newark a “sanctuary city” I want chapter and verse. People make a lot of assumptions in this area, and I dislike unexamined assumptions. I caught the L.A. Times making an overly broad characterization of L.A. policy in this area, and I think it happens a lot.
Links and facts. You want to deflect blame from the feds to any degree, prove your case.
Patterico (98e736) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:17 pmChristoph,
Anyone in jail has been identified by name and DOB at least. They’ve also had their fingerprints scanned into a database.
The issue is not P.C. It’s resources. OK? Period.
You want to contest me on that, provide proof. Otherwise, you’re wasting my time.
Patterico (223171) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:20 pmPatterico,
I guess your illegal immigrants are smarter than ours because there are a number who admit their illegal status. Others are suspicious, either because they are unable to provide any address or ID or because their identifying information – such as a driver’s license – comes back as false (numbers/names don’t match) or stolen (reported ID theft).
My question to you concerned suspected illegal status, not proven illegal status, and I think there might be frequent instances where the initial ID just doesn’t add up. The next step should be to call ICE. It would be even better if ICE had screeners on hand but I don’t see why it has to be “either/or.” Why not both?
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:24 pmPatterico — I think before you get someone held on a probation violation there is a little thing called a “hearing” at which the probation officer identifies the person in the courtroom as “the guy” that is subject to the liberty restrictions that probation/parole impose.
How do you propose to identify “Jesus” as “the illegal” when the issue of whether or not he is illegal is the matter under review?
Does a person here illegally have fewer rights than a citizen? Sure — once its established that they are here illegally. That’s what the deportation proceeding determines. So, what is that person’s status prior to the determination? The are not “legal” nor are they “illegal” — they are “without status” and “pending deporation.” The government has the burden of proving that they don’t belong — that’s why the statute includes as an element a finding that the person has entered without the permission of the government.
Now, what I find a little disingenous on your part — and it pains me to say so because we are of one mind about this problem in almost every respect — is that local law enforcement does not have the ability to consider a person’s status as a grounds for determining suitability for release on bail.
Every booking sheet and RAP sheet I’ve ever looked at — including a few hundred CLETS printouts — include “Place of Birth” among the biographical details.
So, when Mr. Carranza was booked by law enforcement authorities in April and July, they well knew that he was born in Peru. It would take one telephone call to ICE to find out if the guy had an A File, Green Card, visa, or was naturalized. That info could/should have factored into the judge’s decision-making on bond.
What you would propose, instead, is to have ICE/BP personnel stationed in every county jail in the country to check the status of every person booked into custody on whatever charge.
Now, from your perspective in LA County I would certainly consider that to be a wise use of ICE resources. That would be true for every border county in the country (I recognize that LA isn’t a border county).
But, where do you draw the line? How many counties in the 50 states do you include?
But, more importantly, what do you do with a person such as Carranza if ICE put a hold on him?
Suppose ICE did put a hold on him. He then posts whatever bail New Jersey required. Now ICE has to take custody of him because New Jersey is prepared to release him. So now he must go to an ICE detention facility. How long does he stay there? What if he says, “I wish to voluntarily deport.” Does ICE ship him to Peru while he has charges pending in New Jersey? New Jersey let him out, and the Feds no longer have a basis to detain him because he choses to cure his status problem by consenting to being deported.
How does New Jersey react if ICE sends him to Lima? Makes a trial sort of hard.
Or are the Feds obligated to hold onto Carranza at some facility — not a prison — near Newark so Carranza can consult with his lawyer and help with his defense — all because New Jersey deemed him insufficiently dangerous to warrant him remaining in custody pending trial.
Now, take that to its logical extreme. How do you think Lee Baca is going to respond when he learns that all those illegals in his county jail awaiting trial can be moved to a federal immigration detention facility if they are subject to deportation, while at the same time knowing that the feds will be obligated to keep them in the country so the same LA County that has released them can try them as well?
wls (48cbad) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:26 pmPatterico, you said “But make no mistake: primary and perhaps exclusive blame goes to immigration officials.”
I wasn’t trying to hyperbolically mischaracterize your position. I was just rephrasing what I thought you were saying.
But now you say “If you want to call Newark a ‘sanctuary city’ I want chapter and verse.”
I didn’t know that was in dispute. Newark has a “Don’t ask” policy, and is widely considered a sanctuary city. But if you want the chapter and verse, I don’t know the chapter and verse. If there is a legal definition of a sanctuary city, I don’t know what it is. I didn’t realize that it was what we were arguing about.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:32 pmPat, both sides have to make it happen. And when local law enforcement is barred by the powers that set their policy, from even inquiring about legal status, the problem is not the Feds’ alone. An awful lot of it is theirs but not all.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:32 pmWLS:
I agree with your point but this would be poetic justice given the feds historical propensity for imposing unfunded mandates on state and local governments.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:32 pmWhat are you talking about?
YOU asserted ICE doesn’t require probable cause to investigate people in jail. You provided no proof, but I accepted your assertion. I’m not “contesting you” now.
For clarification, I asked twice if ICE requires probable cause to investigate people who’ve been accused of a crime, but not convicted, and are so in jail awaiting trial. This versus people in prison because they’ve actually been convicted.
You haven’t answered that question. Do you know?
And give you proof of what? I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m not debating you about whether more resources are required.
To ask you a third time so there is no misunderstanding: You’re saying ICE needs no probable cause to investigate someone in jail. I’m saying fantastic. Outstanding. That was news to me and makes things a lot easier.
I’m just asking you this simple logical question: Does ICE not requiring probable cause apply only to people who have been convicted of a crime and are in jail/prison or does it also apply to people who may be in jail accused of a crime, but who haven’t been tried yet?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:36 pmUmm, not to be a troll, but what information would ICE have that would not be available to any peace officer or prosecutor (and that’s kind of a tautology because the prosecutor is the chief peace officer in any jurisdiction) just for the asking? And why would it not be any prosecutor’s job (Patterico’s Comment #58) to know everything he possibly could about the defendant up to and including whether he cut himself shaving while humming the Andorran national anthem twenty-seven years ago?
Sorry, Patterico, there may very well be political policies and lack of resources which prevent local law enforcement from checking and reporting criminal illegal aliens. And I may very well have a policy against locking my door or even lack the funds to buy a lock. But just as I cannot blame the police because my house was burglarized in such a case, we cannot blame the federal government for the illegal alien being let loose by local authorities to commit further crimes in their locality.
nk (48899d) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:37 pm“I guess your illegal immigrants are smarter than ours because there are a number who admit their illegal status.”
Great. It should be child’s play for the ICE agents on hand in the jails to identify them.
I really want no discussion of resources until the feds put all their resources on this.
Think of it this way. What if DAs said: “Gee, we’d like to prosecute all violent criminals, but we have to let some slip through the cracks, because we have misdemeanants to prosecute too” — wouldn’t you demand that they put more resources to violent criminals?
And that analogy is even unfair to DAs, because some people qualified to prosecute misdemeanants aren’t qualiified to prosecute violent criminals
“Umm, not to be a troll, but what information would ICE have that would not be available to any peace officer or prosecutor (and thats kind of a tautology because the prosecutor is the chief peace officer in any jurisdiction) just for the asking?”
Federal databases?
“And why would it not be any prosecutors job (Pattericos Comment #58) to know everything he possibly could about the defendant up to and including whether he cut himself shaving while humming the Andorran national anthem twenty-seven years ago?”
We learn what we can. But we aren’t illegal immigration law enforcement people. We are more focused on proving guilt of the crime in question. Illegal status, which my investigating officers have no way to check, is not a big factor there.
Christoph,
“You havent answered that question. Do you know?”
Christoph, I’ve answered that question so many goddamn times I’m ready to rip your eyes out for saying I haven’t.
ANYONE IN JAIL CAN BE INVESTIGATED FOR IMMIGRATION VIOLATIONS, GODDAMN IT, DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET?
Thank you.
Patterico (63355b) — 8/10/2007 @ 6:58 pmYeah, I understand it, but you could have just dispensed with the attitude and accepted that obviously I didn’t know if there was a distinction between someone incarcerated who has or has not been convicted and said, “It’s the same in both cases.”
Wouldn’t that have been easier and less stressful for both of us?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:02 pm“Umm, not to be a troll, but what information would ICE have that would not be available to any peace officer or prosecutor (and thats kind of a tautology because the prosecutor is the chief peace officer in any jurisdiction) just for the asking?”
Federal databases?
My bad. I should have known better. Gorelick’s wall leading to 9/11 as a leading example. I apologize, Patterico.
nk (48899d) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:03 pm” didnt know that was in dispute. Newark has a Dont ask policy, and is widely considered a sanctuary city. But if you want the chapter and verse, I dont know the chapter and verse. If there is a legal definition of a sanctuary city, I dont know what it is. I didnt realize that it was what we were arguing about.”
Well, Glen, how’s about you inform yourself and you go blaming Newark’s local law enforcemment once you have a clue what you’re talking about?
Not even in L.A. are the cops legally prohibited from asking suspects about their immigration status after a lawful arrest. Unfortunately, the LAPD brass doesn’t analyze their unexamined assumptions any more than you have — and L.A. is MORE of a sanctuary city than it HAS to be as a result.
Why don’t you set an example and do your research *before* leading us all down a path lined with assumptions?
Patterico (e19cd7) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:04 pmHow do those databases get populated if not for reporting from the agencies that have the vast majority, and often the only contact with illegals: the locals?
Again, Joe Arpaio has the right idea. These places have an opposite view and an opposite policy.
Maricopa County is part of the solution.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:06 pm“Wouldnt that have been easier and less stressful for both of us?”
It would be less stressful for me if you would read what I write, and not accuse me of failing to answer questions I already answered more than once.
Patterico (4b7f79) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:08 pmThis looks like a problem that federal databases aren’t going to solve.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:13 pm“Patterico I think before you get someone held on a probation violation there is a little thing called a hearing at which the probation officer identifies the person in the courtroom as the guy that is subject to the liberty restrictions that probation/parole impose.”
Well, WLS, you might be “surprised” to “learn” that you are absolutely “wrong” about that.
Patterico (f67e93) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:13 pmIt will be interesting to see how many ICE agents it takes to cover every jail in every Texas city and county.
Could you envision a system where cities with a minimum population (e.g., 10K, 25K, 50K) would have an ICE representative and smaller communities would self-report?
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:16 pmPablo,
LAPD officials treat Special Order 40 the way you have described. But the actual order doesn’t ead that way. That’s part of why I get upset about this: I want police agencies to scrutinize their assumptions just like I want my commenters to.
Patterico (f67e93) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:17 pmDRJ,
Sure. There’s room for reason.
But I’m more concerned with the 2 ICE agents in L.A. County’s 170,000 inmate per year population than I am with the exact logistics of how every remote Texas town gets covered. Again, it’s an issue of priorities; of course small towns will require the feds to demand some local cooperation. In fact, your example is a good illustration of the reality of the need for local cooperation.
Patterico (6f7f4d) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:23 pmBut that might be never, and I can’t wait that long!
I don’t know what to say. Newark appears on several lists of sanctuary cities (as does Trenton) and has been reported to have a policy of not reporting illegals.
But if this is incorrect, I’m happy to concede your point, Patterico. It’s not worth an angry exchange.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:34 pmPatterico, I think by and large, we’re looking at the bottom line, admittedly somewhat due to ignorance of policy minutiae, but also because it seems so bloody obvious. And the result in this case is three promising young people were murdered in cold blood by a guy who shouldn’t have been on the streets in a sanctuary city. A guy who NOW has an immigration hold on him after he was splashed all over the news.
That he didn’t have one the last time around is not solely the fault of the Feds. Yes, with a total overhaul of their system, and a dedication of massive resources, this could have been prevented and such measures should be underway. And they’re not.
But from the other side of the coin, it looks like a simple phone call that said “We’ve got what looks like a really bad dude here, and we think he’s illegal.” and this guy would likely have been behind bars where he belonged instead of out murdering kids.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:36 pmPatterico — so you’re saying that after the Probation Officer files some form of petition to violate John Q Patterico, and John Q Patterico is arrested pursuant to the warrant, there is no hearing at which it must be determined that the John Q Patterico arrested is the same John Q Patterico who was on probation and therefore subject to being held without bail pending disposition on the violation?
wls (48cbad) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:38 pmHearing? Sure. The judge reads the probation report.
That’s the hearing.
Patterico (9a4f29) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:42 pmPatterico, two questions. If you don’t want to answer them, consider them rhetorical and anyone else who knows the answer, please educate me because I don’t know and am not certain that Patterico’s answer was correct. He certainly gave no links.
1. Does ICE require probable cause that a person is not lawfully present to investigate in the absence of a warrant?
If the answer is “no” there’s no reason to address my second question.
2. If a person has not been convicted of a crime, why d0es ICE not require probable cause merely because they are detained in jail?
I’m searching for information on this, but the Internet is sparse. I’m finding references to ICE training prison officials to assist them in determining inmates’ immigration status, but ONLY for convicted inmates. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t apply to both, but I have not found any proof it does.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:45 pmPablo — you’ve got the right issue, but the wrong problem. I’m telling you from first hand experience that once New Jersey gave Carranza bail, no immigration judge would have denied him bail even if there would have been a Hold.
I think Patterico is misconstruing what an ICE “Hold” would have accomplished in this instance.
Once the guy posted his bail, the county jail would have called ICE and said “come get him or he walks.”
ICE would have gone to get him and put him in detention pending a status hearing. Carranza could have short-circuited that status hearing by agreeing to a “voluntary deport” — and he would have been fast-tracked for a trip to Peru.
What would New Jersey have said about that?
If Carranza didn’t agree to a voluntary deport, he would have been entitled to a bail hearing until his deportation hearing. There are several thousand (maybe tens of thousands) people awaiting deportation hearings everyday, and you are never going to get a law passed that denies bail to all those people while they await their “due process” — defined by the Supreme Court as “notice and a hearing”. Carranza wouldn’t go to the head of the line, and the law entitles him to bail if he can demonstrate that he’s not a flight risk or a threat to the community.
The immigration judge isn’t going to consider the fact that he was arrested on aggravated felony charges by New Jersey as a basis to detain him as part of him immigration case — New Jersey didn’t think it was important enough to detain him and they charged him with multiple felonies, why should the IMMIGRATION judge second guess the New Jersey criminal court?
wls (48cbad) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:50 pmThis June 5th article is ambiguous about the conviction status of the inmates, but does make LA County look bad.
Don’t shoot the messenger, I don’t know if it’s true. But here is what it says:
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:52 pmThis June 5th article is ambiguous about the conviction status of the inmates, but does make LA County look bad.
Don’t shoot the messenger, I don’t know if it’s true. But here is what it says:
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:55 pmChristoph — you have hit upon a VERY vexing issue in states like California. If an inmate in county jail on a first time arrest says he was born in Fresno, is there any basis for ICE to investigate that claim? ICE doesn’t need probable cause to simply investigate someone, but ICE isn’t entitled to simply start trolling through databanks looking for evidence that the inmate wasn’t born in Fresno, but was born in Michoacan.
Now, apply that same question to someone driving in a car in a bordertown. What about a Hispanic male driving a van in a bordertown would give BP personnel any cause — reasonable suspicion or otherwise — to stop that Hispanic male to determine if he was illegal? There are lots of Hispanic males driving in Nogales or El Paso or San Diego.
Does a Hispanic male sitting in LA County jail have any less protection for ICE/BP inquiry than a Hispanic male driving on I-5, when there is nothing beyond his ethnicity that would suggest he wasn’t born in Fresno?
wls (48cbad) — 8/10/2007 @ 7:57 pmwls, I would hope the answer to that is “Bail violation. Lock his ass up until trial.”, though I concede that might not be the case.
Bail is predicated on a promise to appear, and agreeing to deportation flies directly in the face of that.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/10/2007 @ 8:02 pmI don’t know the answer to any of your excellent questions, wls.
A) Your talking about convicted criminals in jail, right?
B) Also… does it make any difference whether they’re convicted or not?
I’m doubtful that without probable cause ICE can just investigate everyone in jail who hasn’t been convicted of anything.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 8:04 pmwls #122,
I don’t know exactly what your job demands are, or Paterico’s either, but I can tell you that I have gone to court for somebody who had sexual relations with a fourteen-year old girl, the morning call had 150 defendants on it, and the State’s Attorney had about 30 seconds to decide whether to charge my client with a felony where the defense that the child was a prostitute was available or with a misedemeanor which was strict liability. The prosecutor had the police report which included my client’s record sent back by the FBI after running his fingerprints. I believe Patterico when he tells me that he is at the mercy of the information he gets from the police and the Court’s investigative arms.
nk (48899d) — 8/10/2007 @ 8:06 pmnk, in which case the Judicial Watch article referred to in comment #126 asks if the LAPD are doing their part.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 8:08 pm” ICE doesnt need probable cause to simply investigate someone, but ICE isnt entitled to simply start trolling through databanks looking for evidence that the inmate wasnt born in Fresno, but was born in Michoacan.”
Why the fuck not?
If someone is in jail they can use whatever information they have to troll whatever databses they like.
You show me where I’m wrong.
Man, you people are trying my patience — all of you.
Patterico (26b762) — 8/10/2007 @ 8:10 pmBased on this Fox News report, it’s hard to understand why Carranza was given bail in July. Apart from his immigration status, the July charges involved shocking conduct – he was alleged to have repeatedly sexually assaulted a 4-year-old child left in his care, assaults that apparently occurred during a 1 or 2-year period. There were also allegations that he threatened the child and her parents. What does it take to deny bail if that’s not enough?
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/10/2007 @ 8:17 pmYou should debate Michelle about this, Patterico. I think that would make an intriguing Hot Air video episode.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 8:21 pmI love the constant endless stream of prattle about how the employers in this country are the big bad guys and THEY should carry the burden about immigration status upon their shoulders and if they get caught penalize them severely! Anybody here ever hear of an I-9?
How about we put the same burden on every cop walking a beat, every attorney that has contact with every client. Fill out the phukin I-9 on em all! Employers have been required to do so since 1986! Not that anything really changed cuz it did not. If they are not eligible to work in this country then they should not be eligible for anything else in this country! NON Citizens have not earned such freedom or the rights that go with it!
Responsible party? As near as I can tell anybody who’s check is provided by any govt agency and entertains any illegal is the one responsible that they be detained, deported or shot on sight!
As a country we desire to STOP the flow, then stop it! Not many folks will risk real death for a job at $6 an hour. Besides it will give all those SWAT teams something REAL to do as well as provide them with a feeling of being needed. Serving warrants on innocent citizens in the middle of the night probably is not their thing, so boarder duty would suit them.
TC (1cf350) — 8/10/2007 @ 8:22 pmExecution Murder of Three-Illegal Alien Charged-When Will it End?
Dear Senators Lautenberg and Menendez,
Congratulations. Thanks to your open borders policies, three of your citizens in Newark are now dead. As of this posting, a 28 year old illegal alien from Peru, Jose Carranza, is charged with the execution-style slaying of three American teenagers on a playground in Newark, NJ. According to accounts, the victims were forced to kneel and were shot in the back of the head. Worse yet, this suspect was already out on bail on sexual assault charges involving a minor. Question: Why was this bum in the US to begin with? Answer: Because our elected officials refuse to control who enters this country, refuse to control our borders, and refuse to scoop up the criminal element among our illegal aliens for deportation. So, as a result, we now witness another outrage that our leaders could have prevented.
How interesting it is to watch the TV news conferences coming out of Newark and to listen to the words of the DA and the Mayor. Is this the same District Attorney’s Office that failed to keep this person off the streets in the first place? Did they fight hard enough to keep him behind bars as a danger to society, given the nature of the initial crime-or his potential as a flight risk given that he was an illegal alien? What about the Mayor, who runs a “santuary city”? Do these people bear some responsibility for what happened? I hope the families of the victims and the residents of Newark are asking some hard questions today.
This is not the first time. It seems every week, Fox’s Bill O’Reilly reports on another story involving crimes being committed by illegal aliens, who, in many cases, had already previously come into contact with the criminal justice system. Yet, these known criminals are not being turned over to immigration offcials by local authorities. In addition, many US cities, like Newark, have proclaimed themselves “sanctuary cities”, which will not turn over illegal aliens to ICE. As a result, as these criminal aliens walk through the revolving door of our justice system, just like their American counterparts, they are walking the streets among us and committing more crimes. So now, we have three dead youngsters in Newark, a dead girl in Washington state, where a Thai national, Terapon Adhahn, 42, with previous sex convictions, is charged. Then there is the Liberian national, Mahamu Kanneh, 23, of Gaithersburg, Md, whose charges of sexual abuse and rape against a 7-year-old minor were dropped because the court could not find an interpreter for him (even though he was educated in American schools, speaks English, and comes from a country where English is the official language). All this in the past month. To be accurate, the latter two cases involve foreigners apparently in the US legally, but why was the Thai allowed to remain after his first conviction? Legal or illegal, once an alien commits a crime and is convicted, then, when the sentence is finished, there is no justification for allowing that person to remain in the US. Or am I just crazy?
Another question: Why do we have to turn on O’Reilly at Fox News to hear about these outrages? Answer: Because the liberal, mainstream news media tries to bury them, that’s why. Stories like this don’t fit into their open borders agenda. It is amazing how many people I talk to-people who are educated and consider themselves well-informed- who never have heard these stories until they get them from me. These are the same people who read their newspapers or watch “Perky” Katie Couric and the CBS Evening Blues. They would rather get their daily dose of Bush-bashing than be informed about the chaos that is our city streets, already polluted by our own home-grown predators and now supplemented by the World’s criminal element.
The other issue that rankles me is the constant series of cases involving sexual predators (American or otherwise) where some lenient judge lets off a child rapist with probation or a few months in jail-only to see the same offender get out and commit similar crimes. Again, one has to turn on O’Reilly to even learn about these outrages. It seems that in Vermont, sex crimes against children aren’t even on the books. What kind of country refuses to protect its children against these monsters?
Now that I’ve presented the problem, let me offer some solutions. First, every state that has not yet done so, needs to pass a version of Jessica’s Law. If you don’t know what Jessica’s Law is, you need to look it up. To date, 42 states have such legislation. In short, this law would keep child predators locked up.
Second, the Federal Government needs to advise these sanctuary cities, that unless they cooperate with the Feds when it comes to criminal illegal aliens, they will lose federal funding-for everything.
Third-and this is for the voters. You need to know who your judges are and what they are doing on the bench. In this, O’Reilly is performing a public service. (Of course, the liberals hate him for it.) In the case of appointed judges, you need to know that elections have serious consequences when it comes to who gets appointed on the bench. The Supreme Court, the Appellate courts and Federal Courts are prime examples. Liberal politicians put liberal judges on the bench. Liberal judges put criminals back on the streets.
Finally, let your elected representatives know in writing how you feel about their dereliction of duty. The above address to Senators Lautenberg and Menendez is not just some rhetorical gimmick on my part. It is what I said to them in an email today.
gary fouse
fouse, gary c (66ebf8) — 8/10/2007 @ 8:23 pmfousesquawk
I can no longer agree (as I alluded to above) about cutting back everything else to staff every jail.
Yes, it’s important, but, and I swear I hadn’t seen this when making my point about human trafficking above; rather, I remember a movie I watched in March, this is proof positive ICE can’t just follow your suggestion literally.
9-women arrested for immigration sex-slave human trafficking in Los Angeles.
That ain’t small potatoes.
ICE has a duty to mankind as well as their international counterparts in immigration work and law enforcement plus the American people to fight these evils in addition to the horrendous evils like you detail in your excellent series.
Anyway, good night. Like most of your commentators, we’re on the same side. Disagreeing about some of the details doesn’t mean I don’t see your points or support your goals and work.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/10/2007 @ 11:16 pmOK, I’ve been a little testy about this. Let me bring it down a notch.
Christoph,
When I say “everything” I mean “all resources devoted to deporting people” and not literally “everything ICE does.” For example, as you know, I think they need border enforcement. I’m on a Treo and can’t view the video you have linked, so I can’t tell to what extent ICE was involved in that investigation, or whether the perps are themselves illegals. But obviously exposing a ring like that is a worthy cause.
DRJ,
As my comments have hopefully made clear, I think getting locals involved in identifying illegals, like they are doing in Costa Mesa, is probably going to be one of the main ways we help fight this problem.
But I want us to be smart about it. A lot of people like Glen Wishard are slapping a label like “sanctuary city” on cities (like L.A.) whose only stated policy is not to have local officers contact people on the street for the purpose of initiating immigration investigations. In L.A., and I bet in other cities, nothing in the law prevents officers from 1) asking suspects approached or arrested for another reason about their immigration status, and/or 2) calling ICE if they have a suspected illegal in custody. Rather than railing about sanctuary cities as Glen has, let’s get specific about what officers may and may not do, and get them doing what they need to.
Patterico (f49bb0) — 8/11/2007 @ 4:57 amWLS,
Frankly, it’s your comments on this thread I find most baffling.
For one thing, you need to understand what I have already said: probationers are held without bail pending violation hearings on the strength of a probation report and nothing more, every day throughout California.
Better call your buddies at the ACLU. Maybe some poor guy is being wrongfully held. Bail for everybody!
Second, you call me “disingenuous” because RAP sheets list a place of birth. I don’t get your point. Do you expect me as a prosecutor to assume that every criminal defendant with a foreign birthplace listed on their RAP sheet is here illegally? So then I should pore over all their RAPs for these foreign birthplaces, and call ICE every time I see one? That can’t be what you’re suggesting because it would be a stupid suggestion. Surely you see it would be far less efficient than my proposed solution: having sufficient ICE agents at every jail, supplemented if necessary by locals like they do in Costa Mesa.
By the way, in Costa Mesa they claim they are now screening *all* inmates for immigration violations, as opposed to L.A. where only 10 percent are screened. I don’t know precisely how ICE screens people for immigration violations — and I’d like to know more — but I know law enforcement doesn’t need P.C. to troll databases for investigatory reasons. For example, the cop behind you on the road can enter your license plate into a database of stolen vehicles. Total amount of legal justification required: none. Hardworking cops go around running plates all day. Don’t like it? Call your buddies at the ACLU. You think there’s widespread civil rights violations in Costa Mesa because they’re screening everyone? If so, you’re wrong, but feel free to test your theory by calling your buddies at the ACLU.
Patterico (6dc212) — 8/11/2007 @ 5:13 am“Based on this Fox News report, its hard to understand why Carranza was given bail in July. Apart from his immigration status, the July charges involved shocking conduct – he was alleged to have repeatedly sexually assaulted a 4-year-old child left in his care, assaults that apparently occurred during a 1 or 2-year period. There were also allegations that he threatened the child and her parents. What does it take to deny bail if thats not enough?”
DRJ,
There is evidently a disconnect between what ordinary citizens like you and Pablo think it *should* take to legally deny someone bail entirely, and what it does take.
It may be analogous to WLS trying to explain that people awaiting deportation are entitled to bail. I find that astonishing, just like you find it astonishing that someone accused of a shocking crime is generally entitled to bail.
I don’t know how it works with immigraion violations, but on the criminal side, there is no rule that says criminals accused of shocking crimes can be held without bail. Compton court, and indeed all of L.A. County, is packed to the gills with defendants accused of more shocking crimes, most of whom have had bail set. That doesn’t mean they’ll make it — but it has been set.
Patterico (a6640f) — 8/11/2007 @ 5:29 amYou’ve definitely convinced me of one thing, Patterico. It is time — gasp — to look into getting a Palm.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/11/2007 @ 6:13 amAs a follow-up to one of Patterico’s last posts: the place of birth on the RAP is usually provided by the suspect. If Jesus Lopez-Gonzales says he was born in Salinas, the officer will write that down as POB. If he has no prior arrests, that will show on the RAP (and, yes, law enforcement is aware folks lie, but also that very few folks carry their birth certificate around waiting for their first arrest). No law enforcement agency (or probation dept or D.A.’s office) I’m aware of has the personnel to confirm that data on a first arrest.
roy in nipomo (056cbc) — 8/11/2007 @ 6:32 amRoy, one, Nipomo’s a great place. Have been there (I’m from Canada) and had a blast.
Two, do you think ICE could be made to have enough resources to work with the jails nationwide to screen all prisoners effectively?
On the Internet, I saw a database screen showed something like 4% results compared to a manpower intensive investigation working with jailers who were trained by ICE (twenty times more effective, obviously more costly).
Undoubtedly, this is because some of the database issues you mention with the illegal immigrant giving false info.
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/11/2007 @ 6:39 amDid the DA even request remand for a violent defendant subsequently charged with the sexual assault of a child? Jose Carranza was under indictment on aggravated-assault and weapons charges. He was even re-arrested on the sexual assault indictment, but allowed to go free after a judge consolidated the initial $150,000 bond with the $300,000 bail pending.
Authorities blew several chances to get Jose Carranza off the streets.
steve (45e725) — 8/11/2007 @ 6:46 am“Why the fuck not?…
Man, you people are trying my patience — all of you.”
I know the feeling.
No discussion of the foreign policies you voted for vis-a-vis south and central america, that weaken the local economies and drive people north. No discussion of NAFTA. No discussion of the aftermath of civil wars in Guatemala and El Salvador that we paid for. No discussion of [PDF]research on crime rates among immigrant populations except those slanted to say what you already believe.
No discussion of the aftereffects of anything you’ve ever argued for. par for the course
AF (4a3fa6) — 8/11/2007 @ 6:49 amCould there be enough resources? Of course, if there was political will on the part of enough citizens and their elected officials. The main question is: what are folks willing to give up (monetarily, not liberty-wise) to enable it? Lots of programs come to mind (for me), but my priorities are not the same (or even near) what the majority’s is (totally leaving aside the priorities of elected officials – which usually is pretty much limited to re-election).
As much as I hate to say it (because I was one), but employers are in a better position to get the info. Folks wanting jobs are willing to produce documents (of course, ICE would have to be the ones verifying it and doing so in a timely manner).
Almost everything comes down to willingness and money. With enough of the former, the latter can be found.
roy in nipomo (056cbc) — 8/11/2007 @ 7:03 amNo discussion of the aftermath of civil wars in Guatemala and El Salvador that we paid for.
Huh? The U.S. paid for a civil war in Guatemala? Completely slipped my radar.
Patterico doesn’t owe anyone a primer on Latin American foreign policy or a lyceum on interventions to establish puppet governments in weak states.
The issue is what did the Essex DA do to keep Carranza off the streets having him in front of a judge four times in six months? There should be a record showing remand demanded. Otherwise, said prosecutor should be chasing ambulances.
steve (45e725) — 8/11/2007 @ 7:23 am“Authorities blew several chances to get Jose Carranza off the streets.”
steve, can you tell me with certainty that the guy could have been held without bail under New Jersey law? I would guess he could, if he was on bail on one case and committed another, but I don’t know for sure.
The only thing I do know is that there should have been an immigration hold on him — and if you can get bail while facing deportation proceedings, then we need to change the law, because that’s just crazy.
Patterico (284196) — 8/11/2007 @ 7:34 amAF,
You ever think about starting your own blog? It’s great: you can talk about anything you want.
Patterico (457f85) — 8/11/2007 @ 7:42 am“Patterico doesn’t owe anyone a primer on Latin American foreign policy”
AF (4a3fa6) — 8/11/2007 @ 7:48 amI didn’t say he owes one; I think he needs one. Obviously you do as well.
I’ll be brief:
The death toll was 200,000
AF (4a3fa6) — 8/11/2007 @ 7:49 amWhat possible excuse could there be for his bail to be twice reduced in matters this serious? Had the office opposed it, the Essex DA would have said so by now and we’d riffle the transcript.
steve (45e725) — 8/11/2007 @ 7:56 amHey, at least one piece of the Regurgitator’s link was applicable to this thread:
“But he did not grant one key request from this region’s leaders, who want the United States to cease or slow deportation of undocumented Central Americans, many of whom send money to relatives in their impoverished homelands.
“We must continue to discourage illegal immigration,” he said. “We must enforce our laws.”
The he refers to Bill Clinton on a swing through Guatemala.
daleyrocks (588d22) — 8/11/2007 @ 8:12 amThese claims that the Feds don’t have enough resources mostly boil down to the “computers are hard” argument. For Michael “Skeletor” Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, Harriet Miers, and Michael “heck of a job” Brown, Diebold, and Pres. Bush, maybe computers are hard.
They couldn’t get their comprehensive/amnesty bill passed. Team Bush still gets what it wants by behaving like buffoon characters in late-night Ronco infomercials. People who:
– can’t untangle their weed-wacker
– can’t use a normal garden hoe
– can’t move out of their chairs (The Clapper)
– slip when they use a standard salad colander
– can’t flip an omelet without a special spatula
– routinely lose their keys, so they need a keychain which responds to whistling
Building fences and setting up computers is not as difficult, expensive, or time-consuming as we are led to believe.
Wesson (7b180b) — 8/11/2007 @ 8:27 amI’m not encouraging illegal immigration, merely asking that the discussion not ignore the causes. Why not deal with that d?
AF (4a3fa6) — 8/11/2007 @ 8:29 amWhere’s your critique of the corrupt and inept Mexican government, then AF?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/11/2007 @ 8:38 amExactly. But that’s the rub.
I think what this thread illustrates is that immigration law is an almost impenetrable maze of conflicting federal, state, and local laws and ordinances, policy directives, and protocol. This is why I was against even more ineffective law, as represented by the hundreds of pages of the Shamnesty Bill.
Restoring lawful immigration will be messy. There is no way to do it perfectly, to the satisfaction of the ACLU or La Raza. But you have to start somewhere. And local enforcement against criminals is best, IMO.
Patricia (824fa1) — 8/11/2007 @ 8:40 amOf course we should deport the worst of the worst to begin with but what happens after that?
How many “elites” are willing to admit the truth: That all illegal aliens are in fact criminals who are here illegally, working illegally, using fake or stolen ID’s, social security numbers, driver licenses (or driving without a license, insurance or registration).
Is the media going to allow an open, fair discussion on the issue without calling these illegals – “hard working, undocumented immigrants”?
The issue won’t be solved until you see bus after bus, taking thousands of illegal out of the country, each and every day. Why? Because about 3,000 illegals cross our southern border each and every day and we’d have to deport that many daily just to break even!
Will it happen? Not likely. The elites of both parties want the illegals here and they want to dissolve US sovereignty and create a North American Union, that’s why the illegals are allowed to run free here. That’s why Spanish language is being pushed on us 24/7/365.
Nessus (f6cafd) — 8/11/2007 @ 9:06 am“Where’s your critique of the corrupt and inept Mexican government, then AF?”
Where’s your critique of our relation to it, Pablo?
AF (4a3fa6) — 8/11/2007 @ 9:07 amCarlos Salinas a friend of yours?
I thought you were looking for root causes, AF. Mexico is responsible for Mexico and to Mexicans. You hold a PRI card?
Pablo (99243e) — 8/11/2007 @ 9:09 amSpecific policies about what officers may and may not do regarding illegal immigrants is exactly what makes a “sanctuary city”. We’re not talking about two different things.
I’m not the one who labeled Newark (or Trenton, or Jersey City) a sanctuary city. I’m sure that in the wake of this tragedy a great many things in Newark are going to be examined over the coming weeks, including police policies, unless the people who do so are just going to be shouted down.
Glen Wishard (b1987d) — 8/11/2007 @ 9:23 amGlen,
You’re right that “sanctuary cities” (which I generally interpret as local government preventing law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status) are a problem. The system would be more effective if all local governments were like Costa Mesa.
But the only way to get this done nationwide is to make it a federal priority, nationwide. Otherwise we’ll have a patchwork quilt of practices and regulations.
There’s no excuse for not getting this right — everywhere.
Patterico (736ed9) — 8/11/2007 @ 9:50 amMy apologies to all. Despite my cursing, spitting, and screaming, it appears the sanctuary city policy may have much bigger impact than I had realized — and it appears New Jersey may handle some things different from L.A. Here is a NYT article that suggests that the feds didn’t know about the guy previously, and that the jail phoned the feds by checking his SS#. It also implies that the D.A. (unlike in L.A., where I never learn immigration status until the feds put a hold on the guy) may have known about his status, and further implies that a Newark city sanctuary policy may have prevented the feds from learning about this earlier.
It appears I overgeneralized from my own experience and drew some badly wrong conclusions, and screamed and spat at many of you in the process. Mea maxima culpa. We’re all learning more about this and I should have been much more moderate and careful in my comments. Sorry about that, really.
Patterico (650060) — 8/11/2007 @ 11:03 amJerry Riviera’s head must be exploding right now. Surely one person can’t be both an illegal alien and a monster at once?!
Xrlq (9d319c) — 8/11/2007 @ 11:22 amPatterico,
#141 – I understand bail is allowed even when the facts underlying the indictment are shocking but I still have a hard time understanding why a court considered bail for Carranza in July 2007.
I know that you know the Texas Constitution provides for a right to bail except in specific circumstances. Thus, despite its reputation as a law and order state, Texas may have one of the most permissive bail systems in the nation. However, one exception to the right to bail is where a defendant has two or more pending felony charges – which was the case for Carranza after his July charges were filed – and those July charges were shocking even by today’s “anything goes” standards. Perhaps the nature of the pending and current charges aren’t considered for purposes of bail in New Jersey, but they should be.
#164 – I’m glad we’re finding common ground on this issue. I wish the US government would put agents in every law enforcement office in Texas and run a check on every person detained or arrested. I don’t see that happening given today’s political landscape, so I’m willing to let the local communities drive this issue from the ground up. Thus, I don’t view a patchwork system on immigration with the same level of concern you do. I might even prefer a system where, for instance, South and West Texas formulate a system that works for their small communities, while Arizona and New Mexico might come up with other methods, and California does its thing. The experimentation process might even yield better results in the short and the long run.
DRJ (bfe07e) — 8/11/2007 @ 11:49 amPatterico #164,
Giving either the prosecutor or the defense attorney the benefit of the doubt in a big city’s preliminary hearing courtroom (make that zoo) is always the safest bet.
One of my earliest cases was an unlawful possession of a gun at an inner city branch court. Good judge, even though he leaned back and sat crosslegged. As we’re arguing whether Terry allows a policeman to just reach in a person’s jacket and feel around for a gun, a dozen or so prostitutes waiting in the back start a hair-pulling. It escalates to high heels being taken off and used as weapons. The hearing goes on as the deputies twist-arm them out. It was probably nothing out of the ordinary in that courtroom. To people who think that real-life criminal law resembles “Perry Mason” or “Law and Order” with perfectly-scripted proceedings, existentialist agonizing and feel-good results ….
(I do think that if we put more resources into the front end to increase the probability of punishment we would save more from the back end by reducing severity of punishment. But, unlike other commenters here, I do not demand that you start such a discussion.)
nk (119c34) — 8/11/2007 @ 12:01 pmHey, Pat, this only shows what a spider web immigration law really is. Even Sheriff Carona’s plan was, IMO, a political ploy. Before his election, Carona said he would check for illegal arrestees over the whole population. Not a contrary voice was head from the ‘civil rights’ crowd. Why? I believe a fix was in–soon after he won the election, Carona announced that his plan was approved by the feds but in a greatly reduced way. All parties were “more comfortable” with this plan. Big surprise. Immigration plan gutted by feds…
Patricia (824fa1) — 8/11/2007 @ 2:12 pmPatterico, if this is your position then, on its face, would you not agree that your earlier position about not criticizing the local authorities (judge and/or prosecutor) could have been overblown?
And attacks at those of us who leveled criticisms at the local authorities — on the bail issue — were unwarranted?
Christoph (92b8f7) — 8/11/2007 @ 2:36 pmYes.
Patterico (e5dbc7) — 8/11/2007 @ 3:28 pmPatterico @ 163:
“The system would be more effective if all local governments were like Costa Mesa.”
No, the system would be more effective if all local jurisdictions were like Maricopa Co AZ.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 8/11/2007 @ 5:54 pmOur houses would not need to be heated or airconditioned if they were perfectly sealed and insulated. It would, however, be only a matter of hours before they turned into graves if they were perfectly sealed and insulated. I don’t claim that the cracks in our legal system are necessary or desirable — just that the alternatives now available are worse.
And my opinion of Joe Arpaio is not something I want to impose on Patterico’s bandwidth. But it is here.
nk (119c34) — 8/11/2007 @ 6:15 pmIn MA, it is. If you are rearrested while on bail, you can immediately be held for 60 days, without recourse.
Pablo (99243e) — 8/11/2007 @ 6:53 pmThe system would be more effective if they hired the credit card companies to set up the database and tracking system. Somehow, Visa manages to record every single one of my purchases every month, apply complicated interest rate formulas, and protect me against forgery! Where there is the will, there is the way.
The debacle with the ICE computers at LAX last night is just a taste of the future.
Patricia (824fa1) — 8/12/2007 @ 9:43 amHere’s a shorter headline. Maybe written by a Times staffer.
Vermont Neighbor (b3bbb4) — 8/13/2007 @ 10:57 am“Guest Worker Faces Legal Fees and Murder Charges. Impeach Bush”