19 Comments - Chairman McBroom - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:11 pm: I think the Justice Department might not understand what the legislation does. - PJ - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:12 pm: Love the gaslighting aspect of “it’s better for immigrant communities” to have police be in the business of jailing people for their immigration status. First of all… no. Second of all, as dozens of police chiefs have publicly recognized, it’s much harder for them to do their jobs if entire communities of people feel like they’ll be handcuffed and shipped out for reporting a crime or interacting with police in any way. - Grand Avenue - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:12 pm: Any statement from Sam McCann today on the issue? - Mama - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:17 pm: =“Failure to deport aliens who are convicted for criminal offenses puts whole communities at risk – especially immigrant communities in the very sanctuary jurisdictions that seek to protect the perpetrators.”= This law is for aliens who have never been convicted for criminal offenses. I don’t care what the White Supremist Judge said, most aliens are not criminals. - Pundent - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:18 pm: =I think the Justice Department might not understand what the legislation does.= Oh I think they do. They’re simply showing that their dog whistle is every bit as loud as the ones that are used by others in this state. - Demoralized - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:19 pm: ==Failure to deport aliens who are convicted for criminal offenses== If they are criminals they aren’t protected by this law. All this law does is say that law enforcement isn’t going after anyone simply for the fact that they are an illegal immigrant. - Anonymous - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:20 pm: There are slight differences between this Act and the Court ruling, that the Act goes a little (but not a lot) beyond, so maybe coincides is a better word. - Anonymous - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:22 pm: I’m pretty sure state and local law enforcement can’t deport anyone. Nor should they be in the business of holding anyone in jail with charge or warrant. - wordslinger - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:26 pm: Pardon, “without charge or warrant.” 3:22 was me. - igotgotgotgotnotime - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:41 pm: Is that the same Justice Department helmed by the ex-Senator adjudged too racist for a federal judgeship? Sessions should probably recuse himself here, too, given his record. - Cheryl44 - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:22 pm: I rather doubt the USAG knows the meaning of “recuse.” - walker - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:39 pm: Let’s assume the Justice Dept official hasn’t read the bill. Otherwise he or she would just be lying for political purposes. - Roman - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:41 pm: == The governor’s office pointed to a decision made by an Illinois-based federal court that immigration detainer orders from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are illegal. == Not exactly. If ICE makes an individualized determination that a court defendant is likely to flee, they can still issue a detainer request. It was up to the local law enforcement agency to decide it they want to honor the detainer. The TRUST act take that decision away from from local law enforcement in Illinois. Now they will have to ignore those detainers. - Anonymous - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:56 pm: ==If ICE makes an individualized determination that a court defendant is likely to flee, they can still issue a detainer request.== Show me a situation like that which isn’t or couldn’t be accompanied by a warrant, and I’ll show you the winning lottery numbers. ICE wasn’t making those individualized determinations because hey honestly couldn’t for cases that didn’t involve criminal activity. - Saluki - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 5:06 pm: “White Supremist Judge” This type of banter is counter productive. Different views of policy do not make people racists, white supremacists, or any other epithet that you want to throw around. Try harder. - Sally - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 6:59 pm: Okay people college-educated or not read this phrase “illegal immigrant” hence the word “illegal” there is only one interpretation for that just one it would be “law breaker” quit trying to sugar coat it - Anonymous - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 7:23 pm: ==Okay people college-educated or not read this phrase “illegal immigrant” hence the word “illegal” there is only one interpretation for that just one it would be “law breaker” quit trying to sugar coat it== Except the current, correct phrase is “undocumented” - Anonymous - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 7:35 pm: Sally @ 6:59pm: Some “illegal” immigrants have not committed a crime by their mere presence in the US. Unlawful entry (entry w/o the approval of an immigration officer) is a misdemeanor under Federal law. So, yes–a crime. However, overstaying a visa is a civil offense, not a criminal one. So the person is subject to deportation (a civil remedy), but not criminal penalties (e.g. incarceration). It may also be helpful in this context to remember that detainers (administrative “warrants”) are issued by administrative law judges, who are not “judges” in the traditional sense because they work for the executive branch, not the judicial. The foundation of a criminal warrant is impartial review of executive branch action by the coequal judicial branch. - Sally - Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 10:09 pm: Just like I said sugarcoating it Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.