Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Justice Department criticizes Rauner’s signature on TRUST Act

Posted in:

Illinois

* The Fox News Channel covers the governor’s signing of the TRUST Act today…

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.

A spokesperson from Rauner’s office told Fox News that the law “coincides” with that ruling.

They may have meant “codifies,” which is standard procedure in cases like these. You generally want your statutes to conform to judicial rulings.

* More…

But fellow Republicans are calling the bill another “sanctuary” measure — the kind the Trump administration has been fighting in cities across the country.

Asked for comment about the new Illinois law on Monday, a Justice Department official was critical.

“As the Attorney General has said, when cities and states refuse to help enforce immigration laws, our nation is less safe,” DOJ spokesman Devin O’Malley told Fox News. “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.”

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:06 pm

Comments

I think the Justice Department might not understand what the legislation does.

Comment by Chairman McBroom Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:11 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.

Comment by PJ Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:12 pm
Any statement from Sam McCann today on the issue?

Comment by Grand Avenue Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:12 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.

Comment by Mama Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:17 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.

Comment by Pundent Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:18 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.

Comment by Demoralized Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:19 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.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:20 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.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:22 pm
Pardon, “without charge or warrant.”

3:22 was me.

Comment by wordslinger Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:26 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.

Comment by igotgotgotgotnotime Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 3:41 pm
I rather doubt the USAG knows the meaning of “recuse.”

Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:22 pm
Let’s assume the Justice Dept official hasn’t read the bill. Otherwise he or she would just be lying for political purposes.

Comment by walker Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:39 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.

Comment by Roman Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:41 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.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 4:56 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.

Comment by Saluki Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 5:06 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

Comment by 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==

Except the current, correct phrase is “undocumented”

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 7:23 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.

Comment by Anonymous Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 7:35 pm
Just like I said sugarcoating it

Comment by Sally Monday, Aug 28, 17 @ 10:09 pm