Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Claypool responds *** CPS Inspector General wants Claypool fired
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Report: Claypool to resign today *** Food for thought
Posted in:
* ABC 7…
State Representative Jeanne Ives, who is challenging Governor Bruce Rauner in the Republican gubernatorial primary, made her campaign strategy more clear Thursday. She intends to target the governor on key issues where Rauner has angered conservatives in his own party.
On Thursday morning, she called for the repeal of the Illinois Trust Act, which protects people here illegally from being detained by law enforcement simply because of their immigration status.
Ives has now joined a list of lawmakers as co-sponsor of a bill that was filed in August, two days after Rauner signed the bill into law.
Ives held a news conference Thursday. She was joined by Brian McCann, whose brother, Dennis, was struck and killed by an illegal immigrant who was allegedly driving drunk. After posting bond, the suspect fled.
Again, the basic premise of the Trust Act is to make sure ICE gets judicial warrants before receiving cooperation from local and state law enforcement.
* But a valid point here…
Rauner said he would meet with victims families before signing sanctuary state. Another lie. Another betrayal. He never did.
I am ready to take charge in Springfield for the people and restore the rule of law.
— Jeanne Ives (@JeanneIves) December 7, 2017
* Also today in the Tribune…
The city of Chicago on Tuesday settled a civil rights case involving an ICE detainee who was arrested during a raid on his home after he was wrongfully identified as a gang member.
Wilmer Catalan-Ramirez, 31, was seriously injured in a March 27 arrest after six U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents entered his Back of the Yards home without a warrant, according to court documents.
Catalan-Ramirez, who lawyers say was never a gang member, was placed in the Chicago Police Department’s “over-inclusive” gang database, which effectively stripped him of any privacy protections under Chicago’s sanctuary city ordinance.
His attorneys filed a lawsuit in May alleging that ICE agents relied on false records to identify Catalan-Ramirez as a gang member when they unlawfully raided his home in March. Prior to being detained by ICE, Catalan-Ramirez had no criminal record in Cook County, records show.
Under terms of the settlement, the city has agreed to modify its records to make clear that Catalan-Ramierz is not a gang member.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:05 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Claypool responds *** CPS Inspector General wants Claypool fired
Next Post: *** UPDATED x1 - Report: Claypool to resign today *** Food for thought
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Definitely a short-sighted strategy based on right-wing resentment. I’m genuinely curious, no snark intended, if Ives really wants to make it to the general election or just hurt Rauner. My belief is that if you’re running, you should have all the intent of becoming governor.
Comment by People Over Parties Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:09 pm
Will A Governor Ives empower and fund the Department of Revenue to freeze bank accounts, seize property and put in prison tax cheats who hire undocumented immigrants. My guess is no. Just general pandering for votes.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:14 pm
re: meeting with victims
I can’t for the life of me figure out why Rauner insists on *constantly* lying. He isn’t forgetting something. He’s actively lying.
Is that some business thing? Like, it doesn’t matter what I say, but so long as I say it, you’re gonna feel good?
Good grief. Someone who worked with Rauner in the good old days — please, speak up. Come forward. Is this what Rauner did — lied to everybody all the time? Is this how he made his money?
Comment by Macbeth Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:21 pm
Ah yes, appeal to the lunatic fringe, that’ll work.
Comment by Ryan Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:22 pm
If you are anti-crime and pro-law enforcements, you support her. If you see this as an anti-immigrant move, you don’t support her.
A GOP voter has a higher priority on law enforcement, than they do on immigration fairness. I suspect that is true for a majority of all voters too.
For Democrats, the reverse is true.
Ives is peeling off ILGOP voters in the primary doing this.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:29 pm
The reason Rauner lies is that he thinks he’s better - and certainly smarter - than you, so he’s entitled to lie in the moment to get what he wants and have you live with the consequences later, that you’ll have no recourse but to give him a pass. I’ll bet he wouldn’t lie to the Chairman of Goldman Sachs because according to the Rauner scorecard, Goldman in a peer of his and deserves something closer to the truth.
Comment by DarkHorse Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:32 pm
===I suspect that is true for a majority of all voters too.===
I think you’d be wrong to suspect that.
You also seem to be making the same mistake Ives is in not actually reading the bill. Like Rich said, this has nothing to do with “anti law enforcement”. There’s a reason a bunch of police chiefs came out in active support. One does not have to choose between law enforcement and immigrants here. One only has to read the effing bill.
Comment by PJ Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:34 pm
She’s very pro-life, except when the life is a Mexican national.
In that case, send that life back to starve or something. That life is not her problem.
Vanilla Man, her actions are not “anti-crime.” Being in the United States without papers is a civil offense and not a criminal act. She’s not anti-crime. She’s anti-Mexican nationals.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:34 pm
At least she isn’t making disengenuous claims that her opposition is a “fiscal issue,” like she did yesterday with abortion.
Look, she holds these views, they are diametrically opposed to Rauner’s positions, and a lot of likely GOP primary voters undoubtedly agree with her.
If she’s going to have a chance in the primary, she has to bang those drums. She’ll need a lot more money to get that message out.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:36 pm
It’s really getting hard to call yourself a Republican if you hate xenophobia and you hate incompetence. I need to start a third party.
Comment by IMissBentohs Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:43 pm
Most people lie - it’s how big and how often that makes the difference in how you are viewed by others. PolitIcians are a different breed. Smart politicians don’t lie outright because today it’s too easy to call them out. They evade, shift blame, prevaricate, become outraged or apologize profoundly, and so on. Now Rauner is beyond the normal. He lies without brains or remorse. He lies like no one is smart enough to catch him, or he simply doesn’t care if you do. For a long time he was fortified and enabled by a lazy or fawning press. That has changed - but he won’t. Lies and incompetence will pile up and he may end up in the same pile come Election Day.
Comment by WasAnon Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:46 pm
VMan, many law enforcement agencies, including the Illinois Association of Police Chiefs, endorsed the Trust Act.
https://illinois.gop/illinois-law-enforcement-supports-trust-act/
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:47 pm
=I suspect that is true for a majority of all voters too.=
I’m neither a Republican or a Democrat and disagree with your conclusion. But I’ve also read the Trust Act and understand what it intends to do. So the divide on this issue may be more along the lines of information vs. propaganda.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:52 pm
As an unabashed left-winger I can still say without equivocation that I am anti-crime and pro-law enforcement.
I am also pro-reality and anti-prejudice so considering the idea that immigrants bring crime is infuriating.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 3:55 pm
-I am also pro-reality and anti-prejudice so considering the idea that immigrants bring crime is infuriating.-
Believing that this Country has borders and a legal and illegal way to enter these borders is not prejudiced. Law enforcement agencies collaborate frequently to detain U.S. citizens without a warrant from a judge. Should illegal Immigrants have rights superior to U.S. Citizens?
This law gives superior rights to the non-citizen which is Unconstitutional
Comment by Generation X Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:04 pm
–Law enforcement agencies collaborate frequently to detain U.S. citizens without a warrant from a judge. –
Without charge? For example?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:06 pm
Generation X,
I don’t do criminal law, so perhaps you know more about it than I do.
Could you provide a single example where law enforcement collaborate to detain people who are 1) U.S. citizens, and 2) not accused of a criminal act?
I’m not aware of any.
Perhaps you have some examples to support your claim.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:07 pm
Setting aside Vman’s simplistic and ignorant comment, how does Ives plan to find the votes in the General Assembly to repeal this law? It’s bad enough that Rauner can’t find 69 and 30 for his priorities. Now the woman seeking to replace him is also making empty promises with no thought to how she can actually implement them?
Pro-tip for Ives: we already have an incompetent and ineffective governor. Show voters how you might actually get something done. Promising to repeal this law without a plan to do so is just pandering. Wishful thinking isn’t a policy platform.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:10 pm
I sent her $10 today and a promise to deliver 8 votes in the primary. At 80¢/ vote she doesnt need that much cash.
Comment by Blue dog dem Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:20 pm
By the way. Same 8 dummies who voted for Rauner.
Comment by Blue dog dem Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:23 pm
Immigrants are to Ives what unions are to Rauner. Does that work?
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:24 pm
===Immigrants are to Ives what unions are to Rauner. Does that work?===
In Alabama? Yes.
In Illinois? No.
I wish her luck on her far-right crusade in a state Hillary won by like 17 points.
Comment by PJ Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:26 pm
–I sent her $10 today and a promise to deliver 8 votes in the primary. At 80¢/ vote she doesnt need that much cash. –
Yeah, and my mom will make the costumes and my uncle will let us use the barn. Let’s put on a show.
According to the Cap. Fax poll from last month, 83% of Illinois GOP voters have never heard of Ives.
She’s running in the big leagues, it takes money.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:26 pm
-Could you provide a single example where law enforcement collaborate to detain people who are 1) U.S. citizens, and 2) not accused of a criminal act?
I’m not aware of any.
Perhaps you have some examples to support your claim.-
Every day in this country U.S. citizens are arrested based on probable cause under the 4th amendment.
Entering this country illegally is a criminal offense, to which law enforcement has the means to determine immigration status and detain with probable cause. Mind you that if you enter this Country illegally you still have your case heard in front of Judge so it isn’t as if you go County-ICE-deportation with no Due Process.
It is a nice way to keep already overcrowded jails from housing individuals on ICE detainers though. Hence the support of Law Enforcement
Comment by Generation X Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:28 pm
Word. NOT taking anything away from a CapFax poll. I have used a much more sophisticated poll to dream of an Ives upset. The McDonald’s coffe club. Never been wrong. But you may be right about this money thing, so I have decided to send her an extra $5.
Comment by Blue dog dem Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:34 pm
–Entering this country illegally is a criminal offense, to which law enforcement has the means to determine immigration status and detain with probable cause.–
What probable cause? Local police saw them enter the country illegally? Local police can make arrests on federal charges?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:41 pm
I have lived overseas where there are hordes of extremely poor people who would love to live in the United States. More people than we can absorb. (Minnesota has problems with the Hmong even after 40 years )
So I believe in controlled borders and legal skill based immigration. Does that make me a Xenophobe?
Do we need to classify people found in the United States after being deported as invaders or enemy combatants? Jury trials do not seem appropriate as their status is clear.
If the people who are supposed to enforce the laws refuse what are citizens to do?
Comment by Last Bull Moose Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:49 pm
Every time her lips move she repeals trust. /s
Comment by Molly Maguire Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:52 pm
Ives is pandering to be sure.
= For Democrats, the reverse is true.=
Sorry Vman, but you are wrong about that, anytime you paint with such a broad brush you will be wrong.
I support legal immigration. I support law enforcement too. They are not mutually exclusive.
I think you can do that and support immigrants while being opposed to illegal immigration.
My concern is the ridiculous way we manage legal immigration. Those with political ties or money get to move to the front of the line. That disgusts me completely. We need to find a better way to let good, hardworking people with only a desire to better their families and be a part of America into our country.
Especially when you consider the shrieking and pearl clutching over Illinois out-migration.
Most of these people are willing to do just about anything to make a living. That reality has softened my view on illegal immigrants that are here and participating positively in our society. While not trying to reward illegal immigration we should reward hardwork and being productive. That advances us as a people.
Ives and here crew can’t and won’t get that. That is to their detriment and incredibly un-Christian.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:52 pm
In other news the sun rose in theEast this morning
Coming into this country illegally that is without permission IS A Crime. Overstaying a visa school permission work remit is a civil violation. So yes there are illegal immigrants
Rauner lies maybe he does think he is smartest guy in room. I just wish he was in room full of FBI agents
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 4:59 pm
Generation X, illegal entry is different from being undocumented.
To convict based on illegal entry, the officer needs to see the person in the act.
In nearly never happens, since there are countless ways to enter the country legally and then overstay a visa.
GenX, you really should learn about American laws. It would be helpful to know about the laws before coming to an opinion regarding enforcement.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 5:30 pm
Unlawful presence in the United States is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor. It is a civil infraction that results in removal and a bar on re-entry for a certain period of time.
Not everything that’s illegal — meaning against the law or violating the law — is a crime.
(If you were previously unaware of these fact, perhaps you should refrain from practicing law in these comments.)
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 5:33 pm
—
I wish her luck on her far-right crusade in a state Hillary won by like 17 points.
—
Except that this is a *primary*. This ain’t the general.
You throw the red meat out during the primary. You’ll get plenty of takers.
In the general? If she wins? Yeah, that’ll be trippy. That’s when you get the airpopper out, put your feet up, and watch the show.
Comment by Bobby T Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 5:42 pm
Generation X, here’s some info to clear up some of your confusion on the Trust Act:
1) Yes, entering w/o approval of an immigration officer is a misdemeanor (criminal).
2) Overstaying a visa is a civil violation.
3) ICE’s immigration detainers are issued by an administrative law judge. These judges are part of the Executive branch, not the Judicial branch. They are not “actual” judges (no offense to my admn judge friends). The detainer is basically the executive branch telling the executive branch to lock someone up, based on review by the executive branch. Whether the subject is suspected of a criminal or civil violation, the detainer itself is civil, not criminal. Which for ICE is fine, because they enforce both civil and criminal immigration violations. Local/state law enforcement agencies only have the authority to enforce criminal law.
4) Criminal warrants can only be issued by a judge of the judicial branch. The executive branch asks the judge to issue a warrant, judicial branch reviews and either does or doesn’t issue it. Judicial review of executive action, in accordance with the 4th Amendment.
5) If ICE goes to a judicial branch judge and gets a criminal warrant based on probable cause, local law enforcement can and will hold the person, even under the Trust Act.
Comment by Leslie K Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 5:48 pm
==Setting aside Vman’s simplistic and ignorant comment, ==
Oh please, we’re not debating points, we’re campaigning. No one cares about the facts here, we’re talking about persuasion and feel.
Ives is taking a stand for law and order. If you can’t do that too - then hush up and lose the election. Rauner is on the wrong side of this issue because he never addressed how his stand supports a stronger law and order.
You guys are all dithering over stuff voters don’t care about. Law and order trumps being fair to immigrants everytime.
Sheesh, sure wouldn’t want you giving advice on my campaign.
I get it, why can’t you? Stop insulting the guy explaining what you don’t obviously get.
Amateurs
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 5:53 pm
You guys putter around blindfolded here. Worse, you want to tell me she’s nuts?
She’s turning this into a law and order point. Damn the facts and debating points. Voters don’t care unless you make them care.
Law and order trumps immigration fairness in priorities voters have. Ives is using this to show that she’s strong on law and order. Score.
It doesn’t matter the fine points.
We’re campaigning.
The governor made his move.
She’s scoring off of it.
Sad.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:00 pm
VMan, don’t make the mistake of assuming that you speak for all voters. Or law enforcement. Or anyone but yourself.
I think many likely GOP voters agree with Ives here. But certainly not all.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:03 pm
Anonymous @ 530. Read this before posting. They have to catch them in act? Lol
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
Comment by Generation X Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:24 pm
–Read this before posting. They have to catch them in act? –
I don’t think you read it. Or you didn’t understand it.
English as a second language?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:29 pm
GenX,
Unless you catch them in the act, how do you know the entry was improper?
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:37 pm
Anon 5:30 was me. For some reason, nickname does not prompt every time.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:38 pm
I understand just fine Wordslinger. Is your contention that Federal Immigration authorities must witness a person entering the Country illegally for it to be a misdemeanor? Is that what your saying?
Comment by Generation X Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:41 pm
===It doesn’t matter the fine points.===
So you know what the bill actually does and you’re OK with Ives misrepresenting it to play to the bigoted fears of those voters she is targeting. That makes you part of the problem.
Demagoguery isn’t campaigning, it’s a race to the bottom.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:42 pm
@ Gooner Birth Certificate, Passports, Social Security Card, Naturalization Certificate
Comment by Generation X Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:45 pm
–Is your contention that Federal Immigration authorities must witness a person entering the Country illegally for it to be a misdemeanor? –
You’re having difficulty with the language.
It’s always a misdemeanor. To arrest someone on that charge, you must have probable cause. Without witnessing entry, what would be the probable cause?
You can be in the country illegally without having entered the country illegally.
You’re jumping all over the place, Judge Judy. A few minutes ago you were telling us that local cops in Illinois could arrest people for illegal entry, a federal charge.
How exactly would they have probable cause to do that?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:51 pm
Arsenal, Celtic, Bayern, Real Madrid, PSG.
As long as we are making random lists, the lists should include interesting things.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 6:55 pm
The name calling is so cute but rather telling. Lets say someone here illegally gets pulled over in a traffic stop. Unable to provide identification law enforcement does a LEADS check. Maybe there is an ICE Detainer, perhaps this individual has been deported before i.e. Probable Cause to believe this person is here illegally. Mr. or Mrs. State Trooper didn’t witness them come across illegally but LEADS says they did.
Just like when they pull over a Suspended Driver. How do they know they are Suspended? They didn’t witness them commit the offenses that got them suspended, but the Abstract from Secretary of State says so. once again Probable Cause.
By the way State Authorities have this thing called Police Powers to enforce Federal Law. So long as they aren’t violating the U.S. Constitution or Federal Statute they can enforce Federal Law.
Comment by Generation X Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 7:01 pm
–Maybe there is an ICE Detainer, perhaps this individual has been deported before i.e. Probable Cause to believe this person is here illegally–
“Here illegally,” is not the same as “entered illegally.” They are different. One is civil, one is criminal. That seems to be a heavy lift for you.
–Just like when they pull over a Suspended Driver. How do they know they are Suspended? –
LOL, “just like” in what way?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 7:10 pm
Maybe interpreting statutes and general law enforcement isn’t your strongest sling suit. But you seem to enthusiastic about it, so who am I to judge.
Comment by Generation X Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 7:25 pm
Gen X,
Do you understand that being in the U.S. without documents is not a criminal act?
Is that clear?
Unless that is clear, further discussion is absolutely pointless.
Comment by Gooner Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 7:28 pm
–Maybe interpreting statutes and general law enforcement isn’t your strongest sling suit.–
Well, I do have a lot of strong sling suits.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 7:29 pm
So the flying unicorn that Jeannie is going to ride to the Governor’s Mansion will also give her GOP majorities in the general assembly?
Comment by TominChicago Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 8:07 pm
For anyone that suggests that Ives couldn’t be worse than Rauner remember that’s the same rationale that many used in comparing Rauner to Quinn. I’ve heard very little from Ives that doesn’t amount to blatant pandering and demagoguery.
Comment by Pundent Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 8:35 pm
If you ask me thirty years ago, I would have been up in arms. Now, I think differently. The world has changed. An identity card on demand. We do it at the airport. We do it on the roads. Whatever.
Comment by blue dog dem Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 8:54 pm
—-You can be in the country illegally without having entered the country illegally.
Majority of undocumented individuals overstayed after legal entry, in fact.
Comment by ArchPundit Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 9:19 pm
Keep drinking your Stag and believing Rauner is for real…
Comment by El Conquistador Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 9:37 pm
Ives is late to the game. She missed the outrage train. No way to repeal this. The GOP wasn’t all that angry about this which is why it was passed and there was no outrage until after it happened. Ives is just repeating what was said months ago.
Comment by too late Thursday, Dec 7, 17 @ 11:54 pm
This is just another chance to call Bruce a lair, the debate should be fun
Comment by Rabid Friday, Dec 8, 17 @ 12:06 am
“If you ask me thirty years ago, I would have been up in arms. Now, I think differently. The world has changed. An identity card on demand.”
As long as you’re on your knees, be sure to polish their boots.
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Friday, Dec 8, 17 @ 5:59 am
MrJM. Lots of personal liberty issues, I know. But this world is different. Too easy to be headliner. Heck, thirry years ago I didnt know what a seat belt was.
Comment by Blue dog dem Friday, Dec 8, 17 @ 6:10 am
“Too easy to be headliner.”
I have no idea what that means.
– MrJM
Comment by @misterjayem Friday, Dec 8, 17 @ 12:11 pm