Immigration Enforcement Changes

[editor]

CITY OF HOUSTON STATEMENT ON FEDERAL CHANGES TO IMMIGRATION JAIL ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

The City of Houston will be reviewing changes announced today by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano standardizing participation agreements of cooperation between the federal government and local entities on the 287 (g) immigration enforcement program.

The changes outlined in a press release from the Department of Homeland Security appear constructive focusing on deportation of illegal immigrants with criminal histories and warrants who are arrested and booked in local jails.

The City Legal Department, Police Department and others will be reviewing and evaluating the changes the program announced today. The City of Houston has not entered into an agreement.

[John Rich]

deportation of illegal immigrants with criminal histories and warrants who are arrested and booked in local jails.

That's a start.

Then they should also deport all illegals they find in jail, regardless of past criminal history: illegal is illegal.

[ricco67]

That's a start.

Then they should also deport all illegals they find in jail, regardless of past criminal history: illegal is illegal.

While I agree that those that are arrested and convicted should be deported, I hope this does not take the limited resources that HPD currently has.

I also believe that that they won't deport witnesses, informers, or victims of crime. Otherwise, you can expect quite a bit more crime against that particular demo.

Additionally, if they're going to go that route, they need to run immigration status on EVERYONE they arrest for the sake of consistency. I know of a few Canadians that are here illegally. Damn canadians.

[RedScare]

That's a start.

Then they should also deport all illegals they find in jail, regardless of past criminal history: illegal is illegal.

And yet, you are opposed to the taking of blood from drunk drivers, even with a search warrant signed by a judge. What an interesting dichotomy of legal views.

[John Rich]

And yet, you are opposed to the taking of blood from drunk drivers, even with a search warrant signed by a judge. What an interesting dichotomy of legal views.

You don't have to stick a needle in a someone's vein to determine that they're illegal.

I draw the line at the invasion of bodies with sharp instruments.

[VicMan]

You don't have to stick a needle in a someone's vein to determine that they're illegal.

I draw the line at the invasion of bodies with sharp instruments.

It takes a lot more effort and intrusion to prove that someone is illegal than to simply force a blood test which will easily conclude whether someone is drunk or not.

[Jeebus]

It takes a lot more effort and intrusion to prove that someone is illegal than to simply force a blood test which will easily conclude whether someone is drunk or not.

Have the local law enforcement SCREEN for illegals when enforcing the law is far easier and cheaper ANY anti-DUI program out there - especially one where medical technicians are needed to draw blood and run tests.

[RedScare]

Have the local law enforcement SCREEN for illegals when enforcing the law is far easier and cheaper ANY anti-DUI program out there - especially one where medical technicians are needed to draw blood and run tests.

Eh...about the same. Screening through ICE requires fingerprinting the suspect, filling out the form, submitting to ICE for review, ICE employees searching their databases and taking custody of the suspect if he is deportable. Given the fact that fake names are common, and inability to conclusively identify the suspect is common, it can be VERY labor intensive. Holding the suspect in jail until deportation can run up to $40 or $500 per day. Transportation to the border (for Mexicans) or to his home country by air (everyone else) can get pretty pricey.

By contrast, a search warrant for someone's blood requires filling out an affidavit (usually a fill-in-the-blank form), getting it notarized, waking up a judge and faxing it to him or her for a signature. Once the warrant is issued, the officer simply walks the suspect over to the jail nurse or EMT for the blood draw. If the suspect agrees to give blood, the officer simply stops at a hospital on the way to jail and has the ER nurse do it. Only the lab test ($140) cost a significant amount, and it is often reimbursed by the defendant as part of his punishment.

It is worth noting that both procedures can be done by normally on-duty personnel. However, if too many illegals are processed, it would swamp the staff, necessitating more staff ($$$). Except on a holiday, it is rare for even Harris County to ask for more than a few blood warrants in a night, meaning the normal staff can handle it. The extra staffing for holiday sweeps is needed for the highly visible on-site testing mobiles. Those are not needed for a blood warrant. They are used to get the most publicity and mileage out of a DWI sweep. It works, too. There are several threads about it on this forum alone.

[kylejack]

Have the local law enforcement SCREEN for illegals when enforcing the law is far easier and cheaper ANY anti-DUI program out there - especially one where medical technicians are needed to draw blood and run tests.

How are you going to screen if there are no prints on file in criminal or immigration databases to match the arrested person against and the person is not providing their real name? If you deport them, how will you know which country to deport them to? Mexico doesn't want to take Ecuador's illegals and etc.

[John Rich]

I find it ironic that I'm being painted as an ogre for my position here.

My opponents think that taking blood forcibly from a drunk-driving suspect is okay, and deporting illegal immigrants is a bad thing.

I think that's bass-ackwards.

We shouldn't be forcible penetrating someone's body who is only suspected of a crime.

And if someone is proven to be an illegal immigrant, then they should be deported.

Both of these are the rule of law.

My position is the one that respects both the law and human rights.

Forcibly taking blood from someone is like requiring them to prove their innocence, or to testify against themselves. Neither of those things are the basis for our legal system - in fact, they are contrary to it.

The idea that I could weave my car a little on a drive home late at night because I'm tired, or distracted adjusting the radio, and a few minutes later burly men in uniforms could be holding me down while someone sticks a needle in me, is abhorrent. It sounds like something Josef Mengele would do. Not America.

[ricco67]

I find it ironic that I'm being painted as an ogre for my position here.

My opponents think that taking blood forcibly from a drunk-driving suspect is okay, and deporting illegal immigrants is a bad thing.

I think that's bass-ackwards.

We shouldn't be forcible penetrating someone's body who is only suspected of a crime.

And if someone is proven to be an illegal immigrant, then they should be deported.

Both of these are the rule of law.

My position is the one that respects both the law and human rights.

Forcibly taking blood from someone is like requiring them to prove their innocence, or to testify against themselves. Neither of those things are the basis for our legal system - in fact, they are contrary to it.

The idea that I could weave my car a little on a drive home late at night because I'm tired, or distracted adjusting the radio, and a few minutes later burly men in uniforms could be holding me down while someone sticks a needle in me, is abhorrent. It sounds like something Josef Mengele would do. Not America.

Actually, you're incorrect. *i* have agreed with you on the deportation issue, as long as it was equal in enforcement and certain safeguards were in place for witnesses and victims of crime.

The thing people are going nuts on is your inconsistency on "what is illegal is illegal".

If the rule of law is followed for one illegal activity, why shouldn't it be done for another?

[RedScare]

I find it ironic that I'm being painted as an ogre for my position here.

My opponents think that taking blood forcibly from a drunk-driving suspect is okay, and deporting illegal immigrants is a bad thing.

I think that's bass-ackwards.

We shouldn't be forcible penetrating someone's body who is only suspected of a crime.

And if someone is proven to be an illegal immigrant, then they should be deported.

Both of these are the rule of law.

My position is the one that respects both the law and human rights.

Forcibly taking blood from someone is like requiring them to prove their innocence, or to testify against themselves. Neither of those things are the basis for our legal system - in fact, they are contrary to it.

The idea that I could weave my car a little on a drive home late at night because I'm tired, or distracted adjusting the radio, and a few minutes later burly men in uniforms could be holding me down while someone sticks a needle in me, is abhorrent. It sounds like something Josef Mengele would do. Not America.

Blood is not taken from those suspected of driving drunk. It is taken from those in which probable cause to believe they are driving drunk is found by a judge...big difference, at least in the eyes of the law. And, a warrant is not obtained after weaving weave a little in your lane. It is taken after driving sufficiently badly to suspect that something is wrong, or some other traffic violation justifying a stop, exhibiting signs of intoxication, such as smelling of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, unsteady balance, failing a battery of tests designed to distinguish intoxication from merely tired, and REFUSING the non-invasive breath test. Only then is a search warrant requested.

I note that you seem most in favor of strict enforcement of those laws in which you have little chance of being prosecuted (illegal entry), and least in favor of aggressive prosecution of those laws in which you may become a defendant (DWI). I wonder why that is so.