WASHINGTON, D.C.- On Friday, March 5th, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials informed Congress that the agency would open an “ICE Case Review” process, allowing illegal immigrants the opportunity to challenge their arrest and detainment.
The news release said, in part:
“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) announced today the ICE Case Review (ICR) process for individuals who believe their case does not align with ICE’s enforcement, detention, and removal priorities.”
The statement added:
“This process continues efforts to further the development of an orderly immigration system that treats individuals humanely while ensuring national security, border security, and public security.”
In President Joe Biden’s first few months in office, he has already implemented sanctuary country orders whereby nearly nine-in-ten illegal immigrants, who prior to this new order, would have been arrested by ICE and deported, now face zero threat of arrest and deportation unless or until they are convicted of an aggravated felony or found to be a national security threat.
ICE has established a process that allows immigrants and their lawyers to contest their arrest and detention if they believe their cases do not "align" with the Biden administration's new enforcement policies, according to a notice sent to Congress. pic.twitter.com/xYR6CFJTBW
— Camilo Montoya-Galvez (@camiloreports) March 5, 2021
According to a report from the end of February, should ICE agents try to arrest an illegal immigrant who is not a convicted aggravated felon or a national security threat, they must get approval through the chain of command where a field director or special agent in charge can green-light the effort.
An analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies revealed that the new DHS orders will:
“Prevent the arrest and removal of nearly all of ICE’s caseload of criminals, including many aliens who have been convicted of the most serious crimes on the books.”
As a result, the limited number of illegal immigrants arrested and detained by ICE will now be able to contest their arrests through this additional route. The Center for Immigration Studies’ Director of Policy Jessica Vaughan said in a statement:
“It’s as if the Biden people are more intent on reversing every single immigration enforcement action that the Trump administration took, no matter how appropriate or routine and no matter the cost to taxpayers nor how illogical to reverse it.”
“It’s an insult to legal immigrants.”
In the recent news release, ICE Acting Director Tae Johnson said:
“ICE remains committed to providing multiple lines of communication for non-citizens of their representatives to discuss individual cases. The case review process provides an avenue for non-citizens and their representatives to request further review of the individual facts and circumstances of their case in light of ICE’s priorities for enforcement, detention, and removal, offering additional transparency into the immigration process.”
The New York Post reported that the Supreme Court recently dismissed three pending appeals on former President Donald Trump’s effort to withhold law enforcement grants from states and cities that refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
“I would say it’s clear we need to work more on getting the message out and being very clear, now is not the time to come,” said @PressSec.
— NumbersUSA (@NumbersUSA) March 8, 2021
Reportedly, the Court acted shortly after the Biden administration, as well as state and city governments in New York and California, jointly asked it to dismiss the appeals. The attorney’s for these jurisdictions said that they agree with the new administration that the cases should be dismissed.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement:
“We’re glad this issue has finally ben put to rest.”
“Federal officials can do their job in San Francisco, just like anywhere else in the country, but we were not about to let our police, firefighters, and nurses be commanded and turned into the Trump administration’s deportation force.”
— BritCapitalist (@BritCapitalist) March 8, 2021
Biden’s sanctuary country orders are helping arrested illegal immigrants avoid arrest and deportation by ICE. Instead, local law enforcement officials are having to release dangerous illegal immigrants arrested for crimes back into their communities.
Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters? Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you. Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories. Click to check it out.
Supreme Court drops ‘sanctuary city’ cases upon request of Biden’s new Department of Justice leadership
March 7th, 2021
WASHINGTON, DC- In 2017, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order which directed federal agencies to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, an overwhelming majority which were governed by Democrats.
This past week, the United States Supreme Court dismissed three pending challenges to that executive order based on a request from the Biden administration, the Epoch Times and other news sources reported.
“After a request from the Biden administration yesterday, the Supreme Court just dismissed three pending cert petitions (requests to hear a case) about the Trump administration’s effort to withhold money from so-called sanctuary cities,” the SCOTUSblog Twitter account said.
NEW: After a request from the Biden administration yesterday, the Supreme Court just dismissed three pending cert petitions (requests to hear a case) about the Trump administration’s effort to withhold money from so-called sanctuary cities.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) March 5, 2021
President Trump signed the order as part of his administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration and made federal funds to state and local jurisdictions contingent upon their allowing US immigration officials to access their jails.
The mandate also required jurisdictions to provide notice to Immigration and Customs Enforcement when illegal aliens were being released from custody. Lower courts had given conflicting guidance on whether or not the policy was lawful.
After Biden was inaugurated in January, one of the first things he did was to revoke that executive order, which effectively rendered moot the associated policies and made the petitions to the high court moot as well.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed letters with the Supreme Court in all three related cases which sought their dismissal and noted that an agreement had been reached with the parties challenging the former president’s actions.
The three cases involved New York City, San Francisco, as well as various states including California and New York, with the lawyers representing those jurisdictions agreeing that the cases should be tossed.
Speaking to the decision, New York Attorney General Letitia James was pleased with the decision:
“We’re pleased that despite the Trump administration’s attempts to exact revenge on cities and states through vindictive policies and continued litigation that we were able to work with the Biden administration to dismiss this case in the Supreme Court,” James said.
“We look forward to continuing to work with the administration to ensure state and localities never have to choose between protecting their autonomy and protecting the public’s safety.”
That would of course depend on what one’s definition of “public safety” is. Proponents of sanctuary city policies say that they in fact improve public safety by increasing trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities.
However, law enforcement and many citizens argue that by allowing criminal aliens back onto the streets, many charged with serious crimes including felonies, that has more of an impact on public safety.
Indeed there have been a number of cases where criminal illegal aliens who should have been turned over to ICE ended up committing additional serious crimes, including one where a California police officer was murdered.
Fox News reported that in San Francisco, that city’s attorney also applauded the decision.
“We’re glad this issue has finally been put to rest,’ said City Attorney Dennis Herrera. “Federal officials can do their job in San Francisco, just like anywhere else in the country. But we were not about to let our police, firefighters, and nurses be commandeered and turned into the Trump administration’s deportation force.”
Last month, the high court also canceled oral arguments in two other cases after Biden overturned Trump administration policies. Both involved appeals by the Trump administration—one which defended the funding of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and the second defending the prior administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy.
In addition, the current administration has asked the Supreme Court to cancel upcoming arguments on a policy introduced under President Trump in which people who received healthcare under Medicaid for the poor were required to be seeking work or be currently employed.
Biden’s administration last month told the Supreme Court that Obamacare should be upheld, reversing the position of the prior administration.
Last year, Law Enforcement Today reported on issues with sanctuary cities. For more on that, we invite you to:
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement launched Operation Rise from October 3rd through October 9th. The intent of the operation was to locate illegal aliens in sanctuary cities and have them deported out of the country.
In large part, the operation was a success as they were able to take more than 170 illegal aliens into custody.
— The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) October 18, 2020
Operation Wise focused on known sanctuary cities, such as: Denver, Colorado, Seattle, Washington, Washington, D.C., New York City, New York, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Baltimore, Maryland.
The illegal aliens which ICE targeted were those who were subject to deportation from the United States because of their arrests for crimes. However, because they were in sanctuary cities, ICE detainers were not honored, and they were released back into the communities.
ICE reports that over 80% of the illegal aliens that were arrested during the course of this operation had criminal convictions or pending criminal charges at the time of arrest. Department of Homeland Security Acting Secretary Chad Wolf reported:
“Last fiscal year, 86 percent of people arrested by ICE had criminal convictions or pending charges. ICE focuses its resources on those who pose the greatest threat to public safety. The men and women of ICE put their lives on the line every day to keep these individuals off the streets.
“The Department will continue to carry out lawful enforcement actions in order to keep our communities safe, regardless of whether or not we have cooperation from state and local officials. Politics will not come before safety when enforcing the law and keeping our citizens safe.”
Tony Pham, the ICE Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director said:
“ICE continues to protect communities by taking criminal aliens off the streets regardless of any locality’s cooperation policies – which is part of our Congressionally mandated mission.
“Officers and agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are sworn federal law enforcement officers who enforce U.S. immigration laws created by Congress to keep this country safe.”
During the operation, ICE:
“identified, targeted and arrested multiple criminal aliens who were previously released from local and state law enforcement custody despite have lawful immigration detainers lodged with local law enforcement officials.”
ICE reports that in the city of New York, they arrested almost 50 people who were illegally in the United States and had significant criminal histories. Some of these charges were sexual assault, sex-crimes, DUI, assault, robbery, larceny, and family neglect.
One of the people ICE highlighted that was arrested throughout the operation, although not named, was a man who had a criminal history of felony forgery, identity theft, and driving without a license.
He had three detainers that had been placed on him after he had previously been deported back to his native Mexico in 2013. However, the Albemarle Charlottesville Regional Jail refused to honor them.
Another one, another citizen of Mexico, had convictions for reentering the US illegally. He also had convictions for felony menacing-real/simulated weapons, child abuse and violation of bond conditions.
A citizen of Panama who was arrested on October 8th in the Bronx, New York, had a 2010 conviction of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree.
A man from Peru was arrested on October 8th in Astoria, New York. He was convicted in court for committing a criminal sex act in the 3rd degree with a child younger than 17.
And the last they highlighted, a man from Guatemala who was arrested in Seattle on October 8th. This man had recently been arrested by the Renton Police Department for commercial sex abuse of a minor. However, he was released from custody prior to ICE being able to hold him.
‘California Values Act’ allows criminal illegal immigrants to avoid ICE custody and deportation
September 29, 2020 – LOS ANGELES, CA – On Thursday the 24th, the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency issued a press release to raise awareness of the danger posed by California’s “sanctuary state” policies.
According to the release, state and local policies in California have resulted in the release of dangerous criminal aliens to the streets. The criminals in question have been convicted of felonies including homicide, kidnapping, rape, child molestation, battery, robbery, and terroristic threats.
The Los Angeles Times doesn’t think the problem is that bad.
In an article published in 2018, they argue that the California Values Act (SB 54), also known as the Sanctuary State law, does not cause criminal aliens to be released into the population.
On the contrary, it specifically prevents that from happening by exempting certain illegal aliens from protection if they have been charged with, or been found guilty of, any of a long list of felony crimes.
The American Civil Liberties Union has an information page on their local southern California website. It is helpfully available in English and Spanish. The page doesn’t say that SB 54 will allow criminal aliens to escape jail and deportation. Instead, it tells them how they can use SB 54 to accomplish it for themselves.
The ACLU page is directed at criminal aliens. There are quite a few “rights” that come with SB 54 protection, all of which treat illegal entry into the United States as a non-crime. “Therefore”, the law seems to say, “law enforcement resources cannot be used in any way to assist ICE in the furtherance of their duties.”
To understand the details of SB 54 better, the Immigration Legal Resource Center (ILRC) explains how SB 54 can be used by criminal defense attorneys to protect their criminal alien clients from lawful attention from ICE.
In their overview, they state that SB 54 is designed to “curtail the role of state and local police agencies in federal immigration enforcement”.
Later paragraphs make it clear that SB 54 absolutely prohibits cooperation between law enforcement and ICE officials in most circumstances.
There are a few exceptions where local law enforcement may cooperate with ICE by retaining custody of the alien, or providing information on release dates, providing the alien has been found guilty of felony crimes.
However, there is a huge exception to this: SB54 is the governing law in the state of California unless local statutes offer more protection to criminal aliens than SB 54. In those jurisdictions, such as Santa Clara and San Francisco, local laws govern.
In those places, and they are two of the largest counties in the state of California, criminal aliens may find themselves totally immune from ICE attention due to an absolute prohibition against law enforcement cooperation with ICE.
The LA Times reading of the law conveniently overlooks some of the glaring loopholes within SB 54 (such as San Francisco) to imply that it “does not allow the release of dangerous criminals to the streets.” They seem to think that dangerous criminals who must be released from jail are no longer dangerous criminals or of interest to law enforcement or ICE simply because they’ve been released.
The LA Times understanding of SB 54 is superficial.
We know this because the ICE press release details many criminal aliens who have committed serious felonies and been “released to the streets” where they reoffended. Maybe they are all from San Francisco and Santa Clara?
Regardless, the people are not made safer when the following people are released from police custody directly to the street:
–a 40-year-old illegal alien from El Salvador was released back into the community on August 26 after having been convicted of homicide, robbery, and terrorist threats.
–a 34-year-old illegal alien from Mexico who was released on August 23 by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office after having been charged for allegedly molesting a child, as well as for lewd and lascivious acts.
— a 55-year-old illegal alien from Honduras was released last month after having been previously deported following charges that he had sex with a minor.
And many more.
How many more?
ICE official Timothy Robbins testified before congress that prior to the state’s sanctuary laws, LA County police turned over between 75-100 criminal illegal aliens every day. Now, the number is “almost zero”. That is quite a change, and it only represents one city.
Maybe the citizens of Los Angeles and other parts of California don’t mind having that many criminals released to circulate among them as they seek out new victims. It wouldn’t be a complete surprise, however, if some residents did object.
Federal immigration laws are enacted to protect the constitutional rights of United States citizens. If a state enacts legislation designed to frustrate enforcement of immigration laws, they become more than just a “sanctuary” for illegal aliens.
They also become a gateway to the rest of the country because there are no intra-state immigration checkpoints. This means that California isn’t limiting the scope of their decisions to California. They are deciding for the nation as a whole, even for states that have explicitly rejected the idea of sanctuary cities and states, like Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Texas.
Any criminal alien apprehended in the state of California and then released despite an ICE detainer, is free to travel to any other state in the country, even Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, or Texas.
Instead of being deported to their home country, as ICE would do, America at large is treated to a crime wave instigated by faithless elected officials who assuage their collective consciences by endangering not only themselves, but the rest of the country as well.
If California can vote to release murderers to the street by refusing to turn them over to ICE, can Texans vote California officials out of office? What about Nevada? Could Nevadans vote to create a huge aqueduct on the border with California that would redirect water to their own state?
State’s may have sovereignty over some things but they definitely don’t have authority over others. For instance, they cannot mint their own currency.
Why then, are they allowed to release a plague of crime into their own state, thus creating the potential for overflow into other states?
Unless states can police their own borders, and do, they should not be allowed to pass sanctuary laws that cannot contain the effect to their own state.
The danger posed by SB 54 is so serious and suicidal that it reeks of a low-grade sci-fi thriller made in Hollywood. Maybe that’s what it is.
Maybe the lawmakers of California have so totally lost their grip on reality that they’ve decided to treat their state to some interesting plot twists.
At least that explanation has the benefit of being more logical than “protecting” the “innocent” by creating opportunities for violent criminals to prey on law-abiding citizens.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.