42 thoughts on “Immigration: Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t…”

  1. Nicely done. Now I see the issue. Follow the money.

    I imagine “We the People” in the US Constitution were American citizens by that day’s definition. I doubt the drafters of the 4th Amendment contemplated how it would wend its way forward until now, protecting people not legally in America.

    What will Sheriff Ramsay do now that it seems this is about federal funding of his jail?

    How will that play out during the next sheriff election?

    I can’t see Sheriff Ramsay being unseated because of it. Nor can I see him being unseated if he tells President Trump and Attorney General Sessions he cannot hold for Border Patrol or Ice local detainees who otherwise are legally due to be released from his jail.

    It has always been my understanding that this jail is a holding tank for south Florida area federal detainees, and if that is so, then this jail might be different from other Florida sheriffs’ jails, in that other Florida Sheriffs might not be facing a comparable $$ loss if they buck President Trump and Attorney General Sessions?

    I have a hard time seeing Sheriff Ramsay bending to the blue paper, or to anything, if it means giving up all that federal funding for his jail.

    I have a hard time seeing the Monroe County Commission, which provides the rest of the funding for the jail, and for the Sheriff, being keen on the jail losing all of that federal funding.

    I have a hard time seeing the conservative, or perhaps even the liberal, county taxpayers being keen on the jail losing all of that federal funding, and then they end up having their taxes raised to keep the jail going in the say Sheriff Ramsay wants it to operate.

    It’s a hell of a problem, and lurking underneath is 9/11 and the colossal impact it had on America’s collective psyche. For a fact, 9/11 put local law enforcement on edge. Every homeless here saw that up close and personal. That edge did not go away as time passed.

    I don’t envy Sheriff Ramsay’s dilemma.

    1. Re: “I imagine “We the People” in the US Constitution were American citizens by that day’s definition. I doubt the drafters of the 4th Amendment contemplated how it would wend its way forward until now, protecting people not legally in America.”

      So, do you mean to say that the founding fathers did not consider that people would immigrate to America? In any case, the Supreme Court jurisprudence is clear and overwhelming that civil rights apply to every person in the United States and not just “Citizens”.

      Also, you may have heard something about these concepts as well: “probable cause”, “judicial oversight”, “first appearance”, “warrant for arrest”, “judicial order” and “innocent until proven guilty” and here’s a couple more: “mistakes are made” and “due process” and “constitutional safeguards”.

      Many of the cases were of US Citizens being detained by Sheriffs based on a detainer hold request created by a Border Patrol or ICE agent who had not properly done his homework or due to a mistake in ICE’s database.

      Nothing whatsoever is keeping ICE from doing its job properly, under the law, and obtaining a judicial warrant or order and presenting that to the Sheriffs along with the detainer hold requests – as the Sheriffs are demanding.

      In fact, one of the cases determined that ICE agents do not have the power to arrest people on civil immigration infractions without a warrant unless there is a probable cause determination that the suspected undocumented alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community and so they determined that ICE agents could not legally delegate powers that those ICE agents do not have.

      1. Naja, you put the US Constitution in the video I watched. The Constitution begins with “We the people”. They were already living here. Yes, they were expecting immigrants. Of course, they were. Some of them may have been immigrants, certainly their ancestors were. They could not possibly have foreseen what lay ahead regarding immigration.

        Looked and sounded to me from this video that the elephant in the sheriff’s living room all along was brought out, or I was asleep in your prior articles on immigration. The elephant seems to be federal funding to local law enforcement. That seems to be the only reason for Sheriff Ramsay’s position.

        That’s how the video came across to me.

        It is all about money.

        Federal funding.

        To the sheriff’s jail.

        And that needed to be put into the bright sunlight.

        The title to the article is perfect. “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” I feel that way when I see your rejoinders to the comments I submit on your immigration articles.

        You really do have a huge charge about this subject. It was not so evident in the video, but it is in your reply to my comment.

        If I had to hazard a wild ass guess, or bet, I’d say immigration is going to get more contentious, as is immigration going to increase.

        Immigration looks to me why Donald Trump got elected.

        As will homelessness increase.

        And all sorts of social malaises.

        Symptoms of something fundamentally awry in America, including Key West and the Florida Keys.

        None of which responds well, if at all, to “treatment”. If not “mutating”l like MRSA, and becoming more resistant to “treatment”.

        Gosh, maybe the only solution is a massive Divine Intervention into all Americans.

        Then there would be other things to holler about :-).

        1. There are many many others out there who do not believe, as you do, that this is all about money. Those others believe that civil rights are indeed important and they recognize that everyone in America is owed the protections of our Constitution.

          1. Naja, in your video it seems to be all about money for Sheriff Ramsay, who all along has been your target, since it’s his deputies who were detaining immigrants for the feds.

            I don’t understand where you get I am against following the law? I wrote else where in this discussion, in your and Dickford Cohn’s debate, that I tipped my hat to the sheriffs who declined to bend to Washington on this issue.

            I think you put a whole lot of heat on Sheriff Ramsay, when you disclosed his office’s huge federal financial stake. You have shown your readers the truth. Money trumps the law of the land. No new concept. It happens all the time in America, and elsewhere. That’s what law enforcement his supposed to stop. But that’s a problem when law enforcement is getting the money that influences it not to want to follow the law.

            I think that is a HUGE story. Arising right here. It should be viral on the Internet. Like the blue paper’s first story, when the deputy showed no concern for the immigrant bicyclist who had been run over in a clearly marked crosswalk by a white woman, whose side the deputy took, it seemed because the bicyclist was an immigrant who turned out not to have papers to be in America, as I recall your reporting.

            The conservative right in America claims America was founded on Christian principles. Well, one of Jesus’ most poignant sayings in the Gospels is, “You cannot serve/worship God and mammon”. Honored in the breach, mostly, in America, even among most liberals. For which paradox, mammon-loving Key West and the Florida Keys are glaring proxy for all of America, with Sheriff Ramsay one of the head ambassadors.

            You and Arnaud hit a home run, Naja. Why don’t you run the bases with it?

            And,why have not the 2 local immigration lawyers in your video for this week’s edition, or the local ACLU chapter, not filed suit in Federal Court challenging the legality of Sheriff Ramsay’s immigration policy and actions?

  2. Naja & Arnaud,

    Exemplary video and coverage, again. I would say the country is caught in a tug of war between President Trump, Attorney General Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary General Kelly. I don’t like what I’m seeing or hearing.

    I’ve listened closely to all three men and they’ve made incongruent and inconsistent statements regarding immigration and the enforcement of its laws. Just now, as I’m making this comment, it’s reported that President Trump is reconsidering and revisiting the DACA issue. In short, it appears to me that they don’t know what they’re doing or where they’re going on this issue. They’ve been slow, sloppy, leaderless and without direction, as it relates to detaining, arresting and deporting hard-working residents who’ve obeyed all of our nations laws, since they were given the “Green Light” to enter the United States, via our nation’s refusal to enforce its immigration laws.

    The result of the federal government’s incompatible and antipathetical remarks and actions on immigration policy, which have been broadcasted across the world, demonstrates an embarrassing incoherence and tone deafness that is disconcerting and disturbing. Our nation’s blundering in fulfilling its promises on boarder security, while humanely protecting the illegal/undocumented aliens who have been working hard, paying their taxes and adhering to all of our laws since setting foot in this country; is a cause for deep concern and unrest.

    I expect more from our leaders. I’m not settling for their baloney. I’m taking a detour on my way out to LA and will stop in DC. Someone will sit down and look me in the eye and tell me: “What’s Going On”.

    So far, they all should be ashamed of themselves. Causing harm, injury and suffering to innocent children and families, while incarcerating and deporting the heads of their households. It’s unwarranted and unnecessary. It’s not what the American People were promised.

    Sheriff Rick Ramsay has contradictory and paradoxical directives being cast at him via the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government. Immigration Law is a Federal Matter. The federal government refuses to specifically set in place a clear, transparent, consistent and uniformly established methodology to enforce United States Immigration Law. Furthermore, a cogent and succinct mechanism for the federal government and states to successfully interrelate and communicate with one another, is lacking.

    Perhaps if it were President Rick Ramsay, an intelligent exactness would take hold, illuminating with precise accuracy the muddled mess that has been dished out from DC. President Ramsay’s integrity and forthrightness would guarantee an assembly of the best minds available, as a paradigm of success was designed, deliberatively adjudicating immigration laws founded upon the principles contained within our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

    Where there’s a will, there’s a way…

    With Love, Blessings & Respect

  3. This is a tough issue. If they retain and the victim is not illegal they could face a huge law suit easily costing them more than paid. Now comes a big question of why was this man arrested ? Did he now commit a crime that would be cause to deport him. Or were they simply detaining him without even knowing if he is wanted ?

    As far as I been seeing Ramsay is doing a fine job so not likely to be an issue, wish I could say the same about KWPD chief Lee.

    Most important issue here is if this is legally required of him to detain ? If not then he is breaking the law and if pushed hard enough could be criminally charged for unlawful detainment and that could be a felony costing him his job.

    Have no good suggestion as am not a lawyer.

  4. Sloan, along the same lines of follow the money, who is paying the bill for Reggie Smith, the immigration attorney? Warm and fuzzy feelings alone aren’t paying for the gas in her Corvette, and since when does a lawyer chauffeur around low wage clients? Does she work for Uber on the side?

    1. You have remained silent on your position on the central issue of this piece: Florida Sheriff’s Association and 9 federal judges say that what happened to Nely and Osman is a violation of the 4th amendment. However, as you observed, Osman’s family had to spend a huge portion of their money to defend against what those Judge’s call a civil rights violation. Which leaves this question: Are we looking at what Martin Luther King, Jr. called ‘the intolerable silence of the good people’ or are you sharing the opinion of those that believe that the immigration situation is so dire that it requires systematic violation of the constitution? So, ‘intolerable silence’ or systematic violation of the US Constitution or a third option?

    2. Ben, pretty vicious on on the attorney! Personal attack! She’s my friend,
      Everyone has a right to an attorney
      sounds like you wish you had a red corvette
      If I needed an attorney Regi Smith would be it!

  5. Thank you for a succinct headline that goes directly to the heart of your crusade! Thanks to Sloan, as well…for his cogent analysis of this issue.

    Your headline clearly exposes the dilemma in front of not only Sheriff Ramsay but also the community at large: It should be no secret as to why the Sheriff’s no policy “policy” is in effect…whether you agree with it or not.

    It should be pointed out that the opinions expressed by Florida Association of Sheriffs have no more legal standing or authority than does the Chamber of Commerce…or, The Blue Paper.

    Your challenge/recourse lies within the lawmaking bodies and/or the courts…as I have consistently maintained. By my gauge reading of the current political leanings of BOTH bodies…I can only wish you good luck.

    Dickford

    1. And the Sheriffs indeed pointed out that every single court that addressed this issue found that Sheriffs that hold people based on the detainer hold requests absent a warrant or judicial order are violating the 4th amendment. The 4th Amendment has been around for a pretty long time. The judge’s had a lot of jurisprudence to rely on when each and every one of them came up with the same conclusion.

      1. Well, let’s accept everything you say as gospel, Naja.

        That doesn’t negate the fact that this country has a longer effective history of deportation of illegal aliens than it does in litigating the 4th Amendment: Millions upon millions of deportees stand as mute testimony to that fact. Of course, that doesn’t make it “right” by itself…at least in some eyes. But, it’s done every day in this country…many times a day.

        However, if we did make it “legal”…if law enforcement did acquire that “coveted” warrant beforehand…what would that really accomplish aside from delaying the inevitable? The individual who is targeted WILL be deported.

        In my view, simply attacking the process does little to address the issues.

        Dickford

        1. Civil rights protections are a good thing — something Americans are normally proud of. Don’t you agree? You seem to be saying applying civil rights law is a waste of time when the person is ultimately found to be an undocumented alien? What is wrong with standing behind these Sheriffs, who have sworn to uphold the US Constitution, and who are saying to the federal government – go ahead – enforce immigration laws – but don’t make us violate the constitution while you are doing it. I can’t help but ask myself if you don’t simply have a “problem” with immigrants. I will again point out that many of the cases that were litigated involved US Citizens who ultimately were not illegally present or deportable. You don’t believe in and can’t find it in your heart to stand up for the 4th amendment rights of people who speak English with an accent?

          1. I keep wondering when the local ACLU chapter, or the blue paper, will hire a lawyer to test Sheriff Ramsay in federal court in Key West on his habit of ignoring the 4th Amendment in cases involving illegal immigrants, or immigrants who overstayed their legal welcome, etc.?

            I tip my hat to the sheriffs who did not bend to Washington. I wonder, though, as I asked in my initial comment under this video, if sheriff’s elsewhere in Florida are receiving the level of federal funding Sheriff Ramsay is receiving. If not, maybe it was easier for them to say no to Washington, than it might be for Sheriff Ramsay.

            Looks to me the heat and the lightning and thunder in this video is the large amount of federal funding Sheriff Ramsay is receiving for federal detainees, which he does not want pulled because he doesn’t go along with Washington on immigration.

            Might be doing Sheriff Ramsay a big favor by putting him in federal court and taking the political heat off of him, and thus many sheriffs in Florida, as that case would apply elsewhere than in Key West and the Florida Keys, if it went as high as the US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and was affirmed. Then, wow, perhaps the US Supreme Court would get it.

          2. Naja, let’s play nice, huh? 😉

            Let’s start with: “I can’t help but ask myself if you don’t simply have a “problem” with immigrants. I will again point out that many of the cases that were litigated involved US Citizens who ultimately were not illegally present or deportable. You don’t believe in and can’t find it in your heart to stand up for the 4th amendment rights of people who speak English with an accent?”

            I don’t view people as “immigrants”. Instead, I view them as human beings who are certainly entitled to the same respect that I expect as a fellow human being. Period. Any questions as to “citizenship” really never enter into the equation. Why should they? Hell, I speak English with an accent…as does every living human being in this country.

            So…I suggest you hop off your high horse and get on old Ned for a bit. With the proper inducement
            I’m sure he’ll give you a ride around reality. 😉

            My SOLE contention with “immigrants” is focused squarely upon those people who are NOT legal residents in this country -or- are actively seeking legal resident status. Period. Those people are trespassers/interlopers and should be dealt with summarily. Period.

            Please realize that it was YOU, not ME…who brought these miscreants to my attention: Frankly, I couldn’t have cared less…these folks never were a source of bother to me. But, ya’ dared me! So, this
            is my take.

            Moreover, you avoided my previous question: Assuming that an ironclad rule was established that the MSCO could only detain a suspect for another agency IF a warrant were presented, or in process…and assuming that this “rule” would be strictly observed, then what would be your objection?

            As they say in the movies, Naja…you’re barking up the wrong tree.

            Dickford

  6. One could argue that we are already living in an America where the Constitution already has many different interpretations for many different classes of people: Look at the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.requiring that states guarantee the same rights, privileges, and protections to all citizens. At the same time, look at affirmative action, which is a set of laws, policies, guidelines, and administrative practices that allow legal discrimination against one race with the intention of ending and correcting forms of historic discrimination against other races. The Constitution clearly does not allow legalized discrimination regardless of the good intentions. Nevertheless, the political and social climates permit affirmative action to continue. The same thing here. It is probably unconstitutional to hold people like the county does, but the political climate is ready to tap dance around those rights just like it does with affirmative action, and it too will continue.

    1. In the nation that elected Donald Trump its president, in the nation that puts “In God we trust” on its currency (all other’s pay cash) , money historically and presently trumps God, the law, and country. How about America’s wars? For US corporate profits Starting with Vietnam and coming forward. The US military industrial complex against which General Eisenhower warned all Americans as he was about to leave the White House.

      How many times have I read reader comments under blue paper articles, saying, “Follow the money.” Too many times to recall. Now the blue paper has cried it out in this video, but does not seem, based on Naja’s debates with her readers, to realize the magnitude, the brilliance, of what she and Arnaud have done. Now where are the civil rights lawyers, the 2 immigration lawyers in this video? Why have they not already put Sheriff Ramsay in federal court over this?

      1. What irony, a homeless ex-lawyer, who is homeless because he gave a lot of people money, for which he was and still is slammed and called crazy plenty, defending this brilliant expose from the same people who published the expose.

  7. Ben,

    RE: “The Constitution clearly does not allow legalized discrimination…”

    Au contraire! Our Constitution, as originally ratified, stands as one of the most wretched discriminatory founding documents known to modern man.

    Not only is “discrimination” accepted (at virtually every social level), it is demanded…even consecrated in the law of the time…as duly recorded in the Constitution. Let’s take a peek, shall we?

    RACIAL DISCRIMINATION – Slavery was institutionalized as an integral part of the economy: Slaves were specifically excluded from being regarded as human beings.

    ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION – “Indians” were declared to be “foreigners” in their own lands…land rights which were “generously” negotiated as “treaties with foreign governments”.

    GENDER DISCRIMINATION – The female population was accorded NO status, other than as chattels. Nope! They were not countable as human beings, in essence.

    AGE DISCRIMINATION – Children, as a rule, had no status…except perhaps entrée to the world as “indentured servants”. Separate and apart from that…whose brilliant mind determined that only people who managed to live to a certain age were qualified to represent the voters?

    RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION – While not specifically outlined, it is patently obvious that the Constitution was crafted around the Christian religion…more specifically, the Protestant sects of Christianity. You can start with “In God We Trust” and go from there.

    IMMIGRATION – Is the sole province of the Congress of the U.S. The prevailing policies of the time, within that body, determine legal “quotas” together with attendant requirements. They are and always have been highly discriminatory. To be fair, that’s not unusual for most nations in this world.

    ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION – Was patently obvious throughout the Constitution. In reality, only the landed gentry could vote with regard to governmental representation: The “hoi polloi” was summarily excluded due to their common status.
    In fact, the essential voting class numbered around 5-7% of the true population in those days: Not much different from the U.S.S.R. throughout it’s history..

    I won’t bore you with more, Ben. I do believe that I’ve provided plenty for you to mull over.

    Dickford

  8. I fear that the future composition of the Supreme Court will render the Constitution a quaint relic. Ben rightly points out that such has already been the case: political climates synchronize with SCOTUS rulings: Dred Scott, Citizens United.

    I’m still fighting for the First Amendment and the probity of the sub-SCOTUS legal system. They have worked for me and, I believe, the nation, and might survive the current and probably future Breitbart political climate.

    I have little hope for all the rest. Sorry, immigrants, I think you are going to get no protections seemingly afforded under law, and increasingly screwed. Now we need to see the “real Americans” step up and take their menial jobs.

  9. Dickford:

    Re: “Moreover, you avoided my previous question: Assuming that an ironclad rule was established that the MSCO could only detain a suspect for another agency IF a warrant were presented, or in process…and assuming that this “rule” would be strictly observed, then what would be your objection?”

    1. It’s not a “rule”. It’s the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. It is very well established law. NINE federal judges came up with the same answer based on very well established US Supreme Court jurisprudence. I respect our Constitution and our courts.

    2. I don’t believe you asked that question earlier, but here is an answer: I don’t have an objection. I have no objection to law enforcement properly enforcing our laws while respecting the civil rights of ALL suspects they come in contact with. I do object when ANYONE’s civil rights are stomped upon and I do not assume they are guilty – I respect the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty” which also means “legal” until proven “illegal”.

    I would not call the foreign-born people highlighted in our video “miscreants.”

    1. Dammit! I missed this:

      You said “I respect the doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty” which also means “legal” until proven “illegal”.”

      WRONG!!! You’re conflating (I hate that term) principles here. And, you know it. Please stop with the nonsense, eh?

      As you have emphasized here many times, being in this country “illegally” is not really a crime. So…where does “innocent until proven guilty” apply? The subject is not being detained for a “crime”, per se. Nope! The subject is being detained merely for lack of documentation authorizing his/her presence here. Upon credible presentation of such documentation, the subject is free to go upon their merry way…provided, of course, that there are no valid criminal complaints outstanding (from any jurisdiction — domestic or foreign).

      Sorry…but your comment is sheer nonsense. Get a grip!

      Dickford

      1. Haha! I’m certainly enjoying our little debate. But seriously. You are telling me you actually believe that our laws are such that there are LESS civil rights protections for someone who is suspected of a non-criminal infraction than a criminal infraction? Hahahaha! lol!

        The subject is not being detained for a crime so – eureka! that is why it’s ok to keep him in jail without a probable cause affidavit and without following the law that requires a judicial determination of probable cause within 24 hours [Florida law.] Wow! That’s all I can say for the moment. And I should get a grip? Hahahah! And my comments are nonsense but that makes perfect sense. Love it!

  10. Naja,

    RE: 1. It’s not a “rule”. It’s the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. It is very well established law. NINE federal judges came up with the same answer based on very well established US Supreme Court jurisprudence. I respect our Constitution and our courts.

    Balderdash! Spoken like a committed advocate. Nothing wrong with advocacy, mind you…as far as it goes. As any reasonably experienced attorney will tell you, however…your reading of the 4th Amendment is fatally flawed in common practice: IOW, the Fourth is in tatters due to the relentless onslaught of efforts to nullify it. Your famous “NINE federal judges” have effectively been rendered impotent…their opinions cast aside. And, yes…by none other than the SCOTUS.

    Please…study this subject more intently and extensively. You WILL be amazed at how the 4th Amendment has been eviscerated! You could start with various permutations of the RICO act and work your way down to local matters of interest: Look at local manifestations of these laws as applied to local arrests…from common arrests for DUI, drugs, criminal conspiracies, wildlife violations, domestic disputes (to name but a few)…hell, even common evictions. If you really cared about egregious violations of the 4th Amendment, you could not ignore these cases…they are in abundance, right in our own backyard. Now you bring this claim that the MCSO may not detain a person at the request of another agency? Like it or not, they most certainly CAN legally detain that person. It is routinely done…albeit, sometimes imperfectly. That IS the “system” in place. Note that neither the MCSO nor this “Sheriff’s Association” are empowered to make laws…at least, not directly.

    As a student of the law, you should understand that courts (including the SCOTUS) almost universally draw their direction from the “Necessary and Proper” clause contained in Article 1 of the Constitution.

    I’m pleased to note your assent to my original query: In effect, the MCSO can question a subject…and, proceed with further investigation, if warranted. Additionally, if proper documentation is in the offing, said subject may be detained until proper disposition of his/her case is determined. That really is how things are supposed to work.

    Insofar as my reference to your examples as “miscreants”? I misspoke…my humble apologies. They would best be described as “subjects”. But, my point remains…every last one of the subjects used in your reportage was legally queried. Those who were detained, pending further investigation, were legally detained. It really doesn’t matter what you or I think…it’s the law. And, yes…eminently supported by contemporary court rulings…all the way to SCOTUS.

    It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee.

    Dickford

    1. Re: You said: “Your famous “NINE federal judges” have effectively been rendered impotent…their opinions cast aside. And, yes…by none other than the SCOTUS.”

      Most attorneys that try to teach me something about jurisprudence send a case citation my way.

      You then referred in general terms to an “abundance” of jurisprudence that has “eviscerated” the 4th amendment. No citations once again – but doesn’t matter as what you described are cases that are NOT on point. By contrast, the Opinions of the NINE (9) federal Judge’s that the Sheriffs are relying on were looking at the precise issue we are talking about: Whether or not and under what circumstances the federal government’s detainer hold requests conform to the requirements of the 4th amendment. Certainly you understand the importance of jurisprudence being “on point”?

      I don’t know exactly why you are referring to MCSO questioning a subject on immigration status as we are talking about detainer hold requests here sent to jails and I don’t know what you mean about my “assent to [your] original query”. I stand by my understanding, based on discussion with and writings of experts in the field of immigration law, that local officers have no right to conduct immigration status investigations unless they have been authorized to do so by the federal government. I believe I also included the US Code that governs those powers and how local enforcement officers can obtain those powers in comments sections below previous articles.

      As to “said subject [someone being questioned about immigration status by a local law enforcement officer] may be detained until proper disposition of his/her case is determined.” What was that word you used? Oh yeah: “Nonsense.” What does that even mean? But again, that is not the topic of discussion here.

      As to who is spouting “nonsense” and who needs to “wake up and smell the coffee” I’m not so sure you’ve got that right either. Attorneys who have written on the subject of detainer holds and Judges who have issued Orders on that SPECIFIC issue apparently disagree with you.

      1. Naja, my writings here are NOT “legal opinions”…just personal observations and opinions: I’ve never professed to have any legal expertise in this area.

        RE: Attorneys who have written on the subject of detainer holds and Judges who have issued Orders on that SPECIFIC issue apparently disagree with you.

        They have that right. But, apparently, those writings carry no more weight than my own paltry submissions. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be having these discussions. 😉

        As for providing specific cites in support of my arguments? Please! I’m not teaching a course here. Do your own research. As Mr. Boettger has capably pointed out here, our rights, particularly those under the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments have been seriously eroded over the past 50 years or so by various court rulings -and- official actions. Sadly…those rights ain’t what we thought they were any longer. That’s the reality I’m trying to get you to accept. It’s not hard, once you open your eyes. We have copious examples right here in our own community: Pick your poison…from “warrantless searches”, “no-knock warrants”, various RICO-like seizures (very common), detainers honored for other agencies. the very common “pat down” and many other situations too numerous to mention. It’s happening as we speak. Where is your voice in these matters? Well, you’ have chosen a niche…
        one that nobody will give serious attention to: At best, it’s a technical violation…easily corrected. The net result will be the same: Deportation.

        Meanwhile, back at the ranch while you were distracted, the Trump administration is seriously considering the issuance of an Executive Order that requires that EVERY “illegal” who is detained, anywhere in this country, who has not been here for more than ninety days…shall be summarily deported WITHOUT any legal hearing at all! How do you like them apples? As I understand it, the CURRENT regs applied by ICE/DHS are that ANY “illegals” caught within 100 miles of “the border” who can’t prove that they’ve been here for more than TWO WEEKS will be summarily deported without hearings. No, in neither instance, are they even afforded counsel.

        Still wanna talk about denial of one’s civil rights? I find this to be an egregious violation of a person’s rights under the Constitution…as a citizen. Don’t need no legal beagles here…for that is exactly what it is.

        As for your consistent touting of the opinions of nine federal judges and the Sheriff’s Association? Well…remember, they’re all politicians first. Take that for what it’s worth…

        Dickford

  12. If you are illegally here then does the constitution protect you ?

    I do understand immigrants wanting to enter our country but they must do this legally or face the results when caught. Many just get a visa to visit and when time runs out they do not leave. As long as they can find employers that do not follow the law and hire them because they will pay cash and no SS card , deductions or other take outs they will work for cash. In doing so they steal from tax payers and from legal applicants. This is part of why wages are so low in KW. If not for getting stopped by a cop or released on bond then if they are illegal they will run. Yes the cop might be breaking the law but they do have the right to check to see if wanted. Have had cops check my I D a few times and actually that is a good thing as wanted people to get arrested.

    Can also see Ramsey wanting and needing the funds as it is costly to handle them and deport them. If it had never gotten so out of control we would not need so many cells and would not need the money. With the amount of new faces everyday from many countries Key West is actually a great place to hide. And landlords will gladly rent to them because if late on rent they will leave if the landlord calls the cops.

    Trump is simply trying to do what he promised. So yes many are getting arrested. As a landlord I run a simple fast and free check on all tenants. Go to google type in full name and ARREST and dam near all show up. I don’t care about DUI or traffic violations but if I see anything such as theft, drugs, violence. gun charges I turn them down. Why is simple, convicted or not the charge is seldom without cause. And no the charges stay forever.

    Yes seems some cops do detain unlawfully but no charges seem to be filed. Only chance we have of deporting. If word gets out that Monroe county and KWPD are busting them then they will find another town. We must deport illegals to rid crime.

  13. Jim,,

    RE: If you are illegally here then does the constitution protect you ?

    You betcha! Every human being in this country is protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights…regardless of their citizenship status or documentation. That has never been questioned…nor, should it be.

    WRT Trump’s efforts? So far, his bark is worse than his bite: Obama set a modern record for deportations…while current efforts are lagging.

    Oh, there is no evidence to support the contention that “illegals” commit crimes at a rate different from that in the general population. In fact, I would suspect that the rate would be lower among “illegals” due to the fact that they do not wish to be discovered.

    Dickford

    1. Thanks, as I really was not sure.

      Can see logic in being careful not to get busted. They all commit one crime by illegal entry and a second b y working illegally. Or do they deal in drugs or other crimes to make a living ?
      Maybe the trick here is have ICE come for a visit undercover and then make one huge bust of every employer that hired them. That type of bust nets far more than one at a time. Pattern the way they busted the drug dealers in Everglades city back in the 80’s. Took two under cover feds 18 months to get accepted and trusted and then took down dozens in one early morning raid.
      I was there that morning and it was a mess. Had a few friends spend time in prison over it. Point here is do you really want to deport all of them or just a few to make it look like they are doing a good job.

      As I have said before yes deport but do it in a human method and unless no question of being illegal then give them a trial. They still are humans but at the point of stealing jobs we must stop and put an end to it.

      1. Jim,

        RE: Maybe the trick here is have ICE come for a visit undercover and then make one huge bust of every employer that hired them.

        Nice try, but no seegar! Y’see…ICE has no authority to pursue these violations. Such violations are primarily the purview of the Department of Justice (DoJ), and/or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). I’m not sure if any mechanism exists under which ICE could “share” their info with these agencies. Ya’ just gotta love bureaucracy, eh? 😉

        Please don’t misunderstand me here…if the feds REALLY wanted to make this program effective, why don’t they share info and prosecute these violations? I don’t have an answer. I am left to assume (as many of the “illegals” do) that we really don’t mean it: It’s a political show.

        A couple of additional points you made deserve clarification.

        – While it is NOT legal for employers to employ “illegals” (with certain exceptions), it is entirely legal for such persons to accept such employment.
        – Yes, it is an established fact that some “illegals” come here for the sole purpose of engaging in outwardly criminal activities. But, their ranks, in the overall, are not all that significant. That’s why they end up in prison…with the prospect of being deported.
        – “Illegals” are NOT “stealing jobs”. They are merely availing themselves of the gainful employment that is offered to them. Nothing criminal about that. What else would you have them do?

        Finally, it should be noted that my discussion with our Dear Editor here is to acquaint her with the “other side” of the debate. I must admit that she has been entirely gracious about the subject…a fact of which I’m grateful. FWIW, my grandparents (all four of them) were immigrants to this country…entering legally. Over time, they all completed our proscribed “naturalization” requirements. In those days, they were universally despised (and worse) for “stealing jobs”…accepting employment at lower wages than “born-and-bred Americans”. Which, of course, they did. It was either that or starve. That’s a part of my heritage of which I’m genuinely proud.

        I know many people today, right here in the Keys, who enjoy a similar heritage. That’s why I view this current philosophy regarding “illegals” with disdain: Either play by the rules or go someplace else. There are many immigrants who have richly earned the right to be included as Americans…in every sense of the term. Illegals needn’t apply…

        Dickford

        1. I agree with most but as to jobs yes it is stealing. Sure they need income but when you work for people not paying workers comp, matching SS, or taking out taxes then yes it is stealing. Think what would happen if everyone worked that way. This is exactly why wages are so low in KW. If I was working in KW you can bet I would turn that employer in and let IRS teach them a few things.

          As to do they really want to catch them. NO
          This is just a game of catch a few to look good.
          This is about the same as the KWPD not actively arresting all the drunk drivers. If they do then KW is as good as closed because tourist will not come. Many laws are broke every day in KW such as open containers and J walking and yes me and the wife break it every time we visit..We will not drive. Simple fact is they been told not to kill tourism.

          So why not let the cops break the law and detain what looks like an illegal ? If not for them then who will deport them ?

          There must be some way to remove them. All I want is for them to enter legally and start paying taxes. Maybe I should alert Trump to Key West as a #1 spot to arrest and deport hundreds.

          You either want them gone or you don’t. Until they are gone wages will be low.

          1. Jim, I understand and appreciate your attitude. That said, I must take issue with your claim that “undocumented” persons are “stealing” our jobs. There is no way, no matter how arduously you wish to twist it, that that contention has any validity.

            Here’s why: Would you agree that a “job” is the sole property of the employer to create and dispense with, as he so chooses? That’s a rhetorical question.

            Therefore, if that employer chooses to bestow his “job” upon another person, would you also not agree with the fact that that person, a prospective employee, should not expect any legal repercussions due to his acceptance of that employers offer? That’s another rhetorical question.

            The answer is: Of course not. So…where’s this “theft” you’re complaining about? It doe not exist.

            In the larger context, you might have a point. Still…we cannot ignore the immutable truth of the capitalist economy: It is driven by demand, not supply. In other words, if there wasn’t a demand for cheap labor, the supply of same wouldn’t be available. It really is that simple.

            We can’t blame these “illegals” for fulfilling our wishes, as a society. They are not the “criminals” here…

            Dickford

        2. Re: “Nice try, but no seegar! Y’see…ICE has no authority to pursue these violations. Such violations are primarily the purview of the Department of Justice (DoJ), and/or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).”

          Dickford,
          I do not believe that is an accurate portrayal of the situation. Can you elaborate?

          ICE indeed has the authority to enforce the “business end” of immigration law and does go into small businesses such as restaurants and hotels to enforce immigration laws. [Though it has not happened here in a number of years.] Of course, they should be doing so in accordance with the law that requires proper investigation to establish probable cause and in some cases a warrant is required.

          1. Naja,

            RE: Can you elaborate?

            Certainly! But, remember…you asked. 😉

            To begin with, you are confusing “investigation” with the duties of uniformed police officers: And that is what Border Patrol officers (ICE) are.

            Investigating violations of labor laws are not within their purview…never was, even when known simply as INS. Yes, I think we all saw what you’ve described in times past: INS officers swarming some place. They were operating then, as now…under the direct authority of an Officer-in-Charge (OIC) from the DoJ — and/or an OIC from the IRS Special Investigations Division. Typically, these violations are pursued (IF they are pursued at all) by the “white collar crimes” division of the DoJ. Depending upon the crimes alleged, you might even find an FBI boss and/or U.S. Marshal in the mix. Yes, these higher-ups are usually well-armed with all the warrants, subpoenas, writs, detainers, etc. that they deem necessary: ICE/Border Patrol officers are there only to assist the big shots to complete their mission. They have the resources at hand…It only makes sense.

            As you might expect, once an “investigation” proceeds to this level, considerations like “probable cause”, etc…fall away into nothingness.

            Alas, it is way too typical for violators to escape any real punishment in these cases.

            Word to the wise, Dear Student: First, ya’ gotta understand the “system”. Then? Fire at Will! 😉

            Dickford

          3. Back when my wife .worked at an upscale resort they would go after illegal mexican workers . They would look for cars with Texas plates and bust them often.

            The simple point here is are they really after them or not. If they are then could likely deport hundreds in KW in a week. Sad part is they could easily close the places we love. They simply don’t want to really deport all of them. They know where to look and could easily get 100 a day and fine the hell out of many employers and likely close them.

            Now to understand us, we love KW and lived there years ago. We don’t wish to see KW change any more than it already has. Thankfully we backed off from buying a home 5 years ago in KW and that was before we leaned just how corrupt KW is. Simply put KW is a poor investment. The houses are way overpriced simply because of demand. What we have learned is after 5 or more days we are ready to leave as seen and visited all the places we support. Have long ago toured every place we wanted to see. About all that is remaining are are few sail boats.We are not interested in heavy drinking and usually the only bar we go into is Cowboy Bills.

            Yes you have a serious problem with illegals and seems like no desire to fix. That part I will not blame chief Lee because this is not his job. When voters get tired of what it has done then maybe we will see a change. Dam sure glad we do not need a job in KW because would never work for slave wages. Only the people of KW can fix this problem. When they do wages will go up and housing prices will go down. One solution is vote all in office out with the exception of a few.

  14. You can do better than that, Naja! Check out this link:

    https://www.ice.gov/worksite

    Read it carefully…then, do it again — this time taking special note of all the “weasel words”, legal qualifications, political hype, etc. Then, try to square it with the reality that we commonly face. The gulf between the promise and the reality is wide…very wide.

    Ever hear of an ICE court? I haven’t. Ever know an ICE prosecutor? I don’t. The facts are that ICE has scant resources to pursue any but the most egregious cases as outlined in their puff piece. But, even there…they are hampered by having either limited or no access to information that reside on other agency databases…or any insights developed by those agencies. While ICE now “owns” the e-Verify program (a very effective tool), employer participation is still voluntary. By law, ICE is prohibited from access to IRS information. The same holds true WRT access to FBI files, NCIC, CIA/NSA intel, international databases and the like. In fact, the very same thing holds true for access to state and local non-public law enforcement information.

    The net result of almost all ICE cases brought (via arbitration)…is that the miscreant agrees to pay a nominal civil fine. No criminal sanctions are attached.

    Yes, there are a handful (barely) of celebrated cases…brought primarily to validate the worth of the effort, right around budget time. That’s expected. But, these cases were pursued -and- investigated by every federal, state and local agency that could get into the act: Look no further than the case in Iowa…where the town’s main employer — reportedly, one of this nations top kosher meat suppliers — was seized…and the big boss was tried and convicted of immigration violations and sent to prison, for an example. That was a sickening example of “American justice”, in my view: The “illegals” were summarily rounded up and promptly deported…except those who were detained as material witnesses. However, one their testimony was completed, they too were deported. What we should note here…is that the whole town was put on trial, found guilty and sentenced to untold hardship. Why? Simple. Virtually everyone in that town was complicit in the “crimes” committed at that plant.

    There’s a lesson in there…

    Dickford

  15. Dear Editor,

    Just to wrap up this episode of the ongoing saga, please take a gander at this fresh link from the NYT:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/21/us/immigration-enforcement-california-trump.html?emc=edit_ta_20170721&nl=top-stories&nlid=75759572&ref=cta&_r=0

    If you think we have it rough around here, guess again! This is the kind of treatment that immigrants (as well as the public) can look forward to with our current administration. Nuthin’ purty! Forget the “niceties” afforded by the Constitution…just eat your turkey sandwich while waiting for the bus to “detention”, huh? Oh, you needn’t worry about being asked inappropriate questions as to your citizenship status: These people don’t ask questions.

    And, this is just a “coming attraction” clip to whet your interest. Coming soon to a theater near you. Watch for it! ;-(

    Dickford

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.