Free Markets, Free People

A nation of laws?

That’s pretty hard to believe when you see a law enforcement agency actively attempting to pervert the law they exist to enforce.

I’m talking about ICE of course, or Immigration and Customs Enforcement – the last word in the title being the key point.

A recent draft memo from ICE’s Office of State and Local Cooperation (OSLC) is the focus of the problem.  Apparently it has decided that it just isn’t going to enforce the law as written, i.e. detain and deport illegals which run afoul of law enforcement via traffic stops, thank you very much.

According to a draft policy document now being circulated among a limited group of stakeholders, ICE chief John Morton intends to prohibit not only his officers, but also local officers with 287(g) immigration authority, from busting illegal aliens who are discovered as a result of traffic violations.

Read the document as I have – that’s pretty much what it says.  They will not, except in specifically listed exceptions, issue a detainer and take into custody illegal aliens who only violate traffic laws.

They tell you that in writing.  No attempt to avoid the fact that they’re simply deciding what they will and won’t enforce when it comes to the letter of the law.  They’re just not going to do it.

You know, just like the DoJ decided not to enforce the laws about voter intimidation when it dropped the charges against the Philly Black Panthers caught on video tape in the act.

Apparently, the law is only for the little people and those who aren’t a favored group of the present administration and its political appointees and cronies.

Whatever side you come down on in the immigration debate, ignoring the law is not what federal agencies charged with enforcement should be deciding.   That’s for the people and Congress.  If enough of us don’t like a law, we’ll pressure Congress to change that law. If the law is unconstitutional, the courts will take care of it.  That’s how the system works.

But law enforcement agencies don’t have that option, and the decision to do this, should that be the case and this becomes official ICE policy, is grounds for summary dismissal of the head of ICE and those associated with OSLC.

Period.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

[tweetmeme only_single="false"]
Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

13 Responses to A nation of laws?

  • So, this is Obama’s plan to energize the base?

  • The comment on this is OPEN:  email ann.yom@dhs.gov
    I sent the following:

    We want all illegal immigrants out.
    Wherever, whenever, however an illegal alien comes to the attention of any LEO, UNLESS it is in the process of reporting a crime or acting as a cooperative witness, they SHALL be detained for ICE processing, leading to deportation.
    That is the only policy the American people support.

  • There is an alternative here and that is to bring suit against the Federal Agency that is not abiding by the law.  It happens all the time in the environmental world –  if an NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) that has any standing in the issue determines in its infinite wisdom that a Federal Agency is not enforcing federal law approariately, they sue the agency to force its hand.  The same can be done here.  And, in this case, all it would take is the threat of a lawsuit to bring ICE to its knees in the court of public opinion.

    • Not so much, I’m afraid.
      There is a long line of cases from all over the country, ruling that a police agency is not liable for not protecting us in most circumstances.
      If I recall correctly, a lot of environmental laws include standing provisions.

      • You are correct, but once you have an orgainzation “with standing” pushing the case, you are toast!  I have seen such a case by Environmental Orgainzations such as Nature Conservancy literally shut down an Air Force Bombing Range in order to require the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement.  This range closure forced Air Force fighters from Luke AFB AZ to deploy to Southern Florida in order to use a comparable range that had available capacity needed for their training.  Millions of $$ were spent for these deployments until the EIS was completed.  But even more importantly was the public black eye the AF had to wear while the whole effort played itself out.

      • A quote attributed to Edmund Burke comes to mind here: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

    • E-mail that I just sent to: ann.yom@dhs.gov

      I understand there is a Draft Immigration Policy document being circulated discussing the institution of a policy that would disregard the discovery of illegal aliens as a result of traffic violations.  Laws are enacted by Congress and upheld constitutionally by the courts.  It is not the job of a federal agency to determine what laws they will or will not enforce.  If your agency cannot enforce such laws because of manpower or funding limitations, it is imperative of you to notify the appropriate congressional oversight committee of this fact.  If there is a question of the constitutionality of the law, it is for the courts to decide, not for the agency to create policy to that effect.
       
      Be advised that should such policy be adopted I will see to it personally that a Non-Governmental Organization with standing brings suit against your organization to force compliance with standing Federal Law.  This is not a course of action you want to see come about.

  • http://hindenblog1.blogspot.com/2010/08/crash-ice-conspiracy-with-illegal.html
    A conspiracy… Hmmm…
    I take the draft memo apart a bit.

    The policy is schizophrenic on its face; EVERY traffic misdemeanor…by definition…presents a “risk to public safety”. But the ICE agents get to determine if that risk is “genuine” or not. They MAY…or may NOT…issue a detainer, even after the LEA has jumped all the hoops, and after issuing a detainer THEN may simply blow the whole deal off.

    You may find the whole thing worth reading.

  • Unbelievable.  I’m not sure whether it’s arrogance or stupidity that leads these clowns to state IN WRITING that they will not uphold the law.

    Once again, “social justice” rears its ugly head: somebody decides that somebody else is “oppressed” and that, therefore, they should get special treatment denied the rest of us.

    This undermines the rule of law and is a step on the road to anarchy.  Libs accused conservatives and libertarians of being anarchists (“You don’t want ANY government!”), yet they bring about anarchy by perverting, undermining, and outright ignoring the law when it suits them.

    But let’s look on the bright side: when the GOP gets control of the government again, the shoe will be on the other foot.  Why bother to repeal ObamaCare when you can simply decide not to enforce it?  / sarc

    • Doc, would you agree that so much of ObamaCare depends on the actions of bureaucrats, that…with the right department heads…it would be a nullity?  It was drafted that way…intentionally…to make it very hard to attack if you have the Obami implementing it.  If, on the other hand, you have limited government types, it would be DOA.
      The problem there, of course, is you can’t leave it laying around.  It’s like a hand-grenade on a school ground.

  • I think you guys are thinking of this from the wrong angle.
    The obvious goal is to keep a steady income of ticket revenue. If we sent all of the illegals home, how would law enforcement keep its funding up? Maybe we need a program to encourage the world’s worst drivers to immigrate to the United States to make sure our law enforcement agencies have enough revenue to survive in the style they are accustomed to.