Hacker News Reader

Comment by _heimdall | Hacker News Reader

The argument that Congress should pass law to allow specific actions by the executive branch is quite reasonable.

If only it wasn't being cherry picked to neuter the EPA while Border Patrol and ICE take it upon themselves to act as police forces on domestic soil.

View on HN

Yep. Toilet schedules for every department should go through Congress, apparently. It's a deliberate design to flood an already very narrow zone, lawmaking.

You can't have one party whose goal it to make sure government doesn't function in order to push their policy of 'shrink government' be in charge of making government function. No system will work when half the system is hostile to the system.

If the Republicans will happy spend money until we are all broke if it means we can limit the government's spending (huh? what? make that make sense) they will break it all (and are trying) in whatever way they can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

I don't know. I lost all my trust to the democrats when the Biden government used a bulldozer to tear open the barbwire to allow people to enter our border freely, and his spokesperson told us the border was fine. At that moment, the democrats are like the Bush who started war by lying. I'd rather give republicans the benefit of the doubt and see them crush democrats for decades.

Yeah, there are a lot of people that believe in destroying the US/Constitution because things didn't go like they wanted at points. It's a 100% un-American position, but thanks for speaking up and showing Republicans do not give a f' about anything but their pet peeve issue and will burn it all down over it. You don't care Republicans are literally and intentionally bankrupting the nation with their recent big beautiful bill tax cuts and are the ACTIVELY and INTENTIONALLY by design the party of financial irresponsibility all while claiming to be the part of...financial responsibility.

Here to remind you that Obama deported more people than Trump, and did it peacefully.

Biden and Obama deported more people. Trump blocked new border legislation. Republicans want immigration to be seen as a problem, not to fix it.

Just like Republicans run up the debt with crazy tax cuts then say 'look at this unsustainable debt'. Republicans care more about power and their pet issues than the health and stability of our nation and the people within it.

Congress has authorized ICE and Border Patrol to act as police forces on domestic soil

No they haven't. Police forces' power goes through actual Courts that enforce Constitutional rights above police authority.

ICE/Border Patrol's authority comes through civil law and non-Article III 'immigration' court. Congress explicitly authorized ICE to be something else when they placed ICE in an alternative 'civil law'/immigration system hoping to make them not have to follow the burdens placed on Police/Justice/Judges/Courts by the Constitution.

The police enforces civil law just as same as criminal law. For example, most traffic infractions are civil and don't go "through actual Courts". 'Traffic' court is not an Article 3 court. The funny thing is that a short while ago the same people that demand criminal process for illegal aliens now could not stop themselves from mentioning that immigration infractions are civil, same as traffic violations. So it's not some obscure knowledge for the left...

Do police arrests/detainments go through traffic court? Ice's day to day, reason for existing role goes through the equivalent of traffic court, not actual court with real judges putting them more on the level of meter maid than Police.

>Do police arrests/detainments go through traffic court?

I assume you meant "arrest warrants" because most arrests don't go through any court, the police employs sworn officers (same as ICE and other feds) who have a power to arrest upon a reasonable suspicion. And the police can and does serve administrative arrest warrants. I suppose those are rare from traffic courts but common from parole boards, for example.

No, I meant are police arresting and holding people on purely traffic court violations?

I think I figured what your problem is. You have the whole process backwards. It's not the judge who orders the police around to catch criminals. The police catches criminals and gives them to the DA, who may bring them to court and ask a judge for a conviction. The police does not interact with courts other than testifying or serving warrants, its day-to-day business does not involve courts.

if you mean "ICE agents (as sworn federal agents) are not authorized by statue to arrest people for federal crimes, like entering the US illegally" you are simply wrong.

ICE agents, specifically those in Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), are federal law enforcement officers with statutory authority to arrest individuals for immigration violations, including criminal offenses such as illegal entry into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and § 1327.

It is true that many immigration violations are administrative in nature but it doesn't follow that ICE are not police, nor are they not sworn to enforce all federal laws.

If I mean that ICE operates under Immigration courts which are not real/Article III courts and that these courts skirt Constitutional rights on the claim that they are civil, not criminal, than I am, in fact, 100% correct and that ICE are not acting as Police in their main, day to day, purpose for existing capacity.

Why are ICEs training programs so significantly shorter than other law enforcement? Especially if ICE's training covers immigration enforcement and Federal law enforcement training? Shouldn't that make it longer, not significantly shorter? Can an ICE agent transfer to another Federal position (say DC Police) without having a requirement that they take ACTUAL law enforcement training?

They are not the equivalent of Police.

I'd be very interested if you have sources for laws passed in congress that allow ICE or Border Patrol to act as police force domestically.

I'd also be curious if you personally agree with such a law, regardless of whether it was passed.

please believe that I'm trying to be constructive and helpful with this response: the way that you phrased your question means that you ignorant about the legal basis for federal policing and federal criminal prosecution in America. Please consider studying this topic before commenting on it.

democracy . . .

Reply on news.ycombinator.com