NYPD GOT 1,526 REQUESTS TO DETAIN IMMIGRANTS UNDER TRUMP — AND TOSSED THEM ALL OUT

republished from my libertyBlog

The NYPD got a whopping 1,526 requests from the feds to detain immigrants in President Trump’s first year in office — and rejected them all, officials said Wednesday.​

ICE recently arrested nine people in New York who were in the country illegally and released by the NYPD despite active detainers and pending criminal charges, the agency wrote.

The NY Daily News Reports that every single request from the feds to detain illegal immigrants was denied last year.

If we can view this objectively, regardless of your thoughts on illegal immigration, it's illegal to be in this country without citizenship or an appropriate via. It's the law.

What is Law Enforcement's duty in this case? If it's illegal, Law Enforcement should enforce the law. If we actually see deportations increasing and 'hard-working families getting torn apart' as the rhetoric goes, then people will start to get angry. If people get angry enough, we'll start demanding the laws are changed.

Reports suggest though that deportation have actually decreased since President Obama left office.

The larger problem is that we have institutions who don't do their job.

The Sheriff or Police Department will direct law enforcement to release an immigrant when it determines the suspect is in the country illegally. This unfortunately brings subjectivity into the executive powers of Law Enforcement. If they are going to be 'law enforcers' there should be no subjectivity, that is the court's job; To be subjective and weigh evidence.

So what's going on in New York?

in this case, ignoring the detain requests is attributable to someone in the Police Department arguing that 'illegals are humans and it's immoral to do turn them over, they may be deported'. I don't disagree with this morality, but as previously noted, this is not the executive's job to weigh morality, it's the judicial branch's job.

My question is this. If law enforcement is going to take that stance, why don't they don't also take that same stance for other victim-less crimes like braiding hair without a license, just 'slightly' rolling through a stop sign, possession of an ounce of pot, etc.

It would seem that the same subjectivity which was introduced in the previous example would also lend to similar treatment for victim-less crimes which occur in your city.

Methinks the difference in the two cases involves A) the future of the politically-leftist voting class at stake in the former and B) a population that can be extorted for more money to feed ever-increasing budgets in the latter.

What do you think?