"Who?"
How can we have any confidence in our national security when the director of DHS is so clueless? Jeh Johnson demonstrated that once again when he was unable to answer whether anybody in the administration had reached out and contacted the family of Kate Steinle, who was gunned down in San Francisco by an illegal alien who should have been in custody being processed for deportation-by his agency.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/14/to-who-dhs-boss-cant-say-if-admin-reaching-out-to-sf-murder-victims-family/
Where do we find these people? No, where does Obama find these people?
5 comments:
Where did we get this notion that everytime somewhere in the United States a family is in distress, it is the duty of the President of the United States or a member of his cabinet to drop everything and give them a big hug?
The SF Sheriff's office may have some 'splaining to do -- although whether this family would WANT him to get up close and personal with it is an open question, especially since he's in CYA mode.
They can have their day in court when the man goes on trial -- California has laws about that.
Siarlys,
Obama set the bar when he interjected himself into the Henry Louis Gates affair as well as Treyvon Martin, Freddie Gray and Michael Brown.
As for California laws being able to deal with it, sure, they have the killer and custody and can prosecute him for murder. There were actions they could have taken before the act like turning Sanchez back to Federal custody according to the detainer. And pls don't use that argument about their being no warrant. It wasn't required. A detainer was all that was needed.
Legally speaking, Gary is quite correct as to the detainer.
Elucidate, elwood. Your statement requires that the issuance of a detainer makes it enforceably binding on the locals that they must hold the prisoner. It may be true, but citations are helpful in evaluating the truth of the assertion.
Race has been a rather national issue ever since we put three amendments into the constitution to reverse course on the subject as a matter of federal policy. I can think of things President Obama could have done better with the Gates matter, and everyone should have held their breath for 72 hours before talking about Michael Brown. Ultimately, it seems that just because the Ferguson police behave unprofessionally doesn't mean Officer Wilson had no good reason to shoot Brown, and, just because Brown really was an imminent threat to Wilson, doesn't mean the Ferguson police are a fine force that everyone should rally around and be proud of.
Siarlys--Be glad to, is this a test of some sort??
Section 287(d)(3) of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act (the law itself) furnishes the provisions involving detainers/detentions, and establishes their legality. Of course, any Federal law that I know of is further codified by the issuance/publication of regulations for implementation of the law in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
In that regard, 8 CFR 287.7 (d) reads: "Temporary detention at Department request. Upon a determination by the Department to issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise detained by a criminal justice agency, such agency SHALL (emphasis added) maintain custody of the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays in order to permit assumption of custody by the Department".
"Shall" is, I believe, fairly strong language in the law, usually considered more compelling than even "will", and certainly more so than "may". It is probably the essential equivalent of your "must". This does not appear to mean that the local agency will detain the alien or not as it wishes, or do so only on Mondays, or on even-numbered dates, or whatever.
I don't know about you, but it certainly sounds "enforceably binding" to me. Accordingly, it is readily apparent that the San Francisco sheriff at least violated Federal regulations, and almost certainly also violated the law, at least in spirit if not letter.
Post a Comment