ok, so just to clarify, if they don't report a criminal immigrant to ICE, that would just make them a criminal subject to our laws and incarceration (if convicted and sentenced) wouldn't it? it's not like they're just going to let them go free.
I'll profess my ignorance on this issue but shouldn't this individual have been doing prison time for the offenses he committed in this country rather than being deported? Once he served his sentence, wouldn't he have been deported at that point?
That's the problem: if a jurisdiction ignores ICE detainer requests, and refuses to let ICE know when an illegal immigrant is in custody, then the criminal can't be deported.
That's why conservatives hate "sanctuary" so much. We should all agree that at least for violent felons who are here illegally, jurisdictions should do everything in their power to get them deported (before or after serving their sentence). Instead, mostly Democrat jurisdictions fight this tooth and nail. It's why I'm skeptical when I hear that Democrats are serious about combating illegal immigration.
if the person is reported to ICE and they're deported, wouldn't that be exactly what happened here?
You're correct that if an illegal immigrant is convicted in state court, they're simply convicted and sentenced. That conviction can be used as a basis for a later deportation when ICE eventually catches up to the person.
The difference between that and what happened here is that ICE made something like a dozen prior requests to have this guy detained, but each time they were denied. Had those requests for detainer been honored, the murder here wouldn't have happened, as this guy would have been deported.
I'm skeptical criminals would get the 'sanctuary' treatment. perhaps I'm just being naive about that.
Do some research into it. This is where all the conservative angst comes from.
At least from my perspective, I don't care that much if cities turn a blind eye to non-violent misdemeanors. I saw a recent case up here where a guy was subject to an ICE detainer (which was honored) after being picked up on a vehicle registration violation. On something like that, I think it's discretionary. But, here we had a violent felon who had been previously deported. Instead of complying with ICE, he was given probation, and went on to murder somebody.
So, here, I think we're probably in agreement, and I'd like to think that at least 80% of the country would be. I think this extremist, far-left position of sanctuary for all is creeping into the mainstream discourse, and I think that we need strong voices in the middle to call it out. Unfortunately, our country is so [dang] divided that nobody is willing to disagree with the loudest voices in party leadership, for fear of ceding ground to the "other side".
I mean, as a starting point can we all agree that 1. we don't separate illegally immigrating kids from their families, and 2. that all sides comply with attempts to deport violent felons?