Problem Between States and ICE

Suzette - posted on 05/16/2010 ( 4 moms have responded )




An illegal immigrant was granted a settlement of $145 grand after the State of NY held him in the Riker's Island Prison for a month. States are only allowed to hold suspected immigrants for 48 hours. In that time frame ICE is supposed to come and collect the suspected immigrants and move them to federal facilities.

"But ICE often fails to transfer those detainees within the required 48 hours of their criminal cases being resolved, multiple jail sources said."

Cecil Harvey, a 55 yr old illegal immigrant, was busted in 2003 with crack-cocaine residue in his pocket, he plead guilty to the drug charge and a judge ordered him released on his own recognizance.
"He was eventually delivered to ICE, but released pending an appeal of his status. After he was arrested again on a warrant for missing his court date on his drug case while in federal custody, Harvey was held on Rikers for another month before being transferred to an ICE center in Alabama."

Of course, ICE blames the State for not contacting them and the State obviously states that they contacted them.

I personally believe they were contacted and they failed to show up - it seems to happen often in other states as well. The difference is that other states don't hold on to the illegal immigrants because of the law and, well, they don't want to be sued.

My husband and I were discussing this and, while he believes that the State was justified in holding this man, I disagree. I believe that if we want them to follow our laws and come here legally then we need to set a better example than to hold them illegally. (Right?)

We do, however, agree that it was not fair to make the taxpayers of New York pay for this settlement. We believe that the settlement should have been paid for by the Federal Government, not out of the taxes, but from ICE's budget.


This conversation has been closed to further comments


View replies by

Suzette - posted on 05/17/2010




I agree that it doesn't make us any better than any other government if we side step that. They shouldn't have gone against the law that was in place.

My husband had watched a report on this, and I think it says it in the article (i just don't remember for certain) but this guy had a rap sheet a mile long. It wasn't the first time he'd been here illegally.
"Every documented incident can then be taken up with the federal government, not that it will do enough necessarily."
Unfortunately that's become most of the problem, the federal government doesn't think these cases are that big of an issue. (At least from their actions anyway.)

LaCi - posted on 05/17/2010




If they have no other reason to hold someone except the suspicion that they are here illegally then I agree they absolutely should let them go. Every documented incident can then be taken up with the federal government, not that it will do enough necessarily. I agree with you that if we expect others to respect laws then the lawmakers and law enforcers have to respect the laws as well.

Sara - posted on 05/17/2010




I think that things like habeous corpus is what makes this country a good place to live. Anyone in the US, whether they are citizen or not, are protected under the constitution and laws of this country. I think if we side-step that, it doesn't make us any better than countries where people have no civil liberities. In my mind, I can equate it to how I feel about the the first amendment. I may not like what people have to say, but by golly, they have the right to say it.

I do agree with you, however, that the tax-payers should not have been made to pay out this settlement.

Sharon - posted on 05/16/2010




If they had caught him with several vials of crack in his pocket then hell yeah. But just residue? Geeze. No way.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms