NJ AG Implements Policy Requiring Police To Stop Working With ICE
ICE responds with announced “likely increase” of immigration raids in NJ
New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal issued a new directive whereby he restricts police officers’ cooperation with ICE. The move is intended to “build trust” between illegal aliens and the police.
ICE has responded with an announcement that there will be a “likely increase” in immigration raids in New Jersey.
New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal is drawing a thick line between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, restricting police officers’ cooperation with ICE in an effort to build trust between cops and immigrants.
“Folks are now afraid to go to the courthouse, folks are now afraid to testify at trial, folks are afraid to go and report crime because they’re afraid that an ICE removal officer might sweep them up,” Grewal said in an interview with WNYC before his announcement of a new state directive. “And it’s that effect that all of these federal immigration policies have had that has prompted me to do this.”
Grewal’s sweeping directive forbids turning over immigrants charged with minor crimes to ICE, absent a warrant from a judge. Police, sheriff’s or corrections officers can notify ICE if someone charged with a serious crime, like rape, is being released from jail, but officers may only hold onto that person for ICE until the end of the day when he or she is due to be released.
ICE has responded by noting that this policy “undermines public safety and hinders ICE from performing its federally-mandated mission.”
Additionally, ICE notes that since arrests can no longer take place in jails, the agency will have no choice but to increase its “at large” arrests at residences and businesses.
WNYC continues:
The deputy director of ICE, Matthew Albence, slammed Grewal, saying his directive “undermines public safety and hinders ICE from performing its federally-mandated mission.”
“Ultimately, this directive shields certain criminal aliens, creating a state-sanctioned haven for those seeking to evade federal authorities, all at the expense of the safety and security of the very people the [New Jersey] Attorney General is charged with protecting,” Albence said in a statement.
ICE also noted that a man released earlier this year from Middlesex County Jail — despite a request to hold him for immigration violations — allegedly went on to murder three people in Missouri.
And ICE issued an ominous threat: Since arrests can no longer be made at jails, “ICE will have no choice but to conduct at-large arrests in local neighborhoods and at worksites, which will inevitably result in additional collateral arrests.”
A spokesman for the Newark office said in a statement Friday to NBC Philadelphia that New Jersey should expect increased arrests because of the new rules.
“The probability is that at large arrests and worksite enforcement operations, which already exist, will likely increase due to the fact that ICE ERO will no longer have the cooperation of the jails related to immigration enforcement,” ICE spokesman Emilio Dabul said in an email.
He added that since the agency’s “highest priority is public safety and enforcing immigration laws, we must pursue that to the best extent possible, which will likely involve more at large arrests and worksite enforcement operations.”
Grewal’s office reportedly responded to ICE’s statements: “We don’t respond to threats. We’re focused on protecting New Jersey’s residents from harm.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Hmm, looks like the opposite affect that they are trying to achieve is going to happen. Darwin Theory is the new policy.
Isn’t there a fable about this about a scorpion?
Double the number of ICE officers in NJ and stop all discretionary Federal funds.
The first, yes, absolutely. The second is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has been very clear on this: cutting funds in order to pressure a state to cooperate with Congress’s will can only be done by Congress itself, it must be unambiguous, and even Congress cannot make so steep a cut that the state is forced to cooperate.
Not if they’re law enforcement grants. Then it’s perfectly constitutional to deny states those funds. Or, for that matter, military surplus equipment such as weapons, vehicles, etc.
The latter is called the 1033 program. Trump lifted restrictions on distributing military surplus equipment to state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies last August and he can certainly reimpose restrictions by making the 1033 program contingent on state, county, and local law enforcement cooperation with the feds.
No, it is not constitutional for the AG to cut off law enforcement grants, even discretional ones, in order to force a state to waive its constitutional rights. Only Congress can do so, and even Congress is restricted as I wrote above.
It would be unconstitutional for the feds to withhold funding for things like housing grants, school lunch programs, etc.
But law enforcement grants fall into a different category entirely. For instance, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Program has a human trafficking grant program. It’s impossible to combat human trafficking if the state isn’t collaborating with the feds on illegal immigration. And that’s generally (I would say always, but I’m not familiar with all BJA programs) a prerequisite for getting the grant request approve. Also the requesting agency has to certify that their state has laws on the books that make the specific crime illegal.
Since New Jersey is now aiding and abetting human trafficking (pedophiles, child pornographers, sex slave traffickers, labor slave traffickers, etc.) by refusing to cooperate with the one federal law enforcement agency that is eyeball deep dealing with these crimes, ICE, figure the odds of any agency in New Jersey getting one of these grant requests approved. Hint: zero percent. There are too many other applicants who will collaborate with ICE and other federal agencies. If the grant request meets the Basic Minimum Requirements (BMRs), and New Jersey now can’t for most of these grants, the grant applications are then scored. Other Law Enforcement Agencies are now far more competitive vis a vis New Jersey thanks to their whackjob of an AG.
No, they do not. 1) Only Congress can impose such conditions, 2) they must be unambiguous, 3) and the state must be left with a real choice whether it wishes to comply with the conditions or to forfeit the money.
What law or whatever requires any NJ police agency to follow this directive?
Does it apply to officers or the agencies that employ them?
How is it enforced?
Notice how this is framed as being a pro-immigrant policy? Surely they mean pro-illegal immigrant policy?
Yet another example where the majority is forced to accommodate the illegal immigrant criminals.
“What I want to know is when are all of you going to start standing up for the majority?” he [Mark Robinson] asked. “Here’s who the majority is. I’m the majority. I’m a law-abiding citizen who never shot anybody. Never committed a serious crime and never committed a felony. I’ve never done anything like that. But it seems like every time we have one of these shootings nobody wants to put the blame where it goes which is at the shooter’s feet. You want to put it at my feet.”
https://abc13.com/society/mans-gun-rights-speech-at-city-council-meeting-goes-viral/3322847/?fbclid=IwAR2A52tHaMdVvjMO-stLdFvWs1LNYmsUTuXwUIs_RwzZDz0cb1RHdRuUSL4
“We’re the first ones taxed, and the last ones considered, and the first ones punished when things like this happen because our rights are the ones being taken away.”
Amen, brother, Amen.
Separation of powers? What legal jurisdiction does a State AG have over local police?
Or
IF a state jurisdiction can make a decision to ignore federal law, why cant a local jurisdiction ignore a State law? (State AG directive)
States can’t ignore federal laws, but they can refuse to help the feds enforce them. This right is protected by the ninth amendment.
States have ninth amendment rights against the USA; cities have no such rights against their states. Cities have no independent existence, nor any right to exist. They are entirely creatures of their states, which may alter or dismantle them at will. So they are entirely subject to state law and have no right to resist.
States, on the other hand, are not creatures of the USA. On the contrary, the USA is the creature of the states. That is why they have the right to passively resist US law by refusing to help enforce it.
In MA we have a judge, Shelley Joseph, who was recently appointed by our RINO governor Charlie Baker conspiring with a criminal defense attorney to aid and abet the escape of an accused criminal to keep him from being arrested by ICE after court. And this happened in the courtroom! The first part of the conversation is recorded but then the judge orders the recording stopped for just under 1 minute. Here is a snippet:
“In an courtroom recording obtained by the Globe, Joseph can be heard deliberating with lawyers about what to do with the Medina-Perez, given the fact that an ICE official was in the courthouse with a detainer request to hold him for potential deportation.
“ICE is going to get him,” Joseph says, shortly before the audio recording was turned off for 58 seconds.
When the recording resumes, the state prosecutor at the hearing asks a separate charge — a fugitive warrant for drunken driving in Pennsylvania — be dropped, since they did not believe Medina-Perez matched the mug shot, allowing him to be released since neither of the drug charges required him to be held in custody. According to sources who spoke to the Globe, Medina-Perez was then allowed to leave out a back door, scaled a fence, and left the ICE official behind in the courthouse.”
This was in Newton District Court. Newton is a sanctuary city. This story was broken by the Boston Globe which is shocking.
Link to recent coverage:
https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/12/03/charlie-baker-newton-judge-ice-investigation
When I read about stories like this and the other loony policies coming out of MA, I have real disbelief that MA was one of the Original 13.
As a fellow Masshole, I am amused at our state motto:
“Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.” (By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty).
Of course here in the cradle of liberty, those of us who own AR-15s are currently, by decree of our AG, unindicted felons.
These actions would seem to be chargeable by the feds by the concealing of illegal aliens. Even if the judge gets off a nice stretch of ‘process is the punishment’ would be appropriate.
Why was the ICE agent not waiting on the other side of the fence? Alternatively why did the ICE agent not arrest the judge? States are entitled to passively resist federal law enforcement, but they are not entitled to actively hinder it. These questions and the precise line to be drawn were all hashed out in the 1830s over the Fugitive Slave laws.
there will be a “likely increase” in immigration raids in New Jersey.
“Likely” sounds like a pretty weak response to an outrage of this magnitude.
To be effective, proper Sturm und Drang should have a certain quality of inevitability.
“We don’t respond to threats [from ICE]. We’re focused on protecting New Jersey’s residents from harm.”
Translation: “We don’t like federal agencies that George Soros disfavors. We’re focused on servicing our Sorosian overlords, regardless of whether New Jersey’s residents come to harm.”
Note the weasel-wording. Residents. Not legal residents, or citizens. Human beings who just happen to be in the area. Not citizens and legal residents who are trying their best to abide by the law, but he makes sure to include the illegals too.
Obviously, New Jersey will require more ICE agents.
Obviously, this additional expense will need to come from somewhere.
Obviously, it should come from Federal funding already going to New Jersey. And a little more, just in case.
It’s not weaseling at all. It is quite deliberate and most on the left are open about it. Although different not long ago (perhaps < 10 years?), now ANYONE who has managed to put the body on U.S. soil is considered a potential worker (also known as voter in other parlance) and therefore a resident. "They pay taxes" don't you know?
They pay sales taxes when they buy things here. But they don’t buy much here, since they send a lot of their earnings back home. And they don’t pay income taxes, because they’re paid off the books. (The illegal aliens who do file federal tax returns are doing it so that they can get PAID federal tax “credits” such as those paid to low-income earners). And they don’t pay real estate taxes, because they’re living 20 or 30 (or more) to a house or apartment, usually owned by some relative or crooked landlord who pays the taxes. And they don’t pay vehicle taxes, because they don’t register their vehicles.
So the $50 or $60 a year they pay in sales taxes justifies the thousands and thousands of dollars that each one of them costs U.S. taxpayers every year?
The “they pay taxes” argument is ludicrous. The pittance that illegal aliens pay is vastly exceeded by the hundreds of billions of dollars in welfare benefits, foods stamps, “free” public school education, “free” ER visits, etc., that they score off U.S. taxpayers every year.
Whoever down-dinged me may be ignorant of the fact — or may simply not care — that Grewal’s mentor is Amardeep Singh, senior program officer at the Open Society Foundations (= Soros’s international grant-making network).
I, however, both know and care that Soros is steadily and profoundly corrupting local law enforcement in the U.S., and making U.S. cities (like Philadelphia, where his stooge Lawrence Krasner is the disastrous elected DA) dangerous and unliveable.
“Grewal’s office reportedly responded to ICE’s statements: “We don’t respond to threats.””
This guy is a corrupt, lying POS.
Illegals pour into this country every year and find refuge in shttholes like NJ. Some commit horrendous crimes against the very citizens Grewal claims to protect, yet ICE is the threat??
The battle lines are very clear.
Cute, isn’t it. The top law enforcement official in New Jersey is calling ICE’s stated intention to use whatever tactics, techniques, and manpower it will take to enforce federal immigration laws on their own since New Jersey won’t cooperate.
And the AG is calling that a threat.
Good job, joisey. Where’d you find this prize?
Is this something the Supreme Court can address?
Enough of the States ignoraing Federal laws and agencies
I thought the SCOTUS already addressed this. Oh, wait! That was AZ trying to help the last administration enforce the laws. That’s a horse of a different color (can we still say that?).
The Supremes…and the Constitution…HAVE addressed all this.
You either want an all-powerful central government or you don’t.
I don’t. In fact, I want the feds to be a LOT less powerful.
The deal is that you accept some idiots in some state government, or you run the risk of accepting idiots with vastly more power in the central government.
I’ll take the former.
The Supreme Court addressed it several times during the period of the Fugitive Slave laws. It upheld the right of states to passively resist these laws by refusing any help to the federal slave catchers, and even to forbid state officers from helping them on their own initiative, but said they could not actively interfere, and could not forbid individuals from helping them.
Well we don’t need to cooperate with states that won’t cooperate with the union. Remove anti-terrorism cooperation from states that don’t work with ICE. When a tip comes in about an attack about to happen in California, New Jersey, NYC, etc, send it to the closed ICE-State liason office and devote the resources to states which appreciate the federal government’s help.
Nope, the Supreme Court has held that states may not be coerced by funding cuts into waiving their constitutional rights. Congress may try to persuade states to cooperate, by explicitly legislating a funding cut if they don’t, but only if the cut is small enough that the state is left with a real choice. If the state can’t afford to lose the money, so it’s left with no real choice, then the cut is unconstitutional. And even small cuts must be made by Congress, not the AG or the president, and must be worded clearly so as to put the states on notice of what they have to do to avoid them.
Milhouse, it is not unconstitutional for the feds to withhold funding when that funding is to be used as an inducement to get the state to cooperate with federal law enforcement. I’ve mentioned a couple of types of assistance already.
Do you actually imagine that NJ is going to be eligible for BJA grants under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program? They’re are strings attached to that money. The state or other law enforcement entity has to cooperate with federal law enforcement including ICE. If as this joker of an AG is insisting they won’t cooperate with ICE and will simply release criminal aliens back onto the streets without informing ICE that such aliens are in custody, and certainly won’t detain them so ICE can take these individuals into federal custody for deportation procedures, then NJ is not eligible for the money. Plain and simple.
There are lots of law enforcement grants or material support programs that come with those strings attached. NJ doesn’t cooperate with federal law enforcement then NJ doesn’t meet the BMRs to qualify for federal law enforcement assistance. Pure and simple. And yes, the DoJ has the statutory authority to deny that assistance to sanctuary cities and states.
You can not simply state that it’s unconstitutional for the feds to cut all federal funding, period. Not all federal assistance is created equal. The feds certainly can turn the spigot off when the money is meant for law enforcement purposes. Since NJ has announced its intention not to cooperate with federal law enforcement for the purposes the grants and other types of assistance those programs were developed to advance, they don’t qualify for the money. Pure and simple.
The distinction you draw is spurious. The Supreme Court has spoken many times on the subject, and it’s spoken clearly.
1. Only Congress may impose such strings.
2. It must make them explicit and unambiguous;
3. It may only persuade, not compel. Which means the sums involved must be low enough that the state can afford to turn them down. (Of course in the case of new funding the state can always afford to turn it down, because it’s living without it now; but cuts to existing funding must be affordable.)
What can one expect from NJ? They’d rather protect the MS13 kids out on their paper routs! LOL! Remember THAT little NanPo gem!?
Democrats are anti-civil rights, anti-native. #HateLovesAbortion