New York Refused 16,070 ICE Detainers for Illegal Aliens Accused of Serious Crimes
Gov. Kathy Hochul has made it harder for state and local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE.
New York has declined 16,070 ICE detainers for illegal aliens accused or convicted of over 50,000 serious crimes since President Donald Trump took office.
“While sanctuary politicians continue to release dangerous criminals onto their streets, our brave law enforcement officers will continue to risk their lives to arrest these heinous criminals and make America safe again. Illegal aliens have no sanctuary in America,” said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin. “We enforce these laws with no help from Mayor Mamdani and Governor Hochul. The Trump Administration is committed to protecting the American people in every city and every state, and we won’t let sanctuary politicians stand in our way. If you’re a state or local politician, your best bet is to cooperate with us so we can all make America safe again.”
Those crimes include murder, kidnapping, and sexual assault:
- Homicides: 131
- Kidnappings: 132
- Sexual offenses: 1,017
- DUIs: 1,561
- Burglaries: 1,631
- Robberies: 1,776
- Weapons offenses: 2,198
- Dangerous drugs: 4,324
- Assaults: 9,502
The ICE detainers ask local and state law enforcement to hold illegal aliens for 48 hours so agents can take custody of them.
But sanctuary states like New York and sanctuary cities like New York City brush off any cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Two illegal aliens, Dangelo Rafael Jean Caraballo and Sneider Mejia Bautista, allegedly stabbed an NYPD detective on October 2.
Both men have a lengthy rap sheet.
Local law enforcement released Caraballo after his December 2024 arrest for possession of burglar’s tools before ICE could lodge a detainer.
ICE lodged a detainer for Bautista after his October 2025 arrest for criminal possession of a weapon. The NYPD declined the detainer and released him.
Caraballo and Bautista ran to Massachusetts, another sanctuary state, for cover. Both were caught and arrested, but it’s unclear whether New York will hand them over to ICE.
Hochul signed her sanctuary state bill in May 2026. The law bars ICE agents from public places, and local law enforcement cannot cooperate with ICE.
Most public employees also cannot interact with federal immigration authorities unless they present a judicial warrant.
Hochul expanded her anti-ICE agenda in August with the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, which bans local law enforcement from entering or maintaining any agreements with ICE.
In February, Mamdani signed an executive order to strengthen sanctuary laws in New York City.
The executive order bans ICE from entering any New York City Property without a judicial warrant. City agencies cannot provide federal immigration authorities with any information collected for city purposes.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
If you elect a democrat your stupid. Too stupid too vote. Too stupid to hire.
I normally don’t point out misspellings, but when it’s in the act of questioning the intelligence of others, I feel a bit obliged.
Be careful with “your” and “you’re” in similar, future posts.
What a fucking obnoxious post.
Making common spelling or grammatical errors isn’t a sign of a lack of intelligence, first off.
Only a narcissistic and smug wanker makes a post such as yours.
It’s just patently infantile and stupid.
Guy. Can I call you Guy? Take a gummy and chill out.
You obviously have some issues regarding this subject.
I’m sorry I offended you.
Just kidding. Eat a bag of dicks.
Congrats on writing a post without typing “Dhimmicrat” (however you spell it).
When I peruse the messages and I see that word, I instantly know the message is 95% nonsense from an angry pile of donkey turds with a SEVERELY limited vocabulary.
If you prefer this message in a way you might understand it: Duuuuh.. dee duh duh duhhhh.. DUHHHHH DIMMICRAT DUH DUH!!!
Loser. LOL
… full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
But you do have one good point. All the donkeys have produced, for a long while, are enormous piles of turds.
Warning someone to “be careful” of making spelling errors, in the future, as if the consequences and implications are somehow grievous and life-altering?
As if you speak from some position of intellectual and moral authority?
Fuck off, ya daft fuckin’ cunt.
You missed the point of my message, Guy.
Stay angry though. That sweet heart attack is right around the corner if you keep raging at a messge board about somebody imparting advice about not looking like an idiot WHILE CALLING SOMEONE ELSE AN IDIOT.
Oh, sorry… Duuuhhhh Dhimmicrat duh duh.
Enough reading, Guy. I hear you have a bag of dicks to attend to. Chop chop!
Loser. LOL
They know girls will be raped and people will be murdered. They don’t care.
Letits James will prosecute, excuse me, persecute PRESIDENT Trump for them.
This is what the majority of my fellow New Yorkers voted for. And it’s not likely to change; there’s a reasonable chance that Bruce Blakeman is elected governor this year, but there’s no chance that the Dems will lose their tight control of the legislature. Probably they’ll keep both houses, but they’ll definitely keep the lower house. And this is a policy they’ll go to the barriers for, so there’s no chance that they’ll change the legislation that requires this. Blakeman, if he’s elected, will have a duty to execute the laws faithfully, which will mean he’ll have to carry out this policy even though he disagrees with it. He can revoke Hochul’s executive orders that make it worse, but he can’t repeal the underlying legislation. It’s unfortunate, but that’s how it is.
Just remember that this is the same constitutional principle that allowed Republican county sheriffs to refuse to conduct background checks as the Brady Law required them to do, and that allowed states to refuse to set up 0bamacare exchanges as PPACA required; it’s the same principle that allowed states like NY to refuse to enforce Prohibition, and it’s the same principle that allowed northern states to refuse cooperation with the federal slave-catchers. It’s fundamental to our federal republic, and we have to put up with it even when it doesn’t suit us.
Were the people the country sheriffs were protecting illegal aliens and dependable Democrat voters? 🤔
It doesn’t matter whom they were protecting. They weren’t protecting anyone; they were standing up for their right not to be ordered around by the federal government. If Washington wants background checks conducted, let it conduct its own damn checks. And the courts agreed.
Who. Matter is not a preposition.
Sorry, Grizz. Always invert the sentence for the correct answer.
They were protecting HE, or they were protecting HIM? Him. So, whom.
Huh?
No, “whom” is correct. “Protect is the verb, “they” is the subject, and the people being protected are the object.
But they weren’t doing it to protect anyone in particular. They objected in principle to the whole background check system that Brady introduced, and they refused to play any part in it.
To Henry and Mil: I really detest English at times…
It matters greatly. The difference between protecting dependable Democrat voters while ignoring actual US citizens and sheriffs actions that protect ALL AMERICANS is like the difference between you and and someone who knows what they are talking about 🙄
Then we should send all illegals to New York. So you can get what you voted for.
Exactly. I was in the process of writing that myself. 100% correct.
Not my downtick but… more correctly it was the choice of the majority of New York voters that could be bothered to go vote.
Choosing not to vote means you consent to whatever the voters choose.
Exactly my point.
“Just remember that this is the same constitutional principle that allowed Republican county sheriffs to refuse to conduct background checks as the Brady Law required them to do…”
Wrong. You’re claiming an equivalence between the duty to “faithfully execute” the laws with the duty to “support and defend the Constitution” merely because they appear in the same oath, but the two do not impose identical obligations. The governor has a duty to “faithfully execute” the laws, but his oath (and sheriff’s oaths) require them to refuse to enforce unconstitutional laws. And that means laws they believe are unconstitutional in their capacity as independent moral agents who have sworn a personal oath to the Constitution, and not to judicial decrees and statutes.
The Constitution is the higher authority, and refusal to enforce unconstitutional statutes has priority over executing all statutes faithfully. Why? Because unconstitutional laws have no effect and an official can ignore them as if they don’t exist, no matter what else his oath of office requires.
The two issues are completely different in what they require of the oath takers. One (execution) requires action. The other (refusal to execute unconstitutional laws) requires inaction.
No, Dave, you are wrong. What I wrote is the exact truth. The principle on which those sheriffs stood was the exact same principle on which the sanctuary states and cities stand — the states’ tenth amendment right to be free of Congress telling them what to do. Congress wants background checks on gun buyers? Let it order the federal government to do them. Congress wants illegal aliens arrested? Let it order ICE to arrest them. But in neither case can it order the states to do its work for it. The states are free to refuse to lift a finger to help advance a federal policy they do not support. Whether it’s gun control or immigration control. Or prohibition, or catching fugitive slaves, or anything else.
If Blakeman is elected he will have to execute the state laws, including the law banning any state or city employee from assisting ICE. Because that law is constitutional, just like the exact same laws 200 years ago, banning state and city employees from assisting federal slave-catchers.
If the 10th Amendment enters into it, it’s a secondary consideration (i.e. when a law that violates States’ rights also infringes upon the rights of citizens, a sheriff can refuse to execute it on the basis of the latter, not upon the former). Although a governor might order a law ignored for violating the rights of his State (an injury to the State), a sheriff can refuse to execute a law for the reason it infringes upon the rights of the citizens within his jurisdiction. Sheriffs do not stand up for the State. That’s not their job.
So, while the governors and sheriffs have similar authority, the overlap between the two is not complete. When writing about refusal to execute unconstitutional laws by both governors and sheriffs, I am referring only to where their responsibilities overlap – when the law in question violates the rights of citizens. When such laws are imposed by governors, this authority devolves solely upon the sheriffs. Therefore my comments were limited in scope to only considerations of laws affecting the rights of citizens, not the rights of States. They are not the same.
No, the 10th amendment was not a secondary consideration, it was the only basis for the sheriffs’ case, and it was the basis on which they won.
No citizens’ rights would have been violated by the sheriffs’ conducting background checks. The only right involved was the state’s right not to be compelled to do them.
Sheriffs’ only right to refuse to comply with a federal mandate derives from their states’ tenth amendment rights. Without that the sheriffs would have had no case, and would have been compelled to conduct the checks.
Also, sanctuary laws and policies merely assert that the feds will be given no assistance. This is not a refusal to meet the demand of a law (based on constitutional or any other grounds) because Congress is not “telling (the States) what to do.” The enforcement of federal immigration laws is a federal matter, an understanding that’s shared both by the federal government and the States. The States are not asserting rights under the 10 Amendment because no such assertion is necessary. Under the circumstances (no federal law requiring cooperation in immigration enforcement) assertion of the amendment wouldn’t make any sense.
So, a claim that sanctuary jurisdictions are invoking the same authority invoked by sheriffs in opposition to Brady requirements is incorrect, because in the former situation the sanctuary jurisdictions are not dealing with laws that require their cooperation. Even if sheriffs did reject the imposition of federal gun laws based on the 10 Amendment, sanctuary jurisdictions are not doing so (because the federal government is not demanding or requiring their cooperation), therefore there is no nexus in 10th Amendment between the two situations.
Yes. Just as the sheriffs refused to assist the ATF by conducting background checks.
Only because it can’t. The attack on sanctuary states/cities consists entirely of demanding that they honor detainers and otherwise assist ICE in enforcing the law.
Yes, they absolutely are. That is the whole point of the “sanctuary” movement.
It’s only because of the 10th amendment that there is no such federal law. There are federal laws that, in the absence of the 10th amendment, would be understood to require state and local compliance with ICE detainers.
They did.
The federal government, in the person of President Trump, continually does make exactly that demand. He demands it, and he threatens states that if they don’t comply he’ll punish them. The only thing stopping him from making good on his threats is the 10th amendment.
OK Milhouse, what good is the federal law making harboring illegal aliens a felony?
No state or local government is harboring illegal aliens. No sanctuary state or city does so; we’ve had nearly 40 years’ experience with them, and not a single case of such a jurisdiction ever being caught doing so.
Refusal to assist federal law enforcement is not harboring.
With respect, it is not that clear. 8 USC Sec 1324 is extremely broad. The law has been subject to varying interpretations, particularly regarding what constitutes “harboring.” Courts have established that actions must substantially facilitate an undocumented alien’s ability to remain in the U.S. unlawfully. This broad interpretation has led to increased scrutiny and enforcement, especially during heightened immigration enforcement periods.
If being an announced “sanctuary” (and giving them all of the perks of citizens, if not more) is not “harboring” I don’y know what is.
Sultan, it is very clear. Because if you do define “harboring” as simply refusing to assist in the capture of illegal aliens, then the law against harboring becomes unconstitutional as applied to states and their subdivisions. The only way that law applies to the states and their subdivisions is if it isn’t defined that broadly.
You forget that congress can’t override the constitution. Therefore it’s a basic doctrine that statutes must always be read so as not to contradict the constitution, if they can be. That’s how you save statutes from being invalid.
The entire city has become a danger to its environs. Time to build a wall around it and seal it up. Only Snake Plissken is allowed in or out.
Protecting criminals can only lead to more law breaking. When there is no deterrence it only encourages more law breaking. Only mentality ill or criminal thinking encourages this type of behavior. It doesn’t say much for the New York politicians.
NVC has gone full circle from “Broken Windows Policy” to “Breaking Windows Policy.”
Mayor “Broken Windows” Giuliani supported and maintained the sanctuary policy. NYC became a sanctuary city in 1989, and every mayor since then has maintained that policy.
Anyone downvoting this plain and obvious fact shows that they have no regard for the truth.
In Giuliani’s day NYC’s sanctuary city status wasn’t even yet a city law; it was merely an executive order by the mayor. So if he didn’t like it all he had to do was not renew it when he came into office and all his predecessors’ orders expired. But he did renew it, because he supported the policy.
And this is the original “Broken Windows” mayor.
Not only supported, but his admin opposed the 1996 “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act” that would have limited such nonsense in court. Giuliani was just fine with illegal immigration.
It doesn’t say much for New York voters, either.
That’s 16k dependable Democrat voters eh 🤔
Let NY rot. Irredeemable.
Governor Hochul rose to her level of incompetence when she led Joe Biden around the lawn during the W.H. Easter egg roll.
It’s not incompetence. She is deliberately working to kill New York State.
As faith in the rule of law and the criminal justice system crumbles, the Death Wish series of movies come closer to reality.
Subotai Bahadur
Well, if you want something done right.
Letting their street thugs out to prey on citizens.
Bolshevikism 101
Exactly. How long before Mamdani fires Tisch?
The left is consistent on being on the wrong side.
2 solutions.
1) Withhold federal funds.
2) charge as many as possible with a federal crime, even minor, then it is not a request it is a federal judge’s order.
Federal funds can only be withheld by Congress, not by the administration. Congress must explicitly condition the funds on cooperation with ICE. And even with all that the amount to be withheld must be low enough that the states are left with a real choice whether to comply or to refuse and absorb the cut. If the cut is so big that a state can’t afford to absorb it, so that it has no choice but to comply, then it’s unconstitutional.
New York has sown the seeds of their own destruction.
In reply to the the “truth” posts above. The only truth (or fact, if you will) is that NY is doomed under the current Mayor whose reach will spread throughout the country. See the article on those who are funding Mamdani and his comrades in arms.
I hesitate to ask this question based on all the previous discussion, but is it possible that If Blakeman wins Governor, could he remove Mamdani from office? Not that it would be easy, but is it possible?
Yes, he could. But he’d have to have grounds; he couldn’t do it just because he felt like it.
The relevant case is People ex rel. Walker v Roosevelt, a NY court opinion striking down Gov. FDR’s attempt to remove Mayor Jimmy Walker.