Information Correctly Examined – Tidbits of Audacity

The Hidden Truth Behind Emotional Headlines

I realize it is uncharacteristic for me to jump into the legal realm, but my criminal justice minor comes out of hiding in certain situations, particularly if the law is being ignored or misrepresented. Knowing the facts behind any situation, juxtaposing those facts against the emission of information, and seeing clear and obvious incongruencies will cause me to write something like this. As a result, we will pause the 3-part series on men valuing marriage and interrupt the regularly schedule program for an important update.

We can all agree that the current crisis of illegal immigration, enforcement of such, and the violent protests that are taking place have captured America, at least in the short-term. We can also agree that loss of life is terrible, regardless of the circumstances. These were human beings coming to the rescue of other human beings (at least in their eyes, this was their intention). These are pure motives. Respectable. Honorable (sort of). But as Thomas Sowell once said, the only thing that made him realize Marxism was the wrong way to go was… Facts. And this is precisely where this story takes a turn, the facts.

Legal facts

Is the current operation lawful under the U.S. Constitution?

In Article I, it states that Congress is to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. From this, SCOTUS has inferred national sovereignty over borders.
In Article II, the executive branch is given authority to enforce such laws using entities available to it, such as ICE and DHS.
Because the courts have determined that immigration enforcement is a civil function and not criminal, immigration laws do not fall under Article III.

When did SCOTUS decide that?

Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), Deportation is not criminal punishment but an exercise of sovereign power.
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza (1984), The Court explicitly stated that deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal.
Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952). The Court reinforced Congress’s broad power over deportation. Deportation is not a punishment for crime, but a method of enforcing immigration policy.

It is vital that the public understand the clear distinction the courts have made between civil enforcement and criminal enforcement. If it were criminal enforcement, then Article III would come into play, granting rights to counsel, speedy trial, jury trial, etc. This is not needed for civil enforcement. Therefore:

ICE does not need to provide criminal-level due process.
Immigration courts are administrative courts, not Article III courts.
Standards of proof are lower.
Detention can occur pending proceedings.

The Recent Cases

Now that we have legal facts, let’s break down the facts from this lens for just a couple of recent cases (The Renee Good case is HERE).

Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias

This gentleman was being pursued by ICE for being in the U.S. illegally. Arias also had warrants for multiple criminal offenses. Upon realizing that he was being pursued, Arias fled his vehicle, leaving his son alone in the vehicle. The officers then helped the small child stay warm, provided him food, and sought to reunite him with family. Upon taking the child to a family residence, they refused to open the door and take this child in. Therefore, he has now been rejected by both his father and other family members. ICE then detains Arias, who then agrees to reunite with the child. They are placed in a residential facility together awaiting immigration trial.

When reading the facts, I don’t see detainment of a child, bait, deception on the part of ICE. I see a lawful federal operation.

Alex Pretti

This gentleman attended a protest with a camera and a pistol on his side. ICE agents were there to arrest a different individual. So far, Pretti had been peacefully protesting with a camera in hand. Upon attempting to arrest the targeted individual, Mr. Pretti ceased being peaceful and physically interfered with the arrest. This resulted in an attempt to detain Mr. Pretti for his actions, to which he physically resisted. While agents were attempting to detain him, another agent removed Pretti’s pistol and walked away. Immediately following this, Pretti reaches for his pistol, that he thought was still there, to avoid detainment using lethal force. Neither Pretti nor the agents knew that the pistol had been removed, based on both subsequent actions. ICE agents, believing there to be a pistol, fired shots.

Again, this is a simple case of someone violently interfering with a lawful federal operation, resisting arrest, and attempting to fire shots at an ICE agent. This is sad. Unfortunate. Needless. Preventable. Some say the administration should give ICE a break for a while and let the fury die down. And maybe they’re right. But when they attempt to do their job again, will someone physically attempt to interfere? Will someone hurt the ICE agents who are doing their job? Will someone else lose a loved one? How does culpability rest with those doing their lawful job in the face of unlawful mobs?

All loss is sad. Good’s loss is sad. Pretti’s loss is sad. And you may read this thinking, “This is so wrong!” And maybe you’re right. The solution to these tragedies is quite simple.

Solutions

Exercise your First Amendment right to peacefully protest. Peacefully means:

Do not block the road with your body or a vehicle.
Do not use your vehicle as a weapon.
Do not become physically involved with an ICE agent doing his/her job.
If you legally possess a weapon, do not reach for it at any time while being detained.
Protest with your right to vote

Hold your local leadership accountable for exacerbating anger by not allowing local authorities to assist ICE while fueling anger and division. Local leadership holds at least as much culpability for these tragedies as the individuals themselves for exercising poor judgment.

I am in full support of your right to detest the current administration.

I am in full support of your right to hate what ICE is doing.

I am in full support of your right to peacefully protest.

I cannot support physical interference with lawful federal operations. Either we have laws with consequences, or we have no laws.

So, do you still feel the same now as you did when answering the poll question?

Now, can we get back to talking about how much I love my wife?!

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger