Supreme Court rules 5-4 that states can prosecute illegal aliens for identity theft

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
It was an example of the feds having sole jurisdiction.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
It was an example of the feds having sole jurisdiction.

Yes, and they absolutely do in some cases. The liberal justices are saying even if the state has jurisdiction over a particular crime, if an illegal commits that crime the state loses jurisdiction.

It's a crazy argument.

The majority said what every sane person in the world would say, which is that being an illegal does not make you immune from state prosecution on crimes states can prosecute.

An example of when the state could not prosecute possibly would be if they do not steal an identity, but provide a fake one that does not exist.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
That isn't what they said. They said that the state doesn't have jurisdiction in some actions involved in identity theft.

For example, someone can be legally in the US but not be authorized to work. If they use someone else's SSN to work, it would be under the sole jurisdiction of the feds, even if the person isn't an illegal.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
That isn't what they said. They said that the state doesn't have jurisdiction in some actions involved in identity theft.

For example, someone can be legally in the US but not be authorized to work. If they use someone else's SSN to work, it would be under the sole jurisdiction of the feds, even if the person isn't an illegal.

Sorry, you are not reading what they said right. If someone was legally in the US the states can prosecute if they had work authorization.

So a US citizen doing the EXACT same crime can be prosecuted, but illegals can not be according to the liberal justices. No one in their right mind would agree. So it's not in 'some' actions, it's in all actions. The Conservative justices said the feds have jurisdiction in some actions, but not automatically all. So there are multiple crimes here, some the state can prosecute, some the feds have to. Any sane person would agree with that.

What if they murder someone to steal their identity, can't be prosecuted? These justices might think they can't be, cuz they are illegal.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

Yes, and they absolutely do in some cases. The liberal justices are saying even if the state has jurisdiction over a particular crime, if an illegal commits that crime the state loses jurisdiction.

Now one needs to ask why would the liberal judges argue that it is only a "federal matter"? My only answer is to provide a way for states to disregard the federal mandate or law by providing no avenue for the states to regulate on their own. It basically puts the burden on the federal level which would over tax it and so these illegals would be untouchable by either the state completely ignoring the federal level such as we see with sanctuary cities or being forced to ignore it all, and that would put a heavy handicap at the federal level to enforce in making it ineffective even in a state that the people of that state would want to enforce.

Think about it...and illegal could commit crimes and basically be untouchable with the worst sentence that they are deported. All I need to do is ask ATS if they would like to see, lets say Weinstein, not go to jail, but get deported to some country where he then could go live in Paris for all the bad he has done in his life... I'm sure all our liberal friends would see that as a fitting penalty for him...

a reply to: Xtrozero

It would be a neverending slippy slope. If the crime was done in relation to their status then the states lose all rights?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

It would be a neverending slippy slope. If the crime was done in relation to their status then the states lose all rights?

Illegals have no status, that is why they are deported while Weinstein goes to jail for 20 years.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, the law says that the feds have jurisdiction. I'm not just talking about the minority's dissent.

I mean even the statement from the majority said that they voted how they did because they didn't think it "frustrated any federal interests". You seem to be dismissing that caveat.

a reply to: Xtrozero
Don't know where you got your info but the SOP is:

Inmates confirmed as undocumented immigrants are then transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers after serving their sentence.

Los Angeles County to cooperate with ICE on detaining undocumented immigrants

Non violent crime, but still deserves punishment..Democrats are extremely racist because they look at these people as defenseless and helpless people who just have not been civilized yet.

Democrats will take them under their wing as a pet project

The reason why they are not prosecuted is because the Democrats are still in their early stage of civilizing and therefore they hold these people to lower standards and not accountable for the peasant actions.

Not prosecuting people for Id theft is one thing, imagine those who go out of their way to not prosecute those who have raped, molested children, kidnapped and just have killed people in car accidents

How about making it a felony to be in the United States illegally? Class 3 felony For the first offense, class 2 for the second, etc.

I live in Austin, and probably like everywhere else in this nation, illegal aliens show absolutely no fear of being arrested. That’s because they know they won’t be arrested or questioned by police unless they break additional laws once they’re here.

All lawbreakers should be afraid of the consequences for breaking the law, whether it’s jaywalking, homicide, or being here illegally. The dreamers are a separate issue.

Of course, you can’t retroactively apply a new law to past violations, but stiff penalties would likely provide some deterrence, especially if they’re widely advertised in the places illegals typically come from and word starts getting around about felons who get caught and prosecuted.

This Supreme Court ruling is a good start on making illegals feel less welcome and less secure. We need to increase the pressure until all illegals either deport themselves, or we deport them after time in jail or prison.

I wouldn’t even object to paying travel costs to return illegals to their homelands. It would save us a small fortune on each one who leaves.

Hell, it costs a national average of about $10,000 per year per child for one year of public school. And children born here are U.S. citizens, entitled to every benefit we so graciously provide. These leeches are bleeding us dry.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ketsuko

That is a bit of hyperbole.

States can't deport illegals even if they know they are illegal. It isn't within their jurisdiction.

And now even if they commit a crime, certain SCOTUS justices want to tell the states they can't prosecute them for that, too because only the Feds have jurisdiction over an illegal. Sucks to be a citizen where you have all these pesky laws telling you what you can and can't do. Illegals must have it nice where they can actually murder someone with impunity because the Feds will never get around to prosecuting them.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ignorant_ape

It seems like they can't even be bothered to read the source linked in the OP.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the Supreme Court’s liberal wing, and said that U.S. immigration law gave federal authorities the sole responsibility to police fraud committed to obtain eligibility to work when he wrote the law:
"reserves to the federal government—and thus takes from the states—the power to prosecute people for misrepresenting material information in an effort to convince their employer that they are authorized to work in this country"

That’s been the excuse for decades; that violators of federal laws can only be arrested and prosecuted by the feds. There’s just one little problem with that — the feds aren’t arresting or prosecuting even a small percentage of literally millions of violators of our immigration laws.

This has gone on all my 63 years as far as I know. Look at the response to Joe Arpaio when he tried to use a little common sense to address the problem in Maricopa County.

If the feds can’t or won’t do their job and protect us, the citizens they’re supposed to protect, then they should step aside and let us ignorant, racist locals do their job for them.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: Gojira54

Who were the four judges who voted against it. They need to go away.

Nothing scares people with authority anymore. What we need is that kid from the twilight zone "It's a good life".

Then these people would respect basic laws and concepts again.



"Those judges should have prosecuted those bad people, that's why I made them go on fire". (Quote from that kid)

a reply to: ketsuko

They did not say they can commit "any" crime and the states can't prosecute them because they are illegal. They said they can't prosecute them for crimes where the feds have sole jurisdiction.

They can and are prosecuted for other crimes all the time.

ETA: Stats from Texas:
Texas Criminal Illegal Alien Data

Between June 1, 2011 and February 29, 2020, these 214,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 340,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 614 homicide charges; 37,900 assault charges; 6,407 burglary charges; 42,324 drug charges; 510 kidnapping charges; 17,734 theft charges; 26,800 obstructing police charges; 1,872 robbery charges; 4,075 sexual assault charges; 5,335 sexual offense charges; and 3,438 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 135,000 convictions including 286 homicide convictions; 15,552 assault convictions; 3,491 burglary convictions; 19,861 drug convictions; 201 kidnapping convictions; 7,710 theft convictions; 12,440 obstructing police convictions; 1,132 robbery convictions; 2,009 sexual assault convictions; 2,620 sexual offense convictions; and 1,443 weapon convictions.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, the law says that the feds have jurisdiction. I'm not just talking about the minority's dissent.

I mean even the statement from the majority said that they voted how they did because they didn't think it "frustrated any federal interests". You seem to be dismissing that caveat.

I am talking about the minority dissent. The law says the feds have jurisdiction on immigration. Identity theft is not immigration.

And that caveat is not being dismissed it is my entire post. The states have crimes they can prosecute for, and the feds have crimes they can prosecute for. Prosecution by the state does not 'frustrate any federal interest' and the feds can still charge them as well for those crimes.

It's exactly what I have been saying the entire thread and what I have been claiming any reasonable person would agree to.

The liberal minority said even though the state's prosecution does not 'frustrate federal interest' they can not be charged because even though the crime is one states have control over they are illegal and thus immune.

It's mindbogglingly stupid for the minority to suggest that and is clear activist judging.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ketsuko

They did not say they can commit "any" crime and the states can't prosecute them because they are illegal. They said they can't prosecute them for crimes where the feds have sole jurisdiction.

They can and are prosecuted for other crimes all the time.

ETA: Stats from Texas:
Texas Criminal Illegal Alien Data

Between June 1, 2011 and February 29, 2020, these 214,000 illegal aliens were charged with more than 340,000 criminal offenses which included arrests for 614 homicide charges; 37,900 assault charges; 6,407 burglary charges; 42,324 drug charges; 510 kidnapping charges; 17,734 theft charges; 26,800 obstructing police charges; 1,872 robbery charges; 4,075 sexual assault charges; 5,335 sexual offense charges; and 3,438 weapon charges. DPS criminal history records reflect those criminal charges have thus far resulted in over 135,000 convictions including 286 homicide convictions; 15,552 assault convictions; 3,491 burglary convictions; 19,861 drug convictions; 201 kidnapping convictions; 7,710 theft convictions; 12,440 obstructing police convictions; 1,132 robbery convictions; 2,009 sexual assault convictions; 2,620 sexual offense convictions; and 1,443 weapon convictions.

Those stats are mind blowing. That’s just for one state, which admittedly has a disproportionately large share of illegals. And there must have been a staggering number of crimes committed by illegals during that period which remain unsolved and no arrests were made, e.g., no arrests are made for about 40 percent of all murders nationwide. California has even more illegals than Texas. I wonder if its arrest stats for that stretch of time are similar?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Xtrozero
Don't know where you got your info but the SOP is:

Inmates confirmed as undocumented immigrants are then transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention centers after serving their sentence.

Los Angeles County to cooperate with ICE on detaining undocumented immigrants

Yes, in 2014 they did. Why in the world would you post such an outdated article as proof?

local law enforcement must abide by a “sanctuary” law, Senate Bill 54, which went into effect in 2018 to provide protection for immigrants in the country illegally. In L.A., the police department stopped engaging in joint operations with ICE that directly involve civil immigration enforcement and no longer transfers people with certain minor criminal convictions to ICE custody.

www.latimes.com...

All across the country in liberal strongholds drunk drivers, rapists, and child molesters are being put back on the street rather than be handed over to ICE for deportation.

originally posted by: daskakik
They said they can't prosecute them for crimes where the feds have sole jurisdiction.

The feds do not have sole jurisdiction. If i did what they did the state could prosecute me. The minority argument is that the fact they are illegal gives the feds sole jurisdiction on crimes where the states have jurisdiction.

That argument could be applied to ANY crime.

You posting a link to them being prosecuted is meaningless as they could always be prosecuted for identity theft too (and still can be now). The liberals wanted to change that, and their argument could apply to ANY law.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Not handing them over to ICE isn't the same as not being charged and convicted.