CA - The Curious Case Of The Man In The U.S. Illegally And His Stolen Car

[K_Z]

Do police frequently run your name against the database of criminals when you report a crime?

If they don't, they absolutely should. Several articles state that the reason the police decided to run PF's name against the criminal database is that he couldn't produce any evidence that he had a driver's license, or owned the car. That's pretty suspicious, IMO.

Really absurd that an illegal alien would think that law enforcement should look the other way about his illegal residency, but help him find his stolen car-- when he couldn't produce evidence of ownership, or even a license to drive! Now that's hubris! (Or someone who is not very smart....)

And I don't want to hear that "he forgot to bring his license" as a silly excuse-- yes, the police can look him up in the database, with only his name and DOB. It's pretty clear he didn't have a license. Or registration. Or insurance. IMO.

Andraychak said officers asked for his license to verify he could drive, and then asked for proof of ownership, both of which are normal steps in such cases.

Police also ran his name, to check for warrants. They found a failure to appear warrant in the system from Homeland Security, but couldn’t figure out whether it warranted an arrest. Figueroa was detained as they looked into the case, according to the police. As part of that research the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department’s warrant bureau called ICE, but could not find out details on the warrant so Figueroa was released.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local-man...-detention-possibly-in-violation-of-city-law/

So:

- No driver license
- No Registration
- Almost certainly no insurance, either-- all three are crimes.
- Police need to make sure the car wasn't PREVIOUSLY reported stolen by someone else

And police discover a history of DUI and warrant for missing immigration hearings.

The only problem here is the Sanctuary City policies, which are unconstitutional, IMO (and the opinion of many law scholars). Thankfully, the first challenge to SF's Sanctuary City policies has been filed in Dec 2015. Hopefully, the first of many lawsuits against cities that specifically direct police and other agencies to NOT cooperate with enforcement of federal immigration laws. This needs to be settled once and for all, and Sanctuary City policies ruled unconstitutional.

Deport Pedro. No sympathy here. He knew exactly what he was doing for the last 10 years--failing to cooperate with good faith, and breaking U.S. laws, and expecting to be given a pass for that. Sure doesn't sound like someone who respects U.S. laws, and wants to be here legally. He needs to go.

 

[wendybtn]

So you are advocating deporting someone without due process and stealing his property? If that is correct, you are in the wrong country. Because we have a Constitution that prohibits that type of thing.

The Constitution applies to legal citizens of the US. Do you really believe that no one in the San Francisco Sheriff's Office does not know what a bench warrant for failure to appear means? He did not show up to be deported. The first legal action should have been deportation.

 

[bluesneakers]

Yeah, pretty much, thats the way they do business these days. Thats one of the reasons I refuse to report anything to the police. The police are not your friend. You can believe they are if you want, but all they do is protect themselves, and treat everyone else as a criminal.

And people who believe they're safe or it could never happen to them are simply kidding themselves. It's more likely to happen to certain people, but no one is immune.

 

[KaaBoom]

Many sources. The numbers are far higher than 184,000-- closer to 1 million (several places I've seen 918,369 quoted directly from DHS to the senate immigration committee)-- 170,000-190,000 (depending on which government source used) only includes the ones with deportation orders who have been convicted of crimes in addition to their deportation orders/ final orders of removal.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/d...-aliens-have-criminal-records/article/2575354

From the document linked from that article.

This number includes individuals who cannot lawfully be removed at the present time due to certain protections afforded under the Immigration and Nationality Act,

That means they haven’t had their due process. All of your links are from weak sources. I was looking for something specific to back up your number, so I know that you were not just making it up. I still don’t have that.

 

[tangelo]

Law enforcement will have to deal with the Constitution before they can do it. Again immigration law does not trump the Constitution, nor should it.

whatre these unconstitutional immigration laws you believe exist?

 

[K_Z]

From the document linked from that article.



That means they haven’t had their due process. All of your links are from weak sources. I was looking for something specific to back up your number, so I know that you were not just making it up. I still don’t have that.

BBM.

I'm sorry you don't like, or believe, or respect the sources I cited. Personally, I think that is demonstrating a high degree of denial, because clearly the objective, factual statistics don't support your beliefs or opinions.

Here is a link to my post:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ly-And-His-Stolen-Car&p=12362319#post12362319

Two of the sources I cite are from the official senate websites of TWO sitting U.S. Senators, both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee for Immigration. At those sites, the letters to the Department of Homeland Security are posted, as well as the letters in response FROM the DHS, containing the statistics.

Even if one doesn't "like" the Washington Examiner article, or the ICE link, or the link on deportation basics, exactly which part of the statistics cited by TWO sitting Senators is incorrect, or weak?

These citations aren't exactly opinion blogs, or social media posts.

Are you saying the Senate Judiciary Committee on Immigration receives intentionally inaccurate statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, when they ask for them? Exactly which sources would you recommend for more accurate statistics? Why do you think these sources are weak? Perhaps because they don't support your position?

 

[tangelo]

No, he didn't enter the country illegally. He came here seeking asylum.

And then...
Immigration authorities released him from custody pending a hearing.

nope he entered illegally & "planned" to file for asylum, but then got busy drunk driving & never got around to it

 

[KaaBoom]

BBM.

I'm sorry you don't like, or believe, or respect the sources I cited. Personally, I think that is demonstrating a high degree of denial, because clearly the objective, factual statistics don't support your beliefs or opinions.

Here is a link to my post:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ly-And-His-Stolen-Car&p=12362319#post12362319

Two of the sources I cite are from the official senate websites of TWO sitting U.S. Senators, both of whom sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee for Immigration. At those sites, the letters to the Department of Homeland Security are posted, as well as the letters in response FROM the DHS, containing the statistics.

Even if one doesn't "like" the Washington Examiner article, or the ICE link, or the link on deportation basics, exactly which part of the statistics cited by TWO sitting Senators is incorrect, or weak?

These citations aren't exactly opinion blogs, or social media posts.

Are you saying the Senate Judiciary Committee on Immigration receives intentionally inaccurate statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, when they ask for them? Exactly which sources would you recommend for more accurate statistics? Why do you think these sources are weak? Perhaps because they don't support your position?

Where did you get the number 184,000 from? Because it is not in any of the links you provided. You just threw out a bunch of random links (non of them from a major media source), and none of them included the number that you used. I will continue to be in a high degree of denial, until I see a credible source to back up your numbers.

 

[KaaBoom]

The Constitution applies to legal citizens of the US.

That is your opinion only, and it disagrees with every single Supreme Court decision since 1886. You are disagreeing with hundreds of years of legal history.

In final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal immigrants are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

Do Illegal Immigrants Have Constitutional Rights?

 

[bluesneakers]

Where did you get the number 184,000 from? Because it is not in any of the links you provided. You just threw out a bunch of random links (non of them from a major media source), and none of them included the number that you used. I will continue to be in a high degree of denial, until I see a credible source to back up your numbers.

I would like to know where the number comes from as well, and what exactly it's referencing. The only 184k I can find is the estimate of how many illegal immigrants are living in Atlanta, GA. Nothing about immigrants who have received due process.

Though of course whatever the number is and however many people aren't being deported has nothing to do with this case. What happened to Figueroa is another matter entirely. Someone who applies for asylum should be approved or denied, not just sent off to live his life until ICE randomly decides he's committing the crime of being an illegal immigrant.

 

[bluesneakers]

whatre these unconstitutional immigration laws you believe exist?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

 

[tangelo]

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

link not responsive to my q

but quite the legal scholar you have there:

While illegal immigrants do not enjoy all of the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution,

hahaha

 

[bluesneakers]

link not responsive to my q

but quite the legal scholar you have there:



hahaha

That's funny.

 

[tangelo]

That's funny.

I know.

wonder what happened to his car

 

[bluesneakers]

San Francisco Updates Sanctuary City Law

The new law allows communication with immigration officials only when the immigrant in custody has been convicted of a violent felony in the last seven years, has been convicted of a serious felony in the last five years, or has been convicted of three felonies in the last five years that would have landed them in state prison.

The sanctuary city ordinance — which was first passed in 1989 — prohibits city employees from helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the investigation or arrest of those suspected of being in the country illegally.

The old measure was unspecific as to communication with immigration officials, and in one case, an undocumented immigrant who lived in the Mission District was arrested by immigration officials just moments after reporting his car stolen at a police station.

Police officers at the station informed immigration officials that Pedro Figueroa, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador, was at the station. He was arrested and detained for two months before being released and receiving an apology from then-Police Chief Greg Suhr. Immigrant advocates used the case to push for Avalos’s legislation