Please note, a question does not imply an opinion.
Could you provide a reference for them not being federal law enforcement officers (specifically immigration law)?
I've seen this mentioned several times, but can only find evidence that they are. For example Cornel Law [1]:
> The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal law enforcement agency under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
> CE’s primary mission is to promote homeland security and public safety through criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration.
Even PBS is reporting them as such [2]:
> Federal law gives immigration agents the authority to arrest and detain people believed to have violated immigration law.
> "All law enforcement officers, including ICE, are bound by the Constitution," said Alexandra Lopez, managing partner of a Chicago-based law firm specializing in immigration cases.
And USC 1357 seems to make this indisputable [3], but IANAL.
All the sources I could find that say they aren't law enforcement are questionable, and aren't related to interpreting law.
(1) “Federal law enforcement officer” means any officer, agent, or employee of the United States authorized by law or by a Government agency to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of Federal criminal law;
HSI special agents have authority to investigate violations across multiple federal statutes including immigration law (Title 8), customs law (Title 19), general federal crimes (Title 18), and the Controlled Substances Act (Title 21). But who we think of as ICE aren't HSI special agents.
Enforcement and Removal Operations (normal ICE agents) do not have this authority and are not Law Enforcement under 18 because they are enforcing administrative removal or civil immigration status violations which are civil proceedings, not Federal Criminal Law violations. Someone whose role is limited to civil or administrative enforcement of immigration status (without authority to enforce federal criminal law) would not, on the face of the statutory language alone, qualify under § 115(c)(1).
Separately, when you fly at an airport, TSA are enforcing a subsection of travel laws (just like ICE enforces a subsection of immigration and customs law), but they are not 'law enforcement' as shown here:
Actual law enforcement is a seperate arm, the Federal Air Marshal Service. You can carry out targeted subsections of the law without being actual law enforcement.
ICE training has been reduced from 5 months to eight weeks. Law enforcement training was 16 weeks on it's own previously. There is zero possibility they are receiving law enforcement training in 8 weeks. There are now rumors training has been reduced to six weeks (ICE fails to update what their current training program is). I would note that training does not mean they are law enforcement (many Prosecutors and others attend Law Enforcement training) that type of training just means that they understand the system. You would not be able to cut ACTUAL law enforcement training in half (or more in this case) if someone is an ACTUAL law enforcement officer. Complete Law Enforcement training would be a REQUIREMENT of an ACTUAL Law Enforcement job, not something optional that can just be cut out.
In addition, 8 CFR § 287.8 - Standards for enforcement activities requires " The following immigration officers who have successfully completed basic immigration law enforcement training are hereby authorized and designated to exercise the power conferred". It can be argued current ICE training does not meet this requirement of Federal law to qualify and they are only authorized for not law enforcement civil immigration enforcement.
Could you provide a reference for them not being federal law enforcement officers (specifically immigration law)? Note that you provided none, but I do find some of your text on an AI generated website.
18 is for "general federal law". Are you trying to say they're not federal law enforcement because it's specific federal law and not general? Do you have a reference that supports this?
From the Cornell link:
> Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), which enforces U.S. immigration law at, within, and beyond U.S. borders;
Are you saying the immigration/deportation enforcement (enforcement) is not federal? It seems it can only be enforced at the federal level [1].
Is this semantics? They're federal agents (this isn't up for interpretation, as case law exists). They enforce federal law [1]. What am I missing? You write as if there's an accepted legal definition. Please provide the reference! Help!
I don't know if it's intentional, but your formatting makes it very unclear where law ends and opinion begins.
Yes, immigration/deportation officers are enforcing civil violations, not criminal, meaning they don't qualify. HSI is the group that does actual criminal stuff and that qualify under statute. ICE officers aren't doing that. Also the statutes that give authority require proper training, which ICE is definitely not receiving with their cut down.
It wasn't a dig. I found the the verbatim text when I searched for some of your on an AI website, trying try to find a reference, since you didn't provide any. Your entire response was very confusing, being a mix of unreferenced pasted text from multiple sources, none that come to the conclusion that you made, which appears to be personal opinion, and, again, no delineation between text of law, pasted text from websites, and your opinion.
I don't see how they come to the conclusion that you do with those links, several seem to be tangential to if they are federal law enforcement. If you could quote exactly what makes you think what you do, that would be helpful, but I'm more interested in legal opinion with some level of qualification behind it, rather than personal opinion, since personal opinion is all I've been able to find.
For the basic training requirement, I guess you're referring to this [1], which is referenced from the others. Do you have a reference that they're not receiving this training? The closest I can find is this investigative journalist [2], with the conclusion seeming to be that they are, at least for the requirements of the law.
If they're not federal law enforcement, I would think finding a reference would be easy saying that they're not, but, again, I've never found one and nobody that claims they aren't has been able to provide one. Again, it is easy to find a reference that they are federal law enforcement.
> I looked but don't have that site in my history.
The one website in my last comment was a reference for immigration law requiring federal enforcement. There's no reason it would be in your history, unless you thought it was for the AI website I found the text on, which means we're at the limits of communication here.
Seems like the "I" and "C" might be more relevant? For hundreds of years of civil jurisprudence, enforcing immigration and customs has not involved shooting non-smuggling citizens in the back. Or face.
We all know what's happening here. And sincere application of relevant visa and trade laws is not it.
ICE are brown shirts. Their job is to terrorize the Designated Enemies of the State.
They would need some kind of training to be an officer. Like almost all police in America they're state sanctioned armed thugs, though ice have even less training and are more racist.
When that talks about "lawless behaviour", it shows citizens standing on public sidewalks speaking freely (not illegal), when it asserts that citizens of MN are "funded by shadowy networks" it offers no proof to that assertion, etc.
That is a WSJ opinion piece, it is not a meaningful comparison of US lobbying spend separated by party. Political lobbying is an American problem and most assuredly not limited to democrats.
It is separate from law enforcement with different rules, training, and authority. They enforcement a subset of rules/law. They are not law enforcement in the general sense law enforcement is thought of, no more than Parking Enforcement. For example they can't pull someone over for breaking the law. They don't have authority to enforce all laws, only immigration and customs, and they have much more limited authority to carrying out their duties than REAL law enforcement.
They are immigrations and customs enforcement, not law enforcement. Their minimal training period and requirements indicates as such. The delegated authority of what they are allowed to do indicates as much. But keep building them up to be something more to justify murder of Americans on the streets.
Welcome to the free marketplace of ideas, dude. Talk about the issue I'm talking about instead of ranting on some vague generalization about how "believing your own eyes" is bad sometimes, thus is always bad???
If someone were talking disprovable nonsense about fairies, it would be totally fair to bring up counter-evidence. This comment of yours is substanceless.
