It's totally understandable that people are confused by the distinction between CPB and ICE. I certainly was baffled myself, until I spent a big chunk of time digging into it. And I still don't fully understand the multiple transfers of custody between those agencies, plus ORR which often ends up having custody of unaccompanied minors.
It's hard to imagine how abolishing ICE alone would resolve the humanitarian issues. I think it's reasonable to assume "abolish ICE" is really referring to a broader reform encompassing all of ICE, CBP, and ORR.
And abolishing a particular enforcement agency isn't abolishing law. Law around the border didn't disappear when INS was dismantled.
The reason for this separation has to do with consistency and scope: legality of immigration, and illegality of counterfeiting, should be consistently the same from state to state. Cases involving these issues could happen in any state and are likely to involve more than one state at a time, whereas most police work usually involves only a small area. They also are not areas where the states have authority to set policy, so it could create difficult situation for police if there were a disagreement between their state and the federal government over an issue like income tax. These factors together seem to explain why we have so many federal police forces.
How would things be better if local police had authority to detain and deport people, or to investigate customs matters?
I agree with you though that it would be great if local police were enabled to find and deport all of the illegal aliens currently residing in the US illegally.
Why? It is a misdemeanor.
You've got no legal right to park in a handicapped spot, either, but that doesn't make it a felony.
The only reason to point it out as a misdemeanor is to make it seem like it is not a problem.
This is false.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/immigra...
"The U.S. government initiated deportation proceedings in May 2007 against Saul as he returned from a holiday in Mexico. Saul is a British citizen, born in London, and at the time his removal proceedings began, he had been living in the United States for almost a full decade as a legal permanent resident... As grounds for deportation, the government cited a misdemeanor—check fraud—that Saul had committed at the age of 19."
"Aggravated felonies sound serious, and many of them are (kidnapping, theft, and bribery make the list, among many others), but there are also many misdemeanors that could fall within this term’s scope due to the mismatch between federal and state law. Crimes of moral turpitude are equally tricky."
> The only reason to point it out as a misdemeanor is to make it seem like it is not a problem.
It's to put it in perspective when folks try to act like crossing the border is a crime against humanity.
I don't understand why you're being so pedantic about this. You absolutely know that people use the 'misdemeanor' phrasing to make it seem like crossing the border is as innocuous as jaywalking. It's not. It has real effects and has been a major problem in the US for many decades.
> It's to put it in perspective when folks try to act like crossing the border is a crime against humanity.
Sure, crossing the border is not a crime against humanity, but neither is enforcing the law.
It's not pedantic, the distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor offense has very real consequences on how a case is processed. ICE ERO officers are dealing with a variety of cases, and the outcome of a specific enforcement action will depend on the severity of the offense.
One common situation is someone came to the country on a visa, and they remained in the country and continued working after the visa expired. This is not a felony, and the person is likely to be released while the legal process plays out. This person might obtain authorization to remain in the country and never be deported, for example by obtaining a different visa.
Another common situation is someone who overstayed their visa as above, but ERO officers also discover a large quantity of drugs and/or weapons in the vicinity. In this case, there is a strong reason to believe the person has committed a felony, and that person is very likely going to remain in custody while the legal process plays out. This person is also very likely to be deported, since a felony conviction would rule out pretty much all pathways to legal authorization to remain in the country.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
“shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
> It has real effects and has been a major problem in the US for many decades.
Like many other misdemeanors.
ICE has jurisdiction over a large number of federal laws involving immigration as well as laws involving transporting illegal goods across national boundaries (narcotics, weapons, money laundering, child pornography, etc...). Some of these crimes certainly are felonies, whereas others are misdemeanors.
- https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/police-officer-arrested-child-pornography-charges
- https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/arms-trafficker-convicted-anti-aircraft-missiles-scheme-and-other-arms-offenses
- https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/rwandan-man-sentenced-immigration-fraud-and-perjury-connection-1994-genocide
- https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/operation-cookout-indictment-charges-39-defendants-heroin-and-fentanyl-trafficking
- https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/former-fresno-resident-charged-illegally-brokering-sale-military-arms-foreign
- https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-hsi-investigation-leads-federal-indictment-alleging-scheme-avoid-payment-18
In fact, equating to two is common tactic of the "throwing children into cages is good, actually" crowd and most of the time it means the person is arguing in bad faith.
Mind: I disagree strongly with OP's initial comment.
This seems like a fantastic leap. I think there are zero or borderline zero instances of calls, even implicitly, for the abolishment of law due to individual horrors.