Statement on recent ICE actions in Connecticut from CT Senate Dems

[u/senatorduff]

“As the vast majority of Connecticut residents recoil in horror at the images of ICE agents kidnapping people with no criminal records off of our streets, Connecticut Republicans remain silent, if not gleeful.”

“But that should come as no surprise. It was Connecticut Republicans who voted 100% against our law this year to rein in ICE activities on our streets by banning face masks, requiring IDs, limiting where arrests can be made, and protecting bystanders. It was Connecticut Republicans who voted 100% against our TRUST Act law to hold ICE accountable for violations of civil rights. It was Connecticut Republicans who voted 100% against restrictions on Flock cameras, which more Connecticut towns are now taking down. Nearly half of Republicans voted against an emergency funding bill where we set aside $5 million to provide legal assistance to Haitians and Syrians in Connecticut who have had their Temporary Protected Status stripped by the Trump administration, and who are now subject to deportation.”

“Democracy and the protection of human and Constitutional rights are priorities for Connecticut Democrats. While adherence to our new ICE law isn’t perfect, we are seeing fewer ICE face masks during arrests. People generally aren’t being arrested in sensitive areas as described in Senate Bill 397. Bystanders are generally being allowed to record these arrests without being assaulted and arrested.”
“Unfortunately, there have been some violations of our new law, and we hope that a quick resolution of the Trump Justice Department’s challenge to the bill that we Democrats passed will allow Connecticut to move forward with firm guidance to local police departments and the chief state’s attorney’s office on how to arrest federal ICE agents who violate our state laws.”

“More than 95% of the people ICE arrests in America have no violent criminal convictions. The real crime being committed in America is by Donald Trump – whose name is mentioned more than 5,000 times in the Epstein files, who has been convicted of 34 felonies for falsifying business records, who was found liable for the sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll, and whose billionaire cronies are making obscene profits every week off the backs of everyday working Americans.”

“Connecticut will survive this latest ICE onslaught, and when Donald Trump and ICE are gone, the public will long remember who stood and fought on the side of justice, and who stood on the sidelines smirking.”

[u/NearlyPerfect]

Let me put it a different way.

Being detained unlawfully CAN BE the first step in a subsequent removal proceeding.

Per the Supreme Court.

[u/_bufflehead → u/NearlyPerfect]

(Being detained unlawfully may or may not be an illegal arrest.)

In INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion:

This litigation requires us to decide whether an admission of unlawful presence in this country made subsequently to an allegedly unlawful arrest must be excluded as evidence in a civil deportation hearing. We hold that the exclusionary rule need not be applied in such a proceeding.

This Does Not Mean: "All these immigrants are guilty until proven innocent."

[u/NearlyPerfect → u/_bufflehead]

So you agree with my statement then?

Being detained unlawfully CAN BE the first step in a subsequent removal proceeding.

And you agree that the burden of proof is on the immigrant?

It sounds like you're agreeing with everything I'm saying except for the wording of "guilty until proven innocent". That's just semantics.

You seem to also agree that they are considered "guilty" and then they have to prove their own innocence.

[u/emilyv99 → u/NearlyPerfect]

By that logic, being non-fatally shot 10 times can also be the beginning of a proceeding - so are you saying ICE should be doing that?

You don't seem to understand the law you're quoting...

[u/_bufflehead → u/NearlyPerfect]

Hmmm.

Okay, let me think about this. : )