Enforcing Federal Law

Borrowed from The Feral Irishman

Headline: LAPD Chief Refuses to Enforce Trump Immigration Law

It is easy to be the bravest guy in the bar when you are standing behind three brutes or dating the bar-owner's daughter.

Indemnification
Indemnification is the concept that your organization will provide legal shielding of your actions as long as your are compliant with their policies.  It is not altruism on the part of the organization.  Organizations offer indemnification because they must defend their policies and procedures in order to function.  The fact that individuals get shielded is incidental.

An unintended consequence of "indemnification" is that individuals can start to believe that they are not responsible for the consequences of their actions.

An executive order making it illegal for governmental agencies (states, municipalities) to extend "indemnification" to individuals or smaller governmental units when those individuals (or units) are accused of being in violation of Federal Laws would be highly desirable.

How this might play out:
Suppose a cop makes a traffic stop and the driver might not be a legal citizen.  Further, suppose that driver goes on to commit a violent crime.  Can the victims of that crime...or the next of kin...make a credible case that the cop had enough information, of high enough quality to make a judgement of increased risk to society?  Maybe...a very, very weak case.

Let's contrast that to a case where "perps" break into a house.  Maybe people are in the house.  Maybe not.  The perps don't know and must not care.  They break windows or smash doors to get in.  They steal over $500 of property  (replacement cost).  They are not very professional and the suspects (95% certainty) are hauled in.  They have gang tattoos.  Further, let us suppose they are not legal citizens of the United States.  How can you justify, personally, not deporting them should they continue on the logical trajectory of their criminal career?

Any moderately competent lawyer would shred your defense.  You can kiss all of your assets, and your personal reputation (because your actions dragged the governmental unit into the bloodbath), good-bye. You would not be able to get a job as a dog catcher.

I suppose there are work-arounds.  Cops could put all of their assets in their spouse's name or into blind trusts.  Governmental units have fewer options.  Noble intentions are a wonderful thing, but not when they are financed by victims.  Accountability is the sun that burns off the mists of illusion.

Second act, same play
Suppose the perps are deported.  Suppose they come back.  It has happened before.

Do we toss them into prison where they will cost us $30,000 per year?

One alternative would be to ship them back to their country of origin with a contract.  We will pay the country of origin to incarcerate them.  Let's say the perp came from Mexico.  The Purchasing Parity ratio between the US and Mexico is 0.5

That suggests that the cost of providing services that are the equivalent of what US prisoners are used to would only cost $15,000 per year.

However, most prisoners in Mexico, for instance, do not receive the luxuries available to US prisoners.  Prisoners who received that level of service would generate resentment and their safety would be at risk.

For their own safety, it would be much better to compensate the originating countries to house the returnees in a manner similar to other prisoners.

Do you suppose that Mexico would refuse an "outsourcing" contract of $7000/year/head to incarcerate Mexican nationals?  That price would have to comprehend the cost of providing evidence that the prisoners were actually still alive and in the prison.

Issues of due-process are a gray zone.  The perp can be induced to sign an agreement to not come back when first deported.  Failure to abide by this requirement  would result in their agreeing to place themselves into Mexican (or similar) custody.  That would be a business agreement and not subject to Bill of Right protections.

Quack like a duck
If somebody is already inside the US.

If they work.  If they pay taxes.  If they keep their noses clean...there is no percentage in rooting them out.

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck: Then for most practical purposes it ought to be treated like a duck.  (I, personally, would reserve voting rights for citizens).

If they push their way into Law Enforcement's attention by way of anti-social behaviors, that is a different story.  Then it is game-on.