Are you unaware that the people that you claim ICE is abusing would not be present if local police were turning over custody of criminal aliens that they already have in custody? Instead they release them into the streets for ICE to hunt down because Trump.

Horseshit Mike. I've read through this and agree with it and it matches what I've read so far. Please note that there are good legal objections to the ICE detainer that are usually cured by a Judicial Warrant. So get a cooperating Federal Judge and have him make a judicial warrant. But your argument is specious as the cure is simple, and the onus is on you and Trump, not the state.


SNIP
States and local law enforcement agencies may not cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in detaining undocumented immigrants for several reasons, primarily stemming from a mix of legal interpretations, funding issues, policy differences, and community relations concerns [2, 5, 6, 8].

Legal and Constitutional Challenges

Federal vs. State Authority: The Supreme Court has ruled that immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility, not a state or local one [8]. Local law enforcement is generally not constitutionally required to enforce federal immigration law or hold individuals solely based on an ICE detainer request [8, 10].

Fourth Amendment Concerns: Many legal challenges argue that holding a person in jail beyond their release date, solely because of an ICE "detainer" request, violates their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure, as an ICE detainer is not a judicial warrant signed by a judge [1, 10].
Liability: Local jurisdictions face potential lawsuits and liability for civil rights violations if they unlawfully detain individuals for federal purposes [6]. (This is cured by a Judicial Warrant)

Policy and Community Considerations

Erosion of Trust: Officials in some jurisdictions argue that when local police act as de facto immigration enforcement agents, undocumented residents become afraid to report crimes, serve as witnesses, or seek police help (e.g., in domestic violence situations) for fear of deportation [2, 5]. This can compromise public safety for the entire community.
Resource Constraints: Detaining individuals past their scheduled release date creates additional costs for local jails, including expenses for housing, food, and medical care [6]. Many local governments argue these federal mandates are "unfunded," placing a financial burden on local taxpayers [6].
Differing Priorities: Local law enforcement priorities are focused on local crimes and community safety, and some officials believe federal immigration enforcement diverts resources from these core missions [5].
Political and Moral Objections: In "sanctuary city" or "sanctuary state" jurisdictions, there is often a political or moral opposition to assisting in federal deportations, leading to policies that limit cooperation [2, 5].

Methods of Non-Cooperation

Instead of mandatory hold orders, many jurisdictions may instead opt for:

Notification: Informing ICE of a detained individual's upcoming release date and time, allowing federal agents the opportunity to apprehend the person in public custody [9].
Declining Detainers: Implementing local ordinances or state laws that explicitly prohibit local jails from honoring most or all ICE detainer requests unless accompanied by a judicial warrant [4, 9].

These factors mean that a lack of cooperation is less a failure to communicate and more a reflection of differing legal interpretations and policy choices between federal and state/local governments [2, 8]. SNIP