Posted on by rjonakait

Sanctuary       

It’s a free country, or so the cliché goes. We (supposedly) have free speech. We can travel and live freely within the country without the need for “papers.” We don’t need government approval to seek a job, an education, a lover, or a meal. We can’t lose life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

And part of the reason it is a free country is that we are not required to be a police informer. We do not have to tell law enforcement about the wrongs or suspected wrongs of others. If the police ask me questions about where I or someone else was last night, I don’t have to answer. I have known undocumented immigrants; I am under no obligation to report them. This is a free country partly because we are not forced to be informants. That basic principle is the foundation for the sanctuary city movement.

There is no official definition of a sanctuary city. However, the term usually refers to a locality that refuses to cooperate or limits its cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials have sought local assistance in several different ways. ICE asks cities and counties to tell ICE when the localities have encountered an undocumented immigrant. Sanctuary cities usually do not honor these requests. They don’t share their databases with the federal officials. Some localities even forbid the collection of information about immigration status.

ICE often asks to interview people in local jails. Non-sanctuary places may freely allow that. Sanctuary localities, however, may not permit it at all or only if the inmates voluntarily sign a consent form informing them that they don’t have to talk to ICE and are waiving that right.

ICE also lodges detainers asking to be informed when an inmate that ICE believes is deportable will be released from a state or local lockup. Sanctuary cities differ in their responses. Many will tell ICE about the release of someone who has been convicted of a violent offense but not otherwise. Some sanctuaries will not tell ICE about the release of any inmate.

A sanctuary city does not cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and it does not act as an informant. That, however, does not mean that an undocumented immigrant gets sanctuary from deportation. ICE may still arrest undocumented people and deport them even if they are found in a sanctuary city. They just have to do so without local help. (Many states and cities, of course, do cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and some states have banned sanctuary cities within their borders. This cooperation, however, is voluntary.)

Trump, however, has taken steps to change the long-established norms that have led to sanctuary cities. Last month Trump ordered the attorney general to publish a list of jurisdictions “that obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.” If, after notice, the jurisdictions “remain in defiance of Federal law,” their federal funds may be cut. Lower courts have already preliminarily blocked such Trumpian actions because the constitutional “spending clause” gives Congress, not the president, the power to finance programs.

The Trump administration has also sued some states and cities, including Colorado and Illinois and Denver, Chicago, and Rochester, NY, for laws and policies that restrict or prohibit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

I have not been able to find the legal papers filed in the recent Colorado and Denver suits (if you know how to access them, let me know), but news reports say that lawsuits contend that the state and local laws are unconstitutional. The Trumpian actions want to “restore the supremacy of federal immigration law.” I like to think that I have a reasonable grasp of constitutional law, but I can’t figure out the government’s claim. And non-cooperation with federal law enforcement does not destroy the supremacy of federal laws.

A small (but relevant) digression on legal procedure:

The Trump administration recently arrested a Milwaukee judge for a sanctuary-like action. It appears that an undocumented immigrant was appearing in the judge’s courtroom as a defendant in a domestic violence case. ICE agents, armed with an “administrative warrant,” came into the courtroom to arrest the defendant. The judge would not permit the apprehension in her courtroom and told the agents to wait outside. After the court proceeding, she helped the defendant to leave the courtroom by a door not used by the general public. The agents apprehended the man not far from the courthouse and a week later arrested the judge for obstructing their duties.

The judge’s arrest highlights a legal reality: while we free citizens do not have to cooperate with ICE and hand over or identify undocumented people, that does not mean that we can obstruct ICE agents. However, the line between noncooperation and obstruction can be a fine one. Misleading an agent may be obstruction, but lying to a federal officer is a crime. Take my advice: Even though you may lie to friends, relatives, or lovers, don’t lie to law enforcement. You may choose not to speak or respond at all, but don’t actively mislead.

On the other hand, law enforcement agents are not prohibited from lying to or misleading us. An “administrative warrant” is misleading. A real warrant is issued by a judicial officer and gives law enforcement general powers to arrest. An administrative warrant, however, is not issued by a neutral magistrate. It is an in-house document, issued by ICE itself to itself. In essence, it is merely a note-to-self to arrest someone. The administrative warrant gives law enforcement no more authority to apprehend someone than if the warrant did not exist. Without a citizen’s consent law enforcement can only enter a non-public space to arrest someone if they have a judicial warrant. They can’t do so with an administrative warrant. However, if they have good grounds to do so, law enforcement can arrest a suspect in a public place with an “administrative warrant,” but they can also do so without one.  An “administrative warrant” may sound as though it carries some weight, but it doesn’t. It is a meaningless document.

Back to sanctuary cities:

Sanctuary jurisdictions maintain that their lack of cooperation is not only legal but also good policy. They point out that in sanctuary cities local resources are properly allocated to local priorities not to areas under federal government jurisdiction.  The federal government, however, says that sanctuary policies endanger the citizenry. Trump’s press secretary, who might be an Amy Schumer relative if the she had either charm or wit, announced that the sanctuary jurisdictions are giving a safe haven to criminals and endangering residents and that the Trumpian attacks on the states and cities are “focused on protecting American communities from criminal aliens.” Sanctuary cities, however, maintain that they are safer because of their policies.

The jurisdictions highlight that deportation before a verdict and/or punishment (which often happens) deprives communities of the deterrence provided by the criminal justice system. A person returned to his home country before serving a sentence does not send deterrence message to the community that jail followed by deportation is a circumstance to avoid.

The sanctuary jurisdictions also want undocumented people to feel comfortable cooperating with the police. Without that cooperation crimes will not be reported and prosecuted. Undocumented immigrants won’t come forward to report crimes or be witnesses if, as a consequence, they will be deported.  Criminals, whether citizens or not, will go free, and the community will be more crime-ridden.

Furthermore, a city might be healthier, safer, and more of a community if undocumented people become more comfortable interacting with government authorities, not just police, but schools, hospitals, clinics, employment, and housing authorities.

Those opposed to sanctuary policies contend they make places dangerous. They often support that assertion with an anecdote about a single, heinous crime. On the other hand, sanctuary cities point to study after study showing that sanctuary cities are safer than other cities and that sanctuary cities, have, on average, more vibrant economies. The Trump administration, as it often does, avoids or denies the accuracy of such studies and blindly continues its activities unfettered by data and truth.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

The first anniversary of the American withdrawal from Kabul occurred recently. That withdrawal was not a pretty sight. We are supposed to learn from experience, and we should want to learn about what went right and wrong in that operation. It is an appropriate subject for congressional hearings, but we have not had meaningful ones. The Democrats control Congress, and such hearings might further tarnish Biden. So no hearings now, but Republicans vow to hold hearings if they gain control of the House of Representatives next year. Of course, the goal of these efforts will not be learning. It will be to attack Biden. And, thus, partisanship stands in the way of gaining knowledge so that this might be a better country.

We could learn something useful about the withdrawal, but even more is to be gained by learning about our invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the first place. This was the longest of our many, many wars. It cost a lot of our money. Someone could look it up for me. Was it $1 trillion, $10 trillion, $100 trillion, or more? Some say that the recent U.S.-based stimulus packages were too large and helped fuel deficits which helped fuel inflation. The Afghan war did a whole lot more of such fueling, and, unlike the recent stimulus, much of the money was spent abroad without recirculation in our economy. We spent real money, folks, and real lives were lost…for what purpose? Do you see any useful results that would justify twenty years of war, carloads of money, and devastating loss of life? We should, of course, examine our Afghanistan efforts to learn about the limits of our military prowess and democracy-building efforts, for certainly this adventure had very few positive results . But I doubt that we will get any meaningful congressional investigation. The war was started by a Republican president, was continued by a Democrat, and carried along further by a Republican president, and embarrassedly ended under a Democrat. You might think that with both parties having been involved in a failed policy, we would have informative hearings about this war. But we won’t. Since both parties were up to their eyeballs in the invasion and occupation, there is no perceived partisan advantage in considering this issue, which is one of utmost importance for our foreign policy.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.” John Stuart Mill.

The spouse said that she no longer puts ice in her water glass so that she will drink more water. I started to say, “Ice melts. It is not always solid.” I caught myself and then thought steam is always a gas. Ice is “ice,” and steam is “steam”; Why is it that what I drink from the tap does not have its own name?

The good old days: A Gallup Poll in 1945 reported that 90% of New Yorkers considered themselves happy.

In the old days, including during my career in criminal defense, when a person informed the police about a miscreant (i.e., ratted someone out), it was said that the informant had “dropped a dime” on the other one. No one calls a cop on a pay phone with a dime anymore. So today, what is the informant doing?

Posted on by rjonakait

DSK–Citizenship Issue (concluded)

 

Aylin, my Turkish-German friend from the DSK bar who wanted to stay in the US but whose student visa was about to expire, had different concerns about her immigration status than giving up her birth citizenship. Her immediate goal was to become a permanent resident of the US so that she could stay in America. She may have wanted to become an American citizen someday, but if so, that was down the road. Only then would she have to deal with her German citizenship. Germany, I have been told by a friend who holds dual German-American citizenship, does allow for dual citizenship with the United States but does not grant it automatically. A special need must be shown for it.

Aylin’s immediate concern, however, was how her marriage might be viewed by American officials. She was getting married because she loved her husband-to-be, and he loved her. But they were also getting married sooner than they otherwise would have to allow her to become a permanent resident, which she would get by marrying an American citizen. Or she would get it if our immigration authorities did not contest her marriage. She had heard that the ICE officials often concluded that marriages between citizens and non-citizens were shams entered into, often for money, to get the desired immigration status, and if that were the determination, permanent resident status would not be granted.

I thought back to a student of mine from many years before. He was attending law school part time. He worked full time for the Immigration and Naturalization Services, as it was then called, and he was in the part of the INS that looked for sham marriages. Mostly he did this in New York’s Chinatown. The INS would surveil suspected couples to see if they lived with each other and what their daily routines were. Eventually, the couple was brought in for interrogation. The man and woman were questioned separately to see how their answers matched. The questions were from the sexually intimate to the mundane. What did you have for dinner two nights ago? What time did each of you get up last Monday? What distinguishing marks do you have on your body and does your spouse have? Although I understood the reasons for this work, the enterprise seemed demeaning and depressing, both for the couple and the investigators.

I was hoping that Aylin would not have to go through anything like that. She asked me some questions about immigration law, but this is one of the many legal areas I know little about. Aylin and her fiancé did not have much money. She was tending tables to be able to afford her college courses, and he had just obtained an entry level job after college. I contacted an academic friend experienced in immigration matters and obtained the information for an immigration attorney who, I was assured, was both affordable and good. Aylin was extremely grateful for this referral.

With a wedding planned and graduation in the offing, Aylin’s life was changing, and she left DSK. We exchanged email addresses, but of course you know how that goes–neither of us reached out to the other. However, I did see her one time after her departure. The bar was holding some sort of event—an infrequent occurrence—that had been promoted on the internet. She came. I just happened to be in the bar, but I had not seen her enter. I found myself pleased when I saw her coming over to me. We exchanged a hug, and I said, truthfully, that I thought of her often, and she replied, I think sincerely, that the same was true for her. She was now in a graduate program in experimental psychology without any immigration difficulties. She introduced me to her husband, whom I had not previously met. He was very handsome, and he beamed at her. She beamed back. A couple very much in love. And, happily, a couple without immigration problems. A happy, in-love American couple.

RELATED POST: https://ameliasdad.blog/?s=DSK