Nolan writes:
“State action was needed to deal with noncriminal illegal immigration in the interior of the country when Barack Obama was the president. He focused his immigration enforcement efforts on aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes or who had been caught near the border after making an illegal entry.
In addition to leaving interior immigration problems up to the States, this created what I call a “home free magnet.” Aliens wanting to enter the United States illegally knew that they would be safe from deportation once they had reached the interior of the country, unless they were convicted of a serious crime.
President Donald Trump destroyed this magnet with his Executive Order, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, which greatly expanded enforcement priorities and the scope of expedited removal proceedings.
The expanded expedited removal proceedings will make it possible to deport millions of undocumented aliens without a hearing before an immigration judge. And no deportable alien is safe under his enforcement policies.
President Trump has attempted to put an end to sanctuary cities by withholding federal funding, but that program has been tied up in litigation. I expect that meat-cleaver approach to fail.
His next step might be to prosecute officials under the harboring provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act who go too far with sanctuary policies. These provisions make it a capital offense to conceal, harbor, or shield undocumented aliens from detection if the violation results in the death of any person.
It does not specify what actions constitute “harboring,” and the courts have not settled on one uniform definition. But the most frequent characteristic the courts have used is that “harboring” makes it easier for aliens to live in the United States without lawful status, which is one of the main objectives of sanctuary cities.
Ironically, although a sanctuary city is supposed to make undocumented aliens safer, it makes them more vulnerable because so many of them live in the sanctuary cities. When the Trump administration launches its expedited removal proceedings round-up, it almost certainly will start with the sanctuary cities.”
*************************************************
Read Nolan’s complete article over on The Hill at the link.
The point of so-called “sanctuary cities” (an amorphous, undefined term to be sure) is to resist the “climate of fear” being promoted by the Trump Administration and to continue to encourage cooperation between local law enforcement authorities and ethnic communities that has been successful in reducing crime. In fact, by all reports, immigrant communities are some of the most “low crime” around.
I haven’t seen specific stats, but anecdotally it seems that many law enforcement officials in cities were perfectly content with the “pre-Trump” level of cooperation with the DHS and believe that the Trump/ Sessions plan will actually make their jurisdictions less safe. Additionally, I have yet to see a statement by any state or local official saying that they would refuse to turn a serious criminal over to DHS if a legally sufficient detainer were filed.
In my view, the concept that Trump, Sessions, Kelly, and company have any genuine concern about reducing crime is almost preposterous. They have no interest whatsoever in working with responsible state and local officials on programs that actually could succeed in further reducing crime (already at historically low levels in most parts of the country).
Nope! It’s all about whipping up xenophobia and appealing to white nationalism. In other words, satisfying the “Trump base.” Certainly this is a political strategy that has proven fairly effective, at least in the short run, but which has very little, if anything, to do with actually combating crime.
PWS
05-10-17
The Trump anti-Sanctuary Jihad also violates one of our bedrock precepts, no taxation without representation. The sanctuary metropolitan areas are also where most taxes are collected from high income urbanites, ironically to pay for Trump country social services.
And Texas, under Governor Abbott may be experiencing its own 1995 GOP rerun of the “Pete Wilson” moment before demographics made California permanent “Blue Country”.
As I keep telling Nolan. Until 2022 Reapportionment per 2020 US Census results we will remain deeply gerrymandered against corrective immigration legislation.
Trump’s erratic start may have fatally compromised outlier initiatives like the “Wall” Mexico is suposed to pay for, Muslim travel bans, or Trump’s promised “Ike Like” police force removing as many as 30 million new Americans ASAP.
But today Trump issued an Executive order headed by Tanton Hate network legal Wiz and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach to demonize immigrants again. Right after he fired FBI Director Comey when the FBI investigation reached close to Trump. Apparently Trump wants to relitigate again that he won the 2016 election against Hillary.
Paul says, “I have yet to see a statement by any state or local official saying that they would refuse to turn a serious criminal over to DHS if a legally sufficient detainer were filed.”
A detainer doesn’t have to be based on a serious crime to be legally sufficient. According to the Obama Administration’s Secure Communities memorandum, a detainer is legally sufficient if there is probable cause to find that the subject of the detainer is a removable alien. See page 3, where it says the following:
“If in special circumstances ICE seeks to issue a request for detention (rather than a request for notification), it must specify that the person is subject to a final order of removal or there is other sufficient probable cause to find that the person is a removable alien, thereby addressing the Fourth Amendment concerns raised in recent federal court decisions.removable alien, thereby addressing the Fourth Amendment concerns raised in recent federal court decisions.”
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_secure_communities.pdf
Under the Trump Administration, an alien is removable if any removal ground applies to him, even unlawful presence, i.e., not just the provisions the administration wants to enforce.
And, there is a statutory presumption in removal proceedings when alienage has been established that the alien is here unlawfully if he cannot establish a lawful entry. Section 291 of the INA. https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9611.html#0-0-0-365
Consequently, any detainer issued to hold an “undocumented” alien should be legally sufficient. It would just have to meet the probable cause standard with respect to alienage, and presumably ICE would not be interested in the person without reason to think that he is an alien.
But the detainer isn’t the real problem for the undocumented alien. The real problem is that he will be subject to expedited removal proceedings when he is picked up by ICE unless he can prove that he has been in the US for more than two years, which includes mandatory detention. See my article, “Noncriminal immigrants facing Trump’s deportation force need legalization, not lawyers” (April 18, 2017), http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits- blog/immigration/329310-noncriminal-immigrants-facing-deportation-need- legalization
Nolan Rappaport
I’d have to go back and read some of the court cases on detainers, Nolan.
I would think that most interior apprehensions turned over by local police will be able to show they have been here 2 years or more. Also, DHS still needs to get around to changing the regulations to expand “expedited removal.”
Best wishes from FBA/Denver,
P