A pair of Senate immigration bills could imprison undocumented immigrants convicted of felony reentry and cause sanctuary cities and states to stop receiving certain federal grants.

Kate’s Law would increase penalties against immigrants who have been convicted of felony reentry–or reentering the country after being deported. The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prohibit cities and states that don’t cooperate with immigration authorities from receiving grants from the Justice Department and Homeland Security.

Both bills, which were sponsored by Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), were passed by the House of Representatives along mostly party lines on June 29. They now move on to the Senate, where Republicans face a steeper challenge from Democrats in passing either bill. Senate Republicans would need to vote unanimously and persuade at least eight Democrats and Independents to vote in favor of the bills in order to clinch a filibuster-proof majority. A 2016 version of Kate’s Law and the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, a 2016 bill similar to the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, both previously failed to pass the Senate.

Kate’s Law is named after Kate Steinle, a 32-year-old woman who was shot and killed in San Francisco in 2015. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, was charged with Steinle’s murder. Before his arrest, Lopez-Sanchez had been convicted of seven felonies and had been deported five times. Lopez-Sanchez’s original December 2016 trial date was postponed. He is scheduled to appear in court on July 14, when another trial date could be set.

White House Support

The White House released a statement from President Donald Trump on June 29 regarding the two immigration bills.

“The implementation of these policies will make our communities safer,” Trump said in the statement. “Opposing these bills, and allowing dangerous criminals back into our communities, our schools, and the neighborhoods where our children play, puts all of us at risk.”

Trump also urged the Senate to pass the bills in a video address over the weekend, saying, “If the government had simply enforced our immigration laws, these Americans would still be alive today.”

Weekly Address #KatesLaw#NoSanctuaryForCriminalsAct
Statement: https://t.co/I8cqKGDK2B pic.twitter.com/00mao6Vk7R

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017

Growing Opposition

Immigrant rights advocates are opposed to the bills, and over 400 organizations have signed a letter urging the Senate to vote against both pieces of legislation.

Jose Magaña-Salgado, Managing Policy Attorney at the Immigration Legal Resource Center, said in a statement that the bills would not only tear apart families and undermine the rights of immigrants in the U.S., but they would also put an even heavier burden on the federal prison system.

“Legislation that erodes public safety, disrespects local democratic processes, and raises serious constitutional concerns represents an abdication of the Congress’ responsibility to enact fair, humane, and just immigration policy,” Magaña-Salgado said.

Instead, he proposes that Congress enact legislation that provides ” a roadmap to citizenship for the nation’s eleven million aspiring Americans and eliminates mass detention and deportation programs that undermine fundamental human rights.”

GOP lawmakers believe both bills will crack down on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, but the bills’ impact on immigrant communities is not quite so cut-and-dry. Under Kate’s Law, undocumented immigrants previously convicted of a crime who attempt to re-enter the United States after being deported could face fines and between 10 to 25 years in prison depending on the severity of their original conviction.

However, the bill also includes sentencing guidelines for undocumented immigrants who have not been previously convicted of a crime. Undocumented immigrants who reenter the U.S. after being removed could face up to two years in prison; those who reenter after being repeatedly removed three or more times could face up to 10 years in prison. Additionally, the bill limits “collateral attack on underlying removal order.” In other words, undocumented immigrants would not be allowed to challenge the validity of any prior order under which they were removed from the country.

Trump’s Immigration Agenda

During his first week in office, Trump issued an executive order on border security and immigration enforcement, signaling a stricter stance than his predecessor on illegal immigration. In the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested 41,318 immigrants, a 37.6 percent increase from the same period last year, according to a statement from ICE.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act is part of a months-long endeavor by the Trump administration to restrict federal funding to sanctuary cities and states. Trump issued an executive order to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that refused to comply with federal immigration enforcement authorities, but that order has been tied up in a legal challenge over its constitutionality since April.

The ACLU issued a warning that both immigration bills were intended to “empower Trump’s depotation force and anti-immigrant agenda,” and urged the Senate in a statement to “reject these bills, to defend the Constitution, and protect the rights of all people, no matter their background.”

“These bills are riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants,” Lorella Praeli, the group’s director of immigration policy and campaigns, said in the statement.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump-Backed Immigration Bills Face Uphill Battle in the Senate appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration issues were on the docket for Texas lawmakers on Monday, and protesters were present throughout the day. But one lawmaker, Republican state representative Matt Rinaldi, shocked his colleagues when he said that he reported the protesters to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It was the final day of an intense four-month session debating sanctuary cities, and over 1,000 demonstrators showed up to protest a new state law that makes it illegal for local law enforcement to refuse to comply with immigration laws and detention requests.

Rinaldi told his colleagues that he had reported the protesters to ICE as he believed they were undocumented immigrants. He allegedly said, “We are going to have them deported,” followed by an obscenity. Democrats were shocked by Rinaldi’s comments. “He assumed that because they were brown, in the gallery and protesting that they were here illegally,” said Representative César J. Blanco.

VIDEO: Lawmakers in Texas House scuffle during #SINEDIE on Monday.
BACKGROUND: https://t.co/q77vMguaXh pic.twitter.com/zlAGEaL0pB

— KVUE News (@KVUE) May 29, 2017

Some lawmakers were upset by Rinaldi’s behavior and a scuffle and some finger pointing ensued. Rinaldi claimed that Democratic Representatives Poncho Nevárez and Ramon Romero threatened his life and physically assaulted him. But according to others, Rinaldi was the one making the threats. “There was a threat made from Rinaldi to put a bullet in one of my colleagues’ heads,” said Representative Justin Rodriguez, also a Democrat.

Man, Texas knows how to protest. pic.twitter.com/976zeoxYNL

— john r stanton (@dcbigjohn) May 29, 2017

Now they have a case of “he said, he said”–Nevárez said he never threatened Rinaldi. Rinaldi claimed he saw protesters holding signs saying, “I am illegal and here to stay” and that some of the Democratic lawmakers encouraged them. Blanco said he didn’t see any signs of that nature. ICE didn’t confirm whether or not it sent officials to Austin. But Blanco blamed President Donald Trump’s rhetoric for the conflict, saying that the president promotes hate speech:

The Trump rhetoric is trickling down and allowing current elected officials and candidates to resort to racism and violence making it sound like it was O.K. This has to stop. It is not what our country or what Texas is about.

Members of the Texas House Mexican-American Legislative Caucus said at a press conference on Monday that Rinaldi approached them repeatedly just to tell them he had called ICE. “F*ck them, I called ICE,” were his specific words, according to several members. Rinaldi said the protesters broke the law. But the chairman of the caucus, Rafael Anchía, said he simply saw Texans exercising their First Amendment rights.

The new law banning sanctuary cities, Senate Bill 4, will go into effect in September. Several law enforcement agencies opposed the law, and citizens have continued to protest it even after Governor Greg Abbott signed it.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Matt Rinaldi: The Texas Republican Who “Reported” Protesters to ICE appeared first on Law Street.

Feel like you missed out on some of the top news this Memorial Day Weekend? Here’s what trended last week:

Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students

A federal lawsuit has been filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the state of Mississippi, arguing that the state is violating a 150-year-old law that requires it to provide a “uniform system of free public schools” for all students. The SPLC lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the parents of four minor children, claims that Mississippi has deprived black students of the “school rights and privileges” guaranteed in its 1868 constitution.

PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

A vast majority of those arrested, 41,318 from January 22 to April 29, have criminal records. But the number of detained non-criminal undocumented immigrants also rose sharply, reflecting the directive President Donald Trump issued in January that deemed any immigrant in the U.S. without documentation a priority for arrest and deportation.

“These statistics reflect President Trump’s commitment to enforce our immigration laws fairly and across the board,” Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE, said in a statement. “If you look at the numbers, then men and women of ICE are still prioritizing these arrests in a way that makes sense,” he added in a phone call with reporters after the figures were released.

Acting on his promise to strictly enforce immigration laws, Trump issued an executive order on January 25 “to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.” The order effectively reversed an Obama Administration policy that directed ICE agents to prioritize for deportation undocumented immigrants convicted of violent crimes. Under Trump, all immigrants in the country illegally were subject to deportation.

Trump’s crack-down on illegal immigration, a stance that helped propel him to the White House, has not been implemented with impunity, however. A recently-passed spending bill does not include funding for Trump’s long-proposed border wall on the Mexican border. And federal judges throughout the country have stymied his efforts to ban or severely limit travel from a handful of mostly Muslim countries.

Still, Trump is on-track to match or surpass the arrests of undocumented immigrants at the Obama Administration’s peak in 2013, when over 662,000 undocumented immigrants were arrested. After a pointed effort to focus only on high-level criminals, that number dropped in subsequent years.

And although the number of migrants crossing the southern border has precipitously dipped–which accounts for the 12 percent decrease in total deportations this year so far–the rise in arrests of non-criminal undocumented immigrants suggests a greater willingness to enforce the existing rules.

According to the ICE figures, over 10,800 undocumented immigrants without criminal records have been arrested so far. More than 2,700 have been convicted of violent crimes, however, including assault, rape, kidnapping, or murder.

But of those that made up the 38 percent jump in arrests during the first three months of the Trump Administration, over half had been immigrants without criminal records. Their only crime: being in the country without documentation.

Omar Jadwat, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, sees the increase in arrests as a way to beef up numbers without implementing a broader strategy. “What it tells me is that the department is willing to put enforcement numbers ahead of any kind of strategy that would actually try to keep us all safer going forward,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months appeared first on Law Street.

On May 7, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a bill that will allow law enforcement officers in Texas to inquire about people’s immigration status during stops. It also threatens to punish officers who do not cooperate with federal immigration agents. While the signing–which took place spontaneously on a Sunday night–caught opponents by surprise, the places targeted by the law, known as sanctuary cities, have been a large part of the public immigration debate lately. What is less clear is what exactly sanctuary cities are and why there has been so much controversy surrounding them. Read on to find the answers to these questions and the outlook for so-called sanctuary cities going forward.

Sanctuary Cities

So what exactly are sanctuary cities? Although the term is frequently thrown around, there is actually no legal definition for what constitutes a sanctuary city, it’s more of a concept. Much of the debate boils down to how local law enforcement cooperate with federal immigration efforts. There are several cities and local governments that have laws preventing local law enforcement from turning over suspects to federal authorities for deportation. Although this may seem surprising, as the law currently stands, local authorities have no legal obligation to assist federal immigration enforcement. There are currently at least five states and 633 counties with some sort of laws limiting law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration agents.

The video below details what sanctuary cities are and how they work:

The Political Battle

On his fifth day in office, President Donald Trump entered the fray by drafting an executive order that threatened to punish any local governments that do not aid federal authorities in tracking down and detaining people who entered the country illegally. Not only did Trump’s executive order threaten to punish these cities, it also made more people eligible for deportation. Namely, the order now allows anyone who has, “committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense or pose a risk to public safety in the judgment of an immigration officer” to be deported. Before Trump’s executive order, the focus for deportation had been a crime-based removal rational, specifically targeting those who had already been convicted of crimes.

The previously established guidance allowed local law enforcement to choose to hold someone or not while Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) initiated with deportation proceedings. If a local jail had someone targeted for deportation, federal immigration authorities would ask local law enforcement to hold that person for additional time, typically 48 hours, so that they could initiate the deportation proceedings. However, with the recent executive order, counties that limit their cooperation with federal authorities–an example of which may be declining federal detention requests–would need to change their policies or face a potential loss in federal funding.

Local law enforcement had the option to deny retainer requests in the first place because the Department of Homeland Security determined that holding someone without a warrant while deportation proceedings began could actually be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And given additional legal issues surrounding conditions placed on federal grant funding, President Trump’s executive order was frozen in April by a federal judge. Regardless of the order’s fate, there is still confusion between neighboring districts and fear among law enforcement that orders like these will prevent immigrants from speaking to and assisting the police.

While sanctuary cities have taken on greater prominence under the Trump presidency, the sanctuary movement actually goes back more than 30 years to another celebrity Republican president. That president was Ronald Reagan and the people arriving then were from Central America, fleeing authoritarian governments supported by the United States in an effort to stop the spread of communism. In that case, the United States refused to help the refugees trying to escape violence from a government that it had helped keep in power. However, churches, colleges, and even cities responded by whisking these people across the border into safe havens.

The video below looks at the origins of the sanctuary movement:

Although targeting sanctuary cities and increasing deportation efforts have become important issues for Republicans lately, historically, expanding immigration enforcement has not been unique to one party. On the contrary, Trump’s predecessor President Obama, who is often touted as a staunch civil rights defender, enacted similar policies during his two terms. In fact, at one point during the Obama presidency, deportations reached an all-time high with more than 400,000 people deported in one year. Even after policy changes that sought to refocus enforcement efforts to target only convicted criminals were implemented, the number of deportations remained as high as 240,000 people in Obama’s last year in office. Most of the people deported by the Obama Administration were from either Mexico or Central America.

As for sanctuary cities themselves, in many ways, former President Obama actually helped fuel their rise. While the sanctuary movement had been around for decades, Obama’s Secure Communities program–built off of an earlier Bush presidency idea, which made it mandatory for local police to share information with federal authorities–vaulted the issue into public debate. Obama did eventually end the program, however, he remained focused on immigration enforcement, as the numbers indicate, up to the end of his term. While immigration enforcement has been a priority for presidents from both parties, Obama’s policies shifted the focus toward punishing convicted criminals and sharing information rather than targeting all immigrants. President Trump’s recent efforts go further to increase the number of people considered priorities for deportation and he has started directly confronting cities that limit cooperation with federal authorities.

What’s next?

Although the Sanctuary Movement has been around since at least the 1980s, its future is unclear. As part of the same executive order President Trump signed in January, he also threatened to cut off all federal funding to sanctuary cities. While experts doubt that Trump would be able to cut off all funding for these cities, many of the legal questions have not yet been resolved by the courts. The Trump Administration could also consider getting an injunction against certain policies in certain sanctuary cities that go beyond not helping and actually hinder federal efforts. The following video looks at what President Trump might do to sanctuary cities that refuse to change their laws:

The Obama Administration also predated any of Trump’s actions by threatening to withhold funds for not complying with federal laws. Last February, the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, agreed to transfer illegal immigrants who have completed their federal sentences into the custody of immigration officers instead of local authorities if those local authorities have shown resistance to ICE in the past. Additionally, threats to withhold federal grants for places that do not share information when requested by federal authorities came in 2016 under the Obama Administration.

These were not the only efforts to dissuade sanctuary cities either. In 2015, the House also passed a bill, which would prohibit sanctuary cities from receiving certain Justice Department grants. That bill would block federal funding for immigration-related grants, like a program that reimburses cities for the costs involved in detaining deportation targets for additional time, as well as more general law enforcement funding like money from the Justice Assistant Grant program and the Community-Oriented Policing Services program. Despite these efforts at the federal level, many cities have remained defiant. In Boulder, for example, the city voted to recognize itself as a sanctuary city even though doing so would open it up to further funding threats.

Conclusion

In February, shortly after President Trump took office, federal immigration enforcement executed a number of raids across 12 states in an effort to sweep up illegal immigrants. However, these raids differed from those that took place during the Obama Administration in that they targeted a higher percentage of people who had not been convicted of crimes. Although differing from the past administration’s policy guidance, these actions followed in line with the executive order issued by Trump soon after his inauguration.

The sanctuary movement, and sanctuary cities in particular, have sprung up since the 1980s to respond to increased enforcement efforts. However, efforts both by the previous Obama Administration, and now President Trump, have sought to undercut local governments who seek to restrict cooperation with federal authorities. This has been done through vehicles such as Trump’s executive order but also primarily through threats of reduced federal funding. While the president’s efforts to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities involves several unanswered legal questions, the scope of potential funding losses could cause a significant blow to local budgets. Nevertheless, these places have for the most part continued to stand up and resist federal immigration policies that would require them to assist in deporting illegal immigrants.

With Trump’s executive order on immigration enforcement and others, such as the travel ban, currently working their way through the courts, these issues are in the process of being resolved. An important question after that point is whether the parties involved will abide by the decision reached by the courts.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Safe Havens? The Story Behind Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Law Street.

“We stand up here, Mr. Jones. Don’t forget,” Bernard Marks, a Holocaust survivor who now lives in Sacramento as an educator, said on Tuesday. Marks was one of hundreds of protesters who gave pointed and stirring speeches at a public forum in Sacramento featuring County Sheriff Scott Jones and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Thomas Homan.

“When I was a little boy in Poland, for no other reason but for being Jewish, I was hauled off by the Nazis,” Marks said. “I spent five and a half years in concentration camp [sic] for one reason and for one reason only: because we picked on people.”

His speech was the boiling point of an already toxic event. From the very start of the forum, Jones and Homan were shouted at by a hostile crowd, as captured by the Los Angeles Times:

Attendees shouted and cursed, chanted and held up protest signs. “Lies!” some yelled when the officials said authorities did not target immigrants who did not pose a danger to the community.

“Where is the money, Jones?” others asked when the sheriff attempted to explain ICE immigration detention contracts, a budget he said totaled $4.8 million for his department.

“You are bringing the uncertainty,” one man shouted at Homan before deputies escorted him out. “You are bringing the uncertainty to everybody.”

Across the country, numerous stories have popped up about actions taken by ICE against illegal immigrants, including Dreamers, or immigrants who came to the country illegally as children. In Portland, a Dreamer was arrested and held in a detention center, which echoes stories concerning detained Dreamers in places like Seattle and Mississippi. In Fort Worth, Texas, 26 parolees suspected of being undocumented immigrants were recently arrested when they showed up to perform their mandatory community service, according to a local NBC affiliate.

They are now detained at an ICE facility in Dallas while they await their fate. In Los Angeles, the LAPD has said reporting of sexual assault and domestic violence among Latino residents has plummeted in 2017, presumably due to concerns over deportation. In the midst of these stories, residents, politicians, and activists around the country have decided to take a stand. And, in a heartbreaking story which has since gone viral, Fatima Avelica, a 13-year-old girl whose father was detained by ICE while he was dropping her off at school, spoke through her tears while telling her story at Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) news conference on Tuesday.

Sacramento isn’t the only city standing up for immigrants. On Monday, hundreds of people gathered in Boston outside the JFK Federal Building (where immigration hearings are held) to protest the arrest of three human rights activists from Vermont. Two of the activists were released on bail later that day. In Somerville, Massachusetts, after Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson called for public government officials of sanctuary cities to be arrested for not following federal immigration orders, Somerville Mayor Joe Curtatone taunted him on Facebook, writing “come and get me.”

Further up north, in Rochester, New York, two immigration protests were held in a span of 24 hours after a woman and her brother, originally from Guatemala, were detained. In Charlotte, North Carolina, 200 protesters “shouted down” a city council meeting concerning the city’s coordination with ICE officials and federal immigration orders. In Chicago, immigration advocates staged a sit-in at a regional ICE office. And in Cape May, New Jersey, protesters made their voices heard at a Board of Freeholders meeting at the county courthouse discussing the county’s new proposed partnership with ICE, according to Shore News Today.

People around the country are standing up for immigrants, and for ICE Acting Director Homan, that is something that will be hard to forget.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post People Around the Country Are Protesting ICE Arrests and Deportations appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration courts have long struggled to handle the caseloads created by years of policies aimed at criminalizing undocumented immigrants. Formal deportation proceedings for apprehended immigrants were emphasized under President George W. Bush and would later define President Barack Obama’s deportation legacy.

The influx of asylum-seeking refugees–many from Central America–that began in 2014 compounded the problem by further increasing caseloads and diversifying the type of cases put before judges. While President Donald Trump has ordered new facilities and an expanded border patrol workforce, his policies will likely confuse an already-tangled system.

Shift to Formal Deportation

In the past, immigration agents “voluntarily returned” the vast majority of undocumented people they apprehended. Under this practice, undocumented immigrants, particularly those apprehended along the border, were deported from the U.S. but were not formally processed or subjected to legal consequences. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Clinton Administration deported a total of 12.3 million people (including “voluntarily returned” immigrants), but only formally deported about 900,000 people.

Critics demanding the government formally deport anyone found entering the U.S. without documentation referred to voluntary returns as “catch and release.” Soon there was a concerted government effort to implement policies that would essentially criminalize undocumented immigrants. These policies were meant to deter deported migrants from attempting to re-enter the country.

In 2005, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced the Consequence Delivery System (CDS), which resulted in an increase in formal deportations. According to the Migration Policy Institute, the Bush Administration deported 10.3 million people (two million fewer than Clinton), and formally deported over 2 million people. This trend continued under Obama, who was either unwilling or unable to rollback formal deportations.

In his two terms, Obama formally deported 3.1 million people in spite of the fact that he deported far fewer people (5.3 million) overall than the Clinton and Bush Administrations. About 7.3 percent of undocumented immigrants were formally deported under Clinton, 19.4 percent under Bush, and 58.5 percent under Obama.

The decades-long commitment to criminalizing undocumented immigration has put enormous pressure on immigration courts. For years, immigration courts have lacked the resources necessary to undertake the hundreds of thousands of deportation hearings. While existing policy demands the criminalization of undocumented immigrants, the courts are struggling to keep pace in spite of controversial methods, such as Operation Streamline, designed to expedite hearing proceedings.

Refugees, Not Immigrants

In the summer of 2014, thousands of Central American refugees fled north in search of protection from violence in their home countries. In years prior, the vast majority of migrants attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border were Mexican citizens. Since the 2008 recession however, the number of Mexican migrants has dropped dramatically. In 2014, non-Mexicans outnumbered Mexican migrants for the first time on record.

Immigration officers found that far fewer people were attempting to cross the border undetected; instead, many more people were simply turning themselves in and requesting asylum. While approximately 90 percent of non-Mexican migrants crossing the southern border over the past few years have been from Central America, there is an increasing trend of non-Latin American migrants moving through Mexico in need of asylum.

Unwilling to provide asylum to the thousands seeking help and hoping to ease the strain placed on immigration infrastructure, the Obama Administration pressed the Mexican government to act. On July 7, 2014, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the Southern Border Plan, which he claimed would both protect the rights of migrants while ensuring security of the region.

Mexico deported nearly twice as many Central Americans in 2015 than in 2014, but the plan did little to discourage refugees from traveling through Mexico. While the number of migrants traveling on traditional thoroughfares north through Mexico decreased, they took lesser-known, more dangerous, routes to avoid detection. Central American refugees and refugees from around the world continue to arrive at the southern border demanding their cases be heard by U.S. authorities.

Under both international and domestic law, the U.S. is required to review the case of anyone who arrives on U.S. soil claiming to be a refugee and requesting asylum. While the Obama Administration approved a fraction of the asylum requests, policy dictated that migrants requesting asylum were entitled to have their case formally reviewed.

Trump’s recent executive order accused refugees of abusing the asylum program by forcing asylum proceedings to delay deportation. Trump’s order upended the asylum process by affording border officers the power to review asylum claims. Reports suggest immigration agents are either reviewing cases in brief or simply refusing to accept asylum claims and turning people around. Critics argue that these practices are in violation of domestic and international laws.

The Courts Under Trump

Trump inherits a system that is plagued by backlogs that have been building for over a decade. Nonetheless, Trump’s persistent rhetoric, his numerous executive orders, and a spate of recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids suggest deportation cases will climb under his presidency.

While Trump ordered the expansion of the immigration enforcement workforce and construction of new facilities, the funds would require congressional approval. Furthermore, new appropriations would likely fail to fill existing cracks caused by a decade of aggressive deportation policies. Recent shifts in migration patterns have exacerbated immigration courts’ caseloads.

While Trump’s promises of secure borders and increased deportations won him the support of many, it remains to be seen whether he will be able to fulfill his promises. Trump’s immigration policies present a logistical nightmare for an already overworked system and will likely face numerous legal challenges both domestically and internationally. In attempting to ramp up immigration enforcement to unprecedented levels, Trump may force it to a grinding halt.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Policies Could Further Damage Ailing Immigration Courts appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Felix Walworth received the contract from the organizer of the music festival he would soon be playing, South by Southwest (SXSW). “If SXSW determines, in its sole discretion, that showcasing acts or their representatives have acted in ways that adversely affect the viability of their official SXSW showcase, the following actions are available to SXSW,” the contract said. It listed a number of consequences, including: “SXSW will notify the appropriate U.S. immigration authorities of the above actions.”

Walworth, whose band Told Slant was slated to perform at the festival in Austin, Texas next week, promptly tweeted his response:

After looking through this contract sent to me by sxsw I have decided to cancel Told Slant’s performance at the festival pic.twitter.com/rI2Xv0duJl

— Told Slant (@Felixixix666) March 2, 2017

Unlike other festivals that focus on a few major headliners and medium-level acts, SXSW, which had its inaugural festival in 1987, is one of the world’s premier showcases for emerging artists. According to Roland Swenson, the festival’s managing director, 62 international artists are slated to perform at this year’s festival. This year, SXSW will feature an event called “Contrabanned: #MusicUnites,” which will host acts from countries affected by President Donald Trump’s failed travel ban.

After Walworth, also a member of the bands Eskimeaux and Bellows, canceled his performance, Swenson issued a statement. “We were sorry to learn that one of our invited performers chose to cancel his performance at this year’s SXSW Music Festival due to a misunderstanding of our policies regarding international artists,” he said. Swenson continued:

We understand that given the current political climate surrounding immigration, the language that was published seems strong. Violating U.S. immigration law has always carried potentially severe consequences, and we would be remiss not to warn our participating acts of the likely repercussions.

Swenson said the clause in question is intended as “a safeguard to provide SXSW with a means to respond to an act that does something truly egregious, such as disobeying our rules about pyrotechnics on stage, starting a brawl in a club, or causing serious safety issues.”

Other artists, 35 as of Friday afternoon, joined Walworth in demanding SXSW to apologize, and to “immediately drop this clause from their contract.” In a letter directed at SXSW, the artists said: “SXSW is a well respected institution and has a responsibility to show leadership by refusing to collaborate with the government’s campaign of fear and hate toward non-citizens.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SXSW Contract Threatens to Report Artists to U.S. Immigration Authorities appeared first on Law Street.

By now, you’ve probably heard the story of Daniela Vargas, a 22-year-old woman who, at the age of seven, was brought to America by her family from Argentina on a visa waiver program. On Wednesday, the Huffington Post reported that Vargas, a Dreamer, was arrested by ICE agents immediately after she spoke about her father and brother, both of whom were detained by ICE agents because of their expired visas, at a news conference put together by immigration advocates in Jackson, Mississippi. Yesterday, the Huffington Post reported that her attorney said that Vargas was set to be deported without a court hearing because she entered the country using the visa waiver program, which abdicates an individual’s right to contest their removal.

Vargas is now being held at an ICE facility in Louisiana, and shared a message through her attorney that the Huffington Post has published: “I don’t understand why they don’t want me. I’m doing the best I can,” part of the statement reads. It continues:

There’s so much that I can bring to the table, so much, like I can even teach music, I’m an excellent trumpet player you can ask my mom about any of that.  I’m great with math, I speak Spanish. You know, there’s a lot of stuff that I can do for this country that they’re not allowing me to do. I’ve even tried to join the military, and I can’t do that. But, I mean that’s not the point, the whole point is that I would do anything for this country.

Her story has sparked outrage from many, and a petition started by the immigrant rights group United We Dream has collected almost 20,000 signatures. While there are many people on both sides of the argument, from people who are fuming at the injustice of the government’s treatment of Vargas to those who think an illegal immigrant is recklessly breaking the law, another perspective has emerged below the fold. It manages to walk the tight-rope between the two binaries and mixes performative empathy with a subtle “rules are rules” detachment. This perspective argues that this whole situation could have been prevented if Vargas had only managed her money better.

The reason why ICE has detained Vargas is because she is not technically a Dreamer with DACA status. According to the Huffington Post, Vargas’ DACA status expired in November and she only recently applied for DACA status again on February 10 because she was raising money for the $495 application fee that those under the reprieve of DACA are required to pay to renew their work permit.

Multiple immigration advocacy websites caution DACA recipients to be cognizant of their renewal dates and of the importance of saving up for the renewal fee. United We Dream recommends that one should renew their DACA status about five months before their status expires. The organization also outlines a variety of savings and fundraising advice for the renewal fee, as well as the opportunity for a fee exemption, though the chances of getting that exemption are very slim.

Some have pointed to Vargas’ inability to prioritize her DACA application fee as the reason why it is so hard for them to sympathize with her. Why didn’t she treat her payment with more urgency? Why doesn’t this 22-year-old have her priorities in order?

The $495 is a fee Vargas absolutely should have paid and planned for. Could she be characterized as mildly irresponsible for not paying this on time? Maybe. But according to the 2016 Consumer Financial Literacy Survey, one out of every five Americans do not pay their bills on time. The difference between these people and Vargas is that when they do have an overdue bill, a government official doesn’t show up to detain them and throw them in a detention facility to be deported.

A distinct freedom in America is the freedom to fail–the freedom to make a small mess and, as the saying goes, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and move on. This is a freedom that is not afforded to people like Vargas who were brought to this country with no choice. People who were raised as Americans and with the privileges that that identity allows, only to be brutally reminded when they reach adulthood that they are not Americans–that they are something else entirely, and every one of their failures is amplified to a dehumanizing degree.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Story of Daniela Vargas: The “Dreamer” About to be Deported appeared first on Law Street.

The Department of Homeland Security issued two memos on Tuesday, establishing harsher immigration enforcement when deporting undocumented immigrants. Taken together, the rules amount to a stricter interpretation of existing laws, and the expansion of others. The new guidelines also call for hiring more federal immigration officials, and erecting new detention facilities.

With last month’s executive order on illegal immigration and Tuesday’s memos, President Donald Trump seems to be following through with one of his principal campaign promises: cracking down on undocumented immigrants.

“The faithful execution of our immigration laws is best achieved by using all these statutory authorities to the greatest extent practicable,” DHS Secretary John Kelly wrote in one of the memos. “Accordingly, department personnel shall make full use of these authorities.”

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said on Tuesday that the rules were designed to “take the shackles off” immigration officers, and that “the number one priority is that people who pose a threat to our country are immediately dealt with.”

While President Barack Obama narrowly focused on deporting gang members, repeat criminal offenders, and high-level criminals who were in the country illegally (some dubbed him the “deporter in chief”), the new order essentially widens the scope of those who could be targeted for deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

“ICE will not exempt classes or categories of removal aliens from potential enforcement,” said a fact sheet released by DHS on the order. “All of those present in violation of the immigration laws may be subject to immigration arrest, detention, and, if found removable by final order, removal from the United States.”

This effectively means that anyone found to have broken the federal immigration law–which is every undocumented immigrant living in the U.S.–is subject to being deported back to their home country. That does not mean this will happen, as there are roughly 11 million undocumented people living in the U.S., and there are not enough resources to deal with them all. But the new memos also call for more resources to help.

For one, the memos ask for an infusion of 10,000 new federal immigration officers. They also call for new detention facilities, and a new office within ICE to work with victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. But it is unclear how the hiring increases and new infrastructure would be funded. In addition, Kelly told lawmakers on Capitol Hill earlier this month that more officers are not necessarily needed to strengthen security.

“I’d rather have fewer and make sure that they’re high-quality people,” he said. “I will not skimp on the training and the standards.” Regardless of whether ICE is able to hire thousands of new officers, it is expanding an existing program, known as 287(g), that uses local law enforcement officers as proxy federal immigration agents. Currently, 32 agencies across 16 states comply with the program; the new memos seek to expand the number of complying agencies. Between 2006 and 2013, the program resulted in about 175,000 deportations.

Immigration activists and some lawmakers strongly oppose the new guidelines. On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), tweeted:

Instead of frightening 11 million undocumented people with deportation, we need comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 22, 2017

“When you tell state and local police that their job is to do immigration enforcement,” Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project told the New York Times, “it translates into the unwarranted and illegal targeting of people because of their race, because of their language, because of the color of their skin.”

One group that is seemingly safe from the heightened enforcement are undocumented children who were brought to the U.S. by their parents. Obama enacted a program, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which protects the undocumented children, or Dreamers. That program protected roughly 750,000 children. But under the new rules, their parents are at greater risk of being deported.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Homeland Security Broadens the Scope of Immigration Enforcement appeared first on Law Street.

The White House is pushing back against claims that President Trump is considering a proposal to mobilize as many as 100,000 National Guard troops to round up unauthorized immigrants.

According to an 11-page draft memo obtained by The Associated Press, governors in 11 states, including some that are not along the U.S.-Mexico border, would have the choice to have their guards participate in the roundup. The deportation measure would act in conjunction with Trump’s executive order on immigration and border security signed on January 25.

The AP originally reported that the memo from U.S. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine general, was addressed to the then-acting heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Vice published a copy of the memo obtained by the AP.

Trump weighs mobilizing National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants in 11 states. https://t.co/0lLvP59GZU pic.twitter.com/UJXfJslnqy

— AP Interactive (@AP_Interactive) February 17, 2017

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer categorically denied the AP report, calling it “100 percent not true” and “irresponsible.” He said, ”There is no effort at all to utilize the National Guard to round up unauthorized immigrants.”

However, conflicting reports are coming out of the Department of Homeland Security. A DHS spokesperson contends that the pre-decisional draft never made it to Secretary Kelly’s desk and was never seriously considered by the agency. But staffers from the department told the AP that they discussed the proposal as recently as last Friday.

As the document’s validity continues to be investigated, it’s important to consider the substantial impact it would have if implemented. Nearly one-half of the 11.1 million people residing in the U.S. illegally live in the 11 states–California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana–according to Pew Research Center estimates using 2014 Census data.

The leaked proposal comes as the Trump administration hurriedly attempts to save face after the swift demise of its unconstitutional and discriminatory immigration ban. Last week, ICE agents arrested 680 people in raids across the country, which Secretary Kelly later called “routine.” While National Guard personnel have helped with immigration enforcement on the border before, this action would increase their involvement significantly.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post White House Denies Plans to Deploy National Guard for Immigration Roundups appeared first on Law Street.

Andrew Puzder Withdraws From Consideration as Labor Secretary

Yesterday afternoon, President Donald Trump’s nominee for the Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder, withdrew from the process. The decision came after reports that at least four, and possibly as many as 12 Republican senators, were going to vote “no.”

Personal issues plagued Puzder throughout the confirmation process. Allegations that he hired an undocumented immigrant as a housekeeper didn’t sit well with many senators. And in 1990, his ex-wife appeared on Oprah’s show and accused him of abuse.

Andrew Puzder’s ex-wife on Oprah in 1990: His physical abuse caused permanent damage. https://t.co/DmeFOhVOZq pic.twitter.com/odEE0mfNhp

— Slate (@Slate) February 15, 2017

There were also allegations that Puzder mismanaged restaurants when he served as CEO of the company that owns Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s. Employees said they have filed a total of 33 complaints against his company, alleging wage theft, manipulated overtime, sexual harassment, and unfair labor practices. “No matter how you cut it, there is no worse pick for labor secretary than Andrew Puzder, and I’m encouraged my Republican colleagues are starting to agree,” said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer yesterday.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Tomorrow, in the nation’s capital, people will have a taste of what the city would be like without a vital part of its community. Immigrants across the city will either skip work or walk out of work to participate in “A Day Without Immigrants,” as The Washingtonian reported.

“A Day Without Immigrants” is meant to put the economic significance of the immigrant community on full display and to protest President Donald Trump’s recent immigration policies. The protest comes during a time in which stories about ICE raids have been reported across the country, including one instance in which a Mexican immigrant in Seattle who had previously been protected from deportation under the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy was detained by ICE agents.

According to The Washingtonian, multiple well-known restaurants such as Compass Rose, Bar Pilar, and Pearl Drive Oyster Palace will stand in solidarity with their employees who are protesting, and will possibly close if they are too short-staffed.

Speaking to The Washingtonian, Compass Rose owner Rose Previte said, “We’re just going to go with what we have that day and tell customers, ‘This is what happens when immigrants don’t come to work.’”

Multiple restaurants and restaurant owners have taken to social media to highlight their solidarity with the striking workers.

In solidarity with our immigrant tribe we will close for the day on Thursday for our staff to join in #ADayWithoutImmigrants.

— Busboys and Poets (@busboysandpoets) February 15, 2017

In support of our people & #ADayWithoutImmigrants Thurs 2/16 we will not open @jaleo DC CC MD, @zaytinya or @oyameldc #ImmigrantsFeedAmerica

— José Andrés (@chefjoseandres) February 14, 2017

Staff & customers from around the world are integral to our business & community. Kitchen will be closed Thursday #ADayWithoutImmigrants

— Ivy and Coney (@ivyandconey) February 15, 2017

Public and charter schools in the District will not be participating in the protest and will function on normal hours, according to The Washington Post. However, schools expect many of their teachers and staff members to participate in the protest.

Per The Washington Post:

The chief of schools for D.C. Public Schools, John Davis, sent a note to principals in the school system saying that while many people may participate in the boycott, school will continue as normal and staff and students are expected to be in attendance.

‘We highly value and are committed to fostering a learning environment where staff and students feel safe and secure and we respect the right to self-expression and peaceful protest,’ the letter says.

Some restaurants that have announced their solidarity with their staff members–like Meridian Pint, which is located in the Columbia Heights neighborhood–are located in areas of D.C. that have a high concentration of Latino immigrants.

The protest was spread through social media and flyers that have appeared around the city.

“A Day Without Immigrants” is similar to the “Day Without Latinos” rally held in Wisconsin yesterday. These rallies aren’t the first immigrant-focused protests that have taken place since President Trump’s inauguration. Earlier this month, Yemeni-owned bodegas around New York City shut down in protest of the travel ban.

For those targeted by the latest Republican divide & conquer, look around and remember this: you are not alone. @daywithoutlatinos pic.twitter.com/1vuF6QZ6Oa

— Chris Larson (@ChrisJLarson) February 13, 2017

In addition, on Friday, a “General Strike Against Trump” is taking place in cities across the country.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post D.C. Will Have “A Day Without Immigrants” Protest Tomorrow appeared first on Law Street.

Gorsuch Stands Up to Trump

President Trump’s Twitter comments about the judges who are weighing his controversial immigration ban have now drawn criticism even from his own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Trump called U.S. District Judge James Robart a “so-called judge,” attacked the justice system as “disgraceful,” and criticized judges for being too political. During a private meeting with Senator Richard Blumenthal yesterday, Gorsuch apparently called Trump’s negative tweets “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” After Blumenthal told the media about their conversation, Trump went for a Twitter attack early this morning, attacking Blumenthal for lying about serving in the Vietnam War.

Sen.Richard Blumenthal, who never fought in Vietnam when he said for years he had (major lie),now misrepresents what Judge Gorsuch told him?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 9, 2017

But Gorsuch’s comments were also confirmed by Ron Bonjean, who is part of the group guiding Gorsuch through the confirmation process.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On President-elect Donald Trump’s first day as commander in chief, he will “cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities,” according to his “First 100 Days” plan. On Monday, a cohort of Democratic mayors in major cities across the United States stood firm in their cities’ practices, despite Trump’s plan and tough rhetoric on illegal immigration.

“Seattle has always been a welcoming city,” Seattle Mayor Ed Murray said on Monday. “The last thing I want is for us to start turning on our neighbors.” Murray was part of a chorus of mayors, including those from New York City, Chicago, Providence, and San Francisco, of so-called “sanctuary cities.”

There is no legal definition for the phrase “sanctuary city.” It does not mean, as its wording might suggest, that undocumented immigrants who commit crimes enjoy shelter and coverage from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, who are in charge of deportation operations.

Jurisdictions with “sanctuary” policies essentially resist cooperation with ICE. For instance, when ICE requests an “immigration detainer,” a notification that state or local law enforcement agency is releasing a “criminal alien,” jurisdictions with “sanctuary” policies often refuse to comply with ICE’s request. The Texas Tribune found that between January 2014 and September 2015, jurisdictions declined 18,646 “immigration detainer” requests from ICE.

A murder in 2015 renewed the debate on “sanctuary cities” and provided evidence to those who argue that cities with such policies are a danger to society. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant living in San Francisco, shot and killed a woman named Kate Steinle. Officials in San Francisco, a city that has had “sanctuary”-like policies for years, were criticized because they had not disclosed Lopez-Sanchez’s release from prison to ICE just a few weeks before he killed Steinle. He had also been deported to Mexico five times before.

Trump recently addressed how his administration will tackle immigration in an interview with 60 Minutes that aired on Sunday: “What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate.”

It is unclear where Trump found those statistics, or how he will go about rounding up undocumented immigrants who have committed a crime, or even to what qualifies as a crime worthy of deportation. But as it stands, 300 jurisdictions currently have “sanctuary”-like policies and might continue refusing co-operation with the federal government.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago doubled down on his city’s commitment to remaining a “sanctuary city,” regardless of what Trump claims he will do. “To all those who are, after Tuesday’s election, very nervous and filled with anxiety … you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago,” Emanuel said at a news conference. “It always will be a sanctuary city.”

The mayors’ calls of reassurance come at a time of great anxiety for many people following Trump’s ascendance to the White House. His inflammatory rhetoric, while short on concrete policies to back up his words, has many people unsure what the future holds.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mayors Defend ‘Sanctuary Cities’ Amid Trump’s Threat to Pull Funding appeared first on Law Street.

Now that winter is in full swing, we go to extensive measures to make sure that our roadways and sidewalks are passable and safe. As we plow and shovel, we also use salts to serve as ice melt. While they come in numerous forms, many of them are strong salts that pose problems for the roadways themselves, the environment, and our pets.

As it is, I work hard to clean snow and ice out of my dog’s paws when she comes inside on a winter day. If those things become lodged they can irritate the sensitive pads or cause an infection. But if she steps on salt-based ice melt during the course of our walk, potentially serious problems can occur. First of all, it burns. I’ve seen my dog limp and try walking on three feet with the other raised up in the air because it is painful to step down. She’s whimpered and cried, and licked obsessively in an attempt to remedy it. This can cause further problems; ingesting these salts can cause gastrointestinal ailments such as vomiting and internal burns in the mouth and digestive tract. Extreme cases might even lead to liver failure or pancreatitis. I clean and disinfect her paws, apply soothing sprays, but can only do so much to prevent her from eating snow and ice outside that may contain some of the salt.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

There is no reason to use these types of salts. Sometimes salts are not necessary at all; laying down sand can provide traction enough. In many areas a homeowner is directly responsible for the portion of the sidewalk that is in front of his house. While some people are quite neglectful of this duty, others take it to the extreme. I have encountered stretches of sidewalk that are so choked with strong salts that my dog and I are better off walking in the middle of the street. There are plenty of ice melts that are labeled “pet safe.” These are not nearly as problematic, though they are not necessarily perfect as they may still contain some similar ingredients. It is best to ask your vet or an employee at the store for more information.

Little boots are an option, as well. They are cute and fashionable and will protect the paws; however, I know my dog would not tolerate them. She would feel restricted and would spend the walk trying to tear them off. While they could help some dogs, this is avoiding the problem rather than eliminating it.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

It is also worth noting that we track these salts into our homes on our shoes, as well. This can cause damage to wood floors and rugs. In addition, stronger salts crack the roadways. This is one of the reasons, in addition to the expansions and contractions induced by temperature changes, that roads are riddled with deep potholes by the time spring arrives. This gets expensive for taxpayers to fund repaving year after year, as well as poses dangers to drivers and can damage car suspensions, axles, and tires. Recently there were even several accidents on New Jersey’s Palisades Parkway largely due to incredibly rough roadways.

Remember how when Rome sacked Carthage they sowed the soil with salt so that nothing would ever grow again? We too are doing damage to the environment by sprinkling salt everywhere. It can burn grasses and plants, poison birds, and wash into waterways. From there it can harm aquatic life. This is a major issue; there is a sharp contrast in biological characteristics between fresh water creatures and salt water ones. Salt in fresh water is incredibly deadly.

Courtesy Franklin R. Halprin

We are therefore dealing with an environmentally irresponsible set of practices. Ideally an alternative to salting in its entirety would be a nice development, but in the meantime reducing or eliminating one of the problems that it causes would be a good step forward. So that our best friends can safely take steps outside, let it be with concern to pet friendly salts.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Say No to Ice-Melting Salt This Winter appeared first on Law Street.

Deporting immigrants with criminal records, in theory, seems like it makes sense. Often, those up for deportation have been convicted of an “aggravated felony.”

But there’s an issue inherent in what can be classified as an aggravated felony. It sounds bad, right? Aggravation + Felony, those are two words that sound incredibly dangerous. But an aggravated felony probably isn’t what you think it is.

Let’s start with some history: when the term was first used in 1988, an aggravated felony could only be murder, or certain types of federal drug or arms trafficking. But the definition has since expanded—in 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty ACT (AEDPA) was passed. Since then, many more crimes, a list of over thirty, can be classified as aggravated felonies. According to the Immigration Policy Center, aggravated felony includes “more than thirty types of offenses, including simple battery, theft, filing a false tax return, and failing to appear in court. Even offenses that sound serious, such as ‘sexual abuse of a minor,’ can encompass conduct that some states classify as misdemeanors or do not criminalize at all, such as consensual intercourse between a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old.”

Now, according to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), the United States is allowed to instantly deport any immigrant who is facing a one-year prison sentence or more. After an immigrant is convicted of an aggravated felony they are detained by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers. They can then be automatically deported without any sort of hearing or appeals process. They are ineligible to plead any sort of asylum, and they’re usually prohibited from ever coming back to the United States.

The legal parameters by which these “aggravated felons” are convicted are also at issue. Often due process, as required by the 14^th amendment and guaranteed to anyone on US territory, is not followed. Defendants in an immigration court don’t have a constitutional right to a lawyer, as most people who stand trial in the United States do. An organization called the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse or (TRAC) has stated that the enumerated policy of the ICE to “remove aliens who pose danger to national security or risk public safety.” But as TRAC has pointed out, “deportation is no longer a mere administrative matter; it is being used as a punitive measure for the sorts of crimes that are usually accompanied by due process.”

This troubling intersection of law and immigration leads to stories like Lundy Khoy, a woman who made news last year because of her unfair deportation. A Thai-born Cambodian immigrant who had come over with her family as part of a long quest to escape Pol Pot’s oppressive regime, Khoy attended George Mason University in 2000. At 19, she was pulled over by a bicycle cop, reported having a few tabs of ecstasy she intended to sell, and then pled guilty when charged. She served three months out of a five-year sentence and then turned her life around. She completed four years of drug-tested probation. But in 2004, she was jailed again, which was possible because of her status as a permanent resident rather than a citizen. If she had been a citizen, she would have been able to fight these actions taken against her. She did not receive a trial, and US officials attempted again and again to deport her to Cambodia, despite the fact that she has never been there. She came to the United States at 12, and barely even remembers her upbringing in a Thai refugee camp. She considers herself American to the core.

Khoy absolutely made a mistake, and she deserves to pay for it, but the thing is that she does not deserve to pay any more than an American born 19-year-old young woman who intended to sell a few tabs of ecstasy.

Obviously, not everyone who is being deported for aggravated assault has a story like Khoy. But it is safe to say that many of these immigrants are getting deported without the due process they deserve, and that’s simply not the American way.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aggravated Felonies Lead to Deportations appeared first on Law Street.