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.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New Report Likens Texas Solitary Confinement to Torture

A new report from the Human Rights Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law states that solitary confinement in Texas violates international standards for human rights and amounts to torture. According to Ariel E. Dulitzky, a law professor who co-wrote the report, prisoners that were interviewed in the study suffered psychological problems after being in solitary. They were not allowed to have any contact with other inmates or access to health care, and changes in the execution schedule meant that some prisoners had to prepare for death more than once.

Hey Texas! What are we doing, exactly? Violating international human rights standards? Torturing people? Let’s not! https://t.co/koUEYiRFE9

— Haley Samsel (@haley_samsel) April 27, 2017

Inmates were also not allowed to have any physical contact with family members, even when they were heading to their execution. According to the study, the state of Texas is unique in that it uses all of these policies, while other states may only use one or two. Also, it seems like Texas is using solitary confinement as a general practice, rather than for a specific reason like safety or punishment. But a strong lack of transparency or will to cooperate on behalf of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has obstructed any change.

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: April 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The LAPD will not assist President-elect Donald Trump in any way if he decides to follow through with his deportation plans, said police chief Charlie Beck on Monday. Trump has pledged to deport millions of illegal immigrants, a promise that has caused anxiety for many of the undocumented, as well as fully legal, immigrants in the country. Los Angeles County is home to roughly one million out of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. But Beck said his police force will not do anything differently just because there is a new president:

We are not going to engage in law enforcement activities solely based on somebody’s immigration status. We are not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts. That is not our job, nor will I make it our job.

LAPD will not help deport immigrants under Trump, chief says https://t.co/zVnPuPLgXX pic.twitter.com/TWhejyi0j9

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) November 14, 2016

The LAPD has a long tradition of not complying with  federal guidelines on the issue of undocumented immigrants. Officers are not allowed to stop someone simply because of their immigration status, or to ask about it. Officers have additionally stopped handing over people arrested for small crimes to federal agents for deportation and also no longer hold inmates who might be deportable after they served their time.

California is a liberal state and is so unhappy about Trump’s election that many people there have recently been campaigning for Calexit—to make California independent from the rest of the U.S. Now that many worry about what will happen under Trump, officials in the Golden State have tried to comfort people. The LA Archbishop Jose H. Gomez held a special prayer service last Thursday, saying, “In the past couple days since the election… we have children in our schools who are scared. They think the government is going to come and deport their parents.” He said that the church will keep supporting immigrants that are here illegally.

pic.twitter.com/wAPa6ied6y
100,000 people rally against US Fascism and for #CalExit
We are an undeniable force

(yes, it is LA ~1500 Wilshire)

— #CalExit NaphiSoc (@NaphiSoc) November 15, 2016

LA Mayor Eric Garcetti called for a meeting at Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles and promised that he would stand up for his people. “If the first day, as president, we see something that is hostile to our people, hostile to our city, bad for our economy, bad for our security, we will speak up, speak out, act up and act out,” he said.

On Friday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill–Senate Bill 10–that would let undocumented immigrants buy health insurance through the state exchange. It passed the state senate on Monday but requires approval by the federal government. If that happens, it would make California the first state to let illegal immigrants who make too much money to qualify for low-income plans buy insurance from the state exchanges.

In times like these, it is reassuring that some people are determined to stay empathetic and show solidarity with others.

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 The LAPD Says it Will Not Assist Trump with Any Deportation Plans appeared first on Law Street.

The story of Adam Crapser, 41, who was born in South Korea but adopted by an American couple at age three, has brought a lot of attention to the issue of international adoptees who lack American citizenship. Adam Crapser’s adoptive parents never filled out the necessary paperwork and now he faces deportation to a country he hasn’t seen since he was three, where he has no family or friends, and knows neither the language nor the culture. According to a Korean-American advocacy group, about 35,000 adoptees in the country lack U.S. citizenship, many times because the parents don’t know they need to fill out certain paperwork.

They grew up as American citizens, then learned that they weren’t @PriscillaStoneS @adam_crapser @NYAdoptEquality https://t.co/o8A9E1u7Fb

— Frank Ligtvoet (@frank_ligtvoet) September 3, 2016

Adam Crapser, who until recently lived in Vancouver, Washington, with his two daughters and pregnant wife, was adopted with his sister and taken to the U.S. His only belongings when he arrived were a Korean bible, a pair of rubber shoes, and a stuffed dog. But seven years later the parents, who had been abusive the whole time and punished the siblings by locking them in a dark basement, changed their minds and abandoned the kids. At age ten, Adam Crapser was separated from his sister and passed through several different foster homes.

By the time he was 12, Thomas and Dolly Crapser adopted him, but that didn’t make life easier. The couple also had two other adopted kids and several foster children, and all of them were abused. The parents allegedly taped the children’s mouths shut with duct tape, slammed their heads into door frames, and hit them. According to the AP, the couple was arrested on charges of physical and sexual abuse and rape in 1991, but Thomas only got 90 days in jail and Dolly three years of probation.

.@repzoelofgren what can be done to help #adamcrapser? https://t.co/3w4Hcx4MLr Appalling abuse by ICE after a lifetime of abuse.

— Peter Delevett (@peterdelevett) October 27, 2016

Before the Crapsers were criminally charged, they had kicked Adam Crapser out of their home before he had any chance to collect his belongings. In an attempt to retrieve his Korean bible and rubber shoes from when he was little, he broke into their house, which led to charges of burglary. Later in life he got in trouble with the law for unlawful possession of a firearm, assault after a fight with his roommate, and for calling a son he had with an ex-girlfriend despite a protection order.

“I made a lot of mistakes in my life, and I’m not proud of it,” Adam Crapser told the New York Times magazine. “I’ve learned a lot of lessons the hard way.”

As a sister and mother of international adoptees, this story breaks my heart and infuriates me in all kinds of ways. https://t.co/GgVYKIzr4D

— Jeanne Ryan (@Jeanne_Ryan) October 28, 2016

In 2000, Congress passed a law that gives automatic citizenship to adoptees, but only future adoptees or children under 18. Adam Crapser wasn’t covered but had to apply by himself. At the beginning of the year he came onto the immigration authorities’ radar when he applied for a green card and his previous convictions showed up. Another law, that was made stricter after 9/11, made him deportable because of his previous crimes. Even though he is now a responsible father of three, soon to be four, he was taken away from his family and put in an immigration detention center for nine months. During a hearing on Monday, he waived an appeal since he desperately wants to get out of there and be with his family.

“He will be deported as soon as Immigration and Customs Enforcement makes the necessary arrangements,” his attorney Lori Walls said to the AP. “Adam, his family, and advocates are heartbroken at the outcome.”

That someone who was taken from his home country at such a young age will now be sent off to a place completely alien to him and forced to split up from his wife and children, simply because of neglectful adoptive parents, has caused an uproar on social media. Many are pleading for the White House to step in.

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 Korean-American Man Who Was Adopted When He Was Three to Be Deported appeared first on Law Street.

Is controversial Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s time in office almost up? On Tuesday, news broke that the federal government will file criminal contempt-of-court charges against Arpaio for ignoring orders from a judge. Arpaio was ordered to stop his anti-immigration policies in Arizona, but didn’t comply.

Two days later, activists from a movement called Bazta Arpaio stood outside of the Phoenix sheriff’s office holding a balloon modeled to look like Arpaio in handcuffs. Their organizer Del Palacio said: “The community is excited. They know that this is the best chance we have to get him out of office. Momentum is on our side.”

Today Joe Arpaio goes to court for violating a judges order. Who the criminal now, Joe? #bAZtaArpaio #NoMoreHate @CASEActionAZ pic.twitter.com/mDpT6Tiln2

— Hugo Soto (@HugoSotoLA) October 11, 2016

The group is urging Hispanic people to vote against Arpaio, both to kick him out of office and also with the hopes that it will increase voter participation. The sheriff is seeking a seventh term, and has also been campaigning for Donald Trump, so the new criminal charges came at a pretty bad time for him.

Members of the Bazta Arpaio group said that he has abused their community for a long time and it is time to get him out of office. They will focus on door knocking and campaigning in Latino neighborhoods and will also drive around a red bus spreading their message.

Berta, an organizer w #baztaarpaio and one of Arpaio’s victims, encourages voters to kick him out of office nov. 8 pic.twitter.com/VFzKX14nxN

— Tania A. Unzueta (@_LaTania) October 13, 2016

The court process has been going on since 2008, when some civil rights groups filed a lawsuit regarding racial profiling in the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. This led to findings of a pattern of racial bias and in 2013 Arpaio was told to stop his immigration-enforcement operations. These included racial profiling of Hispanic people at traffic stops, patrols in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, and detaining people solely based on their perceived immigration status.

In May of this year the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow, found Arpaio was guilty of civil contempt of court for ignoring his orders. The official charges were announced on Tuesday. Arpaio has said he didn’t defy the orders on purpose. But if found guilty, the 84-year-old self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America” could face six months in jail.

In his statement on the case, Arpaio blamed Obama for being corrupt and the DOJ of charging him for political reasons.

Here is Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s two-part statement about the corrupt DOJ charging him for enforcing our immigration laws. It’s a MUST read. pic.twitter.com/7LhZQXectZ

— Jeremy Nolt (@RealJeremyNolt) October 11, 2016

According to experts, this is more of a symbolic move from the judge. “He’s really taking a stance that ‘Sheriff Joe’ is not above the law. That anyone can be held accountable for their behavior–even if you’re a very popular sheriff,” said criminal justice professor Cara Rabe-Hemp.

Arpaio is an outspoken Trump supporter who joined the fight to find out the “truth” about Obama’s birth certificate. He has also become known for forcing inmates to wear pink underwear and sleep outside. No matter how the election in November goes, Del Palacio and other activists have their minds set on not letting him get re-elected as sheriff. “Regardless of what happens in the trial, we’re going to remain focused to ensure that his tenure ends on November 8” he said.

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 Will Arizona Voters Come Together to Remove “America’s Toughest Sheriff”? appeared first on Law Street.