The House of Representatives Passes Two Immigration Enforcement Bills
Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted on two immigration bills: "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act" and "Kate's Law." Both bills passed. The votes followed party lines.
Kate's Law
Kate's Law is an effort to toughen the laws against those who re-enter the U.S. illegally after a removal order. It is named in honor of a young woman who was murdered by someone who had re-entered the country illegally after being ordered removed.
The bill was passed with a vote of 257 in favor and 167 opposed. Only 1 Republican opposed the bill. 24 Democrats voted in favor.
The bill proposes an increase to the prison sentences that can imposed when a person is caught illegally re-entering the U.S. after being ordered removed. The minimum sentence was increased from 2 years to 5 years.
The law is intended to be a deterrent to individuals considering re-entering the U.S. illegally after being removed (deported). How effective it would be remains to be seen.
The law will be a significant taxpayer expense because it will increase the amount of time a person is in prison for violating the law.
No Sanctuary for Criminals Act
This bill will clarify and enhance immigration enforcement efforts. The bill is extremely draconian and will be very expensive to implement.
The bill was passed with a vote of 228 in favor and 195 opposed. 7 Republicans opposed the bill and 1 Democrat voted in favor.
First, the bill clarifies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer authority. A detainer is the tool used by federal immigration enforcement officers to pick up criminal aliens from local jails. Once a detainer is in place, the alien cannot be released from jail or prison. The bill establishes statutory probable cause standards to issue detainers for the first time.
Second, the bill authorized withholding certain federal grants from jurisdictions that prohibit local law enforcement officers from cooperating with ICE. This is a reference to the growing number of jurisdictions that are declaring themselves to be sanctuaries. Immigration law is federal law. At present, state and local law enforcement agencies can only engage in immigration law matters if there is a written agreement between the state/local law enforcement agency and the federal government. These agreements are known as 287(g) agreements. The agreements have been around since 1996. These agreements extend to state and local law enforcement personnel the authority to identify, process, and—when appropriate—detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity. Increasingly unpopular since 2009, there currently are only 45 jurisdictions in 18 states that have 287(g) agreements in place. Sanctuary jurisdictions will not enter into 287(g) agreements.
Third, jurisdictions that comply with ICE detainers will be protected from being sued.
Fourth, the victims of certain crimes (i.e. murder, rape, or any felony) or their surviving relatives in the case of murder will be allowed to sue a State or a political subdivision of a State (e.g. a county or city) if the if the State or political subdivision released the alien from custody prior to the commission of such crime as a consequence of the State or political subdivision’s declining to honor an ICE detainer.
Finally, the bill broadens the classes of aliens who will be ineligible for bond if placed into removal proceedings. The new classes of aliens who will be subject to mandatory detention are:
Kate's Law
Kate's Law is an effort to toughen the laws against those who re-enter the U.S. illegally after a removal order. It is named in honor of a young woman who was murdered by someone who had re-entered the country illegally after being ordered removed.
The bill was passed with a vote of 257 in favor and 167 opposed. Only 1 Republican opposed the bill. 24 Democrats voted in favor.
The bill proposes an increase to the prison sentences that can imposed when a person is caught illegally re-entering the U.S. after being ordered removed. The minimum sentence was increased from 2 years to 5 years.
The law is intended to be a deterrent to individuals considering re-entering the U.S. illegally after being removed (deported). How effective it would be remains to be seen.
The law will be a significant taxpayer expense because it will increase the amount of time a person is in prison for violating the law.
No Sanctuary for Criminals Act
This bill will clarify and enhance immigration enforcement efforts. The bill is extremely draconian and will be very expensive to implement.
The bill was passed with a vote of 228 in favor and 195 opposed. 7 Republicans opposed the bill and 1 Democrat voted in favor.
First, the bill clarifies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer authority. A detainer is the tool used by federal immigration enforcement officers to pick up criminal aliens from local jails. Once a detainer is in place, the alien cannot be released from jail or prison. The bill establishes statutory probable cause standards to issue detainers for the first time.
Second, the bill authorized withholding certain federal grants from jurisdictions that prohibit local law enforcement officers from cooperating with ICE. This is a reference to the growing number of jurisdictions that are declaring themselves to be sanctuaries. Immigration law is federal law. At present, state and local law enforcement agencies can only engage in immigration law matters if there is a written agreement between the state/local law enforcement agency and the federal government. These agreements are known as 287(g) agreements. The agreements have been around since 1996. These agreements extend to state and local law enforcement personnel the authority to identify, process, and—when appropriate—detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity. Increasingly unpopular since 2009, there currently are only 45 jurisdictions in 18 states that have 287(g) agreements in place. Sanctuary jurisdictions will not enter into 287(g) agreements.
Third, jurisdictions that comply with ICE detainers will be protected from being sued.
Fourth, the victims of certain crimes (i.e. murder, rape, or any felony) or their surviving relatives in the case of murder will be allowed to sue a State or a political subdivision of a State (e.g. a county or city) if the if the State or political subdivision released the alien from custody prior to the commission of such crime as a consequence of the State or political subdivision’s declining to honor an ICE detainer.
Finally, the bill broadens the classes of aliens who will be ineligible for bond if placed into removal proceedings. The new classes of aliens who will be subject to mandatory detention are:
- individuals unlawfully present in the U.S. who have been convicted of drunk driving regardless whether the offense is a misdemeanor or a felony
- individuals who entered the country illegally
- individuals who have a revoked non-immigrant visa
- individuals who have violated the terms of a non-immigrant visa
- individuals who have been arrested or charged with a crime that results in the death or serious bodily injury of another person
This last provision renders almost every undocumented immigrant subject to mandatory detention without the possibility of release on bond. The provision is financially and logistically impossible.
At present, there are immigration courts for people in detention and immigration courts for people who are not in detention. The vast majority of people in removal proceedings are in the immigration court for people who are not in detention.
The processing times in the detained vs non-detained immigration courts are very different. The detained immigration court works relatively quickly because the government bears the expense of keeping the individual in detention. Rarely does a case not complete within 6-9 months. The non-detained immigration court works very slowly because it has a very large number of cases and relatively few judges. Often cases can take 3-5 years to complete.
A policy of detaining even more people in removal proceedings would force a shift of judicial personnel from the non-detained court to the detained court. This would significantly increase the processing times in the non-detained court.
Forcing more people to remain in detention also would dramatically increase the government money spent on housing these individuals in jails while their immigration court cases are pending. This will be a huge taxpayer expense.
The bills now go to the Senate for vote.
Comments
Post a Comment