Immigration

  • March 20, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Heidi Kitrosser, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School

    Last month, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request to stay a federal district court judge’s temporary injunction against the first version of President Trump’s travel order. Some critics of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion have argued, among other things, that the panel should not have considered Donald Trump’s statements as evidence that the order purposefully discriminated against Muslims. These critics suggest that presidential campaign speech categorically ought not to be included among the evidence to which courts look to determine whether a law was passed for discriminatory reasons.

    This past Friday, Judge Kozinski – in an opinion joined by four of his fellow Ninth Circuit judges, dissenting from the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to vacate the panel opinion on the First Travel Order – joined these critics. Judge Kozinski characterized the panel’s use of Trump’s own statements as an “evidentiary snark hunt.” This approach, he warned, will reward lawyers for sifting through a candidate’s “often contradictory or inflammatory” statements, “when in truth the poor schlub’s only intention is to get elected.”  Worse still, it “will chill campaign speech,” as candidates censor themselves for fear of uttering statements that will haunt them in court one day.

    The concerns voiced by Judge Kozinski and other critics are misplaced. As both the Ninth Circuit panel and the federal trial court that first ruled on the case recognized, it is well established that courts may – indeed, often must – look beyond the face of a law to determine whether it is motivated partly by a discriminatory purpose. A contrary rule would create gaping loopholes in constitutional and statutory bars against religious or other forms of discrimination. To be sure, judicial inquiries into alleged discriminatory purposes are highly context-sensitive. A stray bigoted statement by a legislator or executive is unlikely to persuade a court that a measure is discriminatory in the face of ample evidence that it was directed toward, and serves a legitimate, non-discriminatory interest. On the other hand, a long history of public statements promising to take a particular action against a given group may well convince a court that the promised action, once taken, does purposefully discriminate against that group. At minimum, that history is relevant to the judicial inquiry, even if the court ultimately deems it outweighed by countervailing evidentiary factors. Were courts not free to so much as consider such history, the judicial power regarding anti-discrimination laws would be dramatically curtailed.

  • March 6, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Thomas Nolan, Associate Professor of Criminology, Merrimack College; 27-year veteran of the Boston Police Department

    Much has been written in this forum of police misconduct, abuse, discrimination and violence (and I have certainly made contributions here). But much of what I have seen of the police and their resistance to a role in the enforcement of federal immigration laws is heartening and cause for a glimmer of optimism in what is otherwise, with the “shackles off” of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) agents, descending into chaos, fear, danger and peril for residents of immigrant communities across the United States. Police chiefs and sheriffs from sixty-three agencies who are members of the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force recently sent a letter to the U.S. Senate in which they disavow support for the involvement of local and county police and sheriff’s agencies in the enforcement of civil immigration laws. In the letter, the chiefs and sheriffs emphasize their role in “preserving the safety of our communities and upholding the rule of law” and that their participation in the enforcement of non-criminal immigration laws would “harm locally based, community-oriented policing.” And so it would.

    The backlash against the deputizing of local law enforcement under the nefarious ICE 287(g) program continues to position ICE’s draconian detention and removal policy against the local law enforcement mandate to ensure the safety of all community residents, regardless of their immigration status. According to the New York Times, Mayor Bill di Blasio refuses to turn the NYPD into a deportation force because residents will become fearful of the police and be reluctant to report crimes or to cooperate in criminal investigations, to the detriment of community safety. “If so many of our fellow New Yorkers who are undocumented feared to communicate with the local authorities because they thought they might be deported, we couldn’t run our city,” he said.

  • March 2, 2017
    Guest Post

    by Catherine Y. Kim, Associate Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law

    Last week DHS issued new guidelines implementing President Trump’s Executive Order on Border Security, announcing a policy of mandatory detention for noncitizens apprehended at the border.

    When a noncitizen arriving at the border is charged with removability, Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act grants immigration officials discretion to release her on parole pending the outcome of removal proceedings. For decades, officials considered factors such as the individual’s age, health, family ties in the United States and the hardship that detention would cause, in determining whether detention was warranted. Last year, DHS reported detaining only 352,882 of the 805,071 noncitizens placed in removal proceedings last year.       

    Under the new guidelines, discretionary grants of parole are prohibited unless the Deputy Director of ICE or the Deputy Commissioner of CBP provides written authorization for the individual’s release; individuals who demonstrate a credible fear of persecution for asylum purposes remain eligible for discretionary parole without such written authorization. The guidelines explicitly preclude grants of parole on a categorical basis, for example, to all children, or pregnant women, or individuals over the age of 80. Moreover, they appear to preclude consideration of alternatives to detention, such as electronic monitoring.     

    Last year, DHS apprehended 690,637 noncitizens at or between ports of entry. This figure includes 415,816 individuals, including 59,757 unaccompanied children and 77,857 family units, apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol, plus an additional 274,821 individuals denied entry by U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Field Operations. Some of these individuals arriving through the southern border may be repatriated immediately to Mexico without a hearing, assuming the Mexican government agrees to accept them. Some will be able to establish a credible fear of persecution and thus become eligible for discretionary parole. Under the new guidelines, however, virtually all other noncitizens apprehended will be detained.

  • February 22, 2017
    Guest Post

    This piece originally appeared on The Guardian

    by Joshua Matz, Associate at Robbins, Russell, Englert, Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber LLP

    It is not every day that a federal court cites Ex parte Endo, the 1944 Supreme Court decision which invalidated the detention of loyal, law-abiding Japanese-Americans during the Second World War. But these are not ordinary times.

    Shortly after taking office, President Donald J. Trump unleashed pandemonium by suddenly announcing a temporary ban on travel into the United States from seven Muslim-majority nations, in addition to a temporary ban on all refugees. Experts cried foul, warning that Trump’s order violated the constitution and made America less safe.

    Amid vigils and protests, federal courts issued a flurry of rulings against Trump’s order. The broadest ruling was issued by Judge James Robart, who Trump promptly denounced on Twitter.

    On Feb. 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on an emergency motion to overturn Judge Robart. More than 130,000 people live-streamed the hearing.

    The Department of Justice represented Trump in the court of appeals and took several astonishing positions. Most remarkably, it warned that “judicial second-guessing of the President’s national security determination in itself imposes substantial harm on the federal government and the nation at large.”

    Trump (through his tweets) and his lawyers (in their briefs) thus argued not only that Trump should win on appeal, but that judges would cause grave harm merely by questioning his order.

  • February 17, 2017

    by Kaiya Lyons

    The Associated Press reported today that the Secretary of Homeland Security has drafted a memorandum that would mobilize thousands of National Guard troops in 11 states "to perform the functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension and detention of aliens in the United States." Although White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer has denied the existence of any efforts to use the National Guard to deport undocumented immigrants, the plans outlined in the memorandum give rise to serious concerns about the degree of executive control over the National Guard. To what extent can the White House use the power of the National Guard to enforce federal immigration laws?

    Constitutionally, the National Guard exists under continuing state control, but may be used by the federal government to “execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” Therefore, there are three legally distinct ways the National Guard may be employed. First, the governor of a state may authorize the deployment of troops under state law. Second, a state governor and the president may agree to deploy National Guard troops within that state for a primarily federal purpose under Title 32 of the U.S. Code. Finally, the president may unilaterally mobilize the National Guard for a federal purpose authorized by federal law under Title 10 of the U.S. Code and pursuant to the restriction of military enforcement of domestic policies within the United States under the Posse Comitatus Act.

    Indeed, deploying National Guard troops in consort with state governments to assist in border security operations is not unprecedented. In recent history, both Presidents Bush and Obama have positioned National Guard troops on the United States-Mexico to provide administrative, observational, and logistical support to Border Patrol agents. For instance, in 2006, former President George W. Bush initiated “Operation Jump Start,” which mobilized 6,000 National Guard troops in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to help install border barriers, provide training and assist with border surveillance. In 2010, former President Barack Obama announced the deployment of 1,200 National Guard troops on a similar assignment to support the organizational functions of Border Patrol.