Maybe a sentence or two will be quoted. If you want more, here are my replies (not lengthy):
1.) In your opinion, what is the significance of the attorney general's repeated use of the phrase "illegal alien" in this week's Byrne grant announcement? 2.) Why does it matter whether people say or write "illegal alien" instead of "undocumented immigrant" or similar phrase?
He wants to create the impression that all aliens who are in the U.S. without permission are criminals. Consider two such individuals, Paulina and Jose. Paulina flew to the U.S. and spent time with relatives, but has overstayed her visa. Jose crossed the border by climbing a fence in Arizona. Applying the immigration law to these situations, Paulina has “accrued an unlawful presence,” while Jose has made an "improper entry." Both can be prosecuted criminally, but there is a big catch: Aliens have constitutional rights; and to convict them, they must have a trial. Immigration law is set up to provide a much faster process, called removal. Even these deportation hearings require an administrative hearing, and the system is backed up for months with these cases. Returning to your question 1: Culturally, many people accept Paulina’s accrued unlawful presence more readily Jose’s improper entry because of their ethnicity. Mr. Sessions wants us to ignore these legal fine points and view the matter with our cultural cues.
3.) Briefly explain, please, what Justice Kennedy meant when he wrote in the 2012 majority opinion for Arizona v. United States, "“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”
He wants to create the impression that all aliens who are in the U.S. without permission are criminals. Consider two such individuals, Paulina and Jose. Paulina flew to the U.S. and spent time with relatives, but has overstayed her visa. Jose crossed the border by climbing a fence in Arizona. Applying the immigration law to these situations, Paulina has “accrued an unlawful presence,” while Jose has made an "improper entry." Both can be prosecuted criminally, but there is a big catch: Aliens have constitutional rights; and to convict them, they must have a trial. Immigration law is set up to provide a much faster process, called removal. Even these deportation hearings require an administrative hearing, and the system is backed up for months with these cases. Returning to your question 1: Culturally, many people accept Paulina’s accrued unlawful presence more readily Jose’s improper entry because of their ethnicity. Mr. Sessions wants us to ignore these legal fine points and view the matter with our cultural cues.
3.) Briefly explain, please, what Justice Kennedy meant when he wrote in the 2012 majority opinion for Arizona v. United States, "“As a general rule, it is not a crime for a movable alien to remain in the United States.”
See above. More specifically, it is a crime, of itself, for a removed alien to return within ten years. And there are tens of thousands of these people, if not more—but they are not nearly a majority of people who are in the U.S. without permission of the government. But Justice Kennedy was referring to all the other aliens who are in the U.S. without permission—for example, Paulina and Jose (above).
4.) How does the difference between criminal and civil violations explain the historic separation of local police jurisdictions and immigration law enforcement authorities?
4.) How does the difference between criminal and civil violations explain the historic separation of local police jurisdictions and immigration law enforcement authorities?
Consider this: In 2014 (the last year for which I have figures from ICE), 56 percent of all ICE removals, or 177,960, were individuals who were previously convicted of a crime. In other words, federal immigration law uses local law enforcement and the courts to prioritize removals. Both President Obama and President Trump have done this. They are much closer on this enforcement priority than we are led to believe. Again, generally speaking, federal resources are not heavily devoted to criminally prosecuting aliens for illegal entry or presence. A major exception, where federal criminal prosecutions occur, involves drug gangs, organized distribution, and related violence.
5.) Finally, in your opinion, do so-called "sanctuary city" declarations contradict the rule of law?
5.) Finally, in your opinion, do so-called "sanctuary city" declarations contradict the rule of law?
There is a curious inversion of politics here. Sessions is a strong states’ rights advocate but his position contradicts the idea of local control. Liberals are also inverted here— they favor federal regulation, but not as Sessions wants to use it with federal authority. The bottom line is that sanctuary cities are doing what they always have: Enforcing their laws with their criminal justice system. This is not a violation of any law. That’s why the federal government is threatening to withdraw local funding—a clear sign of the limits of their power.
No comments:
Post a Comment