Federal Court Blocks Error-Prone ICE Deportation Program

By: Emma Winger www.immigrationimpact.com

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested millions of people based on unreliable electronic databases. In a recent court decision with nationwide impact, a federal judge in California ruled that parts of this mass deportation program—called Secure Communities—are unconstitutional.

Through Secure Communities, anyone arrested and fingerprinted for any reason has their fingerprints sent to ICE. ICE runs those fingerprints through certain databases and then, often without any additional investigation, issues a detainer —a request that the federal, state, or local law enforcement agency hold the person for up to 48 hours after they would otherwise be released from custody. This extra time allows ICE to arrest the person. This means that ICE asks state officers to arrest people for deportation based on nothing more than a few clicks on a computer.

In Gonzalez v. ICE, a case brought on behalf of people who are or will be the subject of a detainer issued by an ICE officer in the central region of California, the court found that Secure Communities is fatally flawed. The databases include incomplete, outdated, and incorrect information.

The results are predictable. Countless people have been arrested without adequate cause. For example, from May 2015 to February 2016, ICE asked law enforcement officers to arrest almost 800 people who were either U.S. citizens or otherwise not deportable. The court ruled that ICE violates the U.S. Constitution in two ways when the agency issues a detainer based solely on these faulty databases.

First, ICE is asking state officers to make an arrest without “probable cause” that the person is deportable. Second, in many cases, ICE is asking state officers to do something they aren’t allowed to do—arrest someone for the purpose of deportation. In many states, law enforcement officers are only allowed to arrest a person for a crime.

The court blocked ICE from issuing detainers relying on nothing more than error-prone databases and from making these arrest requests in states where law enforcement officers are not authorized to arrest for deportation.

Though the court’s order applies to ICE agents in California, this includes ICE’s Pacific Enforcement Response Center, which issues detainers across the county when local ICE offices are closed. As a result, the court’s decision is an important check on ICE’s unconstitutional deportation machine.

 

 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4533-Federal-Court-Blocks-Error-Prone-ICE-Deportation-Program.html

Immigrants Who Use Legal Marijuana Can Be Denied Citizenship For Lacking Good Moral Character

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

Under a new guidance issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), immigrants may find themselves barred from obtaining citizenship if they possess or use marijuana—even if doing so is legal where they live. The new policy also clarifies that even employment in the industry can prevent an immigrant from being a naturalized citizen.

As more states legalize medical and recreational marijuana, immigrants may find themselves entirely left out. 

Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance. Possession of even small amounts of marijuana can qualify as a federal misdemeanor. Giving marijuana to another person—even for no money—can qualify as trafficking. 

To be eligible to become a naturalized citizen, an immigrant must demonstrate they had “good moral character” for the past five years before filing their application. But the law presumes that a person does not have “good moral character” if they have committed any violations of controlled substance laws. This is the case even if they were never arrested or convicted. There is an exception for those with a “single offense of simple possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana.” 

Because the federal government hasn’t interfered with state legalization, many immigrants may have been unaware of these consequences. But USCIS has now made it clear that state laws do not prevent immigration consequences. 

According to the guidelines, “possession of marijuana for recreational or medical purposes or employment in the marijuana industry may constitute conduct that violates federal controlled substance laws.” 

This can be enough to tip the scales against them in judging whether they have “good moral character.” This means buying marijuana for personal use or even working as a cashier at a dispensary might bar an immigrant from citizenship. They will have to wait up to five years before being eligible to apply for citizenship again. 

Similar conflicts even get in the way of international travel. After Canada legalized recreational marijuana last year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a warning to travelers. U.S. officials can now deny Canadians entry if they are going to the United States for “reasons related to the marijuana industry.” Those that work in the industry but are traveling for unrelated reasons won’t get turned away, although using marijuana in a legal state could disqualify them from future entries. 

As the legal marijuana industry expands, immigrants seeking to take advantage of the industry find themselves increasingly at risk. USCIS’s guidance is a clear sign that that Congress still needs to act on this state and federal conflict. This will ensure immigrants are not unfairly denied citizenship for partaking in something completely legal in their state. 

Source: www.immigrationimpact.com 

https://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4140-Immigrants-Who-Use-Legal-Marijuana-Can-Be-Denied-Citizenship.html

Border Towns Are Among The Safest In The United States

Written by Melissa Cruz

On Monday evening in El Paso, Texas, two very different images of the U.S.-Mexico border emerged.

President Trump held a rally to make the case for his border wall again, repeating his usual talking points on the supposed dangers lurking in the region. Just a block away, former Democratic Representative from El Paso, Texas Beto O’Rourke held an opposing rally to counter the president’s claims on immigrants, refugees, border town safety, and the need for a wall. Both events were characterized as a final attempt to sway congressional leaders, who must come to an agreement on whether to provide border wall funding by Friday.

These two demonstrations show just how easy it is to stir up the public around the issue of immigration, particularly when the backdrop is the southern border region. However, the truth is the communities along the U.S.-Mexico border are among the safest in the United States.

El Paso, the site of the two rallies, has been considered one of the safest cities in the nation for the last 20 years, long before any border fencing was built.

In fact, in the last week, two governors of border states ordered their National Guard troops to withdraw from patrolling the border, calling Trump’s recent decision to deploy troops there as nothing but “political theater.”

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham was the first to withdraw troops from her state’s southern border last week. In total, 118 National Guard troops had been called to New Mexico, traveling from Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

In a statement announcing the withdrawal, Grisham said:

“I reject the federal contention that there exists an overwhelming national security crisis at the southern border, along which are some of the safest communities in the country. …New Mexico will not take part in the president’s charade of border fear-mongering by misusing our diligent National Guard troops.”

On Monday, California Governor Gavin Newsom also ordered troops to be withdrawn from his state’s southern border with Mexico. He echoed Grisham’s sentiment, saying the president had created “a manufactured border crisis.”

Other elected officials from border regions have opposed Trump’s rhetoric on the state of the border. Republican congressman Will Hurd, whose Texas district has the longest border with Mexico, called a concrete border wall “the most expensive and least effective way to do border security.” And Texas Representative Vincente Gonzalez recently pointed out that the border town of McAllen, Texas had zero murders in 2018 and ranks as the seventh safest city in the United States.

Government statistics back this up. FBI data shows that border towns have statistically lower violent crime rates than other parts of the country. Former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner David Aguilar even testified that “border communities are safer than the interior locations of each of the border states.”

The reality of many of these border communities is simple—they have low crime rates, residents feel safe, and their elected officials understand border security does not mean a border wall. In making its decision on border security funding this week, Congress should take a closer look at where the real problems are.

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4019-Border-Towns-The-Safest-In-The-United-States.html