Law Blog

Images of immigrant issues and struggles in the United States are popular fodder for hit movies such as The Godfather and Gangs of New York. For a nation founded by immigrants, the United States has become a melting pot of international identities and also the center of major immigration issues.

According to a recent report published by the Council on Foreign Relations, “The continued failure to devise and implement a sound and sustainable immigration policy threatens to weaken America’s economy, to jeopardize its diplomacy, and to imperil its national security.”

Urging for a fundamental overhaul of the U.S. immigration system, I agree with many of the suggestions of the report.  But as a citizen, rather than a policy maker, I believe that the emphasis and main concerns of the report are misplaced.  We need to worry less about national reputation and border patrol and more about ensuring that those immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are provided the support necessary to realize the American Dream.

The report provided a variety of suggested areas of improvement, including:

• Devising a comprehensive immigration reform plan
• Attracting skilled immigrants
• Increased National security
• Employer enforcement of immigration laws & standards
• Simplifying, streamlining, and investing in the immigration system
• Improving America’s image abroad
• Better border enforcement
• State and local enforcement

The seven most popular states for immigrants to settle in are California, New York, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Illinois, according to statistics compiled by LegalMatch.  Many of the immigration issues presented by LegalMatch clients arise because an individual immigrant attempted to navigate their way through the complicated and paper-heavy legal system without an attorney and ran into problems.

Aside from potential language issues, many immigrants working on visas or their citizenship status are trying to understand a foreign legal system.  I barely understand the American system as it is and could not imagine attempting to work within one I have no background knowledge of!  All parties involved from the government, to employers, to the immigrants themselves need to strive to work within rather than around the legal system.

Opinions vary about the economic and other effects of immigration.  Whether pro or anti-immigration, one thing remains true- we are a nation founded by immigrants and we must embrace our multi-national heritage and provide the same services and opportunities to everyone that comes within our border.

Following up on my previous article on immigrant removal, I wanted to know where some of our LegalMatch clients were coming from. I looked at the data for 2008 in order to compare it to current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) statistics on estimated unauthorized immigrant populations in the United States. 

According to LegalMatch.com data, the following states are the top ten locations for immigrants seeking removal attorneys:

1. CA: 16%
2. TX: 12%
3. FL: 7%
4. NY: 6%
5. AZ: 5%
6. GA: 4%
7. WA: 3%
8. NJ: 3%
9. NC: 3%
10. CO: 3%

These numbers almost exactly match DHS data on the estimated US population of unauthorized immigrants. The first five states on both lists are the same. The percentages are also almost exactly the same, with a few exceptions.

Assuming a correlation between the number of people facing removal and the number of immigrants present in the state (i.e. higher removal numbers means a likelihood of higher numbers of people in general) this LegalMatch data is evidence that federal estimates are accurate.

Now that we can assume the veracity of these figures, some may wonder why some states, such as New Jersey or Georgia, have a significantly higher proportion of unauthorized immigrants (and thus, immigrants facing removal) then other states situated right next to them. Common sense already dictates that states like California or Florida would have high ratios due to simple geography. But why Colorado and not Utah? Why New Jersey and not Pennsylvania?

Further analysis of these states would be necessary, but my hunch says it’s a mixture of jobs, economic strength, the presence of large urban populations, and how many immigrants are already in the state. Colorado, for instance, may have fewer farms than Nebraska and Kansas, but it has a larger immigrant population as well as more dense urban cities. Georgia, although conservative, also has a dense urban core surrounding Atlanta. New Jersey neighbors the extremely diverse New York City. A variety of reasons may drive immigrant migration, and further examination of LegalMatch data may shed some light on these patterns.

The numbers of illegal aliens facing removal from the United States has been on the rise since 2001. In the past 8 years there has been a 40% increase in the number of aliens removed (deported) from the United States. 

I was curious of the most common causes for removal. According to LegalMatch.com intake reports compiled from thousands of client entries in the past 12 months, these are the most common reasons cited for removal from the U.S.:

• Convicted of a crime: 42%
• In the United States illegally: 40%
• Visa has expired: 16%
• Not paid taxes: 1%

A lot of squabbling goes on in the media and the blogosphere about whether an “illegal immigrant” is actually a criminal. The point of these “debates” is usually to score quick political talking points.

Contrary to popular belief however, mere unauthorized presence in the United States is not always a crime. The above poll matches Homeland Security data showing that in fact, the majority of aliens removed from the United States were not criminals. According to Department of Homeland Security statistics for 2007, only 31% of immigrants removed were actually convicted of a crime.

Although removal can subject one to criminal sanctions, the majority of removal cases are limited to civil penalties or based on breaches of administrative laws. When an immigrant is removed without criminal consequences it is incorrect to really refer to this person as a “criminal.” The “illegal aliens are criminals” talking point is nonetheless often used to somehow justify the mass jailing and deportation of illegal aliens, but it rings hollow when statistics show that the rule being broken by most of these people is mere unauthorized presence. According to the above statistics, it would be incorrect to assume that more than 42% of those immigrants facing removal are in fact criminals.

San Francisco has yet again come under the national spotlight, this time due to a federal grand jury investigation into whether city officials violated federal immigration laws against harboring illegal immigrants. The issue has not surprisingly sparked a heated debate over the controversial policy. 

Sanctuary laws are not unique to San Francisco. In fact, over 80 cities and states in the U.S. have various sanctuary policies. These include Chicago, Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, Miami, and Houston. Entire states such as Alaska and Montana have sanctuary laws protecting illegal immigrants.

Ever since their conception, these policies did not sit well with the federal government and anti-immigration proponents. (Lunatic fringe groups such as the Minutemen are particularly outraged, and show their displeasure with “rallies” that sometimes draw over 10 people.) Actually, state governments have no obligation to enforce federal immigration policy. Immigration has always been the exclusive province of the federal government.  States can, however, assist the federal government if they choose. Most of these policies merely remove that choice.

Threatening criminal sanctions is a new and almost desperate tactic, and in some ways San Francisco has already folded. Recent developments brought intense scrutiny upon the city’s sanctuary law, some of it in the form of subpoenas. In one particularly troubling development (from a legal standpoint), it was found that the city was not reporting juvenile felony offenders, and then flying them back to their home countries. This particular incident might be what Northern California United States Attorney Joseph Russoniello hinted at when he intimated the city may be violating harboring provisions of Title 8 of the US Code. Apparently to Mr. Russoniello, deporting illegal immigrants is only OK if the handcuffs say “property of the federal government.”

Many believe this non-reporting policy led to the tragic San Francisco triple homicide during the summer of 2008. It was discovered that the suspect Edwin Ramos-an illegal immigrant-was previously arrested as a juvenile, but was not reported to immigration officials. Many believed that had he been reported, he would have been deported and the murder would not have happened. The incident was nationally televised, but missing from the news was the fact that San Francisco reported Edwin Ramos to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) only months earlier on an unrelated charge, but was not asked by ICE to detain Ramos.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has promised to report juvenile felony offenders and stop flying juvenile offenders back to their home country without reporting them to ICE. Such a policy would not be a far stretch from the city’s already long standing policy of cooperation with ICE as to illegal immigrant felons, as the city did with Mr. Ramos. (It might also be a troubling breach of privacy for juvenile offenders, but that has gotten lost in the fray.)

Ironically, intimidating local officials with criminal sanctions may make it harder for local officials to fight crime and pick up suspects like Ramos. Policies such as San Francisco’s have evolved into important guarantees ensuring local citizen cooperation with police officers. Police chiefs across the country, such as former San Jose Police Chief Joseph McNamara, cite the need for local police departments not to act as extensions of ICE: “There’s a real debate going on nationally in police circles, but in almost every large city I know of, police departments have the same attitude: We have to work with these communities; we can’t have them viewing the police as the enemy because then you get this ‘Don’t snitch’ policy.”

This Grand Jury may be nothing more than a not-so-gentle reminder to city officials that the feds have not forgotten about them. But local enforcement of immigration law, such as county police officers routinely demanding proof of legal residency from certain people, might sometimes conflict with local efforts to fight crime. Since ICE relies in large part on local police departments reporting apprehended illegal immigrants (picked up for other crimes), fostering distrust between local police and local residents may in fact hinder efforts to find illegal immigrants. If people in the community do not trust the police, it makes their job much harder. In that scenario, everyone loses.