ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

Texas bans sanctuary cities but Trump may be a step ahead. By Nolan Rappaport

Rate this Entry

© Getty

On Sunday, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law a bill banning sanctuary cities in Texas, Senate Bill No. 4 (SB 4). According to Abbot, sanctuary city policies have deadly consequences and will not be tolerated in Texas.

He referred to Kate Steinle, who was allegedly shot dead by an undocumented alien while she was walking on a busy pier in San Francisco with her father. The alien was a repeat felon who had been deported five times. A San Francisco police department had released him from custody without notice to ICE despite the fact that ICE had given the department an immigration detainer requesting such notice. San Francisco is a sanctuary city.

Abbott supports legal immigration, but not harboring aliens who have committed dangerous crimes.

Texas officials who foster sanctuary policies which might be considered harboring would be wise to reconsider that practice even if SB 4 is never implemented. Harboring is a federal criminal offense, which, when it results in a death, is punishable “by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.”

What does the Texas law provide?

Read more at ---

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...e-a-step-ahead

Published originally on The Hill.

About the author.
Nolan Rappaport was detailed to the House Judiciary Committee as an Executive Branch Immigration Law Expert for three years; he subsequently served as an immigration counsel for the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims for four years. Prior to working on the Judiciary Committee, he wrote decisions for the Board of Immigration Appeals for 20 years. He also has been a policy advisor for the DHS Office of Information Sharing and Collaboration under a contract with TKC Communications, and he has been in private practice as an immigration lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson.





Submit "Texas bans sanctuary cities but Trump may be a step ahead.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Facebook Submit "Texas bans sanctuary cities but Trump may be a step ahead.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Twitter Submit "Texas bans sanctuary cities but Trump may be a step ahead.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Google Submit "Texas bans sanctuary cities but Trump may be a step ahead.  By Nolan Rappaport" to StumbleUpon Submit "Texas bans sanctuary cities but Trump may be a step ahead.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Reddit Submit "Texas bans sanctuary cities but Trump may be a step ahead.  By Nolan Rappaport" to Digg Submit "Texas bans sanctuary cities but Trump may be a step ahead.  By Nolan Rappaport" to del.icio.us

Updated 05-14-2017 at 04:02 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    It looks as if Donald Trump is desperately trying to arrange his own "Sanctuary".

    He could be
    more than a step ahead to being impeached over his despicable, cowardly, firing of James Comey as FBI director.

    Trump may claim to have imperial power over immigration, but he does not have an emperor's power to stop the ongoing criminal investigation of alleged ties to Russia involving him and his aides.

    The more Trump lashes out at the public servants who are pursuing this investigation and tries to stop them from doing their job, the more he is convincing the public that there must be something there.

    At this rate, I wouldn't bet on Trump's being able to stay in the White House for more than a year before being forced to resign and let a new chief executive take responsibility for America's immigration system.

    There is also a parallel between Trump's Comey FBI firing and Trump's Muslim ban executive orders.

    Both have ostensibly legitimate pretexts; in Comey's case inaccurate testimony to Congress, and the Muslim ban case at least superficial national security excuses, but both actions are riddled with bad faith.

    In the Muslim ban case, this bad faith will probably lead to his loss in court.

    In the case of the FBI's and grand jury's criminal investigation involving Russia, Trump's bad faith in firing Comey could, and very well may, lead to the loss of his presidency.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-10-2017 at 02:04 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger, what does your comment have to do with my article?

    Nolan Rappaport
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The federal and State of Texas' wars on "Sanctuary Cities", Trump's Muslim ban, and the firing of James Comey, though the latter is not directly related to immigration policy, are all signs of the growing police state in the Trump era, where the rights of immigrants are the first to go, soon to be followed by the demise of the rights of Americans and of our entire constitutional system.

    Trump's latest step in creating a "voter fraud" commission led by Kris Kobach, who is responsible both for previous state law attempts to create police states of fear and terror against immigrants similar ro the new Texas SB 4 law, and for state legislation keeping minority Americans away from the voting booth is another example of how fascism directed against immigrants inevitably leads to loss of freedom for Americans as well.

    The two are opposite sides of the same coin, just as Hitler's 1936 Nuremberg laws against the Jews were the prelude to the loss for freedom for all Germans (as well as to the Holocaust genocide, which I am not in any way comparing Trump or his policies to).

    Nolan's article above deals with one part of this picture, namely Texas' (and Trump's) attempt to make force "Sanctuary Cities" to become part of a Gestapo-like immigration dragnet. Nolan also (at least indirectly) refers to the federal government's threat (recently announced by AG Jeff Sessions) to impose drastic criminal penalties under INA Section 274 against American officials who "harbor or "assist" unauthorized immigrants.

    While Nolan doesn't mention this specifically, this drastic law also applies to ordinary American citizens as well, not merely law enforcement officials.

    How is this any different from the Nazi Nuremberg laws?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-11-2017 at 05:40 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger asks, "How is this any different from the Nazi Nuremberg laws?"

    Roger, you really don't know how laws enacted in the United States are different from the "Nazi Nuremberg laws"?

    But he is right that harboring laws apply to ordinary American citizens, and aliens too. Harboring is a very serious criminal offense.

    Nolan Rappaport
  5. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Let me correct Nolan here:

    "Harboring", along with its even broader and vaguer companion "assisting" an unauthorized immigrant under INA Section 274, is a federal felony that can carry up to five years in prison for an offense, except for even greater punishment in the special circumstances mentioned specifically in the statute.

    However, the definition in the statute is so vague that these terms could apply to even the most trivial conduct.

    If someone gives a tip to a waiter, delivery man or car driver who has a foreign accent or who "looks" foreign (i.e. non white) that could be "assisting" in the hands of a zealous, immigrant-hating prosecutor (such as Jeff Sessions).

    So could more significant forms of assistance such as providing medical or legal services. Landlords of unauthorized immigrants are already being prosecuted under this statute.

    There is no exemption for routine transactions or contacts.

    Section 274 could also be used as an excuse to round up and jail anyone who advocates, demonstrates, or otherwise speaks out on behalf of unauthorized immigrants.

    A lawyer, organization representative or even a Senator or Representative who tries to intervene on behalf of an unauthorized immigrant, or an American citizen who doesn't turn his or her unauthorized husband, wife, mother, father, sister or brother over to ICE for arrest and deportation could also be deemed to be violating this statute.

    Nolan might argue that this could never happen. What authority would there be for that?

    Whom should we trust about that? Jeff Sessions? Donald Trump?

    Up to now, this wide reaching, draconian law has been used mainly (though not exclusively) in the immigrant smuggling context.

    It could be given much wider use, in which case America would become a truly fascist state, and my warning about Nuremberg-type laws, meant to isolate a targeted minority group or groups from society, coming to this country would become even more appropriate.

    Nolan might wish to revisit INA Section 274 and consider some of its implications and possible uses more carefully.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-11-2017 at 09:34 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  6. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger's account of punishments for harboring is inaccurate. This is what the provision says:

    INA: ACT 274 - BRINGING IN AND HARBORING CERTAIN ALIENS



    Sec. 274. [8 U.S.C. 1324]


    (a) Criminal Penalties.-



    (1) (A) Any person who-


    (i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;



    (ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;



    (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;



    (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B); or



    (v) 1/ (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or



    (II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,


    (B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs-



    (i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) 2/ or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, 3/ be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;



    (ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), 4/ be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;



    (iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) 5/ during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18, United States Code) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and



    (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, United States Code, or both.

    https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/...html#0-0-0-322
    Updated 05-11-2017 at 09:16 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  7. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Roger's fear of extreme abuse could apply to many laws. I will not try to disabuse him of his pessimism. In fact, I will agree with him....to some extent anyway.

    If you provide room and board for an undocumented alien who has absconded after being released on bond pending removal proceedings and let him stay with you for a long time, it is possible that you will be prosecuted for harboring. I don't think so, but I agree with Roger that it could happen.

    And if you lend him your car and he kills a family of six while driving under the influence, it is possible that when you are prosecuted for harboring that resulted in a death, the prosecutor will ask for the death penalty. You might even be convicted and executed.

    Again, I don't think it would happen. But as Roger indicates, it is possible.

    But the solution isn't to complain to ILW.com readers. If you want to eliminate this possibility, complain to your congressman. Lobby for changing this law.

    Nolan Rappaport
  8. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I have modified my above comment. Nolan is right that In certain cases, Section 274 provides even more drastic punishments than the usual up to five year prison term.

    Does that make my point about the potential of this law to be used as a quasi-totalitarian, or proto-fascist, instrument of intimidation and repression against ordinary American citizens who may support immigration or have even casual contact with immigrants who may lack legal immigration status any less valid?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-11-2017 at 09:43 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  9. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    I have modified my above comment. Nolan is right that In certain cases, Section 274 provides even more drastic punishments than the usual up to five year prison term.

    Does that make my point about the potential of this law to be used as a quasi-totalitarian, or proto-fascist, instrument of intimidation and repression against ordinary American citizens who may support immigration or have even casual contact with immigrants who may lack legal immigration status any less valid?

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    No, Roger, it doesn't support your position. The law was enacted by congress and signed by the president. Enforcing it and carrying out its sanctions is not being "quasi-totalitarian, or proto-fascist."

    If AG Sessions orders his prosecutors to prosecute people violating that law and to seek maximum penalties when warranted, he will be doing his job, not turning the country into Nazi Germany.

    Stop relying on demonization and name calling. It may be cathartic, but it will not prevent the Trump Administration from enforcing the harboring provisions. If you don't like those provisions, do something useful. Lobby to change them. I doubt that many congressmen know that harboring is a capital offense. Tell them.

    Nolan Rappaport
  10. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Nothing in Nolan's high volume comments above will change the fact that INA Section 274 is an extremely broad statute which can be used to stifle any opposition or dissent by American citizens to Trump's mass deportation agenda potentially affecting 15 million people, and send America down the road to a fascist dictatorship.

    Will Trump also send 15 million Americans to jail under Section 274 for speaking up on behalf of the 15 million immigrants and assisting them in their efforts to avoid mass ethnic cleansing on a scale unheard of in America or any democratic country to date?

    That is, of course, unless Trump is sooner impeached for alleged obstruction of justice in the Comey FBI firing, as one of America's most respected legal scholars, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, calls for in his May 13 Washington Post oped:

    Trump must be impeached. Here's why.

    As I suggest in my latest ilw.com post, also dated May 13, Trump's ordering or allowing his Justice Department lawyers to argue in the 4th Circuit that his Muslim ban order is not directed against the Muslims because of their religion, but is allegedly based on genuine, as opposed to bogus, "Trumped-up" national security grounds, is such an egregious example of bad faith that it could arguably amount to a fraud upon the court justifying impeachment as well.

    For my comment (which is still in progress) see:

    http://blogs.ilw.com/entry.php?9894

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-13-2017 at 09:11 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  11. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    As an update, it is now not just one or more law professors who think that Trump should be impeached, but a growing chorus of politicians and commentators in both parties.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...rumps-troubles

    They are now awaiting the results of the Special Prosecutor's investigation into Trump's alleged obstruction of justice and collusion with Russia to sway the results of last year's election.

    The lies, egregious bad faith and, arguably even possible fraud on the court in connection with Trump's Muslim ban litigation which I have described elsewhere in Immigration Daily, and his demagogic assaults against many other non-white immigrants are only part of a general pattern of lies and deception which might signal an early end to Trump's presidency if the criminal allegations which the special prosecutor will be looking into are proven to be true.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 05-18-2017 at 08:16 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: