ILNews

Immigration bill could bring Indiana into the national spotlight

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On May 9, Indiana was still awaiting word about whether Gov. Mitch Daniels would sign Senate Enrolled Act 590. After a protracted volley between the House and Senate, the bill designed to crack down on illegal immigration passed on April 29, its language considerably altered from the introduced version.

Proponents of the legislation say it’s a reasonable approach to the growing problem of illegal immigration. Those who question SEA 590 single out specific points for scrutiny – such as the language that states a law enforcement officer may arrest someone if an immigration court has issued a removal order for the person.     

Marion County Superior Judge Jose Salinas said that when a removal order is issued, the defendant has the opportunity to appear before the Immigration Court in Chicago to ask to fight deportation. The court may set a new hearing for a future date.

Judge Salinas said he wondered how or when the U.S. Department of Immigration and Naturalization Services would communicate updated information to police. He proposed a hypothetical scenario in which police initiate a late-night traffic stop and run a check on the driver’s name, only to find an active removal order has been issued.

“What does it show on their records when they’re given a future court date?” he said. “How will the police access that information?”

Linton Joaquin, general counsel for the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles, said in an email to Indiana Lawyer, “… a police officer in the field would have no way to know whether an immigrant who is subject to a removal order is contesting the order on appeal, or is otherwise not subject to detention by federal immigration officers, such as is the case with noncitizens released under an order of supervision because their removal cannot be effected.”

SEA 590 also authorizes law enforcement to arrest a person named on a detainer or notice of action, which are two distinctly different orders.

Salinas-Jose Jose Salinas is the first Hispanic judge elected to the Marion Superior Court. He has ?held the post since 2007.

Angela Adams, an attorney who specializes in immigration law for Indianapolis firm Lewis & Kappes, said a notice of action is not an arrest warrant. Issued by the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, a notice of action could be something as simple as a receipt from the USCIS for filed paperwork. She wonders if police would be able to distinguish between a notice of action and a detainer.

A detainer, she said, means that a person has likely already been detained, and in most cases, is currently in jail. If the person in jail posts bond for a criminal offense, he or she will receive a notice to appear before an immigration judge regarding the detainer. But she wondered if law enforcement could potentially arrest the same person again on the same detainer if police do not have access to the most recent Immigration Court information.

Under provisions of SEA 590, a law enforcement officer may arrest someone due to “probable cause to believe that the person has been indicted for or convicted of one (1) or more aggravated felonies (as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)).” But, Adams said, “aggravated felony” is a term of art, and difficult to define.

Joaquin said that arresting a person on those grounds would require police officers to make incredibly complicated determinations that even the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal often disagree about.

Mistaken identity

In 2007, an Illinois restaurant owner was detained for three days in a Lake County, Ind., jail, after a traffic stop. An officer ran the man’s name – Jose G. Gonzalez – and came up with a “hit.” But the match was for another Jose Gonzalez with the same birth date, but who lived in Georgia and bore no physical resemblance to the restaurateur.

angela adams Angela Adams is an associate for Lewis & Kappes, in Indianapolis, where she serves in the firm’s immigration group.

He was released with no access to his car, wallet, or phone, and was detained again a month later when police ran a check on his car and got the same hit for the other Gonzalez. In the case of Jose Guadalupe Gonzalez v. Lake County, Ind., et al., No. 2:09-CV-091, the plaintiff filed a federal suit seeking damages. The parties have reportedly reached a settlement agreement, which is scheduled to be finalized in June 2011.

Judge Salinas said he was unsure what identifiers police may have access to with regard to people wanted for immigration matters. “In my own family, there’s five Jose Salinases,” he said.

Indiana State Police 1st Sgt. Dave Bursten said no standard exists regarding the number or type of identifiers attached to any name wanted by authorities.

“Sometimes you have a name, aliases, dates of birth, no date of birth, Social Security numbers … the way a hit can come back, there can be minimal or very spot-on information,” he said.

Bursten said that if police initiate a traffic stop, certain factors may lead them to suspect someone is in the country illegally.

“If they don’t read, write, or speak the English language, that would raise suspicion,” he said. And if police suspect an immigration violation, he said, they call Immigrations and Custom Enforcement and wait for ICE to send someone to the scene, in much the way officers wait for K9 units to arrive when they suspect drugs may be hidden in a car.

When asked how long police can detain someone suspected of an immigration violation, Bursten said, “I don’t know if there’s an answer to that.”

An earlier incarnation of SEA 590 contained provisions for law enforcement to receive training under the ICE 287(g) program. Through the program, ICE instructors work with police over the course of four weeks at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ICE Academy in Charleston, S.C., in an effort to achieve consistency in immigration enforcement nationwide. That language was dropped, and no funding has been allocated for officer training.

“What we have to do from this point is digest what the law is and figure out how to enforce it,” Bursten said.

The burden of immigration reform

Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville, said he believes that the federal government should be responsible for overhauling immigration reform. Adams agrees with him on that point. But Boots, co-author of SEA 590, said that the federal government hasn’t moved quickly enough on the issue.

“We just keep lobbying our legislators to do what they’re obligated to do,” he said. “So all we can do is to keep putting pressure on them to do this. Somewhere along the line, they’ll get the idea that states want this to happen.”

Boots said that his wife is from another country, “and we went through the whole vetting process to get her here.” He said his main concern is that other immigrants do the same and follow proper channels to be in the country legally.

“I’m happy that we’ve moved forward. It might be a baby step that we’re moving along in the enforcement of law in asking people to be here legally,” Boots said. “One of the only ways we can do that as a state is to deny them the jobs that we have here and make sure they go to those people that are here legally.”

SEA 590 demands accountability from employers, like mandating that businesses use the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify system to ensure new hires are authorized to work in Indiana.

Adams’ main complaint about SEA 590 is that it approaches immigration as a matter of enforcement and does not account for the human factor, like creating paths to citizenship for those who want to live here legally.

“The overall goal,” she said, “is to make people leave – and that’s happening already.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT