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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT