One of the most vexing—and in many cases, heartbreaking—parts of the giant immigration policy mess of a bill known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that was passed without any real examination in 1996, is the provision that mandates that any non-citizen resident who commits an “aggravated felony,” must serve their time, then be deported to their country of origin permanently.
If you think that by “aggravated felony” the law means only big, nasty crimes like rape, murder, robbery, attempted murder and the like, you would be wrong. The definition under the 1996 law seems to have expanded, Jabba-the-Hut-like, until it envelopes nearly any legal infraction—including the possession of a marijuana cigarette or a couple of non-medically-sanctioned cannabis plants on your patio.
Now keep in mind, these are permanent legal residents we’re talking about, in many cases people who have been in this country since they were toddlers and know no other home other than the U.S. It doesn’t matter how otherwise upstanding the lawbreaker’s life is, if they’ve served their adopted country honorably in the military, or how many family members and/or dependent kids they will leave behind.
Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling does nothing to change the immigration law, but in a 7-2 decision, the court said that a defendant in a legal case that could result in deportation must be told by his or her attorney, before entering a guilty plea, that this plea will mean that they will be tossed out of the U.S, forever.
Adam Liptak at the New York Times and Nina Totenberg at NPR have the best rundowns on Wednesday SCOTUS decision and what it means, and what kind of cases it will affect. (A pre-decision NYT story by Nina Totenberg is good too.)
Here’s a clip from the NPR story.
Kinnaird noted that with nearly 13 million foreigners living legally in the United States, some of whom came here as toddlers, it is axiomatic that tens of thousands will have some sort of run-in with the law each year. And just as U.S. citizens who face similar charges do, most agree to plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence, or no jail time at all. That is where the similarity ends, said Kinnaird. For immigrants, when it turns out that the crime results in automatic deportation, “they’re shocked by it because they had no idea.”
The examples of such cases are legion, from the woman who stole a bottle of medicine for her sick child, to the Georgia business owner with no criminal record, pulled over by police one night and charged with a drug violation after a dollar bill in his pocket was found to have trace amounts of cocaine. His guilty plea in exchange for no jail time and a promise to expunge his record did not protect him from deportation proceedings.
Immigrant-rights advocates say that the more minor the crime and the lighter the sentence, the greater the shock at the near-certain deportation that may follow.
Jain, of the Immigrants Rights’ Project, notes that deportation for an immigrant who’s been here since childhood can mean being deported to a country where the individual has no family left, where he or she may not speak the language, and may not know how to “get a job, a house or even order a meal.” And for some immigrants granted asylum here, deportation may return them to a country where they risk persecution.
I reported on this issue some years ago for what was then the LA Times Magazine and, in the course of my research, found horror story after horror story of the nature that Totenberg describes.
This decision doesn’t solve biggest problems created by the ’96 law, but it, at least, takes one small but significant step toward their eventual solution.
Photo of Jerry Lemaine and family by Suzanne DeChillo for The New York Times
What kept these people from becoming U.S. citizens?
The Immigrant Responsibility Act to me reeks of the prison industry getting their cut of cheap immigrant labor.
The “prison industry” is all about numbers. the larger the inmate count the more custodians are employed. “Cheap labor” doesn’t enter into the equation. Job security for the guards and prison bureaucrats can be the only motive for such an obtuse law. It would be a great addition to actual rehabilitation if convicts were actually allowed to participate in some sort of gainful employment, get trained to make a contribution but it aint going to happen. Why lessen the recidivism rate? Prison jobs may be jeopardized. The custodians throw leering eyes at what they coined as the “revolving door”, but they’re secure with it. Hypocrites!
I meant in regards to prison labor being used in society, GJ. Construction, freeway crews, etc. When I say the prison industry I mean the entire scope of it, including the private and public industries which utilizes prison labor. It’s my belief the reason there has been such an influx of immigration in recent years is for the exploitation of labor, at least thats where the money trail leads to.
Everyday brings a new horror story, doesn’t it? So sad that laws like this exist for legal residents here.
Speaking of the law Celeste, how about them non-violent offenders being released eary?
Calif. prisoners convicted of violent crimes getting early releases
By Don Thompson, Associated Press
Posted: 03/31/2010 03:29:43 PM PDT
SACRAMENTO – Inmates convicted of violent crimes are among those being freed early from California jails to save money, despite lawmakers’ promises that they would exclude most dangerous prisoners and sex offenders.
An Associated Press review of inmate data shows that some of the freed criminals were convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, battery, domestic violence, and attacks on children and the elderly.
The early release program specifically forbids authorities from freeing prisoners convicted of about 150 crimes such as rape and murder. But any offense that is not specifically listed qualifies for release, and individual counties can then decide who gets out.
“This bill not only theoretically will result in a public safety catastrophe, it already has,” said Democratic Assemblyman Ted Lieu, an outspoken opponent of the system who is running for attorney general. He wants to expand the list of excluded crimes.
The release of violent offenders does not technically violate the law, but it runs counter to lawmakers’ promises about the plan when it was adopted.
Legislators approved the early release program last year as a way to cut costs and reduce crowding in state prisons and county jails.
At the time, both the Democratic Assembly Speaker, Karen Bass, and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger described the measure as a reform that would protect public safety while saving as much as $1 billion. Both denied that it even contained early release provisions.
But when the law took effect in January, the release of hundreds of inmates from local jails drew a swift backlash, especially after an inmate freed under the law was arrested within a day on suspicion of attempting to rape a female counselor.
The Sacramento County inmate had been jailed for a probation violation, but his underlying offense was assault with a deadly weapon.
During the first few weeks of the early release program, more than 1,800 jail inmates were released statewide before they had served their full sentences, according to the California State Sheriffs’ Association.
Hundreds more have been freed since then, although the association has stopped keeping track.
California is not the only state to seek savings in early releases. New or expanded release programs began last year in a dozen other states: Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Texas, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Gov. Pat Quinn suspended Illinois’ program in December after the AP found hundreds of inmates were being released too early. About 200 of the paroled inmates were returned to prison within the first four months of the program because of violations.
In California, the AP used public-records requests to obtain lists of inmates who had been freed from several of the state’s most populous counties. The lists were then cross-referenced with inmates’ offenses.
Three of those counties – Alameda, Orange and San Bernardino – account for roughly 15 percent of the state prison population. The lists covered the first 2½ weeks of the early release program, which started Jan. 25.
In Orange County, about 8 percent of the 278 inmates released early had been serving time for crimes that included assault, battery, corporal injury to a spouse, inflicting injury on a child, cruelty to a child, domestic violence, resisting arrest and possession of a switchblade.
In Alameda County, 15 percent of the 87 inmates released early had been sentenced for those crimes and others, including carrying concealed or loaded guns, attempting to take a gun from a police officer and displaying a gun in a threatening manner.
San Bernardino County provided jail records for 642 inmates released under the new law. The AP used booking numbers to link a 10 percent sample to court records. Of that sample, 29 percent had been convicted of crimes considered violent or threatening, from domestic violence and weapons charges to stalking and injury to an elder.
Los Angeles County, which has the largest population of jail inmates, has not granted any early releases under the law, although it has recently begun freeing inmates because it is running out of space.
At state prisons, corrections officials expect to save $500 million by granting early release to about 6,500 inmates this year. Most of those releases will not begin until later this year.
The law did not provide direction to county jails about how to evaluate inmates who qualify for early release.
“Some are no-brainers,” said Alameda County Sheriff’s Sgt. J.D. Nelson. With others, “It’s a slippery slope. Sometimes you have an attempted rape, but it’s pleaded down to a misdemeanor. So now you’re going to let that guy out early?”
Lieu wants to amend the law to exclude many of the crimes identified in the AP’s research, as well as offenses such as solicitation to commit murder, various hate crimes and child abduction.
After the attempted rape arrest in Sacramento County, the Legislature also began considering amendments to the law, including a proposal to exclude county jails entirely from the early releases.
Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, a Democrat from Fremont who helped write the law and also is running for attorney general, said it was never supposed to apply to counties. When it passed in September, he praised the legislation as “a smart reform package.”
In my opinion this article kind of renders moot your opinion below Celeste. If you remember I posted that felons with violent histories would be released early because their present incarceration was for a non-violent offense. That’s what happened with Peterson. Your words are below.
——-
AN EARLY RELEASE ISSUE? OR A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE?
Much was made last week over the early release of a 22-year-old man named Kevin Peterson from Sacramento County Jail. Peterson was supposed to serve a four month sentence for whacking a family member in the face with a broom. Instead he was released 18 days early as part of the budget-cutting measures that California counties have put into place since January 1st. (Many counties, however, most notably Los Angeles County, had been shaving time of short jail sentences for the last several years in order to reduce overcrowding at a county level.)
Anyway, within hours after his release, Petersen allegedly attacked a female counselor and attempted to rape her.
And within minutes of Peterson’s rearrest, commentators and partisans were shrieking about the crime wave to come that he represented.
However one enterprising TV station—FOX40 News—bothered to look a little deeper into the story. Most notably, they interviewed Peterson in jail. And guess what? Even Peterson admitted he should be locked up—but not in a jail. He needs to be in a psychiatric facility, he said..
(On the right side of this page, you’ll find a longer version of the video.)
A confused Peterson says he doesn’t remember attacking anyone. He does however remember hearing voices.
“I’m a paranoid schizophrenic,†he said to the TV reporter.. He was hoping to get taken to the Sacramento Mental Health Evaluation Center so that he could get some help. He should be off the street, he said—but in a mental institution, not in jail.
Bottom line: Peterson’s alleged near rape has everything to do with the inadequate mental health screening and treatment inmates receive in county jails.
…But exactly zero to do with the issue of early release.
The below is from one of the prison policy threads here. By the way, Clear is not a big fan of incarceration so his take here is no surprise.
Mr. Clear says, ““If I let someone out (early), I’m not increasing the chances of them committing a crime. I’m just changing the date.†How’s he know that for sure?
I’m of the opinion that a chance might present itself to another Charles Samuel who could have been sent back to prison but wasn’t and so was out on “the date” that Lily Burk wandered into his path. We all know how that turned out. Yet he could have without doubt been locked down prior to “that date” and a tragedy avoided.
Sounds to me like Mr. Clear is saying that we all should know that things like that will happen and it’s pretty much fate as to who gets the short straw. He should explain that to Lily’s parents.
How can anyone, with any certainty at all, claim that a chance won’t come up on a certain date at a certain time that won’t exist at a later date? His whole premise is ridiculous.
————–
Length of stay has nothing to do with the recidivism rate,†Todd Clear, the incoming dean of the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University in New Jersey, says. “If I let someone out (early), I’m not increasing the chances of them committing a crime. I’m just changing the date.â€
Sure Fire, the recent events only demonstrate that more violent crimes need to be listed under the criteria for behavior which disqualifies prisoners from early release. It’s not a platform for an argument to end the policy of releasing non violent offenders altogether, in my opinion. But as expected, opponents of releasing even non violent offenders are using this as a red herring to throw the baby out with the bath water. The bottom line is, some violent offenders are being released based on the current criteria, and that needs to be fixed. We should still continue to release non violent offenders.
More on the prison industry’s exploitation of immigration:
“Outsourcing governmental responsibilities to private contractors is routine and alarming. The Blackwater, Wackenhut, CACI, and Halliburton scandals have highlighted the damage to our foreign affairs resulting from the reliance on private contractors to perform essential foreign policy missions. However, it is at home—in our domestic system of crime and punishment—where government outsourcing and private contracting may be causing the most damage to our system of democratic governance…
…DHS now surpasses DOJ as the leading federal custodian of detainees. The DHS agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) subsumed the legacy of the Immigration and Naturalization Services, taking charge of the criminal detention and deportation of immigrants. Currently ICE holds about 33,000 immigrants on any given day in its network of 350 detention centers—some 400,000 annually.”
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6671