Friday, February 23, 2018

Anti-immigrant Sanctuary Wisconsin State Assembly Bill 190 Dead After Legislative Session Ends

The Wisconsin State Assembly ended their session on early Friday without taking up Assembly Bill 190 known as an anti-immigrant bill.

By H. Nelson Goodson
Hispanic News Network U S.A.

February 23, 2018

Madison, Wisconsin - On early Friday, the Wisconsin State Assembly ended its session without taking up Assembly Bill 190, an anti-immigrant bill, which is similar to Senate Bill 275 relating to: prohibiting local ordinances, resolutions, and policies that prohibit the enforcement of federal or state law relating to illegal aliens or immigration status, authorizing certain elective officeholders to commence an enforcement action, providing a reduction in shared revenue payments, and creating governmental liability for damages caused by illegal aliens. AB 190/SB 275 also illegally allowed for law enforcement especially County Sheriffs around the state to comply with U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers.
On November 3, 2017, the State Senate Committee on Labor and Regulatory Reform on a vote of 3-2 passed it to move it out of the committee after it held a public hearing, which drew public opposition and was available for scheduling to bring it up on the Senate floor. Since, AB 190 remained in the State Assembly Local Government Committee and didn't make it out of the committee to the Assembly floor, it is dead for now.
The Wisconsin Republican legislators in control in both the State Assembly and Senate have been aware that federal ICE detainer requests are not legal binding, but attempted to force law enforcement agencies and county sheriffs to comply with such ICE detainer requests under two bills AB 190/SB 275 known as anti-sanctuary bills. According to the text in both bills, "The bill also requires a political subdivision to comply with a lawful detainer that is issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and authorizes the attorney general or the appropriate district attorney or sheriff to file a writ of mandamus with the circuit court to require compliance with the requirements created by the bill if he or she believes that the political subdivision is failing to comply with the requirements." The acceptance of detainers by law enforcement are voluntary, which many law enforcement agencies shy away from complying due to federal lawsuits for violating the rights of those illegally held without a court warrant signed by a judge.
According to the ACLU-Pennsylvania in 2014, "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that states and localities are not required to imprison people based on "detainer" requests from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, ICE, recognizing that states and localities may share liability when they participate in wrongful immigration detentions. The ruling in Galarza v. Szalczyk, et al., stems from Lehigh County Prison's wrongful detention of Ernesto Galarza, a U.S. citizen, who despite posting bail and telling his jailers that he was born in New Jersey was held in jail for three days because of an ICE detainer that stated only that ICE was investigating his immigration status...A growing number of states and localities, including California, Connecticut, New York City, Newark, Cook County, New Orleans, and Washington, DC, have adopted laws or policies limiting their involvement with ICE detainers, or declining to treat them as a basis for detention at all. Although ICE has long characterized its detainers as "requests," this is the first time a federal appeals court has addressed this precise issue."
In other ICE detainer rulings, in an Illinois case, "Jimenez Moreno v. Napolitano — that's currently moving through the courts. In September, U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee ruled that the Department of Homeland Security's use of detainers exceeded its legal authority and were "void" because "immigration detainers issued under ICE's detention program seek to detain subjects without a warrant — even in the absence of a determination by ICE that the subjects are likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained."...the "Mercado v. Dallas County, in which a federal court ruled last year that an ICE detainer didn't provide probable cause to law enforcement to detain a person because probable cause is an issue relevant to criminal cases, while immigration is a civil matter," the Texas Tribune dot org reported.

No comments: