Senate Republicans in Wisconsin are proposing once again an anti-immigrant Sanctuary City bills SB 151/AB 138.
By H. Nelson Goodson
Hispanic News Network U.S.A.
December 6, 2019
Madison, Wisconsin - The Wisconsin State Senate Committee on Labor and Regulatory Reform has scheduled a public hearing on December 17, in room 411 South at the State Capitol at 10:30a.m. for the proposed State Senate Bill 151, which is an anti-immigrant Sanctuary City bill introduced on April 4, 2019, by State Senators Nass, Craig, Wanggaard, Jacque, Stroebel and Kapenga, cosponsored by State Representatives Spiros, August, Edming, Kuglitsch, Murphy, Neylon, Ramthun, Sanfelippo, Skowronski, Sortwell, Thiesfeldt, Tusler and Wichgers.
A similar State Assembly Bill 138 to SB 151 was proposed on 3/25/2019 by State Representatives Spiros, August, Edming, Kuglitsch, Murphy, Neylon, Ramthun, Sanfelippo, Skowronski, Sortwell, Thiesfeldt, Tuslerand Wichgers; cosponsored by State Senators Nass, Craig, Jacque, Kapenga and Stroebel.
This is the second time in less than two years that state Republicans in control of the state legislature have proposed such a bill, in February 2018, the Wisconsin State Assembly failed to take up a similar anti-immigrant Sanctuary City bill, Assembly Bill 190, which was similar to Senate Bill 275 and both expired when the legislative session ended in 2018, but the State Senate Republican majority had passed SB 275 in session.
The recent SB 151 bill prohibits a city, village, town, or county from enacting or enforcing an ordinance, resolution, or policy that prohibits the enforcement of a federal or state law relating to illegal aliens or ascertaining whether an individual has satisfactory immigration status. 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.
If a court finds that a political subdivision has failed to comply, the department of revenue must reduce the political subdivision's shared revenue payments in the next year by $500 to $5,000, depending on the political subdivision's population, for each day of noncompliance. Also under the bill, if a court makes such a finding, the political subdivision is liable for any damages caused by an illegal alien.
If Senate Bill 151 is passed, it would illegally allowed for law enforcement especially County Sheriffs around the state to comply with U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers.
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 are attempting to force law enforcement agencies and county sheriffs to comply with such ICE detainer requests under SB 151.
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 in 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment