Anti-immigrant SB 275 Bill Passed By Wisconsin Senate Committee On Labor And Regulatory Reform

The anti-immigrant SB 275 known as the anti-Sanctuary City bill was passed by the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Labor and Regulatory Reform.

By H. Nelson Goodson

Hispanic News Network U.S.A.

November 2, 2017

Madison, WI - On Thursday, the Wisconsin Senate Committee on Labor and Regulatory Reform (CLRR) passed the anti-immigrant SB 275 bill on a vote of 3-2, according to Wisconsin State Senator Stephen Nass's Office. The Republicans in the CLRR voted along party lines, in favor of moving forward  SB 275 to the full Senate floor were Wisconsin Republican State Senators Stephen L. Nass, Van H. Wanggaard and Frank G. Lasee. Those voting against the anti-immigrant bill were Senators Robert W. Wirch and Janise A. Ringhand, both Democrats.
The State legislature is expected to go on recess after Tuesday and the SB 275 bill has not been scheduled for debate on the Senate floor. The SB 275 bill will most likely come up for scheduling when the legislature reconvenes in January.

SB 275 passed the CLRR without any amendments meaning that it will definitely be challenged in a federal court for forcing state law enforcement agencies to break the law, if passed by the Republican controlled legislature and signed into law by Governor Scott Walker (R). 

The SB 275 bill is sponsored by State Senator Stephen L. Nass from La Grange, Wisconsin.

The SB 275 bill if approved by the State Senate would force law enforcement agencies to abide by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement  (ICE) detainers, which a U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled are not legal binding to hold someone without probable cause (Galarza v. Szalczyk 2014).

The Galarza v. Szalczyk (2014) federal case in Pennsylvania became a landmark decision to declare that ICE detainers are merely requests and had no legal standing. Ernesto Galarza from New Jersey who is of Puerto Rican decent and U.S. Citizen  was held illegally for three days in 2008 at the Lehigh County Prison over the constitutional limit due to a ICE detainer request. 

The SB 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 (between $500 to $5,000 per day in penalties), and creating governmental liability for damages caused by illegal aliens.

A federal judge in California place an injunction on President Donald Trump executive order that threaten to cut federal grant funding to sanctuary cities, county and municipalities, if they refused to enforce federal immigration laws, which enforcement is reserved for the federal government and not the states. The New York Times reported in April 2017 that, federal "judge, William H. Orrick of United States District Court, wrote that the president had overstepped his powers with his January executive order on immigration by tying billions of dollars in federal funding to immigration enforcement. Judge Orrick said only Congress could place such conditions on spending.

"The ruling, which applies nationwide, was another judicial setback for the Trump administration..."

A similar bill to SB 275 is AB 190, which is still in the Committee on Local Government in the State Assembly. Both bills would have to be passed by the Republican legislature before Governor Walker can sign the bill into law. If that happens, it will definitely cost the taxpayers more than $10M to defend the Republican unconstitutional SB 275/AB 190 bill in federal courts.

In brief: Today, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) no longer uses the DHS-ICE I-247 detainer request form under the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), DHS now issues several voluntary request forms, one is Form I-247N, a Request for Voluntary Notification of Release of Suspected Priority Alien. The Form I-247N requests the receiving local law enforcement agency (LEA) notify ICE of the pending release from custody of a suspected priority removable individual at least 48 hours prior to release, if possible. The Form I-247N does not request or authorize the LEA to hold an individual beyond the point at which he or she would otherwise be released. Additionally, on the Form I-247N, ICE must identify the enforcement priority under which the individual falls.

The second form is a detainer request issued by DHS, which is Form I-247D, an Immigration Detainer - Request for Voluntary Action. The Form I-247D requests the receiving LEA maintain custody of the priority individual for a period not to exceed 48 hours beyond the time when he or she would have otherwise been released from custody. On this form, ICE must identify the enforcement priority under which the individual falls, as well as the basis for its determination of probable cause. The LEA must also serve a copy of the request on the individual in order for it to take effect.

En español: Los republicanos del Senado del estado de Wisconsin en el Comité de Trabajo y la Reforma Reguladora el jueves votaron 3-2 a lo largo de líneas partidarias, a favor de avanzar el proyecto de ley SB 275 anti-Sanctuary City (copia al proyecto de ley SB4 de Texas, que ha sido impugnado legalmente en el tribunal por las ciudades de Cenizo, Houston y Dallas) al pleno del Senado. Los senadores estatales republicanos Stephen L. Nass, Van H. Wanggaard y Frank G. Lasee votaron a favor, y quienes votaron en contra del proyecto de ley antiinmigrante fueron los senadores Robert W. Wirch y Janise A. Ringhand, ambos demócratas.

La propuesta SB 275 de Wisconsin obliga ilegalmente a las agencias estatales de aplicación de la ley (policías locales y departamentos de alguaciles de condados, incluida la Patrulla Estatal de Wisconsin) a solicitar el estatus migratorio y cumplir (aceptar) solicitudes de retención (para detenciones) por parte del Servicio de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE), que en el caso de Galarza v. Szalczyk en 2014 estableció la precedencia de que los pedidos de ICE para detener a personas que creen (sospechan) de ser indocumentados no eran vinculantes jurídicamente.

El caso federal Galarza v. Szalczyk (2014) en Pensilvania se convirtió en una decisión histórica al declarar que las detenciones de ICE son solo solicitudes y carecían de validez legal. Ernesto Galarza, de Nueva Jersey, de nacionalidad puertorriqueña decente y ciudadano estadounidense, fue retenido ilegalmente durante tres días en 2008 en la prisión del condado de Lehigh por un límite constitucional debido a una solicitud de detención de ICE.

Hoy, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (DHS) de EE. UU. Ya no utiliza el formulario de solicitud de retención DHS-ICE I-247 bajo el Programa de cumplimiento prioritario (Priority Enforcement Program, PEP). DHS ahora emite varios formularios de solicitud voluntaria, uno es Formulario I-247N, una Solicitud para notificación voluntaria de liberación de sospechoso de prioridad presunta. El Formulario I-247N solicita que la agencia local de cumplimiento de la ley (LEA) notifique a ICE sobre la liberación pendiente de la custodia de una persona sospechosa de prioridad eliminable al menos 48 horas antes de la liberación, si es posible. El Formulario I-247N no solicita ni autoriza a la LEA para retener a un individuo más allá del punto en el que de otro modo sería liberado. Además, en el Formulario I-247N, ICE debe identificar la prioridad de cumplimiento bajo la cual cae el individuo.

El segundo formulario es una solicitud de detención emitida por el DHS, que es el Formulario I-247D, un Detención de Inmigrantes - Solicitud de Acción Voluntaria. El Formulario I-247D solicita que la LEA receptora mantenga la custodia de la persona prioritaria por un período que no exceda las 48 horas posteriores al momento en que de otro modo hubiera sido liberado de la custodia. En este formulario, ICE debe identificar la prioridad de cumplimiento bajo la cual cae el individuo, así como la base para su determinación de la causa probable. La LEA también debe entregar una copia de la solicitud a la persona para que surta efecto.