Yigal’s presentation on Immigration and Sanctuary Cities began with an overview of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s so-called roadmap to protecting undocumented immigrants in New York City in the wake of President Trump’s new immigration policies. The Roadmap encourages resistance to ICE, in particular, and explains to the intended audience of New York State counties that New York does not have to get involved in ICE investigations.
Schneiderman, in particular, pledges that New York will not detain undocumented immigrants and will not provide information on people to ICE without a warrant. It is here that an important distinction should be made between a detainee request and a warrant: the first does not have to be granted and the second is legally binding. This distinction derives from the 10th Amendment, which states that the federal government cannot force a state to enforce a federal law. In addition to taking the step of not providing info without a warrant, New York will refuse to collect information on undocumented immigrants in case ICE does provide a warrant – which changes the framework of New York’s policies from a refusal to get involved to an active fight against the federal government.
Yigal began the discussion by stating he believes the separation of powers between the state and federal government is beneficial to New York. In addition, because the focus of the Roadmap is on what action local communities can take, it fosters trust between members of local communities and law enforcement, which does not have to comply with federal authorities that seek to stake out undocumented members of those local communities.
The class discussion revolved around the protections of constitutional law. Firstly, the issue of the 10th Amendment came up, with some people agreeing that the federal government does not have the right to request information from states without warrant, which would make detainee requests illegal. An interesting point was brought up that while the 10th Amendment is beneficial in the case of immigration to the liberal body of values, it is hurtful in that not every state has to adopt laws protecting transgender rights, for example. As such, the knife cuts both ways.
Two main arguments arose during the more general discussion of the Constitution: that the Constitution protects everyone in the country and that the Constitution protects only citizens of the United States. In terms of the argument that people do not have to be here legally to be protected by the Constitution, due process applies in all cases because the accused can always try to prove their legal status. In addition, Constitutional laws are derived from rights that everyone has, and as such, everyone in this country should be held to the same standards and protections. The final important point to this argument is that the Constitution itself limits government power as opposed to granting rights, which are supposed to be inherent.
The counterargument relies on the idea that while everyone has inherent rights, not everyone has the right to be in this country. One side discussion revolved around whether paying taxes or whether citizenship status should be used to determine who in this country can collect benefits such as free public education.
At this point, the discussion shifted again to sanctuary cities in the US, which rely on undocumented immigrants, too, to report local crime. Most people agreed that people should not be in trouble themselves if they report crimes that others commit; however, the class opinion split on whether an undocumented immigrant who commits a civil crime or small infraction should be held accountable for his or her immigration status, as well. Some interesting ideas were brought up that being here without documentation is technically not a crime, but an administrative infraction. There also exists a statute of limitations on residing in the US without documentation – which should serve as protection to some people. The class discussion wrapped up with the idea that a path to citizenship or amnesty should exist for some groups of undocumented immigrants. While this policy may not seem fair to prospective immigrants in line to come to the US legally, it would logistically be the easiest option for the US.
