Most ‘Border Kids’ Show Up For Court

It’s been a nagging part of the “border kids” immigration crisis: How many of those children actually show up for court? Especially since many are sent to live with relatives and may have court dates set months into the future – easy enough to miss. A new government report, covered in the Wall Street Journal, says that “… the vast majority of migrants who recently entered the U.S. illegally are showing up for their scheduled deportation hearings, even as the government said most adults who arrived with children have skipped separate required check-ins with immigration offices.”

Reports the WSJ: “Between July 18 and Sept. 30, about 85% of unaccompanied minors showed up for a scheduled first hearing, and about two-thirds of adults with children appeared, according to data obtained from the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the agency that oversees the nation’s immigration courts. The agency said on July 18 that it would expedite deportation hearings for the two groups, following the Obama administration’s decision to prioritize their cases to discourage further illegal immigration.”

About 30,000 unchaperoned children and 40,000 people entering in family units flocked to the U.S. during a surge of such immigrants between May and August this year, the latest month available, said the WSJ, adding that “… that surge has since subsided.” Some states and the federal government have allotted millions of dollars to provide legal representation for the border kids, who are not provided with lawyers because the violations are potentially civil, not criminal.

John Oliver Somehow Makes ‘Civil Forfeiture’ Funny

There has long been a rule of inverse interest in the media, which holds that the more important an issue is, the more boring coverage becomes. Example: The United Nation’s committee work on feeding the world’s starving children is vital to humanity and not the stuff of spectator sport; a bunch of guys running around a field kicking a ball has no real impact and is obsessed over by billions.

But John Oliver, the comic host of Last Week Tonight on HBO, defies the rule with an informative and very funny report on the nation’s civil forfeiture practices. The laws vary among states, but basically allow authorities to seize property even if the owner is never charged with a crime – just like in immigration court, many rights associated with police action are not in play because these are civil actions.

A recent less-funny report in The New Yorker magazine noted that “… unlike criminal forfeiture, which requires that a person be convicted of an offense before his or her property is confiscated, civil forfeiture amounts to a lawsuit filed directly against a possession, regardless of its owner’s guilt or innocence. One result is the rise of improbable case names such as United States v. One Pearl Necklace and United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins.” Those were cited by Oliver in his report.

It would be much funnier if it did not illustrate just how messed up and abused our civil justice system can be. Take a look – and it’s worth watching the whole video. Click Here.

Jails Refusing ICE Requests On Immigration Holds

“Emboldened by recent court rulings, more and more counties and cities across the country are refusing to jail inmates extra days to give federal authorities time to deport them,” reports Governing Magazine in an important trend story from the civil immigration wars, adding that “… in most jails until recently, inmates booked on criminal charges and suspected of being in the country illegally were often held for an additional 48 hours at the behest of federal immigration officials.”

Governing explains that “.. these ‘holds’ created a pipeline for the deportation of thousands of people from the United States in the last decade. Now, that enforcement tool is crumbling. Although some localities started limiting the number of immigration holds a few years ago, the trend of completely ignoring the requests gathered steam this spring after a series of federal court rulings determined that the immigration holds are not mandatory and that local agencies should not be compelled to follow them.”

In California, for example, a new state law this year orders that Golden State law enforcement can only honor immigration holds if the inmate has been charged with a “serious” crime. And Governing reports that “… most law enforcement agencies in the state — including the Los Angeles Police Department — adopted policies ignoring the immigration holds altogether after the federal rulings came down.” And Colorado this year became the first state to pass a law compelling local agencies to ignore immigration-detain requests.

In all, Governing says more than 225 local law enforcement agencies nationwide have adopted policies to completely ignore requests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials for the 48-hour holds.

Read the story, and the immigration enforcement response, here: More and More Localities Rejecting Federal Deportation Requests

In S.F., Court Clerks Ready To Strike

The court clerk strike talk in San Francisco Superior Court is getting serious. The Courthouse News Service reports that a poll “… showed that two-thirds of the 251 members of local court chapter of Service Employees International Local 1021 are ready to walk out if their demand for a pay raise goes unanswered. Out of the 186 clerk who filled out strike ballots, 169 voted to authorize a strike.
The clerks and court management are apparently deadlocked over wages. As background, the CN notes that “…. in July 2011, faced with statewide court budget cuts of $350 million, then-Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein announced that 200 court workers at San Francisco Superior Court would lose their jobs in a belt-tightening that would also result in closed courtrooms, reduced public access and trial delays. In the end, San Francisco closed 11 courtrooms, laid off 67 employees, mainly court reporters. The court also imposed work furloughs and shortened its operating hours.”
The San Francisco Superior Court’s head clerk, Michael Yuen, says that any strike would be considered illegal because of no-strike wording in the latest labor contract. Read more here: Courthouse News Service