Shortly after taking office in January, President Donald Trump issued a set of executive orders aimed at reversing the “unprecedented flood of illegal immigration into the United States.” These orders, in addition to increasing the federal presence at the U.S.-Mexico border, instruct Dept. of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to “ensure the efficient and expedited removal of aliens from the United States.”

Among the federal government’s recent actions are invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport individuals without trial, and coming to an agreement with El Salvador to pay the Salvadoran government to accept individuals (including non-Salvadorans) for incarceration in the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca (popularly known as CECOT).

There are an estimated 11 million people present in the U.S. alleged to have entered the country illegally. The Press spoke with local legal experts to find out whether, and how, the administration’s policies could affect local residents. Part One addressed legal immigration and due process around deportation. Part Two covers local cooperation with federal actions.

Not our job

The Trump administration has expanded its use of a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act dealing with immigration, section 287(g). This section “authorizes the Director of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to designate officers to perform certain immigration law enforcement functions.”

There are three 287(g) programs. The “jail enforcement model” trains and empowers state and local officers to “identify and process removable aliens who have pending or active criminal charges.” The “warrant service officer program” trains and empowers nonfederal officers to “serve and execute administrative warrants” on non-citizens in their custody.

The “task force model” creates a broader dragnet, training and empowering state and local police officers to “enforce limited immigration authority while performing routine police duties” such as DUI checkpoints.

Florida currently has the most extensive 287(g) partnership with the federal government, with more than 200 programs in place and 70 pending activation as of April 21. (There are fewer than 270 departments involved, as each department may have up to three programs, each using one of the models listed above. For example, Baker County has implemented both the warrant service officer and the task force model.)

Pennsylvania has a relatively low number of 287(g) programs in place. The Bradford County and Franklin County sheriff’s offices have both implemented the warrant service officer model; Franklin County has also implemented the task force model. The Bucks County and Lancaster County sheriff’s offices, as well as the state police Northwest Regional Police Department, were listed as “pending” on an April 21 ICE document.

Northampton County District Attorney Stephen Baratta explains that his office’s relationship with ICE is essentially informational.

“We do not get involved in the enforcement of federal statutes with regard to immigration,” Baratta said. “Our only interaction with ICE is when they send us notice of a detainer, we then keep them apprised of what’s going on. We recognize them as a law enforcement authority, so if they notify us, we let them know if we have a plea, if we are going to trial, and when there is a resolution of the case.”

It seems unlikely that Northampton County will choose to participate in the 287(g) task force model program.

“We’re not involved in any roundups,” Baratta clarified. “That’s not our job. I think we would be in dangerous territory if we used our local county resources to try to enforce federal regulations […] My office is not going to […] get involved in the whole process of deportation. That’s not what we do.”

Executive

overreach?

Kermit Roosevelt, David Berger Professor for the Administration of Justice at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, provides the legal backdrop for the policies currently being pursued by the federal government:

“Deportation is the removal of someone from the country, without any particular specification of where they are sent,” he says, “The focus is on the country they’re being deported from and whether they have a right to be there or not.” On the other hand, “extradition is sending someone from one country (or state, in the United States) to another country where they have been charged with a crime, so that they can be prosecuted for it.”

The problem, as Roosevelt sees it, is that “What the administration is doing with CECOT does not fit neatly within either concept. When the government deports someone, it just sends them away. It does not send them to prison. When the government extradites someone, it sends them to another country to be tried for an alleged crime. But we are sending people to CECOT without charging them with particular crimes, much less convicting them, and they are not being tried in El Salvador either. Nor are we giving them hearings to determine whether they are deportable at all.”

It amounts to a situation, Roosevelt explains, in which “we are taking people who are completely innocent, as far as anything that has been demonstrated in court goes, and who are entitled to stay in the United States, as far as anything that has been demonstrated in court goes, and who may even be U.S. citizens, as far as anything that has been demonstrated in court goes, and sending them to a prison whose conditions would surely violate the Constitution if it were operated by an American government, which apparently no one leaves alive.

“If we accept the administration’s position on this, they can seize an innocent U.S. citizen and send them to die in a foreign jail with no opportunity to make their case to a neutral judge. That’s really not the way our system is supposed to work.”

Professor Jennifer Lee of Temple University Lee highlights the importance of local cooperation with the current administration’s stated goals of mass deportations.

“It’s really about getting local officials to do the federal government’s job,” Lee explains. Local officials have to consider two questions, she says. First, “Do I want to spend my resources enforcing federal civil immigration laws, or do I want to spend my resources doing my job, which is keeping my community safe?”

Lee describes the second question as “a trust question: Isn’t part of keeping communities safe about having a relationship, and trust, with communities you work with?” She notes that “trust can be broken,” and suggests as an example that domestic violence victims may choose not to contact police because they fear being turned over to federal immigration authorities.

“A lot of choices are being made by local government officials,” Lee says. “None of this stops ICE from doing it themselves, but the cooperation piece [is crucial because the federal government] doesn’t have the resources and infrastructure to do the kind of mass deportations [it has said it will do].”

Lehigh Immigration is reachable by phone (610-533-1947), online (LehighImmigration.com), and at its Bethlehem office (559 Main Street, Suite 150). More information on Professor Jennifer Lee and Temple Beasley School of Law can be found online (law.temple.edu/contact/jennifer-j-lee/). More information on Professor Kermit Roosevelt and UPenn Carey Law School can be found online (law.upenn.edu/faculty/krooseve).