The First Bill Sent to Pres 47 Should Be Titled "Invite Violence Against Non-Citizens Act"

This article started out from reading out the passage by Congress of the "Laken Riley Act"

Commentary by Dana Chasin of 2020visiondc.org

I missed an implication of this bit: "expanding detainable offenses to include ... any crime that causes bodily harm". Self-defense is an affirmative legal defense, which is presented in response to the charge of assault or aggravated assault. This bill essentially declares an open season of civilian violence upon [any person not a citizen or national of the United States], since the condition for a "shall issue" detainer is merely "is charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements".

Engaging is violence or even allegedly admitting to having done so even in self defense will result in "effective and expeditious" detainment.

Furthermore, the bill adds

(2) DEFINITION.—For purposes of paragraph (1)(E), the terms ‘burglary’, ‘theft’, ‘larceny’, ‘shoplifting’, ‘assault of a law enforcement officer’, and ‘serious bodily injury’ have the meanings given such terms in the jurisdiction in which the acts occurred.
(3) DETAINER.—The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue a detainer for an alien described in paragraph (1)(E) and, if the alien is not otherwise detained by Federal, State, or local officials, shall effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien.

Which allows a local jurisdiction the leniency to draft misdemeanors named ‘burglary’, ‘theft’, ‘larceny’, ‘shoplifting’ which would then compel detainment by federal forces. Which one look at the history of loitering, vagrancy, and Black codes in this country suggests will absolutely be abused. Especially if there are kickbacks from the private contractors that DHS will be partnering with to provide the detainment facilities.

This bill is absolutely an attack on the concept of due process of law. Detainment and detention are a tried and true method of separating people from their legal representation, family, and community. Doing so decreases the chances of successful defense in court. It is especially challenging to fight an allegation of what one has said ("admitted to") without having even a criminal charge or arrest to establish the paper trail and legal grounding. What would it look like for a non-citizen from Vermont to fight their detention in Arizona when they were shipped there based on an allegation that they'd admitted to having shoplifted an item in Florida during their Disney trip? Or some Red Cap drops an item into a purse and calls attention to the victim leaving the store?

A terrible series of events in a hostile local jurisdiction, which just requires one police collaborator, would be for a Red Cap to trigger a shoplifting incident and then claim to perform a so-called "citizen's arrest" if they can't get support from a staff member. Resisting the illegal detainment would risk the trap of being accused of assault while accepting the wait for the police collaborator to arrive and notify DHS.

But wait, the new (E)(i) limits this handling to "Inadmissible aliens"!

Lets delve into what (6)(A), (6)(C), or (7) of 212(a) means:

• (6) Illegal entrants and immigration violators

• (A) Aliens present without admission or parole

also

• (6) Illegal entrants and immigration violators

• (C) Misrepresentation

• (i) In general

  Any alien who, by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact, seeks to procure (or has sought to procure or has procured) a visa, other documentation, or admission into the United States or other benefit provided under this chapter is inadmissible.

  (ii) Falsely claiming citizenship

  (I) In general

  Any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit under this chapter (including section 1324a of this title) or any other Federal or State law is inadmissible.

How many people are prepared to, at a moment's notice, prove that they had entered the county via admission or parole? And can also prove, at that moment's notice, the legitimacy of the documents they have and had used? Remember also, one of the triggers for (6)(C) is falsely claiming US citizenship, so can you prove that at a moment's notice?

• (7) Documentation requirements

• (A) Immigrants

  (i) In general

  Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any immigrant at the time of application for admission-

  (I) who is not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing identification card, or other valid entry document required by this chapter, and a valid unexpired passport, or other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationality if such document is required under the regulations issued by the Attorney General under section 1181(a) of this title, or

  (II) whose visa has been issued without compliance with the provisions of section 1153 of this title,

• (B) Nonimmigrants

  (i) In general

  Any nonimmigrant who-

  (I) is not in possession of a passport valid for a minimum of six months from the date of the expiration of the initial period of the alien's admission or contemplated initial period of stay authorizing the alien to return to the country from which the alien came or to proceed to and enter some other country during such period, or

  (II) is not in possession of a valid nonimmigrant visa or border crossing identification card at the time of application for admission,

You know who does not carry a passport or visa? United States citizens in the United States. What makes a person inadmissible under (6)(C)? Claiming to be a United States citizen.

How does one prove themselves to a DHS agent acting not in good faith, which is anyone taking possession of a person for merely being "charged with, arrested for, ... admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements" a crime sans conviction. Conviction is the process of having proved the facts in court. Requiring conviction is how our system proves it knows what happened. How does one prove to that agent that they should not be detained?

This law was not passed yet before:

ICE Agents Detain American Citizens in Newark Raid

This has led me to revisit heartbreaking readings from 2018, such as “Are you alone now?” After raid, immigrant families are separated in the American heartland and from 2017 such as Exploitation and Abuse at the Chicken Plant. (paywall, readable with javascript disabled)

Allow me to include an extra large callout to Maryland's own Democratic representative April McClain Delaney for her participation in passing this. Thankfully, Alsobrooks and Van Hollen both voted against it in the Senate. My new representative, Elfreth voted against it.