Comment: Back To 245i – from ILRC
In the House of Representatives, its back to the future all over again. RollCall reports: “Last year, the Obama administration proposed granting waivers from the three- and 10-year bars to some undocumented immigrants. The proposal in the House would completely lift the restrictions for undocumented people currently in the country…On Wednesday, House Judiciary Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., suggested he could support that idea. ‘If you address some kind of reform of that aspect of it, you can avail people of an opportunity that they don’t have now,’ Goodlatte said. ‘Maybe you have to still go home and don’t have the bar, or maybe you adjust here.'” Removing the 3 and 10 year bars is exactly what 245i is and why it’s needed, and if the Republican Chair of the House Judiciary committee says he could support the idea, the earth has officially shaken and moved (in the proper direction!). A bi-partisan group in the House expects to unveil legislative language, possibly this month, which will have the effect of reviving 245i. As to why both political parties might support a 245i-like provision as a compromise position, the RollCall report continues: “Overall, the citizenship proposal could appeal to both parties. To Democrats, it could offer a relatively straightforward way for people here illegally to become citizens. Republicans, on the other hand, would be able to claim that the proposal does not grant anybody a ‘special’ pathway to citizenship. Rather, undocumented immigrants would go through a process similar to, yet separate from, the one legal immigrants undergo to get green cards. At the same time, it would not take visas away from people applying for them through the existing legal process.” For years, inside-the-beltway folks have told us that 245i was political poison, yet here it is, rising phoenix-like from the ashes.

Meanwhile, over in the Senate is where the real action is. TheHill reports that Senate Judiciary committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is pressuring the bi-partisan immigration group to deliver language for markup this month. The betting is that if the Senate does act first, then the political pressure on the House will be enormous, and that comprehensive legislation will become law before the summer. We would not take that bet, here’s why. The tricky secret behind the Senate’s reasoning is that before language is produced for the law-making process, the AFL-CIO, and the US Chamber of Commerce have to first agree to terms on hundreds of thousands of temporary visas for thousands of occupations. The Senate’s position assumes that AFL-CIO and USCoC will have the luxury of time to negotiate a compromise, a luxury that does not look politically feasible. House Republican leaders could put immigration reformers in the Senate and the White House on the strategic defensive if they were to introduce a DREAM bill on the House floor, and then proceed to pass it while encouraging their Senate colleagues to amend the bill in a comprehensive direction. Such a move would take the political thunder out of the Democratic Party’s hands and turn immigration into a winning issue for the GOP. Inside-the-beltway folks are still thinking in terms of a CIR signing ceremony in the fall. We believe they are mistaken. The political atmosphere is ripe now, and one must strike the iron while its hot. We suggest that those who really want a CIR statute (as opposed to those who want to talk about CIR whilst hoping in-the-heart-of-their-hearts that nothing really happens so they can keep their cushy jobs) should plan for a CIR signing ceremony before the summer starts.

The fiscal crises of the last couple of months are behind us, the Democrats won one, the Republicans the other. There is no major issue with genuine bi-partisan support immediately before Congress but immigration. Time is ticking…the only question is who will move first – the House GOP or the Senate bi-partisan group? Share your thoughts by writing to [email protected].

A discussion worth having with or without elections…

Our broken criminal justice system wasn’t discussed in the first two 2012 debates, and it’s unlikely it will be addressed in the two that remain. In fact, crime hasn’t been a factor in any presidential campaign since 1988, when Vice President George H. W. Bush and political strategist Lee Atwater — along with assists from Al Gore and CNN anchor Bernard Shaw — hit Michael Dukakis over the head with them. Since then, the only way either major party nominee has talked about crime has been to promise he’ll be tougher on it than his opponent.

Even during Supreme Court hearings, the topic only comes up when partisans promise a nominee will crack down on those technicalities crime hawks (mistakenly) believe have turned prison gates into revolving doors. When the Senate was considering Sonia Sotomayor, for example, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) complemented her judicial history by noting she had “ruled for the government in 83% of immigration cases, in 92% of criminal cases.” Former prosecutor Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) then praised Sotomayor for those occasions in which she had excused police officers who had violated the Fourth Amendment. Vice President Joe Biden told a gathering of law enforcement organizations that Sotomayor “has got your back,” an incredibly inappropriate thing to say (even for Biden). Imagine the uproar if the vice president had said the same thing to the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, or the American Civil Liberties Union.

When crime has been an issue in presidential politics — most notably in 1968, 1980, 1984, and 1988 — it’s been when crime was on the rise. When crime is falling (as it has been for nearly 20 years), the voting public isn’t particularly concerned about whether old laws passed when crime was higher have gone too far. So, neither are the candidates. The result is a ratchet effect on the Bill of Rights.

But those laws have had consequences. For all the talk about “the one percent” over the last eighteen months, the economist David Henderson recently looked at the other one percent. That is, the bottom one percent. Henderson writes:

It turns out that about two-thirds of the people in the bottom 1 percent are in U.S. prisons. And of these people, a few hundred thousand are there for victimless crimes. Letting them out would help them and save us taxpayer money. That’s a win-win …

We have a higher percent of our people in prison than any other country in the world and the percent of our population in prison has, shockingly, more than doubled since 1980 …

We may question the wisdom of using such drugs as marijuana and cocaine, but the people who use them should be free to make their own decisions. They might make bad decisions, but should people go to prison for making bad decisions that hurt no one but, perhaps, themselves?

Former offenders struggle when they leave prison. Sociologists Bruce Western and Devah Prager have conducted experiments (PDF) in which they’ve sent trained testers to apply for job openings. Some were told to check the box on applications indicating that they had a criminal record. The applicants were dressed similarly, and had identical levels of experience. The results? White applicants with a criminal record were half as likely to get callbacks as applicants without a record. Blacks with a criminal record were two-thirds less likely. Former offenders earn 40 percent less than someone with a similar background and experience, but no record. And they’re far less likely to increase their income over time.

An arrest without a conviction can be devastating, too. A check in the “Have you ever been arrested?” box is a handy way for an employer to winnow down a stack of job applications. Why take the risk? In New York City, half a million people are stopped and questioned by police each year without probable cause. In some communities, nine in ten residents have been stopped. Aggressive stop-and-frisk policies have lead to thousands of arrests of people who have done nothing wrong, or have been tricked by police into committing a misdemeanor.

According to Western’s research, as of 2008 about 2.6 million children had a parent in prison or jail, and by age 17, a quarter of black children will have father who has done time. Children of incarcerated parents are more likely to be depressed, get into trouble at school, and drop out of school entirely.

The collateral damage then spirals outward into neighborhoods and communities, where it’s corroding the very institutions law-and-order politicians use to enforce the laws in the first place. In many communities where police use confidential informants or employ an aggressive stop-and-frisk policy, residents no longer call the police to report crimes, and are reluctant to cooperate with them when asked. Western writes:

Part of the power of punishment as a deterrent to crime is the shame and stigma of a criminal record. Where incarceration has become commonplace … the righteousness of the police is no longer assumed and a prison record is not distinctive. The authority of the criminal justice system has been turned upside down, and the institutions charged with maintaining safety become objects of suspicion …

We may care little about the job prospects of ex-cons. We may not even care much about their children or neighborhoods. But if the social costs of imprisonment grow without limit along with the prison population, mass incarceration becomes a self-defeating strategy for crime control.

There are other problems. The onset of DNA testing has revealed that our criminal justice system is more flawed and prone to error than most of the country probably suspected. The gaps in the system that produced the wrongful convictions uncovered by DNA testing are undoubtedly at work in other cases as well.

Other issues we won’t hear about in this election: The common perception that prison rape is part of the punishment that comes with a felony conviction. The disturbing amount of prosecutorial misconduct within the Department of Justice–and the lack of accountability for the prosecutors who cheat.

There’s an important debate to be had about privatizing prisons, and whether it’s wise to have a government-created industry with a bottom line dependent on keeping as many people locked up for as long as possible. There’s the vastly under-reported national scandal of corrupt crime labs and corrupted forensic evidence. The latest incident involves a crime lab technician in Massachusetts who may have faked thousands of drug tests.

We’re in a 30-year trend toward police militarization, a phenomenon that has been driven by federal incentives. And we’re expanding the use of solitary confinement (even for children).

Politicians are risk-averse creatures of habit. For decades they’ve been trained to mutter the same soundbites about crime. Polls show America’s opinions on many of these issues are shifting, but few people actually vote on them. And the people most affected when the crime policy pendulum swings too far toward government power aren’t large enough in number or stature to force a debate.

These aren’t commercial-ready, culture warring, fundraising issues like something some candidate said about rape, funding for Big Bird, or whether or not Clint Eastwood is losing his mind. They’re difficult, important, and — especially for the communities they affect most — they’re immensely consequential. But until there’s a penalty at the polls for looking the other way, most candidates will avoid the political risks that come with tackling them.

– Radley Balko

Posted: 10/15/2012 12:24 pm Updated: 10/15/2012 5:43 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/criminal-justice-civil-liberties-2012-campaign_n_1966791.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Deferred Action has further put Romney in a difficult spot – he cannot support it without angering his base nor denounce it and push the Latino community further away. Immigration could also be a tool to help an economy that has been more difficult to get on track than either party anticipated. Perhaps the whole situation was best summed up by the CRS last year: “Immigration issues and potential reform have broad implications for a number of policy areas. Immigration may stimulate the economy by providing both low and high skilled workers. Pursuing an immigration strategy that favors workers entering for employment reasons may also slow U.S. population aging thus averting or delaying a number of the policy challenges that could arise from population aging.”

August 28, 2012

For many, the process of a DUI arrest is a very foreign concept.  But wouldn’t it be nice to know what is actually going through the mind of a cop during a DUI arrest.  According to one top DUI Lawyer in California, Hieu Vu, the thought process derives from his or her training and goes something like this:

A police officer is trained to take notes during the evidence gathering stage. However sometimes an officer will make a mental summary of the evidence collected during 1) vehicle in motion stage, 2) personal contact stage, and 3) pre arrest screening. The amount of information an officer has to record is overwhelming. An officer is specially trained to look for people who drive under the influence. When police officer gather evidence to determine if a person should be arrested for a DUI violation they ask themselves three questions. Should I stop the car? Should the driver exit? Is there probable cause to arrest the suspect for DUI? Today, we will cover the first of three stages.

First an officer will ask himself “should I stop the car?” This is also known as phase 1: vehicle in motion. This involves the initial observation of vehicle and operation. This means they are looking for certain symptoms of impairment to manifest itself in your driving. These things can include failure to maintain proper lane position which manifests itself in weaving, weaving across lanes, straddling a lane, swerving, turning with wide radius, drifting, and almost striking an object or another vehicle. The officer is also trained to look for speed and braking problems. These problems can manifest itself in stopping too far, or jerky stop. The office officer is also trained to look for rapid acceleration or deceleration, whether a person is alternating between speeding up, slowing down and also if they are going too slow. (10 miles under the limit.) Vigilance problems in driving are also an issue. These problems manifest itself in driving in the opposite lane, going down the wrong way street, a slow response to traffic signals, a slow or failure to respond to an officer signals, stopping in the lane for no apparent reason, driving without headlights at night, and failure to signal or signal inconsistent with action. Judgment problems are also an issue. These can manifest itself in a driver following another car too closely, improper or unsafe lane change, illegal or improper turning (meaning turning too fast). An officer is also trained to look for improper response when he signals for you. When an officer signals for you to pull over stopping inappropriately will also count against you. For example, stopping in a prohibited zone, or at a crosswalk. Drinking in the vehicle, urinating at roadside, arguing without cause and other disorderly actions are also visual cues that the officer is trained to look for.

An experienced DUI cop in the state of California is also trained to look for people who appear impaired when driving. This could include eye fixation on the road, tightly gripping the steering wheel, slouching in the seat, gesturing erratically or the infamous face close to the windshield. A lot of these cues can occur when a person is tired or distracted. For example when a person uses a cell phone and gets distracted, this will result in weaving or drifting or striking another vehicle. Also when a person realizes there is a police officer behind them, they may keep their eye on the rearview mirror, which results in drifting and weaving because the eyes are off the road. It is perfectly natural to feel uncomfortable when a police officer is behind you. This is also known as black-and-white fever. Some people are cautious drivers and drive below the speed limits quite often, or some of us make snap decisions and go for U-turn at the last minute; this does not mean a person is impaired. These cues are part of a calculus the police officer would use in deciding whether or not to stop you.

State of New York | Executive Chamber
Andrew M. Cuomo | Governor
For Immediate Release: June 1, 2011

GOVERNOR CUOMO SUSPENDS PARTICIPATION IN FEDERAL SECURE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today announced that New York State will suspend participation in the federal Secure Communities Program to review the mounting evidence that the program is not meeting its stated goal and has serious consequences for witnesses, victims of crime and law enforcement.

The goal as stated by the federal government was to deport serious felons, and, based on evidence to date, it appears the program in New York is failing in this regard and is actually undermining law enforcement. Because of similar concerns, the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is investigating the program.

“There are concerns about the implementation of the program as well as its impact on families, immigrant communities and law enforcement in New York,” Governor Cuomo said. “As a result, New York is suspending its participation in the program.”

In a letter to DHS, Governor Cuomo’s administration stated that information produced thus far has called into question – at both the federal and state levels – the implementation and intended effect of the Secure Communities program.

Governor Cuomo’s office has also received complaints stating that the goals of the program were not being met. The questions raised are further aggravated by inconsistent statements by DHS and a failure to disclose basic information about the program.

Congressman Jose E. Serrano said, “Governor Cuomo has taken a brave and necessary step in suspending New York State’s participation in the flawed ‘Secure Communities’ program, and he deserves great praise. He is firmly in line with our state’s pro-immigrant tradition and on behalf of the immigrants and their friends in our community, I would like to thank him. Having New York State pull back from this unfair and aggressive program should be a wake-up call to the Department of Homeland Security. It is time to end this program and I am glad my home state will no longer take part.”

Congresswoman Nydia M. Velázquez said, “I thank Governor Cuomo for showing the leadership and foresight to suspend this misguided program, which does not reflect New York’s long history as a welcoming home for newly arrived immigrants. The Secure Communities initiative does not make our nation safer, but inhibits cooperation with law enforcement and violates immigrants’ due process rights.”

Derek P. Champagne, Franklin County District Attorney and President of the District Attorneys Association of the State of New York (DAASNY), said, “By suspending the state’s participation in this program until a comprehensive review is complete, the Governor is sending a strong message that the law enforcement tools we utilize must be clearly communicated, evenly applied and effective. We will continue to use the effective tools that have been in place for many years to ensure that we are identifying and preventing any risk to public safety.”

Janet DiFiore, Westchester County District Attorney, said, “I support Governor Cuomo’s decision to take New York State out of the Secure Communities Program in light of reports of the unintended consequences by its implementation. I remain confident that law enforcement throughout the state presently has sufficient tools at its disposal to continue to safeguard and protect all New Yorkers.”

State Senator Adriano Espaillat, Chair of the Latino Caucus of the Senate, said, “Governor Cuomo’s decision to end the so-called Secure Communities program in New York will restore rights and justice to countless immigrants across the state. We must enact policies and reforms that bolster our diverse population, not penalize it by instilling a sense of fear of wrongful deportation in our neighborhoods.”

State Senator Gustavo Rivera, Vice Chair of the Latino Caucus of the Senate, said, “I applaud Governor Cuomo for having the courage to put an end to this program’s existence in New York. The Secure Communities program has frightened victims and witnesses of crime from coming forward. We need to make our neighborhoods safe places for our families and not take part in a problematic and contradictory program that hinders our safety.”

Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, Chair of the Puerto Rican/Hispanic Task Force, said, “The Secure Communities program has done the opposite of what it was supposed to do, and Governor Cuomo is right in removing our state from the program. While we continue to work to find ways to make it safer for victims and witnesses of crime to come forward and be a part of the process to save our communities, we must not let our state be part of an experiment that puts innocent people at risk.”

Thomas H. Mungeer, President of the New York State Police Benevolent Association, said, “We support Governor Cuomo’s action today in suspending Secure Communities until the numerous questions, including a federal Inspector General’s investigation, can be resolved. Police rely upon a partnership with the communities that they serve to ensure the public safety of us all. The questions that have surrounded the implementation of Secure Communities drives a wedge between law enforcement and the people they are sworn to protect. We are confident that the procedures we currently use and the strong relationships we currently have with federal, state and local authorities will ensure that we can keep our communities safe while also maintaining our relationship of trust.”

John Poklemba, Counsel to the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police, said, “Governor Cuomo has made the right decision to take New York State out of the controversial Secure Communities program. This program unfortunately has had a negative impact on our crime-fighting efforts. Law enforcement must have tools and resources that are both effective and fair.”

Jack Mahar, Sheriff of Rensselaer County and President of the New York State Sheriffs Association, said, “Every day, law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to rid our neighborhoods of crime, and we do it with the cooperation of the law-abiding public. This program was intended to make communities safer and stronger, but many people question whether this program has really accomplished its objectives. Governor Cuomo is right to remove our state from this program until all concerns are addressed.”

Clinton County Sheriff David Favro said, “Governor Cuomo’s decision to freeze the Secure Communities program until the questions that have been raised about its implementation can be settled, is a wise one. While we are sworn to keep our communities safe, that cannot come at the price of their trust. Our strong current partnerships with federal law enforcement and long-standing operations in this state will ensure that we continue to communicate effectively to identify undocumented immigrants in our county jails and take appropriate actions.”

Chautauqua County Sheriff Joseph Gerace said, “We support Governor Cuomo’s action today in suspending Secure Communities until the numerous questions, including a federal Inspector General’s investigation, can be resolved. Sheriff departments rely upon a partnership with the communities that they serve to ensure public safety for us all. The questions that have surrounded the implementation of Secure Communities jeopardizes that relationship. We are confident that the procedures we currently use and the strong relationship we currently have with federal, state and local authorities will ensure that we can keep our communities safe while also maintaining our relationship of trust.”

Steven Krokoff, Chief of the Albany Police Department said, “In light of the confusion surrounding this program and the pending Inspector General’s review, the Governor’s decision to freeze this program until the federal review is complete is appropriate. The procedures we currently use will ensure the safety of neighborhoods across the state while at the same time encouraging individuals in all communities to come forward to report crimes.”

Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said, “We applaud Governor Cuomo for taking the bold step of removing New York State from the Secure Communities initiative, which, despite its name, has become a sore subject for those who work day and night to make our neighborhoods safer. We need to ensure that vulnerable populations are protected, and the decision to remove our state from this program is a positive move for all New Yorkers.”

Chung-Wha Hong, Executive Director of the New York Immigration Coalition, said, “For centuries, families have gone to great lengths to come to this great nation, and we owe it to ourselves and our neighbors to make sure the law is on their side. Unfortunately, the Secure Communities program has failed to provide protections to many individuals. Governor Cuomo’s decision to remove New York from the program is a right one, and we look forward to working with him to make our state safe for all residents.”

A copy of the letter sent to DHS can be found at: www.governor.ny.gov/assets/Secure%20Communities.pdf.

###

Additional news available at www.governor.ny.gov
New York State | Executive Chamber | [email protected] | 518.474.8418

This man was held here in San Diego at a CCA facility (Corrections Corporation of America), a private corporation that has multi-million dollar contract with the Federal Government yearly to house detained immigrants. This is a short op-ed that certainly points out the blatant disregard for human life however it doesn’t show the heinous treatment of this man.  As a federal judge aptly said this goes “beyond cruel and unusual punishment.”

Sadly, there are still not enough changes happening quickly enough and detainees are still dying.

Editorial

Obama’s moral obligation to detainees regardless of immigration status

A Southern California case in which federal officials agreed to pay $1.95 million to settle a wrongful death suit points up the need for the Obama administration to make authorities responsible for their charges’ basic health needs, no matter their immigration status.

April 8, 2011

It is so important for immigration and criminal defense attorneys to work together and for non citizens to be aware of the potential immigration consequences of criminal charges.

Stopping Deportations Before They Start – How Advocates Can Protect Immigrants Facing Criminal Charges

Silicon Valley De-Bug • Op-Ed • Angie Junck, Raj Jayadev • March 30, 2011 On the heels of the one-year anniversary of a historic Supreme Court decision, attorney Angie Junck and organizer Raj Jayadev share lessons learned from a case of a San Jose man who beat a deportation order.

This week marks the one-year anniversary of Padilla v. Kentucky – arguably the most important U.S. Supreme Court decision to date in terms of the nexus between local criminal courts and federal immigration laws. This is also the first week of renewed freedom for Jeysson Minota, a 28-year-old legal permanent resident from Colombia who had been in and out of federal detention centers for the past four years due to charges stemming from graffiti. His detention and his ultimate freedom tell the story of the need and possibility of the Padilla standard.

In the Padilla case, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution requires that criminal defense counsel provide affirmative and competent advice on the immigration consequences of a criminal disposition to noncitizen defendants. The advice is critical to defendants like Minota.

The criminal act that got Minota in the scopes of Homeland Security was vandalism. As a younger man, Minota was a graffiti artist and had plead to a felony charge of vandalism. Immigration and enforcement claimed that vandalism is a ”crime of moral turpitude,” thus being a deportable offense, even though Minota was a greencard holder.

Had his previous lawyers informed Minota that a guilty plea could lead to deportation, he may not have been in detention for four years. Because he did not plead guilty to his more recent misdemeanor criminal charge he was able to eventually win another green card and a new start in the United States, in immigration court. Had he plead guilty to the seemingly innocuous charge, one that would have carried no extra jail time, it would have been equivalent to an immigration death sentence triggering permanent deportation and separation from his U.S. citizen wife, two children, mother, and siblings.

Instead, Minota took his case to trial, and with the advocacy of his public defender, was found innocent. The win gave his immigration attorney a shot to keep him in this country.

But as with any legal device, the decision from Padilla v. Kentucky is a measure of protection that only has value if exercised. There are two glaring and systemic roadblocks that make cases like Minota’s, even with the Padilla decision, more the exception than the rule. Both though can be overcome through legal education and expanding the lens of community advocacy.

Strip away the political value judgments around constitutional protections for immigrants, and you are still left with overly-impacted criminal courts. The reality is guilty pleas, early and often, are perhaps all that prevents the county court systems from bursting at the seams. In fact, less than five percent of all felony cases across the country ever reach the trial stage. Consequently, one of the most fundamental rights afforded to the accused – the right to a public hearing – is circumvented on a daily basis.

For those without immigration consequences plea deals may be the best option in order to receive a lighter sentence, but for those like Minota it is a decision often born out of the pressure and isolation of the experience, and one they may come to regret. In Santa Clara County in 2008, where Minota faced criminal charges, the District Attorney’s office tried only 260 cases (including both misdemeanor and felony cases) out of roughly 30,000 cases. That is less than one percent, meaning the immigration fates of immigrants who are part of that pool of defendants were sealed well before they faced an immigration judge.

Immigrants are often represented by the Public Defender’s office. Public Defender offices across the country appoint attorneys to the indigent — those without the resources to hire a private attorney. In California, 90 percent of all the accused are represented by some form of publicly-appointed counsel. Often times publicly-appointed attorneys have an overwhelming number of cases to juggle compared to private attorneys who choose their own dockets and workload. Consequently, there is an incentive for public attorneys to encourage their clients to plead, rather than take the time for investigation, motions and defense construction for a trial.

In Santa Clara County the Public Defender’s office does not staff all misdemeanor arraignment courts, a key stage where pleas are being entered and where immigrants are digging their own deportation graves. In these settings immigrant defendants, unless they’ve retained private counsel, would not have an attorney to consult with to understand the potentially life altering consequences of the plea they enter.

The second systemic hurdle which makes the enforcement of Padilla difficult is a simple one: Who will hold defense attorneys responsible to meet that criteria? Minota’s case was unique in that he had the help of a community organization that actively challenged his defense attorney to take into account his immigration status, and an immigration attorney who could advise the criminal attorneys. The organization supporting Minota, Silicon Valley De-Bug, his family and his immigration attorney Angie Junck of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center met weekly to assess the status of the case and develop strategies. Minota says, “I knew I could continue to fight because I knew I had people on the outside that were fighting for me.”

The notion of community involvement — communicating with lawyers, reviewing paperwork, attending court hearings — in criminal or immigration cases is currently not common practice, particularly in immigrant communities. The Padilla standard may be a lever to make defense counsel better protect the rights of immigrants, but there have to be people to pull it.

The lessons learned from Minota’s case then are two-fold: The criminal defense bar, particularly public attorneys on immigration matters, need to be educated on immigration consequences to criminal charges and immigrant advocate groups need to see criminal courts as a central space for advocacy to keep families together in this country. That is why the Immigration Legal Resource Center advocates for institutionalizing immigration protocols and resources in defense offices so that defending noncitizens with immigration consequences in mind becomes an integral and ongoing part of criminal defense practice. It is also why Silicon Valley De-Bug is encouraging immigrant advocacy groups across the country to meet with the public defender offices within their counties, to both hold them accountable and to encourage and support their vigilance.

Minota’s freedom is a testament to what is possible when both approaches are employed.

Raj Jayadev is the Director of Silicon Valley De-Bug and a Soros Justice Fellow. Angie Junck is a staff attorney for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center identifies and mentors immigration point persons within defense offices, creates written reference resources, and provides ongoing training and technical assistance to help defenders effectively represent immigrants against the adverse consequences of criminal dispositions.

Silicon Valley De-Bug, through the Albert Cobarrubias Justice Project, works to empower families who have had direct contact criminal and immigration laws. They are currently equipping community hubs — churches, ethnic community centers, neighborhood associations — with the tools and information needed to provide sustained support for a loved one who may be detained.

For more information, or to reprint this article contact: [email protected]