3 ms·

Until relatively recent history, "let them go" with an order to appear in court at a later date was the SOP for anyone without a criminal history. I'm not sure

by jadell 7y ago

Until relatively recent history, "let them go" with an order to appear in court at a later date was the SOP for anyone without a criminal history. I'm not sure what the official name for this policy was, but political operatives sometimes use the pejorative "catch and release" to describe it. Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. Unless we start separating and detaining families indefinitely for speeding and public intoxication, we should probably stop doing it for crossing illegally. Otherwise, we should change the laws regarding illegal crossing to make the procedures and penalties more explicit. As it stands now, locking up non-violent offenders for illegal crossing is a totally arbitrary policy dictated by the whichever administration is in power. There's nothing in the laws that say families have to be detained (and thus separated.)

DuskStar 7y ago
The problem with comparing "catch and release" with letting someone out on bail/with a citation for public intoxication is that for the latter, we have a positive identification for the person in question, we know where they live, and generally they have a lot to lose from failing to show. This isn't really the case for people crossing the border illegally. Almost by definition they won't have a permanent address or a life to be uprooted from (or if they do, they're already uprooted from it - that's why they're crossing the border), and if they're set free they most likely won't have legal ways to support themselves. (No green card == no legal employment prospects) I'd love to see historical rates of people showing up for their court hearings in illegal immigration cases like you describe, though - maybe I'm wrong!
- jadell 7y ago
  And yet, until the early 2000s (I wonder what happened right around then...) that was exactly our policy. Even today, +80% of families released show up to their immigration court hearings after being released[1]. (edit) Here's data going back to 2001 showing +90% appearance rate[2] The idea that we have to hold them indefinitely (and thus split children apart from parents) or else they might slip away and get lost in the system is based on an assumption that the people we're detaining don't want to do the right thing. The vast majority of them do. The reason they're crossing illegally is usually because they are fleeing a time-sensitive problem (domestic violence, gangs, etc.) that they can't wait for our immigration bureaucracy to sort out and let them in "the right way." Once they're here, they seem very willing to be in the system if it means getting a chance to stay. [1] https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/562/ https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/562/ [2] https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/fact-check-asylum-seekers-regularly-attend-immigration-court-hearings https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/fact-check-asylum-...
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    Thanks for the info!
prepend 7y ago
That’s a good point, so that would be 9) arrest both parents, charge with misdemeanor, release on zero dollar bail. If amnesty granted then wipe arrest. If amnesty not granted, deport. I support the idea of release on zero dollar bail for all nonviolent misdemeanors for first or maybe even second time offenders. It seems like the penalty for this crime is max jail time six months [0] so definitely should at least be releasing people who have been detained longer than this. Public intoxication varies by state (in Florida it’s max 90 days [1]) and it’s not a federal crime. Speeding is really not a comparable misdemeanor as to get to jail time you have to get to reckless driving or something, a crime that would definitely get you arrested if you had two kids in the backseat. I don’t know of an appropriate misdemeanor comparison that is respectful as using petty theft or prostitution or trespassing may have similar penalties but leave a bad taste in my mouth because don’t seem appropriate comparing to a family trying to enter the US. Maybe failure to pay child support [2] would be equivalent if somehow both parents got charged with it at the same time. They would be subject to a misdemeanor and six months in jail. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 [1] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/florida-public-intoxication-laws.htm https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/florida-publ... [2] https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/criminal-penalties-for-failure-to-pay-child-support-47360 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/criminal-penalties-for-fai...

by jadell 7y ago

DuskStar 7y ago

The problem with comparing "catch and release" with letting someone out on bail/with a citation for public intoxication is that for the latter, we have a positive identification for the person in question, we know where they live, and generally they have a lot to lose from failing to show. This isn't really the case for people crossing the border illegally. Almost by definition they won't have a permanent address or a life to be uprooted from (or if they do, they're already uprooted from it - that's why they're crossing the border), and if they're set free they most likely won't have legal ways to support themselves. (No green card == no legal employment prospects) I'd love to see historical rates of people showing up for their court hearings in illegal immigration cases like you describe, though - maybe I'm wrong!

jadell 7y ago
And yet, until the early 2000s (I wonder what happened right around then...) that was exactly our policy. Even today, +80% of families released show up to their immigration court hearings after being released[1]. (edit) Here's data going back to 2001 showing +90% appearance rate[2] The idea that we have to hold them indefinitely (and thus split children apart from parents) or else they might slip away and get lost in the system is based on an assumption that the people we're detaining don't want to do the right thing. The vast majority of them do. The reason they're crossing illegally is usually because they are fleeing a time-sensitive problem (domestic violence, gangs, etc.) that they can't wait for our immigration bureaucracy to sort out and let them in "the right way." Once they're here, they seem very willing to be in the system if it means getting a chance to stay. [1] https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/562/ https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/562/ [2] https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/fact-check-asylum-seekers-regularly-attend-immigration-court-hearings https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/fact-check-asylum-...
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Thanks for the info!

prepend 7y ago

That’s a good point, so that would be 9) arrest both parents, charge with misdemeanor, release on zero dollar bail. If amnesty granted then wipe arrest. If amnesty not granted, deport. I support the idea of release on zero dollar bail for all nonviolent misdemeanors for first or maybe even second time offenders. It seems like the penalty for this crime is max jail time six months [0] so definitely should at least be releasing people who have been detained longer than this. Public intoxication varies by state (in Florida it’s max 90 days [1]) and it’s not a federal crime. Speeding is really not a comparable misdemeanor as to get to jail time you have to get to reckless driving or something, a crime that would definitely get you arrested if you had two kids in the backseat. I don’t know of an appropriate misdemeanor comparison that is respectful as using petty theft or prostitution or trespassing may have similar penalties but leave a bad taste in my mouth because don’t seem appropriate comparing to a family trying to enter the US. Maybe failure to pay child support [2] would be equivalent if somehow both parents got charged with it at the same time. They would be subject to a misdemeanor and six months in jail. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 [1] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/florida-public-intoxication-laws.htm https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/florida-publ... [2] https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/criminal-penalties-for-failure-to-pay-child-support-47360 https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/criminal-penalties-for-fai...