Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Disrupting the Jail-To-Deportation Pipeline in Wisconsin
View through CrossRef
Most deportations of noncitizens living in Wisconsin involve violations of state law. In Wisconsin—and across the country—the majority of noncitizens who face deportation proceedings do so after coming into contact with the criminal legal system. When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) learns that a potentially removable noncitizen is in criminal custody, it issues a request, known as an ICE detainer, to law enforcement personnel to hold that person until ICE agents can detain them. Most Wisconsin law enforcement agencies comply with these requests, and several Wisconsin sheriffs have entered into agreements with ICE, known as Section 287(g) agreements, to take on additional immigration enforcement duties. This Comment argues that such cooperation is unlawful. Holding someone on an ICE detainer constitutes an arrest. Under Wisconsin law, the power to arrest must come from a state statute, and no state statute authorizes arrests for civil immigration violations. Therefore, Wisconsin law enforcement agencies may not comply with ICE detainers because there is no state law authority to do so. The aforementioned Section 287(g) agreements are likewise unlawful. Per the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 287(g) agreements must be consistent with state law. Wisconsin law does not authorize detainer compliance, an integral component of the state’s Section 287(g) agreements. The agreements currently operational in Wisconsin are therefore inconsistent with state law and thus invalid. Moreover, these agreements were entered improperly. This Comment builds on the existing literature regarding ICE detainers and Section 287(g) agreements by offering a novel, Wisconsin-specific set of arguments against such agreements. It also synthesizes several recent cases related to ICE detainers and Section 287(g) agreements. The Comment concludes by sketching litigation strategies to implement its arguments. Given the state’s gerrymandered legislature, litigation likely offers the sole means of ending Wisconsin law enforcement agencies’ unlawful compliance with ICE detainers, eliminating the state’s problematic, ineffective Section 287(g) agreements, and keeping Wisconsin immigrant families intact.
Title: Disrupting the Jail-To-Deportation Pipeline in Wisconsin
Description:
Most deportations of noncitizens living in Wisconsin involve violations of state law.
In Wisconsin—and across the country—the majority of noncitizens who face deportation proceedings do so after coming into contact with the criminal legal system.
When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) learns that a potentially removable noncitizen is in criminal custody, it issues a request, known as an ICE detainer, to law enforcement personnel to hold that person until ICE agents can detain them.
Most Wisconsin law enforcement agencies comply with these requests, and several Wisconsin sheriffs have entered into agreements with ICE, known as Section 287(g) agreements, to take on additional immigration enforcement duties.
This Comment argues that such cooperation is unlawful.
Holding someone on an ICE detainer constitutes an arrest.
Under Wisconsin law, the power to arrest must come from a state statute, and no state statute authorizes arrests for civil immigration violations.
Therefore, Wisconsin law enforcement agencies may not comply with ICE detainers because there is no state law authority to do so.
The aforementioned Section 287(g) agreements are likewise unlawful.
Per the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 287(g) agreements must be consistent with state law.
Wisconsin law does not authorize detainer compliance, an integral component of the state’s Section 287(g) agreements.
The agreements currently operational in Wisconsin are therefore inconsistent with state law and thus invalid.
Moreover, these agreements were entered improperly.
This Comment builds on the existing literature regarding ICE detainers and Section 287(g) agreements by offering a novel, Wisconsin-specific set of arguments against such agreements.
It also synthesizes several recent cases related to ICE detainers and Section 287(g) agreements.
The Comment concludes by sketching litigation strategies to implement its arguments.
Given the state’s gerrymandered legislature, litigation likely offers the sole means of ending Wisconsin law enforcement agencies’ unlawful compliance with ICE detainers, eliminating the state’s problematic, ineffective Section 287(g) agreements, and keeping Wisconsin immigrant families intact.
Related Results
Installation Analysis of Matterhorn Pipeline Replacement
Installation Analysis of Matterhorn Pipeline Replacement
Abstract
The paper describes the installation analysis for the Matterhorn field pipeline replacement, located in water depths between 800-ft to 1200-ft in the Gul...
A Fluid-pipe-soil Approach to Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines
A Fluid-pipe-soil Approach to Stability Design of Submarine Pipelines
Abstract
The conventional approach to submarine pipeline stability design considers interactions between water and pipeline (fluid-pipe) and pipeline and seabed (...
Pipeline Resistance
Pipeline Resistance
Pipeline resistance is where an often abstract and wonky climate movement meets the bravery and boldness of Indigenous and other frontline defenders of land and water who inspire d...
NARRATIVES ABOUT THE DEPORTATION FROM THE POLISH-UKRAINIAN BORDER OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE DISSIDENT MOVEMENT: MARIA HEL, LYUBOV WOZNIAK-LEMYK AND HANNA MYKHAILENKO
NARRATIVES ABOUT THE DEPORTATION FROM THE POLISH-UKRAINIAN BORDER OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE DISSIDENT MOVEMENT: MARIA HEL, LYUBOV WOZNIAK-LEMYK AND HANNA MYKHAILENKO
This paper analyzes the memoirs of dissident women Maria Hel, Lyubov Wozniak-Lemyk, and Hanna Mykhailenko, who originated from Zakerzonia. It examines their experiences of deportat...
Seismic Vulnerability of the Subsea Pipeline
Seismic Vulnerability of the Subsea Pipeline
Abstract
Unburied marine pipeline vulnerability under seismic impact, a new approach of investigation, and conclusion / recommendations for certain analyzed cases...
Jail Guitar Doors: A case study of guitar and songwriting instruction in Cook County Jail
Jail Guitar Doors: A case study of guitar and songwriting instruction in Cook County Jail
Jail Guitar Doors USA (JGD USA) is an initiative that provides guitars and songwriting instruction in correctional facilities. Founded in 2009, JGD USA is currently in 100 jails, p...
The Women Who Don’t Get Counted
The Women Who Don’t Get Counted
Photo by Hédi Benyounes on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
The current incarceration facilities for the growing number of women are depriving expecting mothers of adequate care cruci...
Potentials of GIS-based analyses of Ajaokuta -Kaduna-Kano gas pipeline in Nigeria
Potentials of GIS-based analyses of Ajaokuta -Kaduna-Kano gas pipeline in Nigeria
Abstract. Geographic and Information System (GIS) Potentials and emerging technologies in overcoming topographic challenges during construction of Ajaokuta-Kaduna-Kano (AKK) gas pi...

