Politics

Courts to ICE: Negative ghostrider, the docket is full.

pO157.

Posted to Politics on Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 03:22:17 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Expanded immigration enforcement appears to have had an unintended side effect. The immigration court dockets in many jurisdictions have become clogged.

Judges in the Los Angeles had their number of cases rise about 40% over the past year. This follows a nationwide trend with cases up to 334,000 a year --- an 80,000 case increase since 2000. The number of judges only rose seventeen -- to 220.

The judges and lawyers both decry the situation. One lawyer complained about a case he had since 1999 which found its path through the courts reset in 2007 when the judge handling it retired. Others complain of 6 or 7 year waits, and showing up to court only to be told the docket is full. One retiring judge left after his docket grew to over 1,600 cases. Unfortunately this overload is resulting in error-prone decisions which then result in a rising number of decisions overturned on appeal.

The head of the Judges' union states that the consequences of underfunding and high caseloads are huge. San Francisco Immigration Judge Dana Leigh Marks, head of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, complained about limited resources and states that the backlog affects enforcement efforts.

"You are asking us to do death penalty cases in a traffic court setting with traffic court resources."
Authorities specifically blame the increase in checking county jail inmates for immigration status on the caseload rise.

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by pO157, politics, immigration, ICE, Top Gun (all tags)

This story: 6 comments (5 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
1

This supports the old argument.

pO157.

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:14:50 PM EST

none

People who are not willing to play by the rules to immigrate are more likely to continue to have no respect for the law while here.

I say hire more immigration judges to make sure people in front of them get a fair shake and to speed up deportations. But we have to do more. Put the guard on the border or triple the number of border agents if you want, but that won't stem the tide. Start throwing employers in jail who hire these illegals, and start rounding them up at work (and that includes the surburbanites who hire people standing outside the Home Depot). Once the market for the labor dries up the rush to cross the border will drop.

It is not a perfect solution, but it is better than anything else.

2

^ 1

Hey, candidates!

gerrymander.

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 04:29:39 PM EST

none

I say hire more immigration judges to make sure people in front of them get a fair shake and to speed up deportations.

Yep. And there are justifications on both sides of the political divide to do so. Conservatives can applaud the commitment to law and order, liberals can emphasize the civil right to a speedy, fair trial.

But we have to do more.

If only there was some sort of physical barrier one could place which would prevent, or at least significantly impede, border incursions.

Start throwing employers in jail who hire these illegals, and start rounding them up at work (and that includes the surburbanites who hire people standing outside the Home Depot).

I'm for this, with one amendment: employers who wish to discover/fire illegal workers on their payroll should be indemnified against EEOC lawsuits. It's not fair to forbid someone from looking for something, then punish them for failing to find it.

4

^ 2

Re: Hey, candidates!

thefadd.

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:54:23 PM EST

4.00 (astute)

If only there was some sort of physical barrier one could place which would prevent, or at least significantly impede, border incursions.

There's no evidence that a wall would "significantly impede" illegal border incursions let alone rise to the laughable level of "prevention."

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

3

^ 2

Re: Hey, candidates!

pO157.

Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 05:31:22 PM EST

none

If only there was some sort of physical barrier one could place which would prevent, or at least significantly impede, border incursions.

As mentioned above, a wall is not a horrible idea, but the best one is simply removing the market for illegal labor.

I'm for this, with one amendment: employers who wish to discover/fire illegal workers on their payroll should be indemnified against EEOC lawsuits. It's not fair to forbid someone from looking for something, then punish them for failing to find it.

Has this actually happened? I thought the employers were required to check documentation as part of the I-9 process. Has somebody been sued for this? Or are you talking about lawsuits that would occur if employers re-checked their current staff once criminal sanctions were enacted?

5

^ 1

Re: This supports the old argument.

port1080.

Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:13:22 AM EST

none

Start throwing employers in jail who hire these illegals, and start rounding them up at work (and that includes the surburbanites who hire people standing outside the Home Depot). Once the market for the labor dries up the rush to cross the border will drop.

This is definitely the way to go, I think.  It's the only solution that doesn't directly punish the immigrants (who, for the most part, are generally just desperate people looking for work) and it also is the most friendly in terms of civil liberties.  Far better to have the government keeping a close eye on a relatively limited number of businesses than to have it trying to keep a close eye on every person that has a brownish skin tone.  Ideally, I think there should be a two pronged approach though - first, increase the number of legitimate work permits, and then second add real penalties for businesses that employ undocumented labor.  That way businesses that have come to rely on said labor will have a legal alternative.  After a few years, once the companies are used to relying on legal workers, then maybe the government can start dialing down the number of work permits (slowly) to try to encourage companies to go with local labor.  Of course, all of this would require nuanced political compromise, would piss off all sides of the immigration debate, and would require long-term planning - so instead we'll probably just get an expensive, ineffective wall that's good for photo ops, and nothing more.

6

^ 5

Re: This supports the old argument.

delete me.

Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 07:59:02 PM EST

5.00 (interesting)

I still say that the minimum wage for illegal immigrants should be $20/hour. Make their former employer pay back-wages. The immigrant will have enough money to pay back the coyotes and go home.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

This story: 6 comments (5 from subqueue)
Post a Comment