Is it un-American that 84% of all detained immigrants have no lawyer and do not have access to a fair trial?

Title endorsed in part by:

Breakthrough

Results so far:

Yes		56%	83 votes	Total: 148 votes
No		44%	65 votes	Total: 148 votes

Yes

1 of 6

As a former court interpreter, I am only too aware of the injustices immigrants face in our legal system, regardless of legal status. I worked in a fairly small town with a growing Latino population. While I rarely witnessed racist treatment of immigrants, the legal services many received would never have been acceptable to an American.

The fact that 84% of detained immigrants don't have a lawyer or access to a fair trial speaks more to the lack of communication between the immigrants and American law enforcement. Cities are reluctant to pay for an interpreter because of the old slogan "immigrants should learn English." Language acquisition is a long process, especially for students of English. Not being able to proficiently speak English does not nullify one's rights as a human being.

Most law enforcement officers and court officials I have known are overworked and have little resources. While the area I live in has taken great care to help officers learn about Latino customs and basic Spanish, many cities around this country are not willing to do so, and many Americans would rather let immigrants fend for themselves.

Most immigrants who find themselves in legal problems do not know the rights they have, and they do have rights. For law enforcement officials, it is often easier to ask for a guilty plea and payment of a fine than it is to explain a person's rights (in his language) and let him respond as any other English speaker would. Many times immigrants take these guilty pleas without realizing future consequences that decision might have.

While pleading guilty to driving without a license or public intoxication, relatively simple misdemeanors, probably won't have far reaching consequences, many immigrants do not receive the representation they deserve when they are faced with felony charges. Certain large cities, Los Angeles and Chicago in particular, are notorious for sentencing innocent immigrants to years in prison with little evidence to convict them. There are numerous cases in which confessions have been coerced from people who don't speak enough English to understand what they are being accused of.

Any American would hope for better treatment abroad. In fact, most Americans would demand better treatment. Opponents of immigration would state that they would first learn the language before living in another country. But what about for travel? Do Americans learn French before going to France or fluent Spanish before going to Cancun for Spring Break?

Having spoken fluent Spanish as a second language for five years now, I am comfortable interacting with native speakers here in the U.S. and abroad, traveling, and living in another language. However, I am not well-versed in the justice system of any Latin American country and I would want legal representation from someone who is. I would want the counsel of the nearest U.S. consulate. How can I as an American desire these things for myself abroad, yet deny them to those who come to my country?

Learn more about this author, Kesi Garcia.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

No

1 of 12

by John Rodrigue

Neither one of these authors understands what they are talking about.

Anyone, citizen, legal or illegal that is charged with a crime is given full constitutional protections as we know them.

An immigration hearing (not a trial) is not a criminal procedure but a civil matter. There is no jury nor is there a mechanism to have one. The "judge" was an employee of the INS and now DOJ. His or her function is of a subject matter expert or fact checker not as an impartial judge as we normally think of in a criminal or civil trial.

The immigration judge can do three things:

Determine citizenship (U.S. or otherwise an alien)

Grant relief (permission to legally stay in the U.S. on a temporary or permanent basis based on immigration law)

Order Removal (Deportation is no longer used) or a voluntary departure in lieu of removal
Based on the petitioners flight risk they can deny, grant, or reduce bail to a petitioner until their next hearing date or final order of departure (the date they are going back to their country)

They have no other powers. They can't issue warrants or subpoenas. They can't send someone to jail or place a fine (due to flight risks there is immigration holding facilities. These are minimum security facilities that hold immigration cases only. They can be held only till their hearing is completed and arrangements can be made to return them to their country. This is why aliens are held in places far from their place of apprehension, usually near the southern border due to volume. They are not to be kept in a jail or prison with criminals. They may be there in a jail for 72 hours until arrangements can be made to move them to one of these facilities. Cases can drag on for months so they may be held up to a year and the alien's country of citizenship may drag their feet in accepting them so it may take a couple of years)

The burden of proof is on the petitioner / alien (you request a hearing on the basis that you have a claim to citizenship or residency) you are not innocent until proven guilty. You can have an attorney represent you but at your own expense, not free of charge as in a criminal trial. The reason for this is immigration is addressed in the articles of the constitution (the congress shall determine who may immigrate) not in the Bill of Rights. The Federal Courts (District, Appellate, Supreme) have review of decisions by the immigration courts but Congress has vested the power to determine who is granted citizenship/residenc y exclusively to DHS Citizenship and Immigration Services.

When someone is arrested on an immigration civil charge (there are criminal charges for entering without inspection, identity theft and re-entering after deportation these cases will be addressed is a criminal trial separately) the alien has three choices:

1: admit they are in the country illegally, acknowledge that they have no claim to citizenship or residency and accept a voluntary departure. This means they avoid a formal removal from an immigration judge and a ban of 5 years on re-entry (this means they may apply to enter legally as soon as they get back instead of waiting five years)

2: request asylum based on fear of returning to their home country.

3: request a hearing based on a claim of citizenship or residency. Once this is done you cannot revoke it until a determination is made by the immigration judge.

Some may see the deck as stacked against the alien but if you have a legitimate claim to citizenship it will eventually be rewarded. If you entered illegally the system is set up so you can admit your guilt and leave without penalty or if you try to waste the systems time with a frivolous claim you will be penalized with a 5 year ban on removal and a felony criminal charge if caught again in this time frame.

The system was never broken just overwhelmed

Next time focus on the facts and get rid of the rhetoric. If you don't know hat you are talking about don't portray yourself as an expert.

Learn more about this author, John Rodrigue.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.