ImmigrationState-federal tensions on immigration issues continue

Published 23 December 2010

Governor David Patterson of New York has pardoned six immigrants facing deportation because, he says, deportation is unjustified in their cases; “[immigration officials] may take no account of the New York State criminal justice decisions, but I do,” he said; the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the first of two controversial Arizona immigration law; this law was signed by then governor Janet Napolitano, now DHS secretary in the administration which is challenging the law in court

AG Eric Holder directs suits against states over immigration // Source: aolanswers.com

In an attempt to address “shortcomings in our federal immigration laws relating to deportation,” New York governor David Patterson has announced pardons for six immigrants facing deportation because of past criminal convictions. All of the individuals pardoned are legal immigrants and five are green card holders. One individual, Sanjay Broomfield, was denied a green card because of his criminal conviction.

In 2005 Broomfield was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon after he shot and killed a burglar breaking into his home. While serving his 3-year probation sentence he was married to an American citizen and applied for a green card. Immigration officials rejected his application because they say his criminal possession of a weapon resulted in a death, even though the New York District Attorney’s Office ruled that killing justified.

Another individual facing deportation is Darshini Ramsaran, a citizen of Trinidad and Guyana who participated in a robbery four years ago. A spokesperson for Patterson said that if Ramsaran were deported she would be in danger from the two men she testified against, resulting in their subsequent deportation.

Patterson began the clemency process in the spring with the stated aim of aiding permanent residents who were at risk of deportation because of minor convictions or convictions that occurred a long time ago. In his statement the governor said “[immigration officials] may take no account of the New York State criminal justice decisions, but I do.”

The governor’s decision again draws attention to the nature of the U.S. immigration system and deportation proceedings at a time when many wonder the fate of an estimated twelve million illegal immigrants currently living in the country. Strong feelings about the issue on the part of many citizens of the United States are underscored by the debate over the Dream Act, which would have granted a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who were brought into the country under the age of 16 and served in the military or attended school, as well as two Arizona immigration laws currently facing federal challenges in court.

Challenges to both laws relate to the power of state governments to regulate immigration. This is a contested issue because of the “supremacy clause” which states that federal regulation trumps state law. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the first of these Arizona laws on 8 December; and a decision is expected in a few months. Lower courts, including the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, have upheld the law. The law’s fate in the Supreme Court is uncertain as Elena Kagen has recused herself, leaving the possibility of a tie. If a tie vote occurs, the law will stand — but no precedent will be set.

This case is of particular interest to followers of the court proceedings because the law was signed by then Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, who is now secretary of Homeland Security in an administration which is behind the legal challenge to the law.