Death, prayers and hypocrisy

After every school shooting the Republicans, the wingnuts and gun freaks yell from the tops of the tallest buildings that now is not the time for politics. They tell us that we should wait until the grieving parents have buried their children before we begin any policy discussions. They will argue about the definition of an assault rifle. They will ask what specific new law do you propose. They will argue that we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Then the politicians offer their worthless thoughts and prayers before cashing the latest check they received from the NRA.

Then something else hits the news cycle and everyone moves on to the next crisis.

After every mass shooting the Republicans, the wingnuts and the gun freaks yell from the tops of the tallest buildings that now is not the time for politics. They tell us we should wait until the grieving families have buried their loved ones before we can begin any policy discussions. They will argue about the definition of an assault rifle. They will ask what specific new law do you propose. They will argue that we don't need new laws, we just need to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

Then the politicians offer their worthless thoughts and prayers before cashing the latest check they received from the NRA.

And nothing ever happens because we, as a nation, have said that we're okay with mass shootings and that the deaths of school children are no big deal because we really, really, really want to be able to play with our guns.

But after a white middle-class girl from Iowa is found dead and a person here without our government's possession confesses to the murder, now is the time for the Republicans, the wingnuts and racists of all stripes to use this girl's murder to score political points in efforts to restrict immigration from non-white non-Europeans.

Now is the time to wave the bloody flag of a white girl killed by a dark-skinned man to incite hatred and fear in support of a president's racist policies.

Let's forget that the vast majority of murders and other violent crimes are committed by people who were born in this country. Let's forget about the fact that the government long turned a blind eye on illegal immigration because industries needed a cheap work force that would do jobs that citizens didn't want.

I find it utterly repulsive that the same folks who put off talking about gun issues while the bodies are still warm have no problem using the death of Mollie Tibbetts for political purposes. By now, however, hypocrisy on the right shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

Perry pulls a 180 on immigration

Once upon a time Gov. Rick Perry had a sensible position on immigration. He knew, as did most Texans, that Texas has a unique relationship with Mexico and that it was the influx of immigrant labor that kept the cost of living lower in Texas than in other states.

Of course that raises the issue of whether or not immigrant labor was used by employers as a tool to keep down wages and deter union membership.

Immigrants who crossed the border without the permission of the US government took jobs that no one else wanted. They paid taxes (remember, there is no income tax in Texas) whenever they bought something or paid their rent (part of the rental income a landlord receives goes to pay property tax).

Gov. Goodhair even realized that efforts to raise tuition rates for the children of undocumented workers only served to discourage them from attending college because of the cost. He understood that making a college education more attainable benefited everyone in the state.

But then the Fair-Haired One decided he wanted to follow W to the White House. The national Republican Party was virulently opposed to immigration because the less white the country becomes, the less pull Republicans will have. They are fighting to preserve a vision of America that never really existed.

Now, fearful of pissing off the money lords of the GOP, Gov. Perry has flipped his views on immigration. Now he is opposed to any easing of restrictions. His latest move is to activate some 1,000 members of the Texas National Guard to patrol the border to prevent more children from Central America making it to Texas.

These children who are flooding detention centers in the Rio Grande Valley aren't criminals. They are coming here in search of a parent or they are being sent by their families to get them away from the violence and poverty of their home countries.

We don't need to militarize the border. We don't need to expedite hearings so we can deport children. What we need to do is sit down and figure out a rational immigration policy - one that takes reality into account. For far too long our policy consisted of allowing in anyone from a country whose government we disagreed with and slamming the door shut for immigrants from countries with friendly governments.

Many of these children are refugees and should be afforded the same protections as any other refugee from any other part of the world. We will be judged on the basis of how we treat the most vulnerable people in this country. Right now I don't think the verdict would be favorable.

No more room at the inn

Anyone who practices criminal law in Harris County knows that the Harris County Jail is packed to the gills. The two main causes that people know about are coercive bond policies and arrests for possession of trace amounts of cocaine and other drugs. But there is another cause.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Harris County has spent almost $50 million over the past two years to hold illegal immigrants at the request of federal authorities. Over that time span, Harris County housed more than 30,000 detainees on immigration holds. That is more than two-and-a-half times what Travis County (the second ranking county) held during the same time period.

The reason for Houston's hospitality is the county's participation in two federal programs aimed at the immigrant community - 287(g) and Secure Communities. Under both programs, law enforcement officers in Harris County run inmates' fingerprints through an immigration database. Those that have "questionable" histories are reported to los federarles.

For its efforts, Harris County is reimbursed about $2 million by the federal government.

Critics of the programs, such as University of Houston law professor Michael Olivas said the programs encourage law enforcement agencies to overcharge immigrants. Alan Bernstein, chief apologist spokesman for the Harris County Sheriff's Office, has a different take on the matter. According to Mr. Bernstein, the immigrants sitting in the county jail on immigration detainers would be sitting in jail anyway so the programs aren't costing taxpayers any more money than would already have been spent.

But, conveniently, Mr. Bernstein seems to have forgotten that once an immigration detainer has been placed on a detainee he is held without bond. That means one less space to house an inmate.

Harris County has no business doing the work of federal immigration officials. As I have pointed out before, being in this country without the permission of the government is not a crime (albeit, coming into the country without permission is). Hiring illegal immigrants and not paying taxes is, however, against the law.

Many undocumented immigrants work to support their families here in the Houston area and back in their country of origin. They pay rent and they pay taxes. The taxes they pay help to fund the public schools and the county-run hospitals. They are here for the same reason my ancestors, and your's, came over generations ago -- to make a better life for themselves and their families.

These programs tear up families and punish children for the (alleged) sins of their parents. Funny that the "family values" folks who support Ted Cruz and the Tea Party have no qualms about tearing families apart, ain't it?

State Senator Tommy Williams (R- The Woodlands) argues that the federal government isn't doing its job and that states and localities need to be reimbursed for the number of detainees who are being held in our county jails. Mr. Williams seems to forget that no one forced counties to adopt these federal programs. No one came down from Washington and told local officials they were now going to be in charge of immigration policy on the ground.

Nope. The counties that are complaining about the cost of housing immigrants on federal detainers are the ones that decided to sign up to be junior immigration officials. If they don't like looking at the red numbers that indicate the amount of money they're spending, there is an easy solution -- just tell los federales they're no longer interested in doing their job.

At a time when we should be looking for ways to reduce our jail populations, programs that contribute to overcrowded jails should be questioned.

Building walls

Just the other day the U.S. Senate passed a historic immigration reform bill by a two-to-one margin. The bill would offer a pathway to citizenship for the millions of people who came to this country without our government's permission.

But the bill came with a huge cost - the increased militarization of our border with Mexico. The bill would call for 20,000 more border guards, increased surveillance (including drones) and more fencing along the border.

And for what?

Why is it do damn important to beef up border security to the south? Why did Republicans insist on more border security before they'd vote for the bill?

Racism. Pure and simple.

Those folks south of the border don't look like us. They don't talk like us.

White Republicans are fearful that their grip on power is withering away. Their message of hate and animosity toward the poor and working class won't sell to a changing population. But they will do what it takes to hold on to whatever power they can.

Just take a look at all the bills designed to restrict access to the polls. The purpose of voter ID laws isn't to prevent non-existent voter fraud; the purpose is to make it harder for the poor, the elderly and the immigrants to register to vote. Bills to reduce early voting periods are designed to make it harder for elderly and minority voters to get to the polls. And the opposition the Right has to granting citizenship to immigrants is rooted in their knowledge that as the voting populace becomes more and more diverse, their grip on power lessens.

Finally, lest we forget. Very few of us are native-born. We are, for the most part, all immigrants. Some of us came here with permission. Some did not. It is that diversity that makes us unique. It is that diversity that makes us a richer society.

Court strikes down provisions of anti-immigrant statute

On Monday the US Supreme Court struck down three provisions of Arizona's anti-immigrant statute but left stand the ability of law enforcement to ask motorists stopped for minor traffic offenses to provide proof of immigration status.

I guess we should be pleased that the Supremes thought the state legislature went just a wee bit too far by requiring immigrants to carry their immigration papers on them at all times. So much for that presumption of innocence, kid. The nine in robes also decreed that the police could no longer arrest immigrants without warrant if they thought the immigrant committed a crime that would lead to deportation.

There's no possible way such a scheme could ever lead the police to profile motorists, is there? Is there a chance that anyone with brown skin could find themselves under suspicion for not being in Arizona on the up-and-up?

But, lest you fear the law could lead to dark days ahead for immigrants, rest assured that Arizona governor Jan Brewer said the decision was a victory for the "rule of law" and that she was certain that the law would be implemented fairly by law enforcement officials.

Because you know, Ms. Brewer, that the police have never used a statute for the purpose of oppressing a group of people. The police have never used alleged traffic violations as a pretext for stopping a motorist. Of course Ms. Brewer has probably never found herself on the opposite side of a window as someone asks her to prove she's here legally.

Oh, that's right, Ms. Brewer is a whiter shade of pale.

Maybe Ms. Brewer and the backers of what's left of the law should take a look to their past to see just who's a guest in the Grand Canyon State and who's not. But for the government's campaign of genocide against the Native Americans, the makeup of Arizona would be quite different.

In the meantime, Justice Scalia had a conniption fit at the mere suggestion that President Obama might not enforce federal immigration law based on his decision not to deport young people who came to this country with their parents. While the President's decision was certainly an attempt to reach out to solidify his support in the Hispanic community, it was also a realization that you can't blame a child for the acts of a parent.

The Court's decision on Monday will open the door for the police in Arizona to profile motorists based on skin color and appearance. And you can count on it happening - no matter how much Ms. Brewer says otherwise.

Bring the children to me

Children have little or no say in what their parents do. That goes for children in the United States as well as for children in other parts of the world.

When a child's parents decided to make the trek north from Mexico to the United States, the kids are along for the ride. Wanna be mad at mama and daddy for coming across the river without the express written permission of the government? Fine. But don't take it out on the kids.

I have had clients who came to the states with their parents when they were children. These were folks who had spent their lives in Texas. They didn't know anyplace else.

But, despite the fact they had no life back in Mexico, they were subject to deportation.

Makes a lot of sense, huh? Send someone back to a country in which they have no life. A country they haven't lived in for a decade or more.

But finally someone in Washington has a little bit of sense. There are plenty of things that President Obama has done (or not done) to have issue with. His decision not to deport immigrants under the age of 30 whose parents brought them over when they were children is not one of those things.

People come to this country because they want a better life for themselves and for their children. They come here and bring their traditions and culture with them. It makes Texas a richer place. In our neighborhood alone, if you want Mexican, you're in luck. Vietnamese? Italian? Barbecue? Salvadoran? Thai? Drive up and down Long Point and you're bound to find what you're in the mood for.

How many countries have people lined up wanting to come in? Despite all the flaws in this country, people from around the world are willing to do whatever it takes to come here. Those who are up in arms about President Obama's pronouncement all seem to forget one little matter - this is a country of immigrants. With the exception of the Native Americans, none of our families are from here.

Judge decrees that defendants must waive attorney-client privilege

"My attorney has advised me that this plea will result in the following immigration consequences for me: __________."

This is the new admonishment that Marc Carter, the Presiding Judge of the 228th Judicial District Court has added to the plea papers used in that court.

What could possibly be wrong with the defendant acknowledging he understands the potential immigration consequences of his plea? What court, in the post-Padilla era wouldn't want it on the record that the defendant was aware that his plea could have some serious consequences as to his or her future in the United States? More cynically, what court wouldn't want to cut off those habeas writs alleging the defendant was unaware of the consequences of his plea off at the knees?

But let's think about this for a second. The last time I checked my conversations with my clients were privileged (with very rare exception). Only the client can waive that privilege.

Judge Carter is requiring defendants to waive attorney-client confidentiality. More than that, Judge Carter is requiring defendants who may not understand the privileges and protections they are afforded by law.

When entering a plea, a defendant necessarily waives his right to remain silent. But there is no such requirement that he waive attorney-client confidentiality. Any attorney who presents this paperwork to his client prior to a plea is asking that client to waive a right he or she may not even be aware they have. Any attorney who asks his client to sign this admonishment is knowingly violating a sacred trust.

Are we going to start carving up that privilege depending on the type of crime alleged or the immigration status of the defendant? Is asking a certain class of defendants to waive privilege a violation of the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause?

And then there's the little bitty problem that a defense attorney cannot tell a client exactly what the potential immigration consequences of plea could be. If the alleged conduct would constitute a felony under federal law, then the client may be subject to deportation. If the alleged conduct is a crime of dishonesty, the client may be deportable. If the client pleads guilty to a drug charge, he may be deportable. But what about immigration bonds and the pleadings los federales must file? What about the client's status and his history? These are all factors that play a role in how any immigration action might end.

And exactly how is this going to work when the defendant who is here without the blessing of our government is offered a reduced charge if he pleads guilty on the initial setting? Is that attorney going to have enough information to explain to his client what the implications of the plea may or may not be? Is that attorney going to know what his client's legal status is and how the court proceedings may affect that status? Will the court question the signing of the admonishment on the initial setting or be satisfied to have something to that effect on the record?

The admonishment is a bad idea for many different reasons. Judge Carter needs to reconsider the entire idea.

Admonishment - 228th JDC