crimmigration.com

The intersection of criminal law and immigration law

  • Home
  • About César
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Book Tour
  • Talks & Media

Report: Racial profiling & immigration enforcement in Tennessee

A coalition of Tennessee immigrants’ rights activists issued a report alleging discriminatory targeting of immigrants in Bedford County, a rural county south of Nashville. Sarah White & Salmun Kazerounian, The Forgotten Constitution: Racial Profiling and Immigration Enforcement in Bedford County, Tennessee (Sept. 2011). The report’s authors assert that “To be an immigrant or refugee in Bedford County is to be treated with suspicion or outright hostility by one’s own government, whose offices still exhibit vestiges of the overt racial apartheid of years past.” White & Kazerounian at 5.

This assertion is based on a number of recent policing trends. “[A] disproportionate number of Latino drivers were arrested for traffic violations,” the report explains. White & Kazerounian at 6. Once arrested, “[i]mmigrants are more likely to be held for long periods of time for minor traffic violations and to be held unlawfully without bond or after posting bond as a ‘courtesy’ for ICE when there is no ICE detainer.” White & Kazerounian at 8. This despite the fact that, the report explains, Tennessee’s constitution recognizes a right to bail and no state or federal statute or regulation requires a “courtesy” call to ICE. White & Kazerounian at 8-9.

One finding of particular interest to me that highlights the divide that often exists between constitutional law and practice is the report’s statement that “[i]mmigrant criminal defendants assigned to the public defender are often not advised of the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction pursuant to Padilla [v. Kentucky].” White & Kazerounian at 10. As regular crImmigration.com readers know, Padilla recognized that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel requires criminal defense attorneys to advise non-citizen clients about the possibility of deportation prior to entering a guilty plea.

Though the report does not explain why public defenders are not advising clients about immigration consequences, one possible explanation that jumps into my mind (admittedly I have no specific knowledge of Bedford County) is that the public defenders in this rural area do not have the resources necessary to become familiar with the nuances of immigration law about which Padilla requires they advise their clients. Unlike defenders in metropolitan areas, small-town criminal defense attorneys often lack the ability to hire someone whose job it is to either identify adverse immigration consequences or train other attorneys to recognize these pitfalls.

Similarly, rural attorneys lack the continuing legal education resources that many lawyers in urban areas use to maintain abreast of the latest developments in an area of law. This is particularly important for an area of law like crImmigration that changes constantly.

Unfortunately, many state courts have had difficulty putting Padilla into effect, as I discussed in When State Courts Meet Padilla in the Loyola Journal of Public Interest Law, an article cited by the Iowa Court of Appeals. It seems to me that the only way to solve this problem is by devoting additional resources to training the various actors involved in criminal prosecutions—prosecutors, defense attorneys (appointed, retained, and public defenders), and judges (including law clerks)—about the crime-based grounds of removal. When State Courts Meet Padilla at 329-330. Until that happens, my fear is that Padilla’s promise will remain unrealized.

Thanks to Professor Fran Ansley (University of Tennessee) for bringing this wonderful report to my attention.

  • Share via Facebook
  • Share via LinkedIn
  • Share via Twitter
  • Share via Email

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Posted by César on September 27, 2011 on 9:00 am 3 Comments
Filed Under: commentaries, local immigration policing, Padilla v. Kentucky

Comments

  1. Pradeep Parashar says

    September 25, 2011 at 5:07 am

    This research is an excellent and this opinion is a public opinion, eachand every U.S. citizen must respect it especially those who are acting in the official capacity under color of law.
    Thanks to professor Fran Ansley.

    Reply
  2. Vibram Five Finger Shoes says

    December 19, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    Vibram Five Finger Shoes

    http://www.montinispa.com/casamontini/index.asp authentic personalized kansas city chiefs jerseys http://www.montinispa.com/contattaci/index.asp nike nfl jerseys youth http://www.gfcmercado.com/link.asp stella mccartney bag http://www.kgva.be/include6/index.asp belstaff aynsley 2902 Belstaff hasta 70 % dto

    Reply
  3. good point says

    March 31, 2014 at 7:23 am

    good point

    In those two last sentences, we’re quite certain of who’s doing what. They have also seen some success in film and with their Broadway musical ‘The Book of Mormon.

    Reply

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Subscribe


Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court says gap in conviction records hurts migrant
  • Abolish ICE
  • Federal court enjoins 100-day deportation pause
  • ICE issues enforcement priorities
  • Immigration possibilities & challenges
  • Criminal bars, policing changes, & meaningful reforms in proposed legislation

Search

Social Media

Blawg 100 Honoree

The information contained on these pages must not be considered legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. This work by www.crImmigration.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.