t’s
a little known but appalling fact that the number of immigrants with
criminal convictions deported from the United States has skyrocketed
over the past two decades. It has gone from just under 6,000 in 1986 to
more than 79,000 in 2003.
In light of these statistics, it’s more
important than ever that immigrants having the misfortune to come in
contact with the criminal justice system for even the smallest
infraction be informed as to how the system works so they don't become
one of those numbers.
To that end, the City Council’s Immigration Committee
held a hearing on Resolution No. 240, sponsored by Council Member Miguel
Martinez, in support of State Assembly Bill A.05267. This legislation
requires that, before pleading guilty to whatever charge, large or
small, every noncitizen be told of the full ramifications that may ensue
for them as an immigrant.
Kendall
Stewart, Chair of the committee, opened the hearing by giving some
background about how the current law works. As things stand now, if
noncitizen defendants enter a guilty plea or are found guilty and
convicted, in addition to serving their sentences, they may face
deportation, exclusion from admission to the United States, or denial of
naturalization.
While New York State law currently requires courts to
provide this information before accepting guilty pleas in felony cases,
the information is often given too late or not at all, leaving many
immigrants unaware of the negative effect that entering a guilty plea
may have on their ability to remain in the country. Furthermore, this
information is not provided in misdemeanor or violation cases, even
though they can result in the same consequences.
Among those giving testimony were Claudia Slovinsky,
representing the New York City Bar Association, Atty. Bryan Lonegan from
the Legal Aid Society, Aarti Shahani with Families for Freedom, and
Raquel Batista, for the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrants.
Also
testifying was Marianne Yang, Director of the Immigrant Defense Project
of the New York State Defenders Association. She explained that in 1996
Congress' sweeping changes to immigration laws expanded the criminal
grounds for detention and removal so that even relatively minor single
offenses - such as many misdemeanors and even some violations that are
not crimes under New York law - can trigger mandatory detention and
removal.
Yang said that over the years, their project has
received thousands of calls and letters from New York City immigrants
who are at risk of immigration detention and/or removal based on past
criminal dispositions. "Scores of these residents who contacted us were
removed, or continue living in New York at risk of removal, for having
pled guilty to New York misdemeanors or even violations," Yang stated.
She said her organization tells immigrants who once
entered a guilty plea but have not yet been placed in immigration
proceedings that their traveling abroad, applying for citizenship, and
even applying to renew their Green Cards often trigger immigration
enforcement action. Affected immigrants and their families essentially
live with the constant threat of deportation hanging over their heads.
Yang gave numerous examples of New York misdemeanor
or violation offenses that may make an immigrant removable from the US
and/or ineligible for citizenship, even, in many cases, where the
immigrant may have served no jail time for the offense. They included
such minor infractions as subway turnstile jumping. A lawful permanent
resident with a single violation for unlawful possession of marijuana is
barred from citizenship and, under some circumstances, deportable
without any avenue of relief.
Yang gave the example of a young woman from St.
Lucia, a lawful permanent resident here with her lawfully residing
family. However, because of one guilty plea to a marijuana violation
when she was a teenager, she found herself in handcuffs when she
returned to New York after visiting her St. Lucian grandmother. The
young woman spent the next three years in seven detention facilities
across the US.
She had not received any warning during her criminal
proceedings that such a result would ensue from her guilty plea. Nor was
she ever informed that she could have pled to an alternative crime for
which she would have received a New York youthful offender disposition,
thus avoiding this terrible experience for her family and herself.
In closing, Yang urged the Immigration Committee to
support reform of New York's immigration warning system so that the
meaningless distinction between felony pleas and pleas to lesser
offenses is eliminated, and to render the immigration warning more
meaningful by providing a possible remedy if that warning is not given.
"Such reform would promote greater fairness to noncitizen defendants in
criminal proceedings," she concluded, "greater confidence in the
criminal justice system among New York's diverse population, and
much-needed protection of our immigrant communities."
