The Immigration Executive Order: What’s Really In It

Governor Donald Carcieri’s executive order concerning illegal immigration basically has two sections, a set of provisions that apply to the state government’s hiring procedures, and a set of provisions that apply to law enforcement.
The first three provisions apply to state government; the first two specifically to hiring…

1. The Department of Administration shall register and use the federal government’s E-Verify program to electronically verify the employment eligibility of new hires in the Executive Branch and the validity of their Social Security numbers to ensure that all employees of the Executive Branch are legally eligible to be employed in the United States and take appropriate action against those that are not eligible for employment, consistent with federal and state law. For purposes of this Order, the Executive Branch of government is considered to be all agencies and departments in the Executive Branch, excluding the offices of general officers, said officers being the Department of Attorney General, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, and General Treasurer.
2. The Department of Administration shall require that all persons and businesses, including grantees, contractors and their subcontractors and vendors doing business with the State of Rhode Island also register with and utilize the services of the E-Verify program to ensure compliance with federal and state law.
I’ll have a bit more to say about these provisions in an upcoming post.
Provision 3 requires the state to notify victims of identity theft discovered by enforcement of provisions 1 and 2 that a crime has been perpetrated against them…
3. The Directors of each department and state agency in the Executive Branch shall attempt to notify any person whose identity was stolen or otherwise improperly used by any person in order receive any benefit, including but not limited to child care, health care, any government issued identification card, including driver’s license and non-driver’s license identification, welfare or employment.
Do progessive leaders like Lt. Governor Elizabeth Roberts and Reverend Eliseo Nogueras really object to letting people who have had their identities stolen know about it as soon as possible?
Objections to this portion of the executive order provide some fascinating (though unintended) insight into the progressive mindset. Rhode Island’s progressives don’t seem to have any room in their hearts and minds for regular, law-abiding citizens who become the victims of crimes through no fault of their own. They’ve decided that the job of government is to take care of special interests and identity politics groups, whatever the cost to everyone else. Crime victims don’t rate as enough of a special interest to merit any attention, so, according to the Lieutenant Governor and other progressives who want the entire executive order repealed, if you’re a victim of identity theft, you are own your own; government has more important things to do than helping protect you from crimes.
Provisions 4 through 7 in the executive order refer specifically to the law-enforcing branches of government, the state police and department of corrections. Provision 4 authorizes training for the state police for immigration-related matters…
4. The Rhode Island State Police, pursuant to the authority set forth in Section 287(g) of IIRAIRA and INA, shall work to secure a MOA with ICE to receive training necessary to enable them to assist ICE personnel in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Provision 5 provides for training for corrections personnel, and for corrections personnel to work under the joint supervision of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement…
5. The Department of Corrections shall also work with ICE officials to secure an MOA that will define the scope of state correctional personnel authority to perform certain immigration law enforcement functions which shall be subject to the cross-supervision of ICE and permit certain correctional personnel to complete appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn ICE officers to combat illegal immigration issues at the Adult Correctional Institution, consistent with federal and state law.
So far, there’s nothing more than here than facilitating inter-agency co-operation to enforce existing law under the jurisdiction of ICE. If ICE asks for help, the Governor wants state law enforcement officials to have the proper training to provide it. Isn’t proper training the best way to reduce the excesses of so-called “profiling” that progressives fret about?
Provision 6 will probably become the most controversial section…
6. It is urged that all law enforcement officials, including state and local law enforcement agencies take steps to support the enforcement of federal immigration laws by investigating and determining the immigration status of all non-citizens taken into custody, incarcerated, or under investigation for any crime and notifying federal authorities of all illegal immigrants discovered as a result of such investigations.
Most importantly, provision 6 does not authorize state and local law enforcement agencies to begin enforcing Federal immigration laws on their own. Only after an individual has been “taken into custody”, “incarcerated”, or is “under investigation” for some other violation of the laws — applicable to citizen and non-citizen alike — can an investigation under provision 6 commence, and the only responsibility of state and local authorities have resulting from such investigations is to notify the Federal government that they may have an illegal immigrant in their custody.
However, the “taken into custody” clause of provision 6 could potentially present a problem. With just the usual information that is collected about individuals “taken into custody”, is it possible to determine whether they are citizens or non-citizens? (Over to you, Joe Bernstein…). If that initial determination cannot be made, then technically section 6 can’t be applied, since law enforcement officials have to already know that the person is a non-citizen for it to activate.
Individuals “incarcerated” or “under investigation”, on the other hand, don’t present any reasonable problem here. Once someone is under investigation for one crime, any other crimes that they may have committed become fair game for further investigation. (Though I can understand why some Rhode Island public officials might wish to undermine this principle of the law!)
Finally, section 7 applies, again, only to people already tried and convicted by the justice system for some other crime…
7. The Parole Board and the Department of Corrections shall work cooperatively with ICE personnel to provide for the parole and deportation of criminal aliens.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
16 years ago

A casual glance over at the ProJo’s survey on this shows overwhelming support for the Gov on this. The Progressives and the “Take Back America from the Evil White People” crowd like La Raza are wrong, know they’re wrong and will thrash about like fish on a pier to no avail.
I expect that Steve Brown will take time out of his busy schedule
{Edited; when you think someone has seriously crossed a line of decency, treat it with a serious tone}
to file a suit on behalf of people who have NO rights as non-citizens as soon as the first person at the ACI is identified as an illegal and set for deportation back to their country of origin.

16 years ago

What are the consequences for non-compliance? Especially in Provision 2 requiring organizations doing business with the state. Presumably, organizations failing to register with E-Verify would forfeit any contracts with the state.
The language seems broad enough to even include organizations representing employees. The order may have a mechanism to void public employment contracts. Imagine the resistance then.

joe bernstein
joe bernstein
16 years ago

Greg-right on!!
{Less-than-civil descritpion of individual or individuals only peripherally related to the Executive Order deleted}

joe bernstein
joe bernstein
16 years ago

There are two means of identifying potential persons of interest-place of birth,which is a normal pedigree question upon arrest/commitment to facility and criminal record based on fingerprints.
If fingerprint history shows a previous incidence(s)of processing by US Border Patrol;INS Investigations Branch(no longer in existence)or ICE that is sufficient to conduct an investigation regardless of claimed place of birth.
If place of birth is outside US or territories/commonwealth,then alienage is presumptive in accordance with immigration laws as interpreted by the Board of Immigration Appeals(appellate tribunal for administrative immigration cases)-presumption of alienage is rebuttable-i.e.US citizen at birth abroad;naturalized US citizen;derivative US citizen-HOWEVER there is a legal basis for further investigation,which in the case of a legitimate US citizen is very easy to determine status-note that in either instance that race and specific national origin are not the elements which initiate the investigation-how does the ACLLU answer this?They can’t.

joe bernstein
joe bernstein
16 years ago

In general law enforcement agencies other than ICE should not engage in proactive investigation of immigration status of individuals absent an underlying arrest/detention for violations within the jurisdiction of the agency involved-an exception would be where a felony is apparently being committed in the presence of the officer(s)-i.e.a traffic stop of a van where it is observed that a large group of people is contained within and have apparently been using improvised toilet facilities;are in dirty conditions indicative of a long trip without a chance to wash up;have soiled clothing possibly as a result of a border crossing;don’t speak English,etc-all of which would indicate a smuggling/transporting violation of 8USC1324,which is a serious felony with potential incarceration of up to 5 years per alien transported/smuggled

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.