Here:
A judge who threatened deportation to Mexico for an illegal immigrant seeking a restraining order against her husband has been dropped from the roster of part-time judges used by the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Judge Pro Tem Bruce R. Fink, a family law attorney from Orange, was removed from the list of about 1,200 attorneys who are used as substitute judges for the county, court spokesman Allan Parachini said Friday.
Fink was sitting pro tem in a courtroom granting restraining orders when a woman approached him in a domestic violence case, asking for a TRO against her allegedly abusive husband.
Fink’s response?
“I hate the immigration laws that we have, but I think the bailiff could take you to the immigration services and send you to Mexico,” the judge responded, according to a court transcript. “Is that what you guys want?”
Fink later warned Gonzalez that he was going to count to 20 and expected her to disappear by the time he was finished.
“One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. When I get to 20, she gets arrested and goes to Mexico,” Fink said, according to the transcript.
Genius. Sheer genius. Because the police certainly won’t roll to a domestic violence call if she’s illegal, and the emergency room won’t treat her, and the coroner won’t have to receive or prep her body.
Immigration – or, more accurately, enforcement of existing immigration laws – is a complex subject.
But guess what. Even the most egregious illegal immigrant has the right to be secure in their person here.
Actually the domestic partner should have been arrested for harboring an illegal alien. After he/she/it was in custody then the plaintiff should have been deported.
So what exactly did this judge do wrong? The Law is the Law after all, and the Law says that illegals are to be deported. How stupid does one have to be to bring a complaint before a Judge when one’s very presence there violates the Law? Do We the People want individuals of such idiocy to be allowed among us, or worse, breed here? How can we maintain our National Greatness under such circumstances?
bq. But guess what. Even the most egregious illegal immigrant has the right to be secure in their person here.
Bzzzt. Their homes can be raided, and their property seized, and their ass thrown in the clink, and thenceforth out of the country, all in accordance with the Law. So much for being “secure in their person.” What you mean, of course, is “secure in their person _against people who aren’t agents of the State_ of course.
Perhaps Judge Fink had a good reason for what he did. For example, if the domestic abuser was also a child molester of less-than-average height (gravitationally disadvantaged). What would happen to him if he went to jail, and was too short to reach the water fountains?
Oh, the “post-Schiavo attack on the judiciary” just rolls on and on. The LA Times is going to be so mad.
I wonder how many women in her situation realize they have standing to bring complaints to the Superior Court. I hope LA’s social services network is letting people know that they are entitled to do this.
And if they could pass out free toilet paper with the immigration code on it so these people could wipe their asses with our laws literally as well as figuratively, that would be swell too.
_1,200 attorneys who are used as substitute judges for the county_
The mind boggles. You guys have serious problems.
“Even the most egregious illegal immigrant has the right to be secure in their person here.”
Quite so. And the fastest way to get her out of the grasp of her abuser is to return her to her home country.
It’s an interesting question, really.
Certainly, it’s against the law for a man to abuse his girlfriend, regardless of her immigration status.
But can the courts really enforce a legal restriction on one party’s location (away from her) when the other party is clearly in violation of legal restrictions on their location (i.e. in the country illegally)?
What a fink!
“So what exactly did this judge do wrong?”
Well, that depends on your point of view.
If you feel the sanctuary laws of LA are a valid use of local power to negate a federal law, then what he did wrong was to deny equal protection to someone within the court’s jurisdiction. That’s a violation of her 14th Amendment rights, for which the gentleman in question is individually liable under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (currently Title 42, sec. 1983).
If you feel the same sanctuary laws are invalid or unconstitutional or improper, than what he did wrong was giving her twenty seconds instead of having her arrested and deported at once.
Here’s the really fun part. The question of which they are — valid or not — turns on the validity of the 14th Amendment’s incorporation of such matters into Federal jurisdiction. Questions about whether the 14th was legally ratified have existed since it was declared ratified by the Executive branch. Though the SCOTUS has refused to hear cases touching on the matter, the debate has occasionally reached the floor of Congress.
(It’s too complicated to put in a comment, but in short, in order to reach the appropriate number of “yes” votes, the Congress forcibly required, through military occupation, that several states change their vote from “no” to “yes”; but refused to let other states change their votes from “yes” to “no.” There were several other procedural irregularities which seem to be in contravention to the rules; but it was one of the Reconstruction amendments, and so most people seem to feel it falls under the _vae victus_ principle.)
If the 14th Amendment is valid, then the sanctuary laws are improper, and the woman should be deported.
If the 14th Amendment is invalid, then the sanctuary laws may be proper — but the “equal protection” clause does not exist, and the judge may then deny her protections as he pleases.
I’m afraid I have to disagree with the general conclusion.
I agree the judge was a jerk, but that doesn’t change the fact that not “even the most egregious illegal immigrant has the right to be secure in their person here.” Just the opposite is true: even the least egregious illegal immigrant has no right to be secure in her person _here_. While she is here, she has the right to be secure in her person; but I see no reason, as a point of law, that the state’s duty to protect her couldn’t be performed by safely escorting her to a deportation station, from which it would safely put her on a plane.
What we’re actually doing, I gather, is issuing a restraining order, so that we will use some part of our police resources to prevent any harm coming to her as she goes about her daily business of breaking the law. I’m sure this makes sense to someone, but I’m not him.
Grim,
Excellent short lesson on the 14th Amendment and how it bears on this issue of local sanctuary laws. Your argument is, in my mind, persuasive.
Sorry, LA, I’m with those who read this somewhat contrary to what you intended. The goal of protecting this woman from potential abuse is fully and adequately served by turning her over the immigration officials.
The judge is not a federal officer; he’s got no authority or responsibility over immigration. He shouldn’t be asking her immigration status any more than he should be asking whether she’s paid all of her taxes, whether she has any unpaid parking tickets or has committed any crimes.
It isn’t certain that sending this woman back to Mexico would keep her safe. Depending on how the family ties work, it may even put her in substantially more danger. You’d need a detailed hearing to establish that.
The principlr A.L. is invoking is that everyone has a right to be secure in their person here, as a basic premise of civilized society. There was a time once when “outlaw” meant exactly that – outside the law, and therefore outside its protection. That is no longer the M.O., and some of the laws being criticized here have underpinnings that deserve a closer look.
L.A. and other jurisdictions have passed sanctuary laws for many reasons, and in many forms. But one reason for sanctuary laws that immunize illegal immigrants from prosecution for reporting crimes to the police et. al. is the realization that if none of these people can talk to the authorities, it becomes much easier for a dedicated criminal class to hide among them and make whole areas into “no-go zones.” Since such people do not limit their prey to illegal immigrants, there are basic public order and public safety reasons to support measures that serve to give illegal immigrants unpenalized access when reporting crimes and misdemeanors.
Seeking a restraining order against an abusive husband is one use of these privileges – and looked at in that light, I can’t stand with the “deport her” crowd even though I’m very enforcement-oriented on immigration.
Betcha the abusive husband is illegal, too. If the judge is gonna start deporting people, the least he could do is to deport the one being violent.
The 14th Amendment needs a serious re-write, until such a time, immigration law will continue to be next to useless.
AL, I think a bit of clarification is in order. You wrote in your post:
But according to the story you linked:
There was no allegation of domestic violence in the complaint. Do a little googling and the woman’s complaint was about “verbal and emotional” abuse by her husband of six years who threatened to turn her in to immigration services.
I see, so the same States which bitch and complain that the federal government isn’t doing enough to secure our borders and that illegal aliens are draining their local services are actively passing laws to provide them with safe harbor? Seems to me that they ought to welcome the opportunity to deport as many of them as they can at the earliest opportunity.
Thorley –
I heard the story from a pair of lawyers who were in the courts that day; they claimed that the TRO was requested for fear of physical abuse; and I’ll note that she’s currently in a shelter (for battered women), and that while I’m not 100% up to date on shelter policies, when I knew more about it there was intake screening to assure that the women sheltered need to be.
I’ll defer to their judgement…
A.L.
Thorley, if the State of California wants to pass a law requiring a TRO petitioner to present proof of citizenship as a condition of a judge entering the TRO, then the judge should ask immigration status. Since they apparantly haven’t, the judge is not doing his job, he’s wasting judicial resourcs and he’s engaged in the type of public policy making that the legislature is supposed to make.
Except that’s not what happened. What happened is a woman went into court seeking a TRO against her husband alleging that he threatened to report her for breaking a federal law. The judge asked her if this was true (after she raised her own immigration status in her complaint), she confirmed that it was and he told her that now that she has confessed in open court to being a law-breaker that if she remained, he would report her.
_The judge asked her if this was true (after she raised her own immigration status in her complaint)_
Her status was not relevant. “My husband says he will beat me because I’m a lesbian.” “Are you a lesbian?” It doesn’t matter. The only relevant issue is whether she presented enough evidence of a risk of harm to herself. “Immigration experts”:http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-judge21jul21,1,1504210.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california have said “Fink put himself in the predicament when he asked Gonzalez her legal status.”
Being a lesbian is now against the law? That’s going to upset some folks.
There are two lines of thought here that I’d like to address.
1) “The judge isn’t a federal officer; whether she’s breaking immigration law isn’t his business.”
It may not be his business to inquire into it, but it certainly is his business to act on it if lawbreaking is brought to his attention. Indeed, it is yours — if you come across evidence of a crime and don’t report it to the proper authorities, you are yourself breaking the law.
Every citizen, whether an officer of the law or not, has a duty to the common peace and lawful order. It does not end at helping to see that the laws are enforced — if you come across an accident, you are bound by law to render aid to the victims.
This is your duty. It is his. The idea that the law is the business only of certain officials is one of the most pernicious bad ideas in modern thought. It is not so. Every institution of the law, from the citizen’s arrest to the ability to swear out warrants with a magistrate, expects that the law will be enforced not by professionals, but by the citizenry at large.
The law is the business of us all.
2) Joe — You say, “It isn’t certain that sending this woman back to Mexico would keep her safe.” That is true. We have a duty to the security of her person only while she is here, however, and she has no right to be here.
She still has a right to the security of her person in Mexico. It’s the duty of the Mexican government to secure that right, not our government.
That is not meant to be hardhearted; it is just the way things are. When we can levy a tax on Mexico for the provision of their citizens, then we may assume the duty of protecting their rights. Until we do so, each case in which we extend asylum, permit them to remain, and extend them protection of our laws, each such case is an act of charity, not a duty that we are bound to perform.
The question of whether or not a given case merits charity is always a complicated one. It becomes more complicated (ethically; it becomes a far simpler matter practically) when you are paying for the charity with tax money drawn from other people under threat of prison.
Under those circumstances, charity has to be practiced with the utmost care and discretion. A blanket policy such as you advocate offers opportunities for neither.
You raise a better point when you assert that sanctuary laws permit the police to gain information about organized criminals operating in illegal-immigrant enclaves. This is one occasion, though, when an even more effective and obvious solution for “draining the swamp” presents itself. To whit, it is unclear why we should _have_ large enclaves of illegal immigrants at all.
Grim, your position and mine are not mutually exclusive. I believe you are correct, in that “…it is unclear why we should have large enclaves of illegal immigrants at all.”
And so I support an enforcement-oriented approach that drains the swamp, followed thereafter by a system that allows a designated, controllable number through the now-secure border to seek employment under whatever terms the Congress should deem appropriate (until it’s controllable, of course, the terms don’t matter because they’re unenforceable and so the debate is premature).
In the meantime, however, the obligations of localities to their citizens in terms of public order and safety are not suspended. Which means that sanctuary laws relating to the reporting and enforcement of crimes and misdemeanors are necessary.
In other words, the two issues are separate. So long as there are illegal immigrants – and that will pretty much always be true – sanctuary laws relating to criminal activity are appropriate. This does not in any way prevent one from acting to secure the border with a fence, punish employers for hiring illegals, and other measures that “drain the swamp” without creating an ancillary danger to public order and safety.
Grim good point on the law being the duty of all (although I believe the “duty to render aid” depends on the existence of a prior relationship). In this case it would have been perfectly valid for the judge to report the lawbreaker which he should have done IMO so she could be deported back to her country of origin.
Something else strikes me as suspicious about this case. Apparently in order to get a TRO on the grounds of domestic violence in California she would have had to allege that she was in fear of immediate danger or had suffered harm. The judge in this case stated and no one has contradicted him that no mention of violence was ever made in the hearing (you can get them for other matters such as harassment). Only that her husband threatened to call immigration to have her deported.
However the VAWA has a provision that would prevent her immediate deportation if she claimed to be a victim of domestic violence. If she doesn’t allege it (as she apparently didn’t when she first appeared before the judge to get her initial TRO), she might have still been deported. Only by claiming to be a victim of domestic violence does she stay in the country.
Joe:
You’re right — our positions on the point are very close. From the point of view of draining the swamp so that we can address these dangerous criminal organizations, as long as the border is secured, any of the three approaches would work (outright deportation, outright amnesty, or some combination of the two). Gentlemen can advocate any of the positions based on other merits, but the key problem will have been resolved.
I still have a problem with the idea of sanctuary laws. First of all, I don’t see how they can be constitutional — no issue has been more thoroughly explored in US constitutional history than nullification. If they are not constitutional, the question of whether or not they are useful is pointless.
Second, I don’t think the idea is sound. The problem is that you have a degree of dangerous lawlessness in the cities; the solution is said to be just a little more lawlessness, this time on the part of the government.
This strikes me as similar to the advice young men give each other to “cure” a hangover with ‘just a little hair of the dog that bit you.’ There are two problems with this approach: first, it doesn’t work that well, and second, while it isn’t a very good way to deal with a hangover, it does make a good start on turning your a hangover into a three-day-drunk.
Given those two objections — and adding the fact that we could resolve the question using any of the three broad sets of solutions on the table — I see no reason to support such things.
Of course, justice can sometimes require exceptions to be made from the law. I understand the importance of that, in certain individual cases — so long as there are limits, so that the exception does not become the rule.
Sanctuary from the law made a certain sense when it used to apply only to churches; after all, the Church was expending its own resources to provide the sanctuary, and was therefore limited as a practical matter both in how many such cases they could provide, and for how long.
LA is pleased to offer sanctuary using, not only tax monies extracted from its own citizens, but plenty of Federal resources as well — that is, taking monies from citizens nationwide to provide for the welfare of its sanctuary cases.
This creates a situation in which the lawlessness is not exceptional, but usual. This is no way to run a railroad, even were it constitutional. Since it isn’t that either, I can’t but find the whole idea of these sanctuary laws appalling.