Do Articles 9, 10, and 11 on the Peterborough warrant violate state and/or federal law(s) and Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution?
Article 10 violates numerous New Hampshire RSAs regarding voting and affidavits (RSA 659:13; RSA 654:7).
The federal law regarding petition Articles 9 and 11 is 8 USC Section 1373 (b)(3), which expressedly “prohibits, or in any way restrict” the “exchanging” of “immigration status, lawful or unlawful,” with any “federal, state or local government entity.”
The original Article 11 clearly violates this law: “… and will refuse to share such information regarding any person with the United States Immigration and Customs(ICE) …”. A “No” vote on this article seems obvious.
Article 9 would also violate this law: “… employees of the town of Peterborough shall not inquire about, report, or act upon any person’s immigration status…” However, at the deliberative session on April 4, state representative Ivy Vann amended Article 9, using language, verbatim, from the ACLU’s “Freedom Cities Action Guide,” which includes the phrase “civil immigration law.”
Civil laws involve private disputes between persons or organizations. Criminal law involves punishing an action that is considered to be harmful to society as a whole. And then there are civil penalties and criminal penalties.
There are non-citizens in the U.S. with valid work, student or visitation visas. When their visas expire and these non-citizens then fail to exit the country, they are considered to be an “unlawful presence,” which is not a crime. But it is a violation of federal immigration law to remain in the country without legal authorization, and is punishable by civil penalties, not criminal ones. The primary civil penalty is deportation or removal.
“Unlawful presence” is not the same as “improper entry.” According to Title 18 of the US Code and 8 USC Section 1325, it is a crime for any non-citizen who enters or attempts to enter the United States without the proper authority, etc. There are criminal penalties should these non-citizens be apprehended and charged with this crime (penalties for conviction include criminal incarceration and additional civil fines).
The non-citizen with the expired visa, should they leave the U.S., whether voluntarily or under a deportation order, and then attempt to re-enter the U.S. at a future date without proper authorization, can then be charged with a criminal violation of our immigration laws. It is the unauthorized re-entry that is the crime, not the earlier civil violation of being an “unlawful presence” with an expired visa.
If our federal government imposes penalties on “sanctuary cities” for violating federal laws by withholding federal funding, how can we be outraged at a consequence of our own illegal actions? Federal funding for the Main Street bridge projects are approximately $8 million. Are you aware that the Peterborough Fire Department 2016 revenues list $247,000 from a DHS/FEMA Grant; that in 2016, the NH Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence (funding Monadnock Center for Violence Prevention) received $239, 532 in grant monies from the USDOJ; and the ConVal proposed 2017-2018 Revenues lists $1,121,535 from federal grants? Do we raise the tax rate again, should we “lose” these federal monies?
The NH Municipal Association provides this guidance: “…the board of selectmen is not required to act on an article that is illegal even if town meeting has voted to approve it …” Our Select Board can still go to Superior Court and seek a declaratory judgment about the legality of these articles, should any or all be passed by voters on May 9.
I believe that most (or all) citizens of Peterborough support the United States’ legal immigration and refugee programs. If there had been a petition asking for the formation of a town committee, whose purpose was to develop a process where our town would chose a local (volunteer) household to host a refugee or immigrant family, then I would have voted an absolute “Yes”. But clearly these petitions are not about humanitarianism, but rather a rather ill-advised and thinly veiled attempt at civil disobedience.
As citizens, we cannot pick and chose what laws we follow and which ones we don’t, without there being consequences to our society and to those who chose to violate the laws. So why should a foreign national, here on an expired visa, be held to a different standard? Or better yet, why should an illegal alien, who has “improperly entered” our country (a crime, remember), be “protected” by a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy of the town of Peterborough?
And why should I, a law-abiding, tax-paying property owner, who will vote “No” on all three, be forced to be an involuntary co-conspirator in violating state and federal law should these three articles pass on May 9.
Teresa Cadorette lives in Peterborough.