@Ohiodad51: I agree that the executive has plenary authority over immigration. I think we’re talking about a more narrow issue though: limits on the federal spending power as applied to education funding. That would be a new law, not an old one, since so far as I know the education funding has never been tied to reporting requirements for immigration purposes.
@barrons: I’m not sure what those links have to do with sanctuary campuses?
@Demosthenes49, I think I am losing you. If we are talking about new conditions on grant money enacted by congress, the only limit is that the restriction is clearly stated and related to the general welfare. This is not the Sebellius case.
@Ohiodad51: Per South Dakota v. Dole, the restriction must be related to the general welfare, as you note. However there also needs to be sufficient nexus between the funds and the restriction. (Specifically, it must be “reasonably calculated to address this particular impediment to a purpose for which the funds are expended.”) So, checking on immigration status would need to be calculated to address an impediment to the expenditure of educational aid. I’m not convinced, though I agree it is possible, that such a nexus exists.
@Demosthenes49 wrote:
Well, The U-Wisconsin link illustrates how to effectuate a warrantless arrest in the absence of exigent circumstances: Get the subject to confess on camera. The story accompanying the video says that campus police had been investigating the case for three months - more than enough time obtain a warrant. This may explain why the arresting officer was at pains to explain that the suspect “was not in custody” (at approximately 12:08 minutes into the video) until at some point the suspect simply started making a series of incriminating statements. The video also illustrates how the courts have watered down Miranda warnings to the point of meaningless. Any bystander could tell the suspect was not free to go of his own volition. But, the courts say otherwise.
OTOH, if immigration authorities want to expend taxpayer dollars to surveill each and every DACA student in order to ascertain when and where on campus they may be apprehended without a warrant - I say, have at it.
@Demosthenes49 , I doubt it would make any difference. There is no provision for educational spending in the constitution anyway, so cutting it off for any reason should not matter.
@circuitrider: I’m afraid I don’t understand what Miranda or warrantless arrests have to do with sanctuary campuses either.
@TooOld4School: If Congress were separately empowered to intercede in education then they wouldn’t need to worry about the Spending Clause, they could just invoke the Education Clause. Congress can use the spending power to do things they aren’t otherwise empowered to do (like education), but that power has limits. It’s not free rein to spend however they want and withhold whenever they want (see South Dakota v. Dole for the first, Sebellius and the medicaid coercion argument for the second). All I’m saying is that educational funding may not be the proper vehicle to require universities to report undocumented students.
Arrest. Attachment. Seizure. A rose is a rose. If an action is subject to habeus corpus, I don’t care what you call it.
I fail to see how this thread is not politics. Since I have been warned about speaking about anything political, I will defer.
This thread is not at all political. No one is saying what they want or do not want to happen; they are discussing a set of laws and how they think they affect some current college students, and how they think those laws may change or be enforced differently with a new administration. I think this thread is interesting and pertinent to issues in the college world.
The following is from an immigration law firm’s website:
There are many immigration officials have the authority to arrest and detain non-citizens living illegally in the United States. INA § 287(a)(2), grants arrest authority without a warrant to Immigration officials if they have “reason to believe that the alien … is in the United States in violation of any [immigration] law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.”
Once arrested, the individual should be examined by an immigration officer, on his or her right to enter or remain in the United States “without unnecessary delay”. If it appears to the officer that the person arrested has violated the immigration laws, then the officer will begin the process for a removal (deportation) proceedings or begin expedited removal, as applicable.
ICE can hold an individual arrested without a warrant for 48 hours, or longer “in the event of emergency or other extraordinary circumstance.”
Just a note of caution for those following along at home, but there are at least two different discussions going on here. Those of us who are either confirmed or presumed members of the Professional BS’ers Union are debating the limits of Congressional power under the Taxing and Spending clause in Article 1 of the US Constitution, and whether a hypothetical law passed under that provision which “tagged” reporting on students’ resident status to reciept of funding for this or that would pass constitutional muster.
I think that @circuitrider is talking about the standard of proof necessary to effect any type of arrest or detention under the 4th amendment and whether a college has any 4th amendment rights when a student is arrested or detained.
On the substance of the thread, and as I have said before, I think the professor has it right. This is a symbolic gesture that isn’t going to make a hair’s difference at the end of the day.
From a U-Houston Law Prof:
Thanks, @bluebayou for that very helpful article. I’d just like to finish out the last paragraph you quoted:
I am less convinced than that college president that the next administration will not raid schools. I do agree that sanctuary campuses are not likely to be terribly effective unless they have their own law enforcement arm. The school can be as sanctuary as it likes, but that doesn’t matter much if the local PD is still playing along.
They’ve publicly stated that they will be going after criminals and unless, a college is harboring felons…
Adding Pitzer:
The California State University System (CSU)
Columbia University
The University of Oregon
Oregon State
Pitzer College (CA)
Wesleyan University (CT)
Here is an interesting article about this issue at Emory, that makes the not inconsequential point that state funding may be at issue because of this issue, not just federal funds.
^So, they’re going to wind up drafting legislation that says, breaking state or federal law will result in the state withholding state funds. Isn’t that already written down somewhere?
circuit, it will be much easier to start a list of colleges that will participate with ICE…