July 21, the Register reported the name of ILAP, an immigration advocacy group, incorrectly. We reported their name to be Immigration Legal Advocacy Project and the article has since been corrected to reflect their correct name: Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project.

ILAP executive director, Sue Roche, Esq. also provided further information that Two Bridges Regional Jail (TBRJ) Administrator James Bailey was unable to answer for the original article. Specifically, asked where ICE detainees are sent upon prison release, her reply in a July 24 email stated: "This really depends on the individual case. The Immigration Court in Chelmsford, Massachusetts now has jurisdiction over removal proceedings for individuals who reside in Maine. There is also an immigration court in Boston, but after the Chelmsford court was opened last year, most Maine cases are held in Chelmsford.”

Roche said ILAP has advised some individuals at TBRJ on civil (not criminal) immigration matters. And she took exception to Bailey’s report that, “All our inmates are here due to criminal charges.” Roche responded, “But most immigrant detainees are not there on criminal charges. They are there on civil immigration charges. In our experience, most of those being detained do not have criminal records.” When asked for clarification, regarding inmates specifically at TBRJ versus others across Maine, she replied, “Yes, this is regarding individuals we have encountered at Two Bridges as well as across Maine.”

Some of what may seem like contradictory statements could be attributed to general challenges pertaining to a changed legal landscape. Alex Nowrasteh of Cato Institute, in a 2021 report for Carnegie Corporation, states, “Immigration law is second only to the income tax code in legal complexity.” The differences between administrative warrants and judicial warrants are often not common knowledge.

Administrative warrants, also known as immigration warrants, are issued by ICE and other authorized officials within the Department of Homeland Security. They do not carry a judge or magistrate's signature. They authorize the arrest of people suspected of violating immigration law, but do not allow for search of private premises. Judicial warrants are issued by a court and signed by a judge or magistrate. They allow law enforcement to make arrests, conduct searches and seize evidence based on meeting legal standards for probable cause. Judicial warrants are considered more protective because a neutral judge has reviewed the evidence before authorizing actions. Roche offers National Immigration Law Center’s “Warrants and Subpoenas” web resource as a good guide for understanding the differences between the types of warrants.

“TBRJ does not accept anyone on an administrative warrant. I am not able to say that all inmates are here on a judicial warrant as some are or may be here for direct charges; meaning that they were charged by a law enforcement officer or agency and not a warrant signed by a judge. This is true for all inmates here, county, state and federal,” wrote Bailey in a July 29 statement to the Register.

Immigration rights are further complicated by the immigrants’ unique circumstances. Non-natives possess only certain limited due process rights, which are defined by Congress and prior Supreme Court precedents, and have changed over time. The specific due process rights an immigrant may have can also differ depending on their status. Congress.gov offers an annotated Constitution, complete with historical precedents and detailed footnotes regarding due process for immigrants and protections extended “to all aliens within the United States, including those who entered unlawfully, declaring that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law. The Court reasoned that aliens in the United States, regardless of their legal status, are recognized as persons guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.” Further, the Supreme Court has held that ICE’s arrest authority for civil immigration violations remains limited by prohibitions set forth in the Fourth Amendment, regarding searches and seizures.