* Police interactions, unless you want people refusing to cooperate with police.
* Hospitals, unless you want people refusing to seek medical care for communicable diseases.
* Courtrooms, unless you want people to skip court or refuse to testify as witnesses.
My wife likes watching murder investigation TV shows. Sometimes the homicide detectives will talk to petty criminals like street-level drug dealers, prostitutes, and the like. The first thing the detectives do is assure them that they're there about a murder and couldn't care less about the other minor stuff. They're not going to arrest some guy selling weed when they want to hear his story about something he witnessed.
Well, same thing here but on a bigger stage.
That's not an actual outcome that would occur. Cases can proceed if the victim is unavailable. Do we let a rapist off because their victim had an untimely death? Obviously not.
In the case of a deportee, if we have a sworn statement from them, or can remotely depose them, then their testimony would be included in the trial.
In a world where we deport people without due process to subcontracted megaprisons in El Salvador “if” is doing a lot of work.
This is the point of things like immunity, and laws against witness tampering, and why the Mafia spent so much effort ensuring you knew you would die if you took the stand.
You're describing an entirely different situation. Unless you're saying that deporting someone makes them wholly unable to participate in the process which is what I'm precisely disagreeing with. Cooperating can include things like simply filling out an affidavit or participating in remote depositions.
> and why the Mafia spent so much effort ensuring you knew you would die if you took the stand.
Removing someone from the country does not kill them.
Edit: the charge isn't for refusing to enforce. It's for smuggling someone out in attempt to actively impede their arrest.