 |
Immigration Action Center |
The growing immigration crisis has prompted an increasing number of state and local governments to take action to defend their communities. NumbersUSA developed this webpage to encourage and facilitate similar action in other communities. This page highlights some of the measures under consideration by state and local governments and discusses related issues; it is not intended as a comprehensive look at state and local action. NumbersUSA is constantly updating this page to provide examples of steps that local communities can take to minimize the impact of the federal government's abdication of responsibility. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
With "comprehensive" immigration reform off Congress' front burner for the time being, an increasing number of state and local officials are trying to do something about their communities' rising illegal alien populations – and about the costs they impart. Dozens of local governments and all 50 state legislatures have responded by proposing and/or enacting measures to mitigate the impact. In addition, an increasing number of state and local law enforcement agencies are signing up for Federal training in the enforcement of immigration laws under the 287(g) program. States also have an inherent authority to protect the public welfare. This authority includes the regulation and licensing of businesses and motor vehicle drivers, among other things. State and local governments may set any criteria for such licensing as long as they do not violate the Constitution or conflict with Federal law. As a result, business licenses may be conditioned on the business owner agreeing to verify that all employees are legally authorized to work in the United States, but they may not be conditioned on the owner employing only U.S.-born workers, as this would be unconstitutional discrimination. Despite strong public support for state and local action, open borders advocates and a mostly sympathetic media actively oppose state and local involvement in immigration matters. Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) have promised to litigate all proposed state and local measures.
There are, however, some state and local governments that have proposed or enacted measures in violation of Federal immigration law that give "sanctuary" to illegal aliens or provide benefits such as driver's licenses, public housing, in-state tuition, and financial assistance. Such contravention of Federal law would carry a price – namely, the loss of Federal funds – if the Bush administration was interested in challenging recalcitrant localities, which it has not done in the past. On a positive note, the Bush administration on September 26, 2007, sued the State of Illinois in an effort to block a new state law barring employers from using a Federal database (E-Verify) to verify that immigrant job applicants are legally authorized to work in the United States. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a much-needed trend.
The Need for State and Local Immigration Law Enforcement of Immigration Laws:
State and local police are badly needed to help overwhelmed federal immigration authorities apprehend illegal aliens in the interior of our country. Illegal aliens outnumber Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents by over 5,000 to one. Only about 2,000 ICE agents are responsible for enforcing the immigration laws in the interior of our country. This number is too small to apprehend more than a fraction of the illegal alien population now here.
More than 600,000 state and local law enforcement officers already come into contact with illegal aliens every day. Many of them, in the course of their normal duties on their regular beat, routinely observe and even stop illegal aliens — for example, for traffic violations. Many of these officers want to help, but are unsure of their authority and so do nothing. The officers who do detain illegal aliens, and then contact federal immigration officials, are frequently told to release the aliens because of a lack of federal personnel to pick them up or process them. Some officers are even prohibited from cooperating with federal officials by state or local laws called "sanctuary policies," which violate federal law. The courts have agreed that state and local police can enforce any federal law, unless Congress has specifically forbidden enforcement of a particular law. Since Congress has not forbidden the states from enforcing federal immigration laws—both criminal and civil—state and local police have the inherent authority to enforce them.
The 287(g) Program: A Force Multiplier
Any state or political subdivision may initiate a 287(g) agreement on behalf of its law enforcement officers by contacting ICE. Once a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the state or locality and the Department of Homeland Security is signed, the state or local officers participate in a four- to five-week course on immigration law and enforcement. Once the officers are certified, they can count on the assistance of ICE agents as they perform the immigration functions for which they were trained. The utility of this program is borne out by its documented success to date. As of August 21, 2007, 23 state and local law-enforcement agencies have struck agreements with ICE, and about 75 others have submitted applications. Most agreements were signed in the prior 18 months. To date, ICE has trained 416 officers, who, in turn, have made over 22,000 arrests in conjunction with Federal law enforcement officials.
State Governments Step Up to the Plate
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), state lawmakers in all 50 states introduced 1,404 pieces of immigration-related legislation between January 1 and August 31 of this year. This is more than two and one-half times the amount introduced in 2006. As you will note in the NCSL chart below (click here to see NCSL's full study), 43 states enacted 182 bills and resolutions speaking to everyday Americans' concerns about immigration – more than twice the amount last year.
Here are just a few examples of the types of measures that were enacted by states across the country:
Unfortunately, in 2007 and in years previous, several ill-informed state legislatures have rejected implementation of the Federal REAL ID Act, which: (1) establishes minimum standards for the issuance of driver's licenses and ID cards that states must meet if these documents are to be recognized by the Federal government as secure proof of identity; and (2) by making a visitor's license expire when his/her visa expires, cracks down on the ability of visa overstayers (they, too, are illegal aliens) to drive. In rebuffing REAL ID, states are forgoing precious opportunities to encourage illegal aliens to "self-deport," a key component in the only viable (and, unfortunately, oft-overlooked) solution to the illegal immigration crisis: Attrition Through Enforcement.
Hazelton Ordinance Voided in Federal Court
Although sanctuary policies are illegal under Federal law, two states (Maine and New Mexico) and a multitude of cities and counties (click here for a partial list) maintain policies that forbid officials from asking about a person's immigration status or informing Federal immigration authorities about the presence of illegal aliens. These sanctuary policies may prevent police from inquiring about a person's immigration status during the course of routine duties, or from stopping or detaining a person solely due to immigration status. They may also prevent state public assistance agencies and institutions of higher education from inquiring about an applicant's immigration status in order to determine eligibility for public benefits. The resulting safe havens make it easier for illegal aliens, including criminal aliens, to live undetected in the United States.
Sanctuary policies hinder the ability of police to combat increasingly violent criminal alien gangs like MS-13. Such gangs engage in murder as well as the trafficking of drugs and illegal aliens. There are indications that MS-13 may be cooperating with al-Qaeda in smuggling potential terrorists and/or weapons across the border. It should be noted that sanctuary policies directly violate Federal law. Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) provides that "[s]tates and localities may not adopt policies, formally or informally, that prohibit employees from communicating with DHS regarding the immigration status of individuals." However, neither DHS nor the Department of Justice (DOJ)has ever challenged a sanctuary policy. Soon after IIRIRA was passed, the City of New York challenged this provision in court. When the court upheld the law and ordered the city to rescind its sanctuary policy, the city responded by modifying it – but only slightly. Subsequently, DOJ has declined to challenge the new sanctuary policy. On October 8, 2007, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, a union representing more than 2,200 officers and detectives in the Phoenix Police Department, called for an end to sanctuary policies in their area. A related article quotes Mark Spencer, the union's president, as saying, "If we allow a little bit of lawlessness, what prevents more lawlessness from occurring." Spencer wants to end the city's sanctuary policy because it makes streets more dangerous for police officers and civilians alike. Some local law enforcement officials have expressed concern in that their officers may not enforce Federal immigration law because illegal aliens have not committed a felony and, as such, the local officers may not have the authority. In fact, this distinction is irrelevant since the courts have agreed that state and local police have inherent authority to enforce all federal immigration laws against violators, whether the violation is a civil or a criminal offense. Misdemeanor vs. Felony
The first time an alien crosses the border illegally, he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor. The second and subsequent times constitute felonies. Both are criminal violations. The only distinction between a misdemeanor and a felony offense is the length of potential jail time; any crime punishable with up to one year’s imprisonment is a misdemeanor, while an offense punishable with more than one year is a felony.
8 USC 1325. Improper entry by alien (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts.
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties. *** 18 USC 911. Citizen of the United States
Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. 18 USC 1546. Fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents
(a) Whoever knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, or utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives any such visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card, or other document prescribed by statute or regulation for entry into or as evidence of authorized stay or employment in the United States, knowing it to be forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained; or
Whoever, when applying for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, or other document required for entry into the United States, or for admission to the United States personates another, or falsely appears in the name of a deceased individual, or evades or attempts to evade the immigration laws by appearing under an assumed or fictitious name without disclosing his true identity, or sells or otherwise disposes of, or offers to sell or otherwise dispose of, or utters, such visa, permit, or other document, to any person not authorized by law to receive such document; or Whoever knowingly makes under oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, knowingly subscribes as true, any false statement with respect to a material fact in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder, or knowingly presents any such application, affidavit, or other document which contains any such false statement or which fails to contain any reasonable basis in law or fact - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both. (b) Whoever uses - (1) an identification document, knowing (or having reason to know) that the document was not issued lawfully for the use of the possessor, (2) an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document is false, or (3) a false attestation, for the purpose of satisfying a requirement of section 274A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. (c) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States, or any activity authorized under title V of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (18 U.S.C. note prec. 3481). For purposes of this section, the term "State" means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(PDF format [Adobe Acrobat Reader needed to view; click 
Adopted on December 5, 2006, the ordinance seeks to discourage landlords from renting to illegal immigrants. A written complaint about landlords suspected of renting to illegal immigrants would trigger an investigation. The County would try to verify with the federal government the immigration status of a person seeking to use, occupy, lease or rent a dwelling in the county. The ordinance, which also requires landlords to maintain information on tenants' immigration status, is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2007.
