Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > US Immigration
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| No | 39% | 130 votes | Total: 331 votes | |
| Yes | 61% | 201 votes |
No
Created on: July 15, 2009 Last Updated: July 21, 2009
Historically, the authority of state and local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration law has been viewed as limited to enforcement of the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)(8 U.S.C. 1101), which has both criminal and civil provisions. Congress has increasingly of late been introducing proposals to expand the role of local and state agencies in the enforcement of civil provisions of the INA. This 'cut before measuring' mentality could set dangerous precedents, and could lead to bigger problems than those it is intended to solve.
Anti-immigration fervor and sentiment in the United States is nothing new. It has reared its ugly head periodically in our history. It seemed to spike after the events of September 11, 2001; strangely enough with our southern neighbor, Mexico, being a bigger target than people of Middle Eastern or Arab descent.
There are an estimated 11 million undocumented aliens in the U.S. and most of them come from south of the border and they are scattered throughout the country. The calls for better control of the borders, especially after 9/11, has sparked an interest in the role that local and state law enforcement should play. Some states, like Alabama and Florida, have negotiated agreements with the federal government to allow their local and state police to perform new duties related to immigration enforcement.
Opponents of the expanded role of local authorities in this area have some valid arguments. Not enough study has been made of the long-term implications of this move. Local law enforcement is charged with protection of the community within its jurisdiction, is trained, funded and equipped to perform that function. Diverting local police to enforce civil provisions of a federal statute takes them away from their primary function - protection of the citizens of their community whose taxes fund them.
This also appears to violate the spirit and intent of the Constitution, which envisioned a clear split between the authorities of federal and local entities. Local police engaged in rounding and detaining undocumented aliens, who are not violating local laws, or committing criminal acts, raises the image of 'storm troopers.' Given the complexities of the INA, adequately preparing local agencies to perform these functions, also takes them away from their primary duties.
Local or state police raiding businesses, or stopping people to ask for proof of citizenship, could erode public trust in the police, which is essential if they are to maintain law and order in the community. Police stopping people on the street to 'see their papers' is an image that most Americans should probably resent, as anyone who has visited Russia will probably attest.
We were founded as a nation with separation of powers and delineation of jurisdictions. Blurring the lines in this way could have a negative effect in the long run. The founding fathers intended for local government to have supreme authority in all matters local. They knew what they were doing, and had it right.
Federal laws should be enforced by federal agencies, except in cases where the security of a community is threatened; otherwise, local and state law enforcement should keep out of the fray.
Learn more about this author, Charles Ray.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Created on: September 30, 2009 Last Updated: October 06, 2009
Illegal immigration: Should states take on the burden of enforcement?
A better question might be can the states take on the burden of enforcement; can anyone take on the burden of enforcement?
Article 1, Section 8, of the United States Constitution lists the powers of Congress. Among those listed is: To establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
The present uniform rule of naturalization relating to illegal aliens is The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of signed by President Clinton in 1996. The section covering those illegals presently in the United States is in TITLE IIIINSPECTION, APPREHENSION, DETENTION, ADJUDICATION, AND REMOVAL OF INADMISSIBLE AND DEPORTABLE ALIENS. (Link to Immigration Act).
In scattered sections, between pages 531 and 567 of this 732 page Act, it outlines which illegal aliens can be deported.
The first mention of 'deportable' appears on page 531. It covers those who have committed crimes or those who apply to legally enter the country but enter illegally after they were refused or enter before their hearing.
All the other mentions of 'deport' in the act cover only those aliens involved in some form of crime, beginning with major felonies and terrorism and continuing down the spectrum to high-speed fleeing from an Immigration Officer and domestic violence,. In these cases, state and local law enforcement may be involved. Even with that, there are numerous exceptions to deportation to those involved in crime: things like battered women or those seeking political asylum.
Another exception to deporting criminal illegal aliens would be the sanctuary cities like those listed in Wikipedia as having sanctuary ordinances: Washington, D.C.; New York City; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco; Santa Ana; San Diego; Salt Lake City; Phoenix; Dallas; Houston; Austin; Detroit; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; New Haven, Connecticut; and Portland, Maine. There the authorities handle illegal alien crimes as if they were done by legal citizens. Emigration is not notified; deportation does not ensue.
The Act gives those in the Unites States illegally who haven't committed crimes a status of illegally present. If an illegally present alien leaves VOLUNTARILY, through normal immigration exit protocols, they are ineligible to apply for legal entry until a specified time has passed (depending on how long they had been in the U.S. illegally). If they should illegally reenter, they can be deported. If they sneak out and then back in, they are still only illegally present.
Although the following section exists, Present in Violation of Law-Any alien who is present in the Unites sates in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable, all references to it circle back to the sections on criminals. All further mentions of 'deport' anywhere in the act circle back to the section referring to those involved in crime. Nowhere does it call for, or set up any mechanism for the deportation of those "illegally present."
There are many reasons why the illegal aliens should be deported. It stands to reason that terrorist and criminals must be deported after serving their prison sentences. They are truly covered by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. State and local law enforcement agencies are involved in enforcing that aspect of the law.
But what about those who are only 'illegally present?' They are the ones who outrage a large portion of the American citizens by worsening an already sour economy. They are the ones who weren't medically screened when they entered the country; causing cases of hepatitis and other diseases to rise after years of falling. The sheer numbers of routine treatments for somewhere between 13- and 20 million illegals (no one knows for sure) are proving to be more than many of our doctors and hospitals can handle; not to mention the cost to taxpayers. Many sneak in to have a baby here where they not only get better medical care than in their home country, the baby is instantly an American citizin that can become an anchor baby, either keeping the parents from being deported or becoming a ward of the state if they are. And that's still not including the illegals who sneak in specifically seeking expensive subsidized medical treatments that they can't afford or don't exist in their own countries.
By our Constitution, children born in the United States to illegal alien parents are citizens and have the right to a public education; however, many of their parents and other illegals are going to school here too; all with the complicity of the school districts which receive additional tax money for each student. This is placing an unfair tax burden on the residents of those school districts.
Illegal aliens have flooded the job markets. They work for substandard wages, undercutting American laborers. Unscrupulous employers multiply the problem by paying them with cash to avoid withhold Social Security and other payroll deductions. Without a paper trail the illegal aliens avoid paying income tax; they thereby use our services without paying anything into them. The job situation has deteriorated until there are now six American citizens out of work for every job opening. "They are only taking jobs that Americans won't do," is no longer accurate. As unemployment benefits run out, American citizens are looking for any job that can feed their families and save their homes.
Taxpayers are seeking relief from the increasing mass of illegally present aliens, but by the present law, state and local law enforcement couldn't take on the burden of enforcement if they wanted to and could afford it. Even the federal agencies can't do anything unless a new law is passed that criminalizes illegally present aliens in the United States.
As a footnote, many politicians are less than enthusiastic about deporting illegals. They say that deporting all the illegal aliens would be too expensive and would take years. How much will it cost and how long will it take if we wait ten years to start. There are rumors that the politicians want to offer the illegals an amnesty program so that they can become citizens-citizens that will vote for them and keep them in power. That may be a mistake. Illegal aliens are a hot-button issue. Pushing through legislation to make them citizens may see those politicians swept out of office at the next election.
Learn more about this author, Mike Patrick.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.