PROPOSED LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
Since September 11, 2001, efforts to give local law enforcement agencies authority to
enforce civil immigration laws have increased. These efforts, however, will not serve
to improve national security, and may actually undermine our safety. Recent efforts to
expand local law enforcement authority are inconsistent with a longstanding Justice
Department legal opinion that found local law enforcement have no inherent authority to
enforce civil immigration violations.
In April 2002 the press leaked a draft legal opinion by the Justice Department that
purported to find "inherent authority" for state and local police to enforce civil
immigration laws. This proposal was met by a firestorm of opposition from state and
local police forces, who argued that such authority would undermine their ability to
gain the trust of immigrant residents, and dismantle gains made in reducing crime since
the advent of "community policing." Despite this vocal opposition, proposed legislation
to mandate enforcement of federal civil and criminal immigration laws by state and local
police officers is now surfacing in Congress. In July 2003, Representative Charlie
Norwood (R-GA) introduced the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal
(CLEAR) Act (H.R. 2671) with Reps. Allen Boyd (D-FL), Melissa Hart (R-PA), and
Nathan Deal (R-GA). The CLEAR Act coerces states into enforcing federal immigration
laws. Under the CLEAR Act, states who fail to provide certain background information
about apprehended immigrants to the Justice Department and the DHS, or who fail to
enforce civil immigration laws within two years of the law's enactment, would no
longer be eligible for federal funding that compensates states for the cost of
incarcerating undocumented immigrants convicted of a crime. The CLEAR Act also
provides states with additional financial incentives to enforce federal immigration laws.
The Senate version of the CLEAR Act, the Homeland Security Enhancement Act (S.
1906), is sponsored by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Zell Miller (D-GA). Its
provisions are more damaging than those of the CLEAR Act, and if enacted, would
result in even less access to police protection for immigrants. 1
Safety in the Community
The possible public safety repercussions of legislation granting local police authority to
enforce immigration law are devastating. If newcomers and their families view local
police as immigration agents, they will be discouraged from reporting crimes or serving
as witnesses. Police attribute plummeting crime rates to the "community policing"
philosophy, where local police work to gain the trust and confidence of the residents
they are charged with protecting. Should police be granted the authority to enforce civil
immigration laws, undocumented immigrants and their U.S. citizen family members
would not come forward to report crimes, fires, and other hazards.
National Security
While proponents of enabling local law enforcement to enforce civil immigration laws
maintain that this will improve national security, such enforcement may actually prevent
the apprehension of suspected terrorists by making immigrants less likely to cooperate
with police. Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism at the CIA, warns
about the dangers of "alienating the very communities that we need to depend upon for
early warning and intelligence". 2 Furthermore, law enforcement agencies are neither
trained nor equipped to deal with complex issues of immigration law.
Civil Rights Abuses and Wrongful Arrests
In addition to the public safety concerns, authorizing local police to enforce federal
immigration laws ensures civil rights abuses and wrongful arrests. Nearly eleven
million naturalized U.S. citizens, and more than twenty-five million native-born
Americans of Latin American and Asian descent reside in the United States. Citizens
are not required to carry proof of citizenship with them. Yet some police officers
would inevitably stop and question people of certain ethnic backgrounds, who speak
foreign languages, or who have accents - leading to violations of the rights of U.S.
citizens and legal residents whose only offense is "appearing foreign." Eric Nishimoto,
Spokesperson for the Ventura County Sheriff's Department in California, said: "We're
not in favor of having our department being responsible for [immigration enforcement].
The number one risk is the potential for civil rights violations. Right now we're involved
in preventing any kind of racial profiling and this type of function could open us to that
kind of risk... We feel our officers are not equipped to make that kind of determination
of who is legal."
Solution
The 1996 Justice Department legal opinion that found local law enforcement to have no
inherent authority in enforcing civil immigration violations should stand. In addition to
compromising community safety and opening the door to civil rights abuses, police
officers do not have appropriate funding or training to be immigration agents.
Community organizing efforts can reinforce the importance of keeping these positions
separate for the safety of the entire community. Many states and cities already have
laws and ordinances against police enforcement of immigration laws. Uniting in
coalition with state and local police who oppose the CLEAR Act and any other efforts
to mandate local police to enforce immigration laws can be fruitful in halting this
dangerous and inappropriate expansion of police authority.
For more information on the CLEAR Act and other similar legislation, visit the website of
the National Immigration Forum at http://www.immigrationforum.org.
footnotes
1. For more information about proposed legislation, visit the website of the National
Immigration Forum.
2. Center for Migration Studies Special Report, "Immigration Policy, Law Enforcement
and National Security," (2003).
Since September 11, 2001, efforts to give local law enforcement agencies authority to
enforce civil immigration laws have increased. These efforts, however, will not serve
to improve national security, and may actually undermine our safety. Recent efforts to
expand local law enforcement authority are inconsistent with a longstanding Justice
Department legal opinion that found local law enforcement have no inherent authority to
enforce civil immigration violations.
In April 2002 the press leaked a draft legal opinion by the Justice Department that
purported to find "inherent authority" for state and local police to enforce civil
immigration laws. This proposal was met by a firestorm of opposition from state and
local police forces, who argued that such authority would undermine their ability to
gain the trust of immigrant residents, and dismantle gains made in reducing crime since
the advent of "community policing." Despite this vocal opposition, proposed legislation
to mandate enforcement of federal civil and criminal immigration laws by state and local
police officers is now surfacing in Congress. In July 2003, Representative Charlie
Norwood (R-GA) introduced the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal
(CLEAR) Act (H.R. 2671) with Reps. Allen Boyd (D-FL), Melissa Hart (R-PA), and
Nathan Deal (R-GA). The CLEAR Act coerces states into enforcing federal immigration
laws. Under the CLEAR Act, states who fail to provide certain background information
about apprehended immigrants to the Justice Department and the DHS, or who fail to
enforce civil immigration laws within two years of the law's enactment, would no
longer be eligible for federal funding that compensates states for the cost of
incarcerating undocumented immigrants convicted of a crime. The CLEAR Act also
provides states with additional financial incentives to enforce federal immigration laws.
The Senate version of the CLEAR Act, the Homeland Security Enhancement Act (S.
1906), is sponsored by Senators Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Zell Miller (D-GA). Its
provisions are more damaging than those of the CLEAR Act, and if enacted, would
result in even less access to police protection for immigrants. 1
Safety in the Community
The possible public safety repercussions of legislation granting local police authority to
enforce immigration law are devastating. If newcomers and their families view local
police as immigration agents, they will be discouraged from reporting crimes or serving
as witnesses. Police attribute plummeting crime rates to the "community policing"
philosophy, where local police work to gain the trust and confidence of the residents
they are charged with protecting. Should police be granted the authority to enforce civil
immigration laws, undocumented immigrants and their U.S. citizen family members
would not come forward to report crimes, fires, and other hazards.
National Security
While proponents of enabling local law enforcement to enforce civil immigration laws
maintain that this will improve national security, such enforcement may actually prevent
the apprehension of suspected terrorists by making immigrants less likely to cooperate
with police. Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism at the CIA, warns
about the dangers of "alienating the very communities that we need to depend upon for
early warning and intelligence". 2 Furthermore, law enforcement agencies are neither
trained nor equipped to deal with complex issues of immigration law.
Civil Rights Abuses and Wrongful Arrests
In addition to the public safety concerns, authorizing local police to enforce federal
immigration laws ensures civil rights abuses and wrongful arrests. Nearly eleven
million naturalized U.S. citizens, and more than twenty-five million native-born
Americans of Latin American and Asian descent reside in the United States. Citizens
are not required to carry proof of citizenship with them. Yet some police officers
would inevitably stop and question people of certain ethnic backgrounds, who speak
foreign languages, or who have accents - leading to violations of the rights of U.S.
citizens and legal residents whose only offense is "appearing foreign." Eric Nishimoto,
Spokesperson for the Ventura County Sheriff's Department in California, said: "We're
not in favor of having our department being responsible for [immigration enforcement].
The number one risk is the potential for civil rights violations. Right now we're involved
in preventing any kind of racial profiling and this type of function could open us to that
kind of risk... We feel our officers are not equipped to make that kind of determination
of who is legal."
Solution
The 1996 Justice Department legal opinion that found local law enforcement to have no
inherent authority in enforcing civil immigration violations should stand. In addition to
compromising community safety and opening the door to civil rights abuses, police
officers do not have appropriate funding or training to be immigration agents.
Community organizing efforts can reinforce the importance of keeping these positions
separate for the safety of the entire community. Many states and cities already have
laws and ordinances against police enforcement of immigration laws. Uniting in
coalition with state and local police who oppose the CLEAR Act and any other efforts
to mandate local police to enforce immigration laws can be fruitful in halting this
dangerous and inappropriate expansion of police authority.
For more information on the CLEAR Act and other similar legislation, visit the website of
the National Immigration Forum at http://www.immigrationforum.org.
footnotes
1. For more information about proposed legislation, visit the website of the National
Immigration Forum.
2. Center for Migration Studies Special Report, "Immigration Policy, Law Enforcement
and National Security," (2003).
415 Michigan Ave., NE
Suite 150
Washington, DC 20017
202.635.2556
202.635.2649 fax
media inquiries:
e-mail me
(202) 635-5810
Suite 150
Washington, DC 20017
202.635.2556
202.635.2649 fax
media inquiries:
e-mail me
(202) 635-5810
Advocacy Topics
Alternatives to Detention
Asylees and Refugees
Asylum-Seekers
Barriers to Family Reunification
Board of Immigration Appeals
Border Enforcement and Immigrant
Deaths
Citizenship
Consular Identification Documents
Detention
Department of Homeland Security
Driver's License Restrictions
Immigration Processing Delays
Indefinite Detention
Legalization
Local Law Enforcement
Mandatory Detention
National Security and Immigration
Unaccompanied Minors
Undocumented Immigrants:
State/Local Initiatives
Video Conferencing
Voter Registration
Alternatives to Detention
Asylees and Refugees
Asylum-Seekers
Barriers to Family Reunification
Board of Immigration Appeals
Border Enforcement and Immigrant
Deaths
Citizenship
Consular Identification Documents
Detention
Department of Homeland Security
Driver's License Restrictions
Immigration Processing Delays
Indefinite Detention
Legalization
Local Law Enforcement
Mandatory Detention
National Security and Immigration
Unaccompanied Minors
Undocumented Immigrants:
State/Local Initiatives
Video Conferencing
Voter Registration
NATIONAL PROGRAMS | LEGALIZATION | ADVOCACY | RELIGIOUS IMMIGRATION SERVICES | ADMINISTRATION & DEVELOPMENT | TRAINING & TECHNICAL SUPPORT
HOME | CONTACT US | E-MAIL LIST | DONATE NOW
