June 14, 2003
Let The Police Enforce The (Immigration) Law!
By James R. Edwards Jr.
Also by James R.
Edwards Jr.:
Whatever Happened To Deporting Immigrants As A Public
Charge?
Imagine a would-be
serial killer ready to terrorize innocent Americans,
gunning down strangers simply for the thrill of watching
them die. Picture the police capturing him on some
unrelated offense, holding him, coming tantalizingly
close to saving countless innocents from death—then
letting him go. Cutting him loose because of technical
incompetence and political squeamishness, to go off and
kill. Does that sound like a
plot point in a cheap made-for-TV movie?
Actually, it’s
close to what happened last year in the case of the
D.C.-area sniper—an illegal immigrant whom cops arrested
before his killing spree and turned over to the INS,
which
promptly let him go. A Jamaican illegal, Malvo and
his mother — also an illegal alien — were
encountered by local police in December 2001. Uma
Sceon James and
John Mohammed were disputing who had custody of
Malvo. Police called the Border Patrol, whose agents in
Bellingham, Wash., arrested the illegal aliens. The
Border Patrol handed James and Malvo over to INS with
the understanding INS would hold them in detention until
removal, which is what the law
requires. However, the INS violated the law and
regulations and released the illegal alien pair, who
indeed fled.
I wish this were an
isolated, grotesque incident; in fact, it is an
illustration of how
the system usually works. Lee Malvo would have
walked free to kill in almost every state or
municipality in the country.
Thus Northampton
County, Pa., District Attorney John M. Morganelli has
cited the INS as being grossly uncooperative in
going after immigration violators. “Unfortunately,
while the influx of illegal aliens continues at full
throttle, as a local prosecutor I can honestly say that
there is little to no help from the federal government
concerning this issue,” Morganelli said. He told of
a case involving 12 illegal aliens committing identity
fraud using Social Security numbers. Yet immigration
agents “discourage this type of investigation,”
he said.
A new backgrounder
I've written for the Center for Immigration Studies ["Officers
Need Backup: The Role of State and Local Police in
Immigration Law Enforcement”] points out the
problems and offers some solutions. The bottom line:
greater use of state and local police officers in
enforcing immigration laws.
While the borders
themselves get lots of lip service, they
remain porous to criminals, smugglers, terrorists
and other lawbreakers.
But the nation's
interior is the soft underbelly.
The interior has
very little federal enforcement presence. The federal
immigration service has just 2,000 agents engaged in
enforcement for the whole country. And the Clinton
administration’s
implicit policy of nonenforcement remains in force.
But about 700,000
law enforcement officers patrol every American
community, every mile of road, 24 hours a day. They know
their area and can spot people, things and behavior that
are out of the ordinary. But these lawmen largely remain
an
untapped human resource in immigration law
enforcement.
Three main factors
cause this situation:
1) Lack of Clarity
Many people who
should know better are confused about the legal
authority of local cops over immigration violations. The
Bush Justice Department, in a draft legal opinion leaked
to the press last year, argues that states as sovereign
entities inherently possess authority to enforce federal
immigration laws, both civil and criminal.
This reading of the
Constitution and the law makes the most sense. Madison
in
Federalist 45 makes plain that states “retain
under the proposed Constitution a very extensive portion
of active sovereignty.” And a plain reading of the
Ninth and Tenth Amendments bears out this principle.
Attorney General
John Ashcroft has based his enforcement decisions on
this sovereignty principle where states and localities
are concerned. Local cops have been brought into
immigration enforcement under Ashcroft’s leadership in
renewed ways.
At least in the
Tenth Circuit, the courts have borne out the authority
of local and state police to enforce immigration laws.
But this is based more on state peace officer statutes
than the U.S. Constitution.
Liberal lawyers and
special interests throw up roadblocks. Some localities
such as New York City and Seattle have
adopted policies that prohibit local bureaucrats and
cops from cooperating with federal immigration
authorities.
2)
Lack of Information
Cops on the beat
don’t have timely, user-friendly access to information
about immigration violators. The current system requires
cops, who may be standing on the roadside with a carload
of illegal aliens, to make an additional inquiry which
may take hours, even a day or more, to get an answer.
But the information
is out there—and available in a centralized repository,
the
NCIC database. Cops need to know that they’re
supposed to use it—even when enforcing our nation’s
neglected immigration laws. Efficient information flow
is essential if these “first responders” are truly to
help secure the homeland.
3)
Lack of Cash
It takes resources
to enforce the law. Police departments need a way to
transport captured illegal aliens and other immigration
violators into federal custody. The lack of resources
for jail space, alien transportation and the like
deprives states and localities from playing a larger
role in immigration enforcement.
The solution: hold
immigration violators accountable for their actions -
and turn that accountability into resources for law
enforcement. This principle would have the added benefit
of a deterrent effect—if chances improve that an
immigration violator will be caught, will be processed,
will be sent home, will suffer consequences, then the
price of breaking the law just went up.
Fewer people would then be willing to take a chance.
Most local police
forces want to do the right thing. But they get
frustrated when they face barriers at every turn—mixed
signals about their legal authority, scant access to
information, resources stretched too thin.
The key is to
empower local and state police with clear authority,
information and more resources. Local, state and federal
enforcers must all start treating an immigration
violation as a “precursor crime”—because that’s
usually what it is.
This criminal
infrastructure, combined with the media’s
mythologized image of the virtuous illegal – mere
“Mexican gardeners” doing
“jobs Americans won’t do” etc. - puts all of us at
risk.
James Edward, [email
him] coauthor of
The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform
and an adjunct fellow with the Hudson Institute, wrote
the
Center for Immigration Studies
backgrounder,
Officers Need Backup: The Role of State and Local Police
in Immigration Law Enforcement.