I recently interviewed Harry DeMell, an immigration lawyer and member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, about states taking immigration policy into their own hands.
Schupak: Harry, you've said that we need greater government legal action in the area of immigration and deportation, yet you've been a strong critic of the states that have taken immigration enforcement into their own hands.
DeMell: Immigration is federal responsibility. This idea that every level of government has to get involved with a problem is a bad idea. The Supreme Court has recently accepted for decision the case of Arizona V the United States. The issue to be decided is the issue of the immigration laws as applied to the idea of federalism.
Schupak: This issue seems timely.
DeMell: Yes. States and localities have been enacting their own immigration legislation and this has created a conflict of laws.
Schupak: So why do states feel that they need to have their own immigration laws?
DeMell: Because the federal government has dropped the ball in this area. There is a drug war going on in Mexico and the federal government seems to be unconcerned about it. Those who live near the border see the problem and demand action. For political reasons the rest of the country looks the other way.
Let's face the facts: In the area of visa and immigration enforcement state and local governments are simply attempting to fill the void.
Schupak: Isn't that good?
DeMell: We need to control our borders. But if every state or municipality enacts their own immigration laws, we would have hundreds of contradictory immigration laws, which would result in sheer chaos. I believe it's clear that the Supreme Court, when they decide Arizona v. U.S., will either strike down these laws or make rules that significantly curtail them.
If a state sets up it's own army, we would agree that this is a federally preempted area, even though the constitution allows for a militias. No one could imagine a state declaring war. That's a federal area. If a state decided to open an embassy in another country, there would probably be no disagreement at all. The immigration and visa area should be no different.
Schupak: Isn't it better if some things are coordinated on a federal and state level?
DeMell: It seems that increasingly the states and localities make up their own rules and opt out of federal programs when they feel like it. There are programs such as the Secure Communities program that coordinates efforts of local police to turn over immigration violators.
Schupak: What's the Secure Communities Program?
DeMell: It's a program whereby police turn over undocumented aliens to the Immigration and Customs Service. The implementation of this policy might be too much to get into now, except to say it's a common practice for law enforcement to hold people when they find that their might be wanted by other law enforcement agencies.
Schupak: What should we do?
DeMell: We need to control our borders, and the federal government is the best and only place to do it properly. The American people need to learn more about the immigration problems we face, and need to go beyond the sound bites they hear on cable TV. When people ask the right questions and demand intelligent action from Washington, then maybe we'll begin to get a handle on America's immigration problem.
Schupak: What do you think the Arizona case will accomplish?
DeMell: It will clarify some of the boundaries between federal and state responsibilities. It will not solve the immigration issue. That will be up to congress and the willingness of the administration to enforce the laws and police the boarders.
Schupak: Do you have an opinion about the Arizona immigration law?
DeMell: Oh yes. Arizona's immigration law is a bad idea whether you are a restrictionist or a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. The reasons are different for each but the idea of a state taking extreme measures points to the failure of congress and the administrations, over several decades, to take meaningful actions to correct what is becoming a system that is failing the immigrant community, business's need for labor, the American economy and the efficient execution of government.
Schupak: That's a lot.
DeMell: There's more. From the point of view of the people who passed this bill, it will be a disaster. If they get what they want they might criminalize the immigration system. Didn't any of them think that once aliens are stopped and arrested by state police on criminal grounds, that they have all the constitutional rights guaranteed to criminals by the constitution? Those rights include everything from Miranda warnings, to right to counsel to the right to be tried by an article three court or state court with criminal jurisdiction. Don't they understand that that would be a disaster for the criminal justice system already over burdened?
Immigration has always been considered a civil issue. Very much like a business dispute or divorce where the loser is not necessarily punished but the parties put right. In immigration it's about remaining in the U.S. or bring returned home. Once states like Arizona criminalize it, it becomes punishment and a very different set of rules apply.
Schupak: So are you pro or anti-immigrant?
DeMell: I'm pro-American, and as part of that, pro-legal and controlled immigration.. I understand that abuse of the system will have long-term detrimental effects. Too much criminalization as well as a weak border protection program will lead to a bad situation for the American people.
Follow Andy Schupak on Twitter: www.twitter.com/festivaloffilms
This is factually incorrect. Crossing the US Border illegally is a criminal offense. Per Section 1325 – Immigration and Nationality Act “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.”
Title 18 is the US Criminal Code. Calling the act of entered the USA by illegally crossing our border "Non-Criminal" or a "Civil Matter" is incorrect. Furthermore, obtaining a job using a Social Security Number that was either not legally issued or stolen is also a violation of the US Criminal Code. It is incorrect to call anyone "Non-Criminal" or engaged in a "Civil Matter" who is working in the USA illegally using a fraudulent Social Security Number.
Just overstaying a Visa can factually called a "Civil Matter" - .
Good thing the latino influenced sotomyor is not hearing the case. Mr. Lawyer allow the complication you forsee with conflicting laws, (actually they would overlap) to do the same thing which is get rid of the invasion of our soveriegn borders. We are under attack and even when our Texas legislature tries to effect the secure cities laws, hispanic sherriffs, police officers, reps, and senators, and those in authority do the same thing black people did by voting for a black president. They don't care about the consequences of the actions (this being ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION) they just side with thier prejudicial influence and refuse to enforce the undeniable problem.
IF ILLEGAL IS OK, THEN THROUGH OUT THE LAW AND GET DOWN TO THE ANARCHY WE SEE TAKING PLACE IN THOSE OTHER COUNTRIES THAT ARE TRYING TO INFILTRATE US.
STOP THE JOB MAGNETS, ENFORCE THE LAWS AND CLOSE THE BORDERS NOW!
If we stop giving illegals free education, medical care, etc. then we remove the incentive for them to stay.
Passing EVerify so that they would have to be citizens, or legal immigrants in order to work, would remove the incentive they have to stay here and many of them would go home on their own.
This is the middle ground between deporting them all and amnesty.
The intentional willful premeditated refusal of the current administration to enforce any and all immigration laws in their entirety is a blatant act of absolute TREASON. As such any person or agent or representative found to be involved in such conduct should be tried in a court of law for HIGH CRIMES OF TREASON! PERIOD! But that is only applicable when you have a democracy and not what we have today, a HIPPOCRACEY A DICTATORSHIP! I am afraid that with a rouge government the outlandish delusional belief that you can demand judicious complacence re: immigration at this juncture is a preposterous pipe dream at best. As such would be a ridiculous whim to think that the current President after countless LIE'S, DECEIT and THE RECENT threatening of ones own citizenry with INDEFINITE DETENTION OR DEATH DEVOID OF ANY SEMBLANCE OF JUDICIOUS PROBABLE CAUSE OR INDICTMENT. Allowing 50,000 of your own citizens to be murdered at the hands of invading hoards UNOBSTRUCTED since 911! The releasing countless ten's of thousand's of criminal infiltrators of all sorts from 80 countries throughout the world immediately after arrest is BEYOND INCOMPREHENSIBLE!
“notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law,” no state or local entity may be prohibited or restricted from reporting information to federal authorities."
These laws expressly forbids restraints on communications with federal officials, specifically aimed at the sharing of information relating to peoples illegal immigration status, thereby targeting “don’t tell” sanctuary policies that banned local cooperation with federal authorities and which BTW are express preemption of federal laws”
The facts are that though we were once a nation of immigrants immigration was cut off in the 20's (I think that is the year) because it was getting out of control, like now. One never hears about that now however.
Also, the current immigration numbers are totally unsustainable from an environmental standpoint. Each person degrades the environment to a certain extent. We an have a beautiful, still unspoiled country or we can continue the current explosive immigration numbers. We can not have both.
Also liberal must move beyond a 1960 era pre-civil rights view of racism. This is a totally new and very complex situation. There is a staleness about some of the discussion, people are not thinking and keeping up with the times. This is no longer just about poor persecuted "minorities" and evil monstrous whites. It does us all a disservice to apply outdated stereotypes to a situation that will define the future quality of life, and whether we can remain a middle class country in the face of an endless wave of poor uneducated people flooding in.
-----------Of course, Mr. DeMell must realize that if immigration is indeed a federal responsibility, then states which have sanctuary policies are usurping that authority, all the more so because states and localities offering sanctuary is already illegal under federal law. Likewise, so is offering in-state tuition to illegal aliens unless one also offers it to citizens of other states regardless of residency.
The states that pass laws mirroring aspects of federal immigraiton law and they are then sued by the DOJ.
The states that pass laws celarly in violation of direct orders of immigration laws (like you pointed out above) and they are ignored and those violations are NEVER addressed by the feds.
Is it any wonder the public is frustrated?
It also has not clogged up the courts as predicted.
http://www.sandmountainreporter.com/news/local/article_c7088f90-2837-11e1-be2c-0019bb2963f4.html
Meanwhile, Latin countries continue to interfere with American domestic and policy affairs in the name of protecting their citizens rights to ignore US laws.
http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1753249
Mexico has sent their senators on a tour of states that made laws to explain the rights of their citizens to remain there. Isn't dealing with foreign powers the State Department's job? Yet they complain that the states are overstepping THEIR boundaries? It would seem that the Federal government should be putting foreign nations back in their place rather than just suing the states and letting them join in.
Hopefully, the SCOTUS decision will put an end to many of the questions. Hopefully foreign nation's standing against our immigration laws will be addressed. Our founders warned against allowing foreign interference but it seems our present administration almost welcomes it.
This mirrors what we saw in AZ. 25% of illegals self deported after SB1070, the jobless rate is down 1.5% and personal, sales and general tax revenues have risen steadily over the last 15 months. The boycott has been a non event, hotel occupancies are are recent record highs.
All this and and the sky is still exactly where it was before SB1070. Go figure!
Secondly Immigration was explicitly the province of state authorities under the Articles of Confederation and even the constitution merely gives the Federal government the power to regulate naturalization and foreign trade. The feds have progressively tried to exclusively occupy this space and in my opinion have created dangerous legal precedent by allowing foreign countries to enjoin their suit since now they have influence in our courts over our domestic and foreign policy.
While there may be some aspects that overstep the mark, I believe that much of SB1070 will stand and that in fact it is long overdue that SCOTUS gives context and clarity to the whole mess.