Immigration enforcement is a federal job -- period
by Ouisa Davis / Special to the Times
Posted: 02/18/2011 12:00:00 AM MST

Once again, state legislators want to require state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law, even in the absence of legal authority. Again, we face a rift in our community based upon ethnic considerations and ignoring the long-term consequences.

State and local law-enforcement authority extends only to state and municipal violations. The power to enforce immigration law is pre-empted by the federal government in the U.S. Constitution.

The obligation to pass immigration laws lies squarely upon the shoulders of Congress. Enforcement is financed by congressional appropriations. Enforcement is the job of the executive branch. The Department of Homeland Security has its own "police" departments -- U.S. Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- whose jurisdiction extends throughout the country.

State and municipal legislators can only require that local law-enforcement agencies enforce state and local laws dealing with the health, welfare and safety of the public, providing enforcement and crime-victim services to all residents within their respective jurisdictions.

An officer may detain a person when there is probable cause to believe that a state criminal statute or municipal ordinance has been violated. They cannot fabricate probable cause in order to inquire into a person's immigration status, especially if based upon appearance.

Immigration law is a strange animal -- quasi-criminal, governed by federal civil administrative regulations and procedures. The Immigration and Nationality Act is a body of civil laws, violation of which results primarily in the denial of immigration benefit and/or removal from the U.S. Criminal penalties are attached to few provisions -- illegal entry, employment of unauthorized persons, etc.

You see, undocumented status, inside the borders, is not a crime. It is not illegal to live in the country without immigration status. It is a crime to enter the country without proper inspection and documentation, but apprehension must be made at the time of entry into the U.S. in most circumstances.

The federal government faces a quandary; how to enforce immigration law within a community setting. The state legislatures now attempt to circumvent the U.S. Constitution by passing laws to require local and state law-enforcement agencies to "assist" in the enforcement of immigration laws.

Local law-enforcement officers cannot lawfully detain an individual on behalf of federal officers because they believe that person is undocumented; they have no authority to do so. Once in the U.S., immigrants -- documented or otherwise -- enjoy many of the constitutional protections provided to U.S. citizens. And taxpayers will be responsible for payment of any judgment recovered in favor of those wrongfully questioned or detained.

Our local legislative delegation, our sheriff and chief of police are correct in advocating against these laws. Local immigration enforcement would impose an unreasonable burden, would divert critical resources and pass the cost to local government.

It negatively impacts crime victims in their moments of distress. It prevents community partnerships critical to successful policing programs. It invites racial profiling of U.S. citizens or people lawfully present.

You cannot change this reality by passing a state law or municipal ordinance. Immigration is purely a federal issue, pre-empted by the federal government under the U.S. Constitution.

This type of legislation will not solve the problem.

On the other hand, working with Congress for reparative legislation to reinstate immigration laws decimated by political agendas will address it.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/opinion/ci_1 ... source=rss