Thread: Measure Would Let Officers Enforce Immigration Laws

Measure would let officers enforce immigration laws

Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
May. 7, 2008 12:00 AM
Trying to prod the Legislature into action, state Rep. Russell Pearce on Tuesday rallied immigration hardliners to underscore support for his bill that would let local police officers enforce immigration laws.

"It's about time we took the handcuffs off our law enforcement," Pearce, R-Mesa, said at a Capitol news conference.

His measure, House Concurrent Resolution 2039, would prohibit local governments from enacting policies that would prevent police officers from enforcing federal immigration laws. While it would still give the officer the discretion of whether to inquire about someone's legal status during a traffic stop, for example, its clear intent is to encourage such questioning.
advertisement


Some law-enforcement groups say that's already occurring; others say the measure would provide welcome clarification.

What is not happening so far is any action on Pearce's measure, which is awaiting a formal vote in the House of Representatives. Passage by the Legislature would send the measure to the November ballot, where voters would get the final say.

It also would be an easier path to the ballot than a similar initiative that Pearce launched 14 months ago. That's because a legislative resolution bypasses the governor and only requires the vote of a majority of the Legislature - 31 members in the House and 16 in the Senate - to get on the ballot. Initiatives need more than 153,000 voter signatures, which are due July 3.

Pearce said the ballot initiative, called Support Our Law Enforcement, is a "backup" to the bill he's trying to move through the House.

He added that backers are collecting signatures every weekend, but acknowledged it's a time- and dollar-consuming task.

Typically, ballot referrals are held until the end of the legislative session, when lawmakers can get a better idea of how many issues may be headed to voters. The session is not expected to end until some time next month, leaving little time to scramble together signatures for a July 3 deadline.

Pearce said his legislative proposal is better than the year-old ballot language because he modified it to make it clear that individual police officers would not be held liable if they didn't enforce federal immigration laws. Instead, the government agency they work for would be responsible and could face the penalty of losing state dollars for law enforcement.

The measure would harm the ability of local governments to enact their own policies, opponents say.

A uniform statewide policy that would require federal immigration officials to be contacted every time police officers inquire about someone's legal status is unworkable, said Dale Norris, executive director of the Arizona Police Association.

"The members of my group want the ability to enforce immigration laws," said Norris, whose group represents 18 police associations statewide. "What they don't want is a one-size-fits-all (approach)."

For example, police officers in Kingman could be severely hampered if they had to contact an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer every time they detained someone who could not prove they were in the U.S. legally, he said.

"There are no ICE agents stationed north of Phoenix," he said.

Besides, voter-approved policy is nearly impossible to change and the penalty - loss of state dollars - could hurt police officers if they happen to work for a city that would choose to defy the policy.

"When the funding's gone, where am I going to get money for public safety?" he asked.

But the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, one of Norris' member groups, supports Pearce's measure because it clearly allows officers to inquire about immigration status, but doesn't mandate it.

"The product he (Pearce) has meets our needs," said Mark Spencer, president of the association, which represents Phoenix police officers.

Phoenix city officials, who are about to launch their new policy on immigration-status inquiries, say the Pearce measure would pre-empt a city policy that has been carefully thought out and vetted.

"He's basically saying that you can't set up any rules or else you can't apply for any state funding," said Karen Peters, the city's lobbyist.

The Pearce measure has gained new attention in the wake of Gov. Janet Napolitano's veto last week of a bill that would have prevented local policies barring enforcement of federal immigration law. However, that bill did not have financial penalties for non-compliance and outlined a number of ways for cities to deal with immigration problems - some as simple as establishing "relationships" with federal immigration authorities.

Napolitano called House Bill 2807 unnecessary and said it would have put an unfunded mandate on Arizona law enforcement.


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... 0507.html#

Seems most of our Governors are turning against its citizens...we sure have alot of them to replace.