Thread: Author of Fed's 287(g) Law Says Written to Allow State Laws

Author of Fed'l 287(g) Law Says It Was Written to Allow State Laws Like Arizona's

By Roy Beck, Updated Tuesday, July 27, 2010, 2:46 PM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA

Rep. Lamar Smith has had it with so-called experts lying about what federal law allows for local enforcement of immigration rules.

In today's Washington Post, he takes to task the immigration chiefs of the past two Presidents (one Republican and one Democrat) who have joined others in distorting the purpose of the "287(g)" local enforcement program, which is something of a model for the Arizona law that is scheduled to take effect later this week but is also tied up in federal court.

The Post had given a major piece of space in the paper to Doris Meissner and James W. Ziglar who suggested that the part of immigration law known as "287(g)" was mainly intended for local law enforcement to go after illegal aliens convicted of violent crimes.

Doris Meissner and James W. Ziglar's July 22 op-ed piece, 'Why the U.S. had to challenge Arizona on immigration,' misstated the facts about Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That section of law establishes a mechanism for formal cooperation between the Department of Homeland Security and state and local law enforcement agencies. Then-Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and I wrote the law.

-- Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Ranking Member of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee

Most journalists who write about this subject have bought into Meissner's and Ziglar's claims and failed to check with the guy who actually wrote the law of the land on this -- Lamar Smith.

I hope all reading this will hound reporters until they start including Congressman Smith in any story about what federal law allows states like Arizona to do.

Ms. Meissner and Mr. Ziglar asserted that Arizona's immigration enforcement law 'appears to go well beyond the intent of 287(g).' They also claimed that the federal government 'must expressly delegate . . . authority' to states that wish to aid in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

In fact, paragraph 10 of section 287(g) specifically provides for the type of law that Arizona has enacted. It states: 'Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement . . . in order for any officer of a State . . . to communicate wih the [Secretary of Homeland Security' regarding the immigration status of any individual . . . or otherwise to cooperate with the [Secretary] in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.'

-- Rep. Lamar Smith

Please read that last paragraph carefully.

Federal law already on the books "specifically provides for the type of law that Arizona has enacted."

Wouldn't you think that these former immigration chiefs (Meissner under Clinton, and Ziglar under Bush) would know what the law actually says?

Trouble is, both immigration chiefs were chosen because they had made it clear that they don't really believe in the full enforcement of immigration laws. Congressman Smith makes that pretty clear in this paragraph:

The writers (Meissner and Ziglar) may not be familiar with Section 287(g) because they only entered into two such agreements in their nine combined years at the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

-- Rep. Lamar Smith

Fortunately, later chiefs greatly increased the responsiveness to local and state governments wanting into the program, although there still is quite a backlog because of federal foot-dragging.

The nation is fortunate in Lamar Smith to have not only a statesman who would write and get enacted Section 287(g) but who continues to advocate for the repatriation not just of illegal aliens who are violent threats but also illegal aliens whose presence threatens the wages and very employment of vulnerable Americans.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusab ... zonas.html

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.

Several links within the original are available at the source link above.

Here is the complete editorialWhat Section 287(g) of immigration act really says

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Doris Meissner and James W. Ziglar's July 22 op-ed piece, "Why the U.S. had to challenge Arizona on immigration," misstated the facts about Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That section of law establishes a mechanism for formal cooperation between the Department of Homeland Security and state and local law enforcement agencies. Then-Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) and I wrote the law.

Ms. Meissner and Mr. Ziglar asserted that Arizona's immigration enforcement law "appears to go well beyond the intent of 287(g)." They also claimed that the federal government "must expressly delegate . . . authority" to states that wish to aid in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

In fact, paragraph 10 of section 287(g) specifically provides for the type of law that Arizona has enacted. It states: "Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require an agreement . . . in order for any officer of a State . . . to communicate with the [Secretary of Homeland Security] regarding the immigration status of any individual . . . or otherwise to cooperate with the [Secretary] in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States."

The writers may be unfamiliar with Section 287(g) because they only entered into two such agreements in their nine combined years at the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Lamar Smith, Washington

The writer is the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05234.html

We should tell Rep. Smith "Thanks" for his fine leadership on this. Think of all the so-called "experts" trying to tear down his work.