National Jurist -September 2008 - (Page 4) HOTBUTTON Topic: Immigration “The increasing of use of 287(g) agreements, which are agreements between the Department of Homeland Security and state/local law enforcement officials, permitting those officials to perform certain immigration law enforcement functions.” Amalia Greenberg Delgado 3L at American University Washington College of Law FOR Jared Velez 3L at American University Washington College of Law AGAINST In Collier County, Florida, local law enforcement officials arrested 20 individuals attempting to improperly procure state drivers licenses, 18 of whom were illegal aliens. Following convictions on state charges, all 18 aliens served sentences and were removed from the United States shortly thereafter. What separates this story from others is that the same deputy sheriffs who arrested the aliens had the authority to determine their immigration status and eligibility for removal. This authority is the product of a 287(g) partnership between the Collier County Sheriff ’s Office and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a growing trend in immigration enforcement. Under INA § 287(g), the Department of Homeland Security may enter into agreements with local law enforcement agencies allowing designated officers to carry out immigration enforcement in addition to their local duties. The aforementioned success story is one of many. To date, INA § 287(g) has resulted in 55 partnerships, the training of 785 officers and the identification of more than 60,000 individuals who are illegally present within the United States. Moreover, 287(g) agreements have generated hundreds of criminal investigations resulting in arrests and convictions for a multitude of federal and state charges including possession of forged instruments, narcotics violations and gang/organized crime activities. Each partnership effectively expands the reach of immigration enforcement into remote geographical communities, providing necessary resources while relieving an overtaxed federal agency as the breadth of INS is plagued by limited manpower. Through 287(g) agreements, local law enforcement officials receive special training to deal with locality specific problems, recognizing that each community presents a different environment. Officers are not asked to cast aside their local duties in favor of immigration enforcement, but to uniquely blend both in an effort to better serve their community. What if the next time you were stopped for a traffic violation, your local police gave you a citation or even arrested you for being delinquent in paying your taxes? Should federal laws, like those governing taxes, credit and immigration, fall under local enforcement authorities? Historical and practical reasons have led to the federal government’s exclusive control over enforcing federal laws. However, Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides guidelines for local and state officers to enforce federal immigration laws. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreements between federal and local agencies authorizes local officers to enforce immigration laws under their normal responsibilities, specifically when they have reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the person has broken a traffic or criminal law. Historically courts have ruled that the interpretation and enforcement of immigration laws lay exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Local law enforcement of immigration laws 1) endangers public safety for persons in the community, 2) leads to widespread racial profiling and violations of constitutional rights of citizens and non-citizens alike and 3) overburdens local police and prevents them from going after actual criminals. By enforcing immigration laws, police sever ties with local communities. Residents are less likely to report crimes committed against them for fear of deportation. The MOUs, which vary among counties and states, increase disparate enforcement of immigration laws, fail to give people notice of their rights, restrict residents from traveling between states and often counties for fear of undue harassment and discrimination. Although Section 287(g) mandates training and supervision by federal agents, in practice, local police officers, many of whom do not receive the requisite training, use this as a pretext to racially profile and harass persons of color. The MOU unfairly expects police to understand highly complex immigration laws and increases the potential for error and violation of rights. The execution of the MOUs strains overburdened state and local officers and deviates substantial time, training and resources from targeting and preventing actual dangerous crimes. Editors note: The National Jurist is introducing the Hot Button section of the magazine, in which a “hot topic” issue will be debated between two current law students. …NEXT MONTH: Same-Sex Marriage 4 THE NATIONAL JURIST September 2008
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.