|
Implications for ICE in Arizona Ruling |
|
|
|
|
by Mickey McCarter
|
|
Thursday, 29 July 2010 |
State law placed unfunded mandate on federal agency
A federal judge's ruling to temporarily halt enforcement of Arizona's tough new immigration law Wednesday came with significant implications for the federal agency that would have responsibility to help Arizona enforce it.
In barring Arizona law enforcement agencies from checking the immigration status of individuals stopped for other lawful purposes, US District Judge Susan Bolton noted that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lacked the resources to follow up on Arizona's activities, which would place an unfunded mandate on the federal government.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) underscored that aspect of the ruling in a statement Wednesday.
"The court's decision to enjoin most of SB 1070 correctly affirms the federal government's responsibilities in enforcing our nation's immigration laws," DHS Deputy Press Secretary Matt Chandler said. "Over the past eighteen months, this administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border, and we will continue to work to take decisive action to disrupt criminal organizations and the networks they exploit. DHS will enforce federal immigration laws in Arizona and around the country in smart, effective ways that focus our resources on criminal aliens who pose a public safety threat and employers who knowingly hire illegal labor, as well as continue to secure our border."
ICE will continue to assist law enforcement agencies in Arizona and across the nation to the extent its resources allow, Chandler added.
Former ICE chief Julie Myers Wood noted the ruling was predicated largely on federal arguments that ICE could not process and deport every illegal immigrant arrested in Arizona.
"The point of the court decision is not to say that ICE needs more resources but it's a rather clear result. The court's decision makes a very strong case for significantly increasing ICE's resources to combat the rampant illegal immigration, the escalating drug and human-trafficking crimes, and the serious public safety concerns that the court found exist in Arizona," Myers Wood told HSToday.us.
It makes sense that the court would at least find cause to deliver a temporary injunction against the Arizona law to allow more time to examine the issues related to those resources, Myer Wood acknowledged.
"I think it's completely reasonable for a judge in this position, when the government is weighing in so heavily on the burden it would cause, to find that the standard for a preliminary injunction has been met," she remarked.
Indeed, the ruling cites federal declarations that essentially argue that the enforcement of illegal immigration is a federal responsibility but that federal agencies do not have the capability to fulfill the demands Arizona would have placed on them.
While acceptance of those federal assertions was not surprising, Myers Wood found other aspects of the ruling troubling.
Bolton wrote, for example, "Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked."
But ICE actually asks states and counties to voluntarily provide such a status determination through their participation in the Secure Communities program, which targets criminal aliens, Myers Wood said.
Opponents of immigration enforcement in general could find support in the judge's words, which reason that checking the status of lawfully present aliens represents a restrict on their liberty while their status is determined.
"There are a couple of issues with that argument," Myers Wood stated.
"The first concern I would have is that the idea that doing status determinations at the time of arrest burdens one class of individuals over another," she continued. "If you are doing status determinations for everyone who arrested, whether they are a US citizen or a foreign national or someone who is here illegally, it is not clear to me why it burdens in particular lawfully present aliens. So that portion of the argument was a little bit troubling."
Bolton attempts to focus on people arrested but not actually booked into jail but makes no clear separation for that specific category of individuals, Myers Wood contended.
"So you could see someone who didn't like Secure Communities saying, you shouldn't have Secure Communities because this is a restriction on my liberty while my status is being checked," she commented.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vowed to appeal yesterday's injunction against her state's immigration law, parts of which went into effect today as scheduled.
The federal lawsuit against Arizona remains in the US District Court for the District of Arizona, however, and the fight between the US Justice Department and the state is likely to go on for at least several more months.
|
Mickey McCarter |
| About the author: |
| eNewsletter Editor/Senior Washington Correspondent,
is a journalist with more than a decade of experience in reporting
on
military affairs and information technology.
|
| Read More >> | |
Columns 
