Source: http://www.fairus.org/legislative-updates/fair-legislative-update-july-3-2012
Timestamp: 2013-12-12 08:48:06
Document Index: 489097305

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§2', '§10', '§11', '§3', '§ 5', '§5', '§6', '§110', '§111', '§ 1225', '§ 1225', '§ 1229', '§3', '§3']

FAIR Legislative Update July 3, 2012
As if the President's new deferred action policy were not troubling enough itself, the decision not to deport the illegal alien parents of DREAMers could triple the number of illegal aliens who benefit from it. Excluding parents, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that at least 1.4 million illegal aliens would qualify for deferred action under the President's new program. (See Pew Hispanic Center report, June 15, 2012) But with the Administration's acknowledgment that it will no longer deport the illegal alien parents of DREAMers, the size of the President's amnesty program could triple, or perhaps even quadruple, when fraudulent applications are taken into account. Most of SB 1070 Stands after Supreme Court Ruling
§1, which makes attrition through enforcement the policy of Arizona. §2(A), which prohibits any jurisdiction in Arizona from restricting the enforcement of federal immigration law to anything less than the full extent permitted by federal law. §2(B), the provision upheld by the Supreme Court, requires local law enforcement officials to make a reasonable attempt during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest to inquire about the individual's immigration status if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual is an illegal alien.
§2(D), which authorizes local law enforcement agencies to transport illegal aliens in custody to the custody of federal officials located either inside or outside of the state. §2(F), which prohibits policies that restrict information sharing of immigration data for the various purposes, including determining eligibility for benefits, compliance with alien registration laws, and verifying claims of domicile/residence.
§2(H), which allows legal residents of Arizona to file lawsuits to force Arizona government agencies to comply with the requirements of SB 1070.
§10, which requires the impoundment or forfeiture of vehicles used for transporting illegal aliens; and §11, which creates the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund. The sections of SB 1070 that are enjoined include: §3, which creates a state offense of failure to comply with federal alien registration laws;
§ 5(A) and (B), which prohibit the solicitation of work at day labor centers if such solicitation impedes traffic. This was enjoined through a different lawsuit, Friendly House v. Whiting, No. 10-1061 (D. Ariz. Feb. 29, 2012). §5(C), which prohibits illegal aliens from soliciting work; and §6(A), which authorizes local law enforcement officers to conduct warrantless arrests of aliens if the officer has probable cause to believe the alien has committed a deportable offense.
(See engrossed version of SB 1070) Aware that most of SB 1070 is in effect, the amnesty advocacy organizations have launched a multi-million dollar program to dismantle those provisions still left standing. (Roll Call, June 26, 2012) In particular, they hope to stop other states from enacting laws similar to SB 1070. (Id.) The ACLU alone has pledged to spend $8.7 million fighting laws that call on police to check the immigration status of people they stop. (Id.) President Obama Undermines Supreme Court Ruling by Rescinding Arizona 287(g) Agreements
The Administration's announcement to cancel Task Force agreements in Arizona only hours after the Supreme Court upheld Section 2(B) of Arizona's SB 1070 was an unmistakable move to undermine routine immigration enforcement in the state of Arizona. Section 2(B) requires law enforcement agents to take reasonable steps to verify the immigration status of those they lawfully stop or detain if they have reasonable suspicion to believe they are in the country illegally. (Read more about the decision here) By taking trained immigration officers off of the streets in Arizona, the Administration signaled it has no intention of cooperating with Arizona in its attempt to enforce U.S. immigration law and will only do the minimum that is required by federal statute. This sentiment was plain from statements accompanying the Administration's announcement. A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official told reporters, "ICE [] has determined that the 287(g) task force agreements that have been in place with state and local law enforcement in Arizona are no longer necessary. Today, those state and local law enforcement agencies have been notified that ICE is rescinding their 287(g) task force agreements." (Homeland Security Today, June 26, 2012)
Although the House of Representatives has clearly repudiated the President's Homeland Security budget, and voted to restore all funding for the 287(g) program, the President has shown through his actions this week that his Administration is nonetheless going ahead with its plan to dismantle 287(g) by discontinuing task force agreements and refusing to consider new requests to join the program by local law enforcement agencies. (Id.; FAIR Legislative Update, June 12, 2012) House Passes Border Security Legislation
On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed two bills to help bolster U.S. border security. The first bill, the Securing Maritime Activities through Risk-based Targeting (SMART) Port Security Act (H.R. 4251), was introduced by Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security. H.R. 4251 aims to increase information sharing and efficient use of technology within the Department of Homeland Security, and between federal, state, and local governments and the private sector, in an effort to improve maritime and aviation security at U.S. ports of entry. In addition, H.R. 4251:
Requires the DHS Secretary to report to Congress on the vulnerability of U.S. maritime borders to attacks by small marine vessels. (§110) Requires the DHS Secretary to submit a plan to Congress detailing the best staffing levels for Customs and Border Protection personnel to carry out all necessary border security functions. (§111)
In arguing that the executive branch does not possess the authority to decline to prosecute illegal aliens it determines is not an enforcement priority, Rep. Barletta contends that federal law instead requires immigration officers to place them in deportation proceedings. Specifically, the letter explains how the following provisions of federal law, when read in conjunction with one another, require such action: 8 U.S.C. § 1225(a)(1) defines unlawfully present aliens as "applicants for admission" to the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) requires immigration officers to place aliens they deem to be "applicants for admission"—or unlawfully present—in removal proceedings. This section specifically provides that, "In the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title." (emphasis added)
8 U.S.C. § 1229a refers to deportation (or "removal") proceedings held in U.S. immigration courts. (Id.; see also NY Post Op-Ed by Kris Kobach, June 21, 2012)
H.R. 915, introduced by Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), provides a statutory framework for the existing Border Enforcement Security Task Force (BEST) program, an initiative designed to facilitate communication and mutual assistance between agencies at different levels of government. (See H.R. 915 at §3) Named after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agent Jaime Zapata, who was brutally gunned down last year in Mexico by a drug cartel, H.R. 915 seeks to increase cooperation and information sharing between local, state, and federal agencies to strengthen collaborative efforts along the border. (See FAIR Legislative Update, May 30, 2012) Amendments made by the Senate Committee seek to prevent redundancy by making sure that new or expanded BEST units will not duplicate efforts of other existing task forces or centers in that jurisdiction. Additionally, the Senate Committee limited the House requirement that the Secretary of Homeland Security report annually on the effectiveness of the BEST program indefinitely, reducing the reporting period to five-years, and removed the provision authorizing funding for the bill. (See H.R. 915 at §3)
The House of Representatives passed H.R. 915 last month by a vote of 391 to 2. (See FAIR Legislative Update, May 30, 2012) The Senate will schedule a full vote on the legislation once the Senate Committee reports it to the Floor. HomeContact UsFAQPrivacy PolicyDonateMy FAIRSitemap