Source: http://www.fairus.org/legislative-updates/fair-legislative-update-june-6-2011
Timestamp: 2015-08-30 07:50:42
Document Index: 136747002

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§\n1325', '§ 275', '§ 1227', '§\n237', '§ 222', '§ 212', '§ 203']

FAIR Legislative Update June 6, 2011
On Thursday, June 2, the Alabama Legislature passed arguably the toughest state immigration bill in the United States. House Bill 56, much like Arizona’s SB 1070,
covers a wide array of immigration matters including employment,
voting, education, and enforcement. HB 56 requires that all employers
in the state use E-Verify (Sections 9 & 15). It also requires law
enforcement officers to verify the immigration status of a person
lawfully stopped for a violation of state or local law when the officer
has reasonable suspicion the person is unlawfully present in the U.S. The bill also prohibits sanctuary practices by state and local officials
(Sections 5 & 6) and prohibits concealing, harboring, and
transporting illegal aliens pursuant to federal law 8 U.S.C. 1324 (Section 13).
The passage of House Bill 56, authored by state Representative Micky Hammon
(R), came after weeks of debate and hard work. The bill first passed
the Alabama House on April 5 and then traveled to the state Senate for
approval. There, state Senator Scott Beason
(R) offered a substitute language with significant improvements. The
Senate passed the bill on May 5 and then sent it to conference
committee, where several important provisions were added, such as
mandatory E-Verify. Then, in the last week of the legislative session,
the Alabama House and Senate adopted the conference committee report. Throughout the process, Senator Beason worked closely with Kris Kobach,
of Counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, to improve the
language and tailor it to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. Supporters hope that this expert advice will allow HB 56, now called
the “Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act,” to
withstand hostile legal challenges by illegal immigration advocates. HB 56 was sent to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, who is expected to sign the bill.
New York, California Revolt against Secure Communities In the latest effort by amnesty advocates to thwart immigration
enforcement, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced last week he was
suspending the State’s cooperation with Secure Communities because of
its impact on families, immigrant communities and law enforcement. (CNN, June 1, 2011) In a letter
to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Counsel to Governor Cuomo,
Mylan L. Denerstein wrote “The heart of concern is that the program,
conceived of as a method of targeting those who pose the greatest threat
in our communities, is in fact having the opposite effect and
compromising public safety by deterring witnesses to crime and others
from working with law enforcement.” (Id.) Secure Communities, however, does not target witnesses to crimes. It
is a cooperative immigration enforcement program administered by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and local enforcement
agencies. Through the program, local enforcement officers submit the
digital fingerprints of all individuals who are booked into local jails
or state prisons for comparison against the federal immigration
databases. If the suspect is an alien, ICE notifies local officials,
who then hold the aliens for removal upon release. The open-borders lobby praised Governor Cuomo’s decision to pull the
state from the program. Congresswoman Nydia M. Velázquez, former Chair
of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, stated, “I thank Governor Cuomo
for showing the leadership and foresight to suspend this misguided
program, which does not reflect New York's long history as a welcoming
home for newly arrived immigrants. The Secure Communities initiative
does not make our nation safer, but inhibits cooperation with law
enforcement and violates immigrants' due process rights.” (Governor Cuomo Press Release,
June 1, 2011) Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York
Civil Liberties Union, claims that although Secure Communities is touted
as a public safety measure, it does not function that way. “Instead of
protecting us, Secure Communities has been used as a shortcut to
deportation for people who may have done nothing wrong,” she said. (Wall Street Journal, June 1, 2011) New York and California are the latest states to attempt to defy a
mandatory federal program to identify and remove criminal illegal aliens
from the United States. California, however, is attempting to opt-out
of Secure Communities legislatively rather than through executive
action. (Fox News Latino, May 27, 2011) Last week, the California Assembly passed AB 1081,
which requires local jurisdictions who wish to participate in Secure
Communities expressly do so by passing a local ordinance, and permits
only the submission of fingerprints of those convicted of – rather than
arrested for – a crime. (See AB 1081 at §2) Calling Secure
Communities a “farce,” Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), who
authored AB 1081, argued that his bill would protect public safety
because immigrants would be more willing to report crime if they didn't
fear deportation. (Fox News Latino, May 27, 2011; LA Times,
May 31, 2011) The fingerprint program “has actually harmed public
safety and seriously undercut community policing strategies,” he said. (Fox News Latino, May 27, 2011) Last week’s events in New York and California come on the heels
of Illinois Governor Pat Quinn’s decision in May to cease his State’s
participation in the Secure Communities program. Governor Quinn told ICE
officials that “due to the conflict between the stated purpose of
Secure Communities and the implementation of the program, Illinois state
police will no longer participate.” (Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2011; see also Letter from Gov. Quinn to Marc Rapp, acting Assistant Director Secure Communities,
May 4, 2011) Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has also joined the
Secure Communities debate, announcing today that his State will not be
participating in the program, while Minnesota and Washington have
declined to join the program all together. (Boston Herald, June 6, 2011; Wall Street Journal, May 14, 2011) ICE officials defend Secure Communities, calling it a
“critical…information sharing partnership” between ICE and the Federal
Bureau of Investigations. (Wall Street Journal,
June 2, 2011) ICE also stressed that only the federal government
determines whether immigration enforcement is necessary: “Only federal
officers make immigration decisions, and they do so only after an
individual is arrested for a criminal violation of state law, separate
and apart from any violations of immigration law,” the statement added. (Id.) House Homeland Security Subcommittee Passes Key Border Security Bills
The House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security passed three
border security bills last week, sending them to the full Homeland
Security Committee for consideration. (Subcommittee Markup,
June 2, 2011) The House panel also stood firm and rejected three
amendments offered by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) which would have
stated every border town is not dangerous; required protection of all
rights of persons (including illegal aliens) encountered along the U.S.
border; and required safety provisions given to all persons (including
illegal aliens) found to be enduring treacherous weather conditions and
terrain along the border. (CQ, June 2, 2011) One of the most notable bills, H.R. 1299,
was sponsored by Chairwoman of the Subcommittee Candice Miller (R-MI). The bill, deemed the Secure Border Act of 2011, would require the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to design a comprehensive strategy
for gaining operational control of the U.S. borders within five years. The strategy must address certain border security issues, including
staffing requirements; infrastructure investments; use of technology;
and cooperative agreements with other law enforcement agencies. The
bill also mandates that DHS design a comprehensive measurement system
that would analyze the effectiveness of security at all land, air, and
sea ports of entry. In order to properly evaluate the measurement
system designed by DHS, the final version of the bill offered by Miller
would require the head of Sandia National Laboratory to evaluate its
suitability and statistical validity. In a veiled reference to Homeland Security Secretary Janet
Napolitano’s recent attempt to change the measure of security at the
borders from “operational control,” H.R. 1299 reiterates that the term
operational control will still be used as the measurement for the border
security required by this bill. (See The Washington Times,
May 4, 2011) Secretary Napolitano had deemed the phrase “operational
control,” which was defined in 2006, to be “archaic” shortly after the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) released reports noting that only
44 percent of the Southwest border and a meager two percent of the
Northern border were under operation control. (Id.; P.L. 109-367; GAO Border Security, Feb. 15, 2011; GAO Border Security, March 30, 2011) H.R. 1299 provides $5,000,000 in funding for these measures by
re-appropriating funds which would have been spent on the DHS Office of
Secretary and Executive Management. (See Subcommittee Markup,
June 2, 2011) In addition, the bill has an accountability mechanism
that requires DHS to submit reports to Congress 60 days after the
enactment of the bill into law, and annually thereafter. The second bill the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee passed was H.R. 1922,
sponsored by Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ). This bill addresses the problems
that U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents face when they are not
allowed access to protected federal lands in border regions. Over 40
percent of the land near the United States southwestern border is
governed by the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service, but
the area also accounts for 97 percent of CBP’s apprehensions of illegal
aliens. (GAO Southwest Border,
Oct. 19, 2010) GAO has released no less than three reports recently to
document how CBP agents are limited in their abilities to protect and
secure the border due to restrictions of environmental and other
protectionist laws in this crucial area. (See GAO Southwest Border, Oct. 19, 2010; GAO Border Security, Nov. 18, 2010; GAO Southwest Border,
April 15, 2011) The reports highlight disconcerting roadblocks for CBP
agents, including laws that limit access to land, excessive
restrictions on activity, and delays which made enforcement in some
areas moot by the time CBP agents were finally allowed onto the land. (Id.) H.R. 1922, however, would open up these doors for CBP, allowing them
access to federal lands for security activities, including routine
motorized patrols and the deployment of temporary tactical
infrastructure. In order to continue to guard and preserve the land,
the bill notes that the security activities shall be conducted in a
manner that DHS determines will best protect the natural and cultural
resources of the land. The bill does not impact any private or
state-owned land, and only applies to those federal lands within 150
miles of the Southwest border. Finally, the Subcommittee passed the Jaime Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act (BEST). (H.R. 915) ICE Agent Jaime Zapata was brutally shot and killed while fighting drug cartels in Mexico. (See FAIR Legislative Update,
Feb. 22, 2011) The bill would create a task force composed of federal,
state, local, tribal and foreign law enforcement agencies dedicated to
better securing the nation’s borders. The bill is designed to increase
collaboration and information-sharing among agencies including: ICE;
CBP; the U.S. Coast Guard; Drug Enforcement Administration; the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Foreign law enforcement
agencies specifically named in the bill include Mexico’s Secretaria de
Seguridad Publica; the Canada Border Services Agency; the Ontario
Provincial Police; and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The full Homeland Security Committee will consider the measures later this month. (CQ, June 2, 2011)
House Adds Immigration Amendments to FY 2012 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill The House on Thursday passed with 231 votes a Homeland Security appropriations bill, H.R. 2017, that would provide the agency with $40.6 billion for fiscal year 2012. (National Journal,
June 3, 2011) Key programs funded by the bill include E-Verify at $132
million, 287(g) at $5.4 million, and over $5 billion for border security
fencing, infrastructure, and technology. True immigration reformers successfully offered numerous immigration enforcement amendments which FAIR supported. These include:
Rep. Ted Poe's (R-TX) amendment to provide an additional $10 million
for cell phone infrastructure along the rural areas of the border to
help American citizens in those areas call the Border Patrol for help
(adopted 327-93);
Rep. Ed Royce's (R-CA) amendment to provide an additional $1 million
to assist local governments in implementing 287(g) programs (adopted
268-151);
Rep. Chip Cravaack’s (R-MN) amendment to prohibit ICE from using
taxpayer funds to release or employ “alternatives to detention” for
illegal aliens who commit offenses for which detention is required under
the INA (adopted 289-131);
Rep. Ted Poe’s (R-TX) amendment prohibiting DHS funds from being
used to contravene the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) (adopted via voice vote); and
used to grant humanitarian parole or deferred action to an alien for any
reason other than on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian
reasons or significant public benefit (adopted via voice vote). (See FAIR Legislative Update Apr. 25, 2011; see also FAIR Legislative Update Mar. 14, 2011)
House members also offered immigration amendments that FAIR opposed, including: Rep. David Cicilline’s (D-RI) amendment decreasing border security
fencing, infrastructure, and technology funding by $336 million
(rejected 154-266); and
Rep. Jared Polis’ (D-CO) amendment prohibiting DHS funds from being used to carry out the 287(g) program (rejected 107-313). As passed, the bill cuts $1.2 billion from the Department’s current
budget and provides $2.6 billion less in funding from President Obama’s
requested amount. (National Journal, June 3, 2011) The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration. Stay tuned to FAIR for updates on the Homeland Security budget…
Last Tuesday, Maryland true immigration reform activists turned in
62,496 signatures in a first step to preventing in-state tuition rates
for illegal aliens. (Washington Post,
June 1, 2011) The group needs just over 55,000 signatures to force a
vote on the measure providing tuition breaks to aliens in Maryland
illegally. (Id.; Maryland State Board of Elections 2012) In order to continue the fight against illegal immigration, one-third
of the total number of needed signatures had to be submitted by May 31
at midnight. (Maryland State Board of Elections 2012) Maryland’s Governor, Martin O’Malley, signed a bill into law earlier
this legislative session that allowed illegal alien students who have
attended Maryland high schools for three years to receive in-state
tuition at Maryland colleges. (SB 167; See FAIR Legislative Update, April 18, 2011) Although the group has obtained the number of signatures
needed to put enactment of the law on hold until after the voters of
Maryland decide the matter, the Board of Election must still verify that
all of the signatures submitted are valid. (WMAL, June 2, 2011; Maryland State Board of Elections 2012)
To that end, the Board suggests that petitions exceed the required
number by 20-30 percent, as many signatures are found to be invalid. (Maryland State Board of Elections 2012) Now that the first hurdle has been cleared, the remaining signatures may be collected until June 30. (Id.) In order to appear on the ballot, petitioners must collect valid
last gubernatorial election and the names must match those names
appearing on Maryland’s voting rolls. (Washington Post, June 1, 2011)
At a recent Christian Science Monitor breakfast, Rep. Debbie
Wasserman-Shultz (D-FL) denounced Republicans for thinking that illegal
immigration should “in fact be a crime.” (Fox News,
May 31, 2011) The incoming chairwoman of the Democratic National
Committee told listeners that Democrats want “comprehensive immigration
reform” and that the 12 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. are
“a necessity” for the economy. She then said that the general
“Republican solution … in the last three years is that we should just
pack them all up and ship them back to their own countries and that in
fact it should be a crime and we should arrest them all." That, she
said, is what Rep. Sensenbrenner’s 2005 legislation proposed.
Rep. Wasserman-Shultz may be dismayed to learn that illegal
immigration is, in fact, already a crime. As codified in 8 U.S.C. §
1325, federal law provides that an alien who unlawfully enters the
United States is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months
in prison. (See also INA § 275(a)) Second and subsequent offenses are
felonies, punishable by up to two years in prison. (Id.) Moreover, federal law provides that any alien who is present in the U.S.
in violation of the law is deportable and “shall be removed” subject to
an order. (See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) and (B); INA §
237(a)(1)(A) and (B))
Wasserman-Shultz may also be embarrassed to learn that Rep. Jim
Sensenbrenner’s 2005 immigration bill (H.R.4437) proposed nothing that
would have altered the fact that illegal entry is a crime. What
H.R.4437 addressed was visa overstays, which account for roughly 30 to
40 percent of the illegal alien population in the U.S. Federal law
provides that overstaying one’s visa is only a civil offense, not a
criminal offense. (See generally INA § 222(g) and § 212(a)(9)(B)) By
proposing criminal penalties for overstaying one’s visa, and thus being
unlawfully present in the U.S., H.R.4437 sought to put one violation of
the law on par with the other. (See H.R.4437 § 203)