Controlling Illegal Immigration: State and Local Governments Must Do More

Controlling Illegal Immigration: State and Local Governments Must Do More

from the Heritage Foundation;

by Matt A. Mayer
Special Report #66
Executive Summary

In 1980, illegal immigration in the United States was far from the overwhelming challenge it is today. It was only after the 1986 immigration reform bill, which provided amnesty to more than three million illegal aliens, that an ever increasing surge of people entering the U.S. illegally began. As the federal government failed to address the growing crisis, state governments began to take action. As early as 1994, Californians tried to deal with the financial burden of illegal immigration by passing Proposition 187, which would have limited financial benefits for illegal aliens in California. Although stopped by a judge and a new governor, Gray Davis, unwilling to defend the people's vote, California's actions foreshadowed what was to occur across the United States 10 years later, when the federal government failed its people once again.

At the same time, political leaders in Washington, D.C., began to feel pressure to be more aggressive in enforcing existing laws to secure America's borders and to deport those here illegally. The budgets of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) skyrocketed. ICE moved from a policy of capturing and releasing illegal aliens to detaining and deporting them. The number of raids at work sites and of criminal aliens captured substantially increased. Unfortunately, having done so little for so long, ICE ran up against a basic mathematical problem: 12,000,000 illegal immigrants versus 6,000 ICE agents who were stretched thin with other pressing responsibilities.

To help overcome the numbers problem, ICE launched several programs to work with state and local law enforcement that would increase the penalties to illegal immigrants and those engaged in human trafficking. ICE launched the section 287(g) program in 2002, which deputized state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal immigration law. ICE also started the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), aimed at identifying criminals in state and local jails and prisons. Although good programs, the section 287(g) and CAP programs involved only a small number of jurisdictions, so their successes barely made a dent in the illegal alien population. The mathematical problem remained.

Starting in 2004, state legislatures began to assert themselves in the area of illegal immigration as the numbers problem equated to busted budgets and increasing societal burdens. Although the activity level in 2004 seems low today, at the time, the increase in bills passed that dealt with one of six aspects of illegal immigration caused a stir. By 2008, the increase in activity at the state level had jumped to 1,305 bills introduced and 209 bills passed. The primary areas of action were (1) driver's licenses and identification, (2) public benefits, (3) higher education benefits, (4) voting security, (5) criminal sanctions, and (6) employment. As states began to reclaim their historical roles and authorities under the Constitution, interest groups supportive of illegal immigration began their assaults in the courtrooms.

Constitutionally, other than in the areas of border security and visa policy, the Tenth Amendment ensures that states retain their traditional police powers to control their jurisdictions. Despite the enormous growth of the federal government from 1935 to today, states remain the "laboratories of democracy," exhibiting the flexibility to develop innovative solutions to America's toughest challenges. On interior illegal-immigration enforcement issues, states and localities are doing what they can to solve their problems.

With the onslaught of legal challenges from interest groups that drive the cost of reform ever higher, states have become more cautious in order to preserve what little that remains of their budgets after the economic downturn (and their years of big spending). States and localities have won all legal challenges that have reached federal appellate courts or state supreme courts. These legal victories should embolden states and localities to continue their push to curtail the migration of illegal aliens into their jurisdictions with tough laws against employing, housing, and aiding illegal aliens and even tougher laws criminalizing all aspects of human trafficking.

As this report highlights, states and localities can take more actions in more areas to control their jurisdictions. Congress should help them, not by passing an amnesty reform package, but by amending the statutory (not constitutional) provisions that limit the actions they can take and by increasing the legal means for foreigners to come to the United States to work. The only way to end or significantly slow illegal immigration in America is to create a mosaic of laws across the country that increase the cost of illegal immigration to a point that the supply dwindles to a trickle as the demand is filled by legal workers.

The fires of innovation are beginning to burn brightly in the individual states--which must be free to solve yet another of America's most complex problems. It is time for Washington, D.C., to stop watching the fire from afar and do all that it can to help the states.

The AZ Republic Wants Supreme's To Decide AZ Sanctions Law.

The largest newspaper in Arizona, "The Arizona Republic," has decided that the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were wrong when they decided that the Arizona Employer Sanctions Law was legal and, as the title of today's editorial says, "Only High Court Can Bring Clarity On Sanctions."

For those who may not be aware, knowingly hiring undocumented workers is illegal. We don't know what part of illegal the Republic doesn't understand, but it is clear to us they are opposed to any sanctions against greedy employers who profit from knowingly hiring undocumented (illegal alien) workers.

Some Arizona business interest, specifically the group know as the "Wake Up Arizona Coalition," headed by McDonald's franchise owner and fat cat campaign contributor, Mac Magruder, have done everything they could to obstruct enactment and enforcement of sanctions against employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers.

The Republic claims that the Arizona sanctions law, which has never been used against an employer, "was more about making a statement than making good public policy."

Sometimes making a statement like, "if we catch you knowingly hiring undocumented workers, we will take away your license to do business in Arizona," is good public policy.

The Republic editorial said, "due to widespread frustration over the failure of Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform, Arizona's law has been copied across the country." Members of Congress know that the American people are strongly opposed to amnesty for those in our country illegal, therefore, they use the more positive sounding phrase, comprehensive immigration reform, but it is still just code for amnesty.

The editorial goes on to say, "Let us be clear: We support changes to the federal immigration laws that establish tough enforcement sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers." Maybe the editorial should have added the words, "as long as the law is not enforced."

For the Republic's information, federal immigration law already has tough enforcement sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers. The primary cause of the massive illegal immigration problem in the United States has been the none-enforcement of sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers. We don't need any more immigration laws from Congress or dictated by the Supreme Court, we just need to have the laws we already have enforced.

Entering or staying in the United States without our government's permission is illegal. Hiring people who are in the United States illegally is also illegal. Attempting to obstruct enforcement of employer sanctions by court action, editorials or, with large campaign contributions to members of congress, is detrimental to the welfare of the nation and the American people and selfish.

Bob Haran,
American Conservative Republican

Senate to Consider Amnesty Again

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has reported that the U.S. Senate Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Refugees, will hold a hearing on April 30 entitled "Comprehensive Immigration Reform in 2009, Can We Do it and How?"

The Subcommittee is chaired by Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), who has packed the witness panel with individuals hopelessly biased in support of amnesty. While there is one witness, Kris Koback, who is a friend of true immigration reform, the remaining witnesses represent a "who's who" of open border advocates and business interests who want to import cheap labor.

Some of the other witnesses named thus far are:

* Alan Greenspan, Former Chairman, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System.

*Eliseo Medina, Executive Vice President, Service Employees International

* Doris Meissner, Senior Fellow, Migration Policy Institute.

La Raza has organized a grassroots lobbying effort to coincide with the Senate hearings this week and, according to FAIR, this nationwide effort will include phone calls, and -- will culminate with marches on May 1st demanding amnesty.

True immigration reformers understand that so-called "comprehensive reform' is not in the best interest of the American people. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens; rewards law-breakers, imposes a huge cost burden on American taxpayers, and does nothing to solve the problem of illegal immigration. The fact is, as we saw after the 1986 amnesty, it only encourages more illegal immigration.

In 2007, true immigrations reformers who care about America, defeated a "comprehensive" reform amnesty with a firestorm of calls to Congress. FAIR is asking the American people, to once again, contact their U.S. Senators and Representatives and let them know that we are opposed to any effort to pass a, "comprehensive immigration reform bill," that includes amnesty for illegal aliens.

Tancredo: Immigration Debate a Fraud without Secure Border

Commentary: Immigration debate without true border security is a fraud
By Tom Tancredo;


Tom Tancredo is a former Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Colorado and founder of the Rocky Mountain Foundation.



There are two main political obstacles to a new amnesty bill in this session of Congress.
First, the White House has other priorities despite the whining from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. If President Obama and Rahm Emanuel were all that committed to a new amnesty bill as a top priority, the National Council of La Raza would not be sending out a newsletter alert asking its followers to bombard the White House, Reid and Pelosi with calls and emails demanding action “Ahora!” — which they did yesterday. The fact is, the economy makes any such proposal “DOA” in Congress without a full-court press by the White House — which is not going to happen—and even then it would be a loser.

Second, Senator McCain managed to secure the Republican nomination only after neutralizing the amnesty issue by telling Republicans—“I’ve got the message: border security must come first.” If he now supports an amnesty bill while the border fence is incomplete and border security is still years away, he will be universally chastised as a fraud.

The bottom line? Let’s build the fence, a true double fence like we have in San Diego, increase Border Patrol manpower to 25,000, and only then have a national debate about what to do with the 20 million illegal aliens already here. A debate without true border security is a farce and a fraud.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Tom Tancredo.