The Obama Administration not only is curtailing federal enforcement of immigration laws but may also clamp down against state and local enforcement efforts.
If the federal government turns a blind eye and stifles others from acting, then illegal aliens can take and keep the jobs that many Americans now would like to have. It’s done bureaucratically, so we move quietly toward amnesty, without the public outcry that comes with open debate.
Local and state governments have inherent constitutional power to help enforce federal laws, as well as the ability to participate in coordinated efforts with federal agencies. Yet the newly-revamped Department of Justice (DoJ) is accused of trying to chill that enforcement by intimidating local law enforcement. Exhibit A is Justice’s official investigation of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, for supposed civil rights violations in enforcing immigration laws.
The notice sent to Arpaio cites alleged discriminatory police practices, unconstitutional searches and seizures, national origin discrimination and failure to provide services to non-English speakers. The sheriff has been outspoken about his efforts to have his deputies root out people who are illegally in the country.
The DoJ investigation of Arpaio is chock-full of partisan overtones on both sides. An Arizona Republic column has already labeled the probe a witch hunt, noting that Arpaio’s deputies were trained to follow strict civil rights guidelines in enforcing immigration laws. As for their practice of locating illegals via legitimate traffic stops, it’s noted that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh was apprehended on that very basis.
It’s undeniable that politics were involved in DoJ’s decision. Democrats, led by House Judiciary Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D, MI), publicly called for the investigation in a February letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. They wrote, “Arpaio has evinced a blatant disregard for the rights of Hispanic residents of the Phoenix area,” and complained about efforts “to search out undocumented immigrants.” They protested that persons arrested for immigration violations were moved about “in shackles” and housed in a “tent city” - both common treatment for all persons doing time in Maricopa County. The Democrat letter concluded it was part of racial profiling.
The mayor of Phoenix, Democrat Phil Gordon, had previously asked for such a probe of Arpaio’s enforcement actions.
After the investigation was announced, Republicans countered with their own letter to A-G Holder. Led by Judiciary Ranking Member Rep. Lamar Smith (R, TX), the GOP letter warned that the Justice Department action “carries with it great potential to chill the actions” of state and local law enforcement across the country. They called on Holder to issue assurances that his actions are “not for the purposes of politicizing or chilling immigration enforcement.”
So far, Holder has not publicly done so.
The GOP letter also linked the Arpaio investigation with other efforts to limit worksite enforcement. It noted that Napolitano responded to a Feb. 25th federal worksite enforcement raid not with praise, but with an angry call to investigate her own people. As the letter noted, the two investigations create “legitimate concern that other law enforcement officials may well be intimidated into scaling back and otherwise deemphasizing their federal authorized and approved immigration-related law enforcement activities out of fear of being subjected to investigation by the Department.”
Arpaio, who bills himself as “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” has not backed down. "I am not going to be intimidated by the politics and by the Justice Department," Arpaio said. "I want the people of Arizona to know this: I will continue to enforce all the immigration laws."
According to University of Pittsburgh law professor David Harris, the Arpaio matter is the very first civil rights investigation stemming from immigration enforcement.
The Arpaio matter is part of a pattern slowing down efforts to make sure that illegal aliens do not take jobs from Americans and do not impose extra burdens on U.S. taxpayers.
When Napolitano announced she is shifting more personnel to the border to deal with Mexico’s violent drug cartels, some questioned whether they would be transferred away from efforts to detect and deport illegal aliens. Both Rep. Lamar Smith and the top Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King (R, NY), raised that concern. As King said, “I support Secretary Napolitano’s decision to deploy additional personnel to the border. I would hope this will not in any way lessen interior enforcement. Should Secretary Napolitano need more border personnel, I would certainly support that request.”
Another signal from Napolitano is her testimony to Congress that she will focus on employers who “exploit” illegal workers rather than those who “employ” them. In other words, she will make sure that illegal workers are well-paid, rather than helping free up those jobs for Americans or for legal residents.
How else might the Obama undercut the popular state and local levels to enforce federal immigration laws? State and local officials have inherent constitutional authority to do this. The Department of Justice agreed in an April 3, 2002, internal policy memo, which concluded: “(1) State have inherent power, subject to federal preemption, to make arrests for violation of federal law. (2) . . . federal statutes should be presumed not to preempt this arrest authority. . . . (3) Section 1252c [authorizing state and local arrests] does not preempt state authority to arrest for federal violations.”
The 2002 Justice policy reversed a contrary 1996 memo. Might the Obama Administration now try to reverse the 2002 policy, with another memo they would use it to undercut state and local enforcement efforts? If so, it would fit a pattern of quietly promoting amnesty-like results via lack of enforcement. That strategy tries to avoid provoking loud public outrage, as in 2007 when amnesty was publicly promoted by many in Congress and the Bush Administration.
Last year, as a Presidential candidate, Obama made his amnesty intentions clear. This year, as President, his approach so far has been stealthier. It didn’t help his approach when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called workplace enforcement raids un-American and vowed that they must end.
On top of the other trillions in new federal spending, this quiet amnesty could add extra new burdens. The 2007 amnesty proposal would have cost taxpayers an extra $2.6-trillion, according to The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector. What will Obama’s “quiet amnesty” cost us now? And, with his plans to impose a higher tax burden on an ever-shrinking pool of taxpayers, who can afford it?
Chances for a public debate - rather than behind-the-scenes bureaucratic changes - may depend on the irrepressible eagerness of the Hispanic Caucus in Congress. One proponent of aggressive action, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D, CA), says a “green light” has been given to those wanting to pass an amnesty bill in the next few months.
A raid makes headlines; absence of raids doesn’t.
