Some Arizona, the local roles in the application of immigration are reasonable; Others are not – daily independent

Robert Rob

Photo

Robert Rob

A Memorandum of the Internal Federal Ministry of Justice is discussing the pursuit of state and local officials who do not cooperate with the efforts of the Trump administration to detain and deport illegal immigrants.

Democratic officials in the country promise resistance, with varying degrees of emphasis. In Arizona, Prosecutor General Chris Mace and Phoenix Mayor Kate Galego, among others, have expressed at least some degree of challenge. Governor Katie Hobbs has some hem and walk.

At least two bills have been introduced in Arizona legislation intended for compulsory compliance.

If American politics were healthier, it would not have been so a dispute. There are reasonable things to expect state and local law enforcement agencies to do to support the implementation of immigration laws, most of which are already happening in Arizona. And there are things that are unwise to expect and this would also be unreasonable and highly vulnerable to abuse. Arizona’s last story also illustrates this.

The navigation between reasonable and unreasonable is guided by two basic principles. The first is that laws must be applied, even by employees who think they need to be changed.

This is the essential difference between the fact that it is governed by the rule of law and is governed by the fad of autocratic and arbitrary power. It is a major building block of the Republican form of government guaranteed by the US Constitution.

The second principle is the federalism or double sovereignty of national and state governments. According to this principle, the federal government cannot command countries’ resources to implement federal programs or goals.

So, what is reasonable to expect state and local authorities to do voluntarily, not through coercion, to help the implementation of immigration laws? The focal point of cooperation is and you have to be prisons and prisons.

Local ID, Holding isssential for public safety

It is not much of a burden for local law enforcement agencies to facilitate the identification of illegal immigrants among prisoners and to worship detention to hand them over to federal immigration officers if requested. What is convicted of serious crimes is essential for protecting public safety. But it must be remembered that everyone in the country is illegally deported. They should not turn a blind eye simply because it was known by committing a less crime.

Deportation in these circumstances includes a degree of proper process, time -taking and resources. The prioritization of the deportation belongs to the federal government, not to the state and local officials.

There are a number of ways in which state and local employees can facilitate the identification and retention of illegal immigrants who become prisoners. There are two ways known as 287G programs after the federal legislation section that allows them.

In the model of implementation of the prison, state or local correction officials can undergo training and be authorized to interview prisoners and have access to federal databases to identify the illegal immigrants in the deprived population and to announce that the federal immigration immigration employees.

In the Program for the Order Officers, the amendment employees may receive significantly less training, but are only authorized for the delivery of documents, an administrative order with respect to the prisoners who have determined the federal immigration officers themselves, must be detained for the initiation of the procedures for deportation.

But these 287G programs are not the only way to cooperate. Maricopa County does not participate in any of the programs. However, the county allows federal immigration officials to be prisoned to check prisoners for immigration violations and demands for retaining honors. Other forms of cooperation that are not 287g of authority delegation are occasionally applied from time to time.

The federal government had other 287G programs that allow state or local law enforcement officers to carry out immigration arrests outside prisons or prisons. Here we move to the territory of the unreasonable, unreasonable and subordinate to abuse.

The Trump administration may try to revive this option, which is supported by many in immigration restriction of movement as a potential significant multiplication of the power to apply immigration. The DOJ memorandum suggests that the administration may even try to force state and local cops to become contractors to immigration.

The application would be confronted with the principle of double sovereignty. And even if you allow it as an option, it is unreasonable, as Arizona’s experience fully demonstrates.

The racial profiling of the former sheriff caused a lawsuit, changes

The Sheriff of Maricopa County at Joe Arpio won an immigration arrest body. He uses it for screaming racial profiling. He would set up Dragneth in Latin American neighborhoods, make his officers withdraw cars for Picayunish trafficking violations, and then send press releases about how many illegal immigrants have been hit. He had no experience to even try to hide the fact that the stops were just a claim to seek illegal immigrants.

The result was a successful civil right case, which put the operations of the service under the control of a federal judge where it remains. The 287G variant for local law enforcement authorities to obtain an immigration arrest authority was eliminated shortly thereafter, undoubtedly due to a significant part of Arpio’s demonstration of how power was vulnerable to abuse.

Limiting the state and the local role in facilitating the identification of illegal prisoners immigrants is far less susceptible to racial profiling than to give an immigration body to the local cops. Even if the country wants more stable implementation of immigration, it is a line that should not intersect.

Arizona House Bill 2099

One of the bills introduced in the legislature was the Chamber of 2099 with GoP Rep. Teresa martinez as a major sponsor will require the governor and the prosecutor General to “apply, administer and cooperate with federal actions, orders and programs that relate to the implementation of federal immigration laws. “

This is not a serious proposal for policy, as it is completely unknown what actions, orders and programs may be ahead, whether it would be reasonable or appropriate for the state to apply, administer or cooperate with them or what it would cost. Obviously, it’s just a piece of veto lure designed to enable Republicans to portray Hobbs and Mace as a soft immigration that they do not agree to buy a pig in Puk.

If the Republicans want a governor and a prosecutor General closer to their thinking about immigration, they can try to place nominees for those positions that can actually win a common election. Just a thought.

Arizona Senate Bill 1164

The other bill, a Senate bill 1164, with Senate President Warren Petersen as a major sponsor, is a serious proposal for policy and is somewhat consistent. Nevertheless, it is also fatal insufficient.

The mandates of the bill will be applied to the state and the counties, but not to the municipalities. Counties are legal administrative weapons of the state. There are no charter counties with an independent body as there are literate cities. Thus, the scope of the bill is within the correct jurisdiction of the state legislative body.

This will require the State Department of Correction and District Sheriffs to participate in the most sophisticated 287G program available, which is currently the model for the implementation of the prison.

State prisons are already participating in this program, as well as the Counts La Pas, Pinal and Yavapai. So, the state at least does what the bill would be required.

Maricopa County is not, but the same result is obtained, identifying and retaining prisoners of federal immigration officials want to deport. This is done at the expense of the federal government, not the taxpayers of Maricopa County. What is the point of forcing Maricopa County to seek the status of 287G, which, given the supervision of the court, can be problematic when the same result is obtained by the federal government?

The real danger of Peterssen’s bill, although he probably wouldn’t see him as such, if the Trump administration revived the possibility of state and local cops to receive an illegal presence body. The Bill of Petersen, as written, will require a percentage of employees of the various district sheriff offices, all of them to receive such an arrest body. But, it is curious that not the State Department of Public Safety.

The last thing Arizona needs is Arpaio Redux.

Reform and amnesty of immigration law

I believe that our immigration laws need to be changed and I prefer amnesty for most of those currently in the country, illegally, combined with the obligatory use of the electronic check and reform of the Asylum System to transfer to be transferred Failed claims, much more quickly. Each stage of performance will catch up with those that I and most Americans, according to polls, would not want to see deported.

Providing the eyes blind in the violations of our immigration laws undermines the rule of law. When the illegal presence comes to the attention of officials, it should not be ignored.

In particular, those whose illegal presence is emerging as a result of being deprived of liberty should not be ignored. And respect for the rule of law is argued by government and local officials to facilitate the identification and retaining of those who lies and federal immigration officials want to deport.

Editor’s note: Arizona retired journalist Robert Rob is considering the policy and public policy of UnderdogS Get to it [email protected]S Please send your comments to [email protected]S We are committed to posting a wide variety of readers’ opinions as long as they meet with our Citizenship guidelinesS