Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:36 am
Time: 12:36 am
Results for sanctuary jurisdictions
2 results foundAuthor: Kandel, William A. Title: Sanctuary Jurisdictions and Criminal Aliens: In Brief Summary: The prominence of immigration enforcement issues during the 2016 Presidential elections and publicity surrounding crimes committed by some unauthorized aliens, have reignited the debate over immigration enforcement in the interior of the country. One homicide case - the July 2, 2015 slaying of a woman on a San Francisco pier by a reported unauthorized alien with a criminal and deportation history - was particularly noteworthy, because the law enforcement agency in question reportedly did not honor an immigration detainer issued by the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the individual who committed the crime. At the end of 2014, noncitizens accounted for 11.2% of the 209,561 individuals incarcerated in federal prisons, 3.5% of the 1,268,740 individuals incarcerated in state prisons, and 4.6% of the entire incarcerated population. In 2014, noncitizens represented 7.0% of the U.S. population. All of these proportions are slightly understated because they do not include figures for California which did not report its non-citizen incarcerated population. Incarceration data indicate that drug offenders accounted for 50% of all federal offenders in federal prison at the end of FY2013. Forty-six percent of noncitizen federal prisoners were incarcerated for drug offenses at the end of FY2013. Although immigration offenders represented almost 12% of all federal offenders incarcerated at the end of 2012, they represented 43% of all federal noncitizen offenders. Combined, drug and immigration offenses represented almost 90% of all noncitizen federal offenses at the end of FY2013. Published data on the state and local prisoners by offense type and citizenship status are not available. While immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, efforts have continually been made to use the potential 'force multipliers' offered by local law enforcement. In 1996 legislation was enacted allowing the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement jurisdictions that would permit it to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to state and local law enforcement agents. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, this program, commonly referred to as the Section 287(g) program, and others involving federal and state and local cooperation, took on new urgency. ICE's Section 287(g) program permits the agency to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to trained state and local law enforcement officers, under federal supervision, to identify criminal aliens. ICE also operates the Criminal Alien Program, along with Secure Communities/Interoperability to identify, detain and remove criminal and other removable aliens. While funding for these programs increased over the years since their inception, it has declined in recent years. In recent years, some jurisdictions have expressly defined or limited their roles and the activities of their employees regarding immigration enforcement. Critics contend that such policies within so-called 'sanctuary' jurisdictions can lead to tragic outcomes (such as the one described above) and can ultimately encourage illegal immigration. Supporters maintain that they are necessary because of resource and legal constraints, the need to avoid the disruption of critical municipal services, and human rights considerations. Congress may choose to consider several issues, including whether the potentially positive impacts on public safety of state and local involvement in immigration enforcement outweigh the potentially negative impacts on both law enforcement resource utilization and community relations within such jurisdictions; and whether increasing law enforcement funding or tying the provision of certain federal grants to greater cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agencies - or a mix of both approaches - would yield the greater cooperation oponents are seeking. The 114th Congress is considering proposals that would prohibit jurisdictions that prohibit or restrict its law enforcement agencies from notifying ICE on the immigration status of aliens or collecting information on the immigration or citizenship status of individuals from receiving certain federal grants. These proposals include H.R. 3009, H.R. 3002, S. 80, S. 1764, S. 2193 and S. 3100. The House passed H.R. 3009 on July 23, 2015. Similarly, amendments adopted during the House Committee on Appropriations markup of the FY2016 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill and the House consideration of Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2578) would prohibit federal funds from going to jurisdictions that restrict their law enforcement agents from notifying ICE on the immigration status of aliens. The former would prohibit Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, while the latter would do so for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance grant funds. S.Rept. 114-66 to accompany H.R. 2578 contains no language supporting such restrictions. On October 20, 2015, the Senate also failed to pass a cloture motion to consider S. 2146, which would make sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for certain federal grants; grant jurisdictions that honor immigration detainers the authority to carry them out and limit their liability in doing so; and increase penalties for previously removed aliens who attempt to reenter the United States without authorization. The Senate reportedly plans to consider two measures, S. 3100 and S. 2193, that would restrict federal funding to cities that decline to honor detainers; and increase penalties (i.e., prison sentence) for migrants who illegally renter the country. S. 3100 would withhold a range of federal grants for public works, economic development, planning, administrative expenses, training, research, and technical assistance from such sanctuary jurisdictions. S. 2193 would increase maximum prison terms for unauthorized aliens by setting a five-year maximum sentence for unauthorized aliens with felony convictions caught two or more times, and a 10-year maximum sentence on unauthorized aliens caught reentering three times. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: R44118: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44118.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44118.pdf Shelf Number: 146675 Keywords: Criminal AliensIllegal MigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicySanctuary Jurisdictions |
Author: Herman, Sarah S. Title: State and Local "Sanctuary" Policies Limiting Participation in Immigration Enforcement Summary: The federal government is vested with the exclusive power to create rules governing which aliens may enter the United States and which aliens may be removed. However, the impact of alien migration "whether lawful or unlawful" is arguably felt most directly in the communities where aliens reside. State and local responses to unlawfully present aliens within their jurisdictions have varied considerably, particularly as to the role that state and local police should play in enforcing federal immigration law. While some states and municipalities actively participate in or cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, others have actively opposed federal immigration authorities' efforts to identify and remove certain unlawfully present aliens within their jurisdictions. Entities that have adopted such policies are sometimes referred to as "sanctuary" jurisdictions. There is no official, formal, or agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a "sanctuary" jurisdiction, and there has been debate as to whether the term applies to particular states and localities. Moreover, state and local jurisdictions might have varied reasons for opting not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, including for reasons not necessarily motivated by disagreement with federal policies, such as concern about potential civil liability or the costs associated with assisting federal efforts. Having said that, traditional sanctuary policies are often described as falling under one of three categories. First, so-called "don't enforce" policies generally bar the state or local police from assisting federal immigration authorities. Second, "don't ask" policies generally bar certain state or local officials from inquiring into a person’s immigration status. Third, "don't tell" policies typically restrict information sharing between state or local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. This report provides examples of various state and local laws and policies that fall into one of these sanctuary categories. The report also discusses federal measures designed to counteract sanctuary policies. For instance, Section 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) were enacted to curb state and local restrictions on information sharing with federal immigration authorities. Additionally, the report discusses legal issues relevant to sanctuary policies. In particular, the report examines the extent to which states, as sovereign entities, may decline to assist in federal immigration enforcement and the degree to which the federal government can stop state measures that undermine federal objectives in a manner that is consistent with the Supremacy Clause and the Tenth Amendment. Indeed, the federal government's power to regulate the immigration and status of aliens within the United States is substantial and exclusive. Under the doctrine of preemption "derived from the Supremacy Clause" Congress may invalidate or displace state laws pertaining to immigration. This action may be done expressly or impliedly, for instance, when federal regulation occupies an entire field or when state law interferes with a federal regulatory scheme. However, not every state or local law related to immigration is preempted by federal law, especially when the local law involves the police powers to promote public health, safety, and welfare reserved to the states via the Tenth Amendment. Further, the anti-commandeering principles derived from the Tenth Amendment prohibit the federal government from directing states and localities to implement a federal regulatory program, like immigration. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2017. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: R44795: Accessed April 3, 2017 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44795.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R44795.pdf Shelf Number: 144696 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicySanctuary JurisdictionsSanctuary Policies |