National Journal
By Sam Baker
July 13, 2015
Republicans
are pressing the White House to crack down on "sanctuary cities"—but
there's only so much the Obama administration could do, even if it
wanted to.
Jeb
Bush, Marco Rubio, and plenty of other 2016 candidates have called for
new limits on sanctuary cities after a San Francisco woman was fatally
shot this month, allegedly
by an undocumented immigrant who had been deported from the U.S. five
times.
"There
are over 200 sanctuary cities and counties in this country, and the
U.S. Department of Justice has done absolutely nothing—nothing!—to
prevent this," former Texas
Gov. Rick Perry said last weekend.
So
far, none of the major cities that refuse to help enforce federal
immigration laws, including San Francisco, have shown much interest in
changing their policies. And
legal experts say it's unclear exactly how much power the federal
government has to force cities' hands—mostly because the Justice
Department has never shown much interest in doing so.
There's
no formal definition of a "sanctuary city." Generally, the term refers
to localities that have said they won't use their own resources to help
enforce federal
immigration laws. Supporters say the approach makes their cities safer,
in large part because it encourages undocumented immigrants to report
crimes and cooperate with police, free from the threat of deportation.
But
in the wake of the San Francisco shooting, congressional Republicans
have called on the Justice Department to crack down on local
nonenforcement, and have offered
their own proposals to force cities to cooperate with Immigration and
Customs Enforcement.
One
proposal, from Sen. Tom Cotton, would withhold Homeland Security grants
from any city where official policy "prohibits law enforcement officers
… from assisting or
cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement in the course of
carrying out the officers' routine law enforcement duties."
Cutting
off federal funds to cities that won't help with immigration
enforcement—the approach Bush also has endorsed—would probably be the
most effective way to eliminate
"sanctuary cities," said Huyen Pham, a law professor at Texas A&M
University who specializes in immigration law.
The
types of policies singled out in Cotton's proposal already are illegal.
Two federal laws, passed in 1996, say that states and cities can't pass
their own laws prohibiting
local officials from sharing information with federal immigration
officials.
But
hundreds of cities have tried to work around those limits, and the
federal government has made "surprisingly" few attempts to stop them,
Pham said. That reluctance
to challenge local policies, she noted, spans the Obama and George W.
Bush administrations.
Several
cities, for example, won't use local resources to determine residents'
immigration status. So, while it's illegal for them to refuse to share
citizenship information
with ICE, they simply don't collect that information in the first
place—meaning they have nothing to share.
"Though
this method does not directly conflict with federal requirements that
states and localities permit the free exchange of information regarding
persons' immigration
status, it results in specified agencies or officers lacking any
information about persons' immigration status that they could share with
federal authorities," the Congressional Research Service said in a 2009
report.
San
Francisco's noncooperation policy is considered one of the most
aggressive in the country. It bars local officials from helping to
enforce federal immigration laws
"unless such assistance is required by federal or state statute,
regulation, or court decision"—and ICE has consistently clashed with the
city over whether it complies with federal law.
San
Francisco's policy includes an exception for criminal defendants, but
even then, ICE has complained that the city does only the minimum, often
only assisting federal
officials when they file a formal arrest warrant.
When
San Francisco police last arrested Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the
suspect in the July 1 shooting, ICE had asked for a heads-up on if and
when he was released,
so that it could arrest him on immigration charges and deport him. The
city didn't provide that notice, though, and ICE didn't issue an arrest
warrant.
Asking
cities to keep undocumented immigrants in their jails on ICE's behalf
would raise constitutional issues, Pham said. The federal government
cannot "commandeer" local
governments for its own purposes. But asking for notice is different,
she said, and the Justice Department might be able to convince a judge
that San Francisco's noncooperation policies go too far.
"I
think there would be some possibility of enforcing those two federal
provisions," she said—if the federal government wanted to sue
noncooperating cities.
Melissa
Kearney, a staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center,
said she's not particularly worried about the Justice Department trying
to crack down on "sanctuary
cities," at least while President Obama is still in office.
Even
if a Republican president wanted to change course in 2017, the options
for a unilateral Justice Department crackdown might be limited.
"There might be one or two provisions that could violate the federal statute, but the policy—there's a lot to it," Pham said.
According
to a 2007 report by the Justice Department's inspector general, San
Francisco was the only "sanctuary city" to identify itself as having a
policy on the books
that prohibited communication with federal immigration officials. Pham
said that provision might conflict with federal law, but that the
overall noncooperation measure would probably be safe.
"I think they'd have a shot … but only against the one part," she said.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment