TexasAlex

Local Police Enforcing Federal Civil Immigration Law: A Clear and
Present Danger to Public Safety


April 22, 2004

Washington ?EToday the
Senate Immigration Subcommittee is holding a hearing on controversial
legislation that would compel state and local police to enforce federal
civil immigration laws.

The Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien
Removal (CLEAR) Act (H.R. 2671) and its Senate companion, the Homeland
Security Enhancement Act (S. 1906), have drawn the ire of police
departments, law enforcement and national security experts, state and
local governments, conservative policy groups, domestic violence
prevention advocates, civil rights watchdogs, and others. These unusual
allies oppose local enforcement of federal immigration laws principally
because it undermines local law enforcements ability to fight crime and
ensure public safety in their communities.

National security experts
and state and local law enforcement agree that good intelligence and
strong community relations are the keys to keeping our nation and our
streets safe. If immigrant communities are alienated rather than
embraced, local law enforcement loses important allies and relationships
that can share information and tips on potential crimes.

Making state
and local police enforce federal immigration laws strikes a direct blow
at the efforts of police to win the trust and confidence of the
communities they serve,?Esaid Angela Kelley, Deputy Director of the
National Immigration Forum. When immigrant communities hear local police
are clamping down on civil immigration enforcement, victims of crime,
victims of domestic violence, potential witnesses and informants will
clam up. That will make the primary job of our local police much
harder.?E

Opposition to the legislation has been expressed by 37
sheriff's offices, police chiefs, and police associations nationally and
in at least 12 states, including Arizona, California, Iowa, Kansas,
Maine, Massachusetts, and Texas. Additionally, 356 national, state, and
local organizations in 37 states have asked Congress to defeat this
dangerous legislation. Countless other police and local governments have
expressed opposition to the general concept of state and local
enforcement of civil immigration laws.

The effort of some in Congress
to foist immigration law enforcement on the states comes at a time when
state and local budgets are already stretched to the breaking point. The
Homeland Security Enhancement Act further threatens these budgets, by
denying states and localities federal grants they currently receive if
they don't take on these additional duties. Kelley pointed to opposition
to the legislation coming from the National Association of Counties,
National League of Cities, National Conference of State Legislatures,
and the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition as evidence that state and
local governments are not seeking additional federal mandates.


Additionally, organizations from The Heritage Foundation to Human
Rights Watch, and scores of local groups that counsel victims of
domestic violence, have been critical of this legislation.

Kelley made
it clear that police are already able to call the Department of Homeland
Security when they have a criminal in custody who may warrant
immigration action. It is the extra burden of initiating civil
immigration enforcement actions that would be counterproductive for
local police forces.

If the Congress feels more should be done to
track, arrest, and deport immigrants who have committed crimes, they
should be willing to pay for the trained, federal officers to do
so,?EKelley said. Butting the burden of enforcing civil immigration law
on already overburdened, under-funded, and under-trained state and local
police is a cop out.?E

Please copy & distribute freely.

Oliver Costich

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:56:00 +0000, TexasAlex
<member19106@british_expats.com> wrote:

    >Local Police Enforcing Federal Civil Immigration Law: A Clear and
    >Present Danger to Public Safety
    >April 22, 2004
    >Washington ?EToday the
    >Senate Immigration Subcommittee is holding a hearing on controversial
    >legislation that would compel state and local police to enforce federal
    >civil immigration laws.
    >The Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien
    >Removal (CLEAR) Act (H.R. 2671) and its Senate companion, the Homeland
    >Security Enhancement Act (S. 1906), have drawn the ire of police
    >departments, law enforcement and national security experts, state and
    >local governments, conservative policy groups, domestic violence
    >prevention advocates, civil rights watchdogs, and others. These unusual
    >allies oppose local enforcement of federal immigration laws principally
    >because it undermines local law enforcements ability to fight crime and
    >ensure public safety in their communities.
    >National security experts
    >and state and local law enforcement agree that good intelligence and
    >strong community relations are the keys to keeping our nation and our
    >streets safe. If immigrant communities are alienated rather than
    >embraced, local law enforcement loses important allies and relationships
    >that can share information and tips on potential crimes.
    >Making state
    >and local police enforce federal immigration laws strikes a direct blow
    >at the efforts of police to win the trust and confidence of the
    >communities they serve,?Esaid Angela Kelley, Deputy Director of the
    >National Immigration Forum. When immigrant communities hear local police
    >are clamping down on civil immigration enforcement, victims of crime,
    >victims of domestic violence, potential witnesses and informants will
    >clam up. That will make the primary job of our local police much
    >harder.?E
    >Opposition to the legislation has been expressed by 37
    >sheriff's offices, police chiefs, and police associations nationally and
    >in at least 12 states, including Arizona, California, Iowa, Kansas,
    >Maine, Massachusetts, and Texas. Additionally, 356 national, state, and
    >local organizations in 37 states have asked Congress to defeat this
    >dangerous legislation. Countless other police and local governments have
    >expressed opposition to the general concept of state and local
    >enforcement of civil immigration laws.
    >The effort of some in Congress
    >to foist immigration law enforcement on the states comes at a time when
    >state and local budgets are already stretched to the breaking point. The
    >Homeland Security Enhancement Act further threatens these budgets, by
    >denying states and localities federal grants they currently receive if
    >they don't take on these additional duties. Kelley pointed to opposition
    >to the legislation coming from the National Association of Counties,
    >National League of Cities, National Conference of State Legislatures,
    >and the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition as evidence that state and
    >local governments are not seeking additional federal mandates.
    >Additionally, organizations from The Heritage Foundation to Human
    >Rights Watch, and scores of local groups that counsel victims of
    >domestic violence, have been critical of this legislation.
    >Kelley made
    >it clear that police are already able to call the Department of Homeland
    >Security when they have a criminal in custody who may warrant
    >immigration action. It is the extra burden of initiating civil
    >immigration enforcement actions that would be counterproductive for
    >local police forces.
    >If the Congress feels more should be done to
    >track, arrest, and deport immigrants who have committed crimes, they
    >should be willing to pay for the trained, federal officers to do
    >so,?EKelley said. Butting the burden of enforcing civil immigration law
    >on already overburdened, under-funded, and under-trained state and local
    >police is a cop out.?E
    >Please copy & distribute freely.


What's a clear and present danger to the US is explosive population
growth due to immigration, and mainly by people who will use more
social services than most citizens.

Oliver D Greene

TexasAlex <member19106@british_expats.com> wrote:

    > Local Police Enforcing Federal Civil Immigration Law: A Clear and
    > Present Danger to Public Safety

If I knew that a 9/11 style attack was unavoidable, and I was put
in a position where I had to choose the city to be attacked (sort
of like Sophie's choicie), I would choose a city which had a law on
the books that forbade city employees from cooperating with immigration
authorities -- a city like New York. New York was indirectly responsible
for the attack upon it.

ODG

Supernav

Criminals are criminals. Why are immigration crimes a special case that
shouldn't involve enforcement? Cuz there's so many of them? All the
more reason to allocate more resources.

What dumbass illegals DON'T
realize is -- the MORE we protect and lock the border, the more we
strengthen the immigration system, the more we close loopholes, the more
electronic and streamlined we get -- the HIGHER the chance they'll be an
amnesty. Legalizing folks here while having the door still open is
stupid and reckless. It's akin to treason of a country by sheer
stupdity.

-= nav =-