Apa yang harus Anda lakukan sebagai kontraktor Industri Konstruksi (CIS) 4. Verifikasi subkontraktor Sebelum Anda dapat membayar subkontraktor baru, Anda harus memverifikasinya dengan HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). HMRC akan memberi tahu Anda: apakah mereka terdaftar untuk Skema Industri Konstruksi (CIS) berapa tingkat pengurangan yang akan digunakan atau jika Anda dapat membayarnya tanpa melakukan pemotongan Anda juga harus memverifikasi subkontraktor yang telah Anda gunakan sebelumnya jika Anda belum memasukkannya ke CIS kembali di 2 tahun pajak terakhir atau terakhir. Cara memverifikasi Anda dapat memverifikasi subkontraktor menggunakan: Apa yang Anda perlukan Pastikan Anda memiliki: Rujukan Wajib Pajak Anda yang Unik (UTR) nomor referensi untuk kantor HMRC Anda referensi majikan HMRC Anda juga memerlukan subkontraktor Anda: nama bisnis legal (atau nama dagang Mereka memberi saat mereka mendaftarkan diri dengan CIS) Nomor Asuransi Nasional UTR jika mereka adalah nomor registrasi perusahaan pedagang tunggal jika mereka adalah perusahaan terbatas Anda dapat memverifikasi beberapa subkontraktor sekaligus menggunakan sistem Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). Perhitungan, Biaya Kerja dan Perangkat Lunak CIS untuk Perangkat lunak Akuntansi Pembangun yang dirancang khusus untuk paket perangkat lunak KONSTRUKSI INDUSTRI Inggris ditulis dan dikembangkan secara eksklusif untuk Industri Bangunan Inggris Tidak ada paket tambahan atau spreadsheet yang diperlukan untuk memenuhi kebutuhan industri konstruksi yang unik seperti CIS, Job Costing. Retensi Subkontraktor akuntansi, Aplikasi (Tahap Pembayaran) dan Sertifikasi. Ini berarti perangkat lunak konstruksi kita jauh lebih mudah digunakan daripada perangkat lunak lain yang ada di pasaran. SAVE WAKTU dengan perangkat lunak akuntansi konstruksi terintegrasi Anda hanya perlu memasukkan informasi begitu CIA dikembangkan secara khusus untuk Industri Konstruksi Inggris dan BUKAN paket perangkat lunak akuntansi generik yang dimodifikasi untuk pembangun. Kami tahu apa kebutuhan pembangun Dengan sebagian besar perangkat lunak akuntansi konstruksi lainnya, pengguna harus memelihara berbagai spreadsheet untuk mencatat transaksi yang spesifik untuk bisnis konstruksi seperti pengurangan CIS, Job Costing and Retention dan kemudian memperbarui sistem akun juga. Karena CIA adalah paket perangkat lunak akuntansi terpadu, satu entri adalah semua yang diperlukan untuk memperbarui SEMUA bidang yang relevan. Misalnya, saat memasukkan faktur subkontraktor kena pajak, Akun, CIS Ledger, PPN dan Job Costing semuanya diperbarui secara bersamaan. SIMPAN UANG dengan perangkat lunak Job Costing yang terperinci Biaya kerja sama pentingnya dengan akun mereka kepada mayoritas pelanggan kami. Karena faktur dimasukkan ke dalam CIA, biaya ditugaskan ke pekerjaan yang relevan secara otomatis, sehingga Anda dapat membandingkan biaya sebenarnya dengan anggaran yang Anda biarkan. Dengan perangkat lunak Penjadwalan Biaya CIA, Anda dapat langsung melihat saat Anda overfarged, atau menemukan anomali dalam anggaran Anda. KEEP UP TO DATE dengan mengubah undang-undang Dengan CIA Anda secara otomatis menerima upgrade saat dan kapan undang-undang Inggris berubah. Ketika skema CIS diperkenalkan pada tahun 2007, pengguna kami sudah memiliki perangkat lunak terbaru yang mencerminkan persyaratan baru. Pengguna juga siap untuk undang-undang baru di tahun 2010 yang meminta pengembalian PPN diproduksi secara online. Perubahan PAYE juga diperbarui secara otomatis dan PAYE Plus dikenali oleh HMRC sesuai dengan persyaratan Real Time Information (RTI). Simpan semua yang Anda butuhkan di satu tempat dengan PERANGKAT LUNAK CIS kami Dari memverifikasi dan membayar subkontraktor baru. Untuk menerbitkan laporan pengembalian dan email bulanan, perangkat lunak kami akan membantu. CIA memverifikasi subkontraktor secara otomatis menggunakan tautan langsung dengan HMRC. Ketika Anda membayar subkontraktor, CIA akan tahu jika Anda harus mengurangi pajak dan berapa jumlahnya, itu akan otomatis menghitungnya untuk Anda. Setiap bulan Anda harus menghasilkan pengembalian untuk HMRC yang merinci semua pembayaran yang dilakukan kepada subkontraktor, perangkat lunak CIS kami akan melakukannya secara otomatis menggunakan HMRC Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). Naikkan INVOICES dengan cepat dan akurat Perangkat lunak CIA memungkinkan Anda untuk dengan mudah mengidentifikasi apa yang perlu ditambahkan ke faktur saat Anda menagih pelanggan. Ini membantu Anda menghindari lupa menagih item atau variasi yang lebih kecil, dan Anda tidak akan pernah kehilangan biaya di antara kontrak awal. CIA juga menyertakan buku harian retensi yang diperbarui karena setiap tahap pembayaran diproses dan mengingatkan Anda saat pembayaran retensi jatuh tempo. Akuntansi, Job Costing dan Software CIS untuk Pembangun Perangkat Lunak Industri Konstruksi (CIA) adalah perangkat lunak konstruksi yang dirancang semata-mata untuk industri bangunan Inggris dan mencakup Skema CIS dan Job Costing. Telah dikaitkan dengan Clipit sejak awal dan selalu menemukan perangkat lunak yang sempurna untuk bekerja di dalam industri konstruksi. Its mudah untuk menavigasi sekitar dan helpline sangat berharga di kali. Technic Mechanical Services Sistem yang handal dan handal dengan dukungan yang sangat baik dari Team di CLiP IT. Laporan Perangkat Lunak untuk akun dan penetapan biaya sudah jelas dan ringkas dan CLiP IT akan selalu mencoba dan mencocokkan persyaratan Perangkat Lunak khusus Anda jika memungkinkan. Saya senang menjadi situs referensi. Davies Homes (Somerton) Ltd Perangkat lunak CLiP IT Solutions telah membawa angin segar ke bisnis kami, antarmuka yang mudah digunakan dan fleksibilitas pelaporan telah membawa dimensi baru yang sesuai dengan aktivitas bisnis kami dengan sistem akuntansi dimana semua yang lain gagal. Ini benar-benar akuntansi untuk industri konstruksi Kami sangat senang dengan bantuan, dukungan dan penerapan umum perangkat lunak CLiP IT, tim ini sangat mengetahui sistem mereka dan jika, pada kesempatan yang jarang, masalah tidak dapat dipecahkan dengan segera, mereka Akan mengerjakannya dan terus menginformasikan kemajuan Anda setiap saat. Fairways Engineering Ltd Kami telah menggunakan CLiP IT Software selama beberapa tahun dan telah merasa lebih dari senang dengan kinerjanya. Ini memenuhi semua kebutuhan akuntansi dari perusahaan konstruksi, penentuan biaya pekerjaan yang akurat, pelacakan retensi dan modul CIS yang mudah digunakan. Paket penggajian juga sangat user friendly dan update informasi mudah diikuti. Grup Cadman Kami tertarik pada Perangkat Lunak karena masalah khusus untuk industri kami dipahami dengan jelas oleh CLiP IT, dan bukan hanya paket standar dengan add-on konstruksi. Kami telah menemukan perangkat lunak mudah digunakan dan telah memberi kami banyak informasi bermanfaat. Kami selalu menemukan dukungan untuk menjadi sangat baik, dengan respon yang cepat dan berpengetahuan terhadap masalah yang kami hadapi. Robore Cuts Limited Kami telah menggunakan ClipIT Solutions sejak 2008 dan telah terbukti menjadi paket perangkat lunak yang bagus, mudah digunakan, dengan tim pendukung yang sangat baik. Tidak akan ragu untuk merekomendasikan perusahaan ini. Kami telah menggunakan CLiP IT dan Paket CIA sejak awal dan telah menemukannya sederhana dan mudah digunakan, dengan jalur yang mudah diikuti dan informasi yang luas tersedia. Layanan back up tidak ada duanya. Kami tidak ragu merekomendasikan paket CLIP IT kepada pengguna perspektif. James Wilkes Limited Seolah-olah CIA (Construction Industry Accounts) telah ditulis oleh seseorang yang duduk di kursi saya. Saya tidak percaya betapa mudahnya menggunakannya. Saya telah menggunakan Construct selama lima tahun terakhir dan saya harap saya tahu tentang Anda sebelum itu. Saya mendapatkan semua biaya pekerjaan dan informasi manajemen yang saya butuhkan tanpa ribut sama sekali. Lloyd Clough amp Sons Ltd Layanan pendukungnya luar biasa. Sopan, pasien berpengetahuan luas ada di sana untuk membantu di akhir saluran telepon. Dukungan teknis terbaiknya pernah ada. McCane Construction Ltd Ketika saya mendekati akhir tahun pertama saya bekerja dengan Anda, saya hanya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada semua tim dukungan Clip It karena sangat efisien, berpengetahuan dan membantu. Semua pertanyaan telah ditangani dengan sabar dan dengan cara yang ramah dan mudah dimengerti, sangat meyakinkan untuk mengetahui bahwa bantuan hanyalah sebuah panggilan telepon. Produk ini mendapat dukungan kami, sangat user friendly dan tim back up sangat hebat. R Molding amp Co (Salisbury Ltd) Kami mengubah perangkat lunak akun komputer kami menjadi CLiP IT Solutions pada tahun 2005 dan sangat senang dengan sistem dan dukungan cadangan yang diterima selama ini. Penginstalan dan pengalihan data dari sistem lama kami lurus ke depan dan kami menemukan perangkat lunak CLiP IT Software yang ramah, terutama akhir dari prosedur CIS. Staf selalu membantu dan sopan saat kami meminta bantuan. Perry amp Son Ltd Perusahaan kami telah menggunakan perangkat lunak CIA selama tujuh tahun terakhir dan selalu sangat senang dengan perangkat lunak, kemampuan dan dukungan yang diberikannya. Ini memungkinkan kami menjalankan perusahaan kami secara efisien dan akurat dan kami tidak ragu untuk merekomendasikannya ke perusahaan lain untuk melengkapi persyaratan akuntansi dan penetapan biaya pekerjaan. Pembangun John Scott Setelah menggunakan versi Lite saya dari CIA selama 6 bulan terakhir, saya tidak dapat memikirkan cukup banyak hal baik untuk dikatakan tentang hal ini dan ya yang paling pasti testimonial tersebut benar-benar ditulis oleh pelanggan yang puas Bagaimana saya berharap telah membeli perangkat lunak ini dari hari pertama Dari awal perusahaan kami - biaya itu akan jauh sebanding dengan tabungan yang akan kami buat. Urban Jungle Construction Ltd Saya bergabung dengan Northcott Building Contractors pada bulan Agustus 2007. Posisi saya adalah manajer kantor. Perusahaan ini baru saja beralih dari perangkat lunak Sage ke CIA dan karena itu hanya sedikit pengetahuan tentang sistem yang akan saya hadapi. Setelah menggunakan sistem saya dapat dengan jujur mengatakan bahwa saya telah menemukannya sangat user friendly dan sangat bermanfaat bagi kebutuhan bisnis kita. Northcott Building Contractors Ltd Bisnis kami telah berkembang dan berubah secara signifikan selama enam tahun terakhir, namun satu konstan selama lima tahun terakhir adalah keandalan perangkat lunak konstruksi kami. Perangkat Lunak CIA menawarkan pelanggan dan dukungan teknis terbaik yang pernah saya temui. D Whittle Construction Ltd Saya tidak ragu untuk merekomendasikan Clip IT Solutions kepada siapapun yang mau mendengarkan, sebenarnya saya akan mengatakan bahwa itu mungkin investasi tunggal terbaik yang pernah saya buat atas nama perusahaan, itu sebenarnya Itu bagus Kami telah menggunakan CLiP IT Software selama tiga tahun dan merasa sangat user friendly dengan masukan langsung dan laporan yang jelas. Hal ini sangat berguna bagi CIS dan saya telah menemukan pengembalian bulanan otomatis dan verifikasi Subkontraktor dengan cepat dan efisien. Setiap permintaan untuk cadangan atau perubahan dan persyaratan telah direspon dengan cepat dan staf sangat membantu dan akomodatif. Konstruksi Gynn Ltd Kami telah menggunakan perangkat lunak CIA selama beberapa tahun dan selalu menemukan sistem untuk mencakup semua yang kami butuhkan. 18 bulan yang lalu kami menambahkan field Tailorable, CRM, Document Generation, Calendar dan Work Task. Saya akan (dan secara teratur melakukannya) sangat merekomendasikan modul ekstra untuk perangkat lunak CIA, saya sering bertanya-tanya bagaimana kami mengatasi sebelum menerapkan sistem yang baru. Barnet Window Company Ltd Meskipun perusahaan kami telah melewati masa transisi selama 6 tahun terakhir karena kami telah menerapkan perangkat lunak baru, kami merasa yakin bahwa Solusi Clipit akan selalu menjadi perangkat lunak paket akun pilihan kami. Kami menggunakan sistem untuk PAYE, CIS, Sales amp Purchase Ledger, Laporan Biaya Pekerjaan, Retention Diaries dan Bank Reconciliation. Cuttle Construction Limited George Bros (Builders) Ltd telah menggunakan paket akuntansi Clip IT selama bertahun-tahun dan juga mengenal anggota staf untuk waktu yang lama. Kami tidak ragu merekomendasikan paket rekening mereka untuk siapa pun di Industri Konstruksi. Job costing, buku besar pembelian buku besar aksara semua diperbarui dari satu entri. George Bros (Builders) Ltd mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Customer Service Helpline Anda. Layanan yang Anda berikan bersifat profesional, ramah dan sangat mendukung. Emerton Roofing (Barat) Limited Kami telah menggunakan Clipit Solutions sejak tahun 2006 dan alasan untuk memilih mereka dari sistem lain adalah kenyataan bahwa industri ini disesuaikan dengan industri konstruksi dan memasok semua kebutuhan yang kami butuhkan dari PAYE ke CIS, invoice, aplikasi untuk Pembayaran dan biaya kerja bersamaan dengan pencatatan akun yang sangat bagus. Mannings Harlequin Ltd Kami telah menggunakan Clip It sejak 2006 dan seluruh tim selalu sangat efisien, ramah dan sopan. Garis pendukung memungkinkan masalah segera dipecahkan dan cepat. Setiap perubahan dalam undang-undang ditangani secara profesional dan perubahan dalam perangkat lunak selalu user friendly. Seluruh paket memungkinkan kami menjalankan bisnis kami secara efisien dan percaya diri. Sibley Bros LLP CLiP IT Solutions telah menyediakan paket kelas satu yang memungkinkan analisis terperinci untuk semua persyaratan akuntansi dan biaya kami, ditambah bonus cadangan yang sangat baik yang memberikan dukungan cepat - sangat disarankan. Bramber Construction Co Ltd Perangkat lunak akuntansi jelas dan mudah dan bahkan membuat VAT dan CIS kembali mudah. Faktur, biaya kerja dan pelaporan mudah dilakukan dan pada saat dibutuhkan bantuan tambahan, tim pendukung tersedia, sangat berpengetahuan dan yang paling penting sangat sabar TW Construct Ltd Saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih yang sebesar-besarnya kepada semua di Clip it Solutions , Karena memiliki paket akun Clip it Solutions (selama bertahun-tahun), hal itu telah membuat pekerjaan dan akun saya berjalan dengan lancar, dan saya tahu bahwa jika saya memiliki masalah, bantuan hanya berupa telepon, dan selalu diselesaikan secara efisien. Saya akan sangat merekomendasikan produk ini kepada siapa saja yang berpikir tentang mengubah paket baru. Arien Contractors Ltd Saya telah menggunakan ClipIt selama bertahun-tahun, saya merasa sistemnya sangat sesuai untuk kebutuhan perusahaan kami, staf pendukung dan sangat membantu dan efisien dan saya pasti tidak ingin menggunakan paket lain. Konstruksi Morris Ltd Klip IT Solusi add-on koneksi ke HMRC adalah lambang user friendly, seperti paket keseluruhannya. Saya telah menggunakan beberapa perangkat lunak dipesan lebih dahulu di masa lalu yang telah mencoba menggabungkan lebih dari sekadar fungsi akuntansi reguler, dan hasilnya adalah unta yang lengkap (yaitu kuda yang dibangun oleh panitia) Dukungan yang kami terima adalah yang terbaik yang pernah kami miliki. . Selalu ada seseorang untuk menjawab pertanyaan kami dan memilah pertanyaan apapun. Kami akan merekomendasikan CLIP IT kepada siapapun. Staf sangat membantu dan sopan. Cumberlidge Tilers Ltd Aku bisa sangat merekomendasikan ClipIT untuk Konstruksi. Kami adalah Perusahaan baru dan banyak program saat ini mahal dan rumit. CIA sangat user friendly dan staf pendukung tersedia untuk setiap pertanyaan. Saya tidak bisa melakukannya tanpa program ini. Ini benar-benar yang terbaik. Flooring Solutions (NE) Ltd Setelah berada di Sektor Keuangan Industri Konstruksi selama bertahun-tahun dan telah mencoba berbagai Paket Perangkat Lunak Akuntansi (termasuk beberapa Paket dipesan lebih dahulu), saya dapat benar-benar mengatakan bahwa saya sangat terkesan dengan Solusi Klarifikasi, begitu banyak Sehingga saya telah menggunakan perangkat lunak Industri Konstruksi mereka selama lebih dari 4 tahun sekarang. CIA oleh Clip It Solutions adalah paket perangkat lunak yang sangat bagus. Ini menghilangkan semua tekanan. Sederhana, mudah dan efisien untuk digunakan. Layanan pelanggan hebat, selalu mau dan siap membantu dengan kesabaran dan pengertian. Saya akan merekomendasikan perangkat lunak dan keseluruhan perusahaan tanpa pemikiran kedua. Di APEC kami telah mencari paket perangkat lunak yang bisa kami gunakan untuk menjalankan akun kami dan membantu penetapan biaya proyek tanpa terlalu rumit, pencariannya telah lama dan sia-sia, bahkan dengan berusaha mencari perangkat lunak kami sendiri yang dibuat, lalu kami Menemukan CIA yang segera mengubah cara menjalankan bisnis kami sehingga memungkinkan kedua direktur memiliki semua informasi yang kami inginkan di ujung jari kami. Sejak penyelidikan awal kami ke Clipit, kami sangat puas dengan profesionalisme dan pengetahuan tim di Yeovil. Pemasangan, pengaturan dan pelatihan berjalan sangat lancar dan up-date, panduan dan saran merupakan tingkat pertama. Kami segera mengetahui manfaat paket saat pelaporan CIS, menghasilkan pengembalian PPN, biaya pekerjaan dan mencatat retensi. Passmore Builders Ltd Paket yang disediakan oleh Clip IT Solutions sangat bagus. Paket CIA disesuaikan untuk industri konstruksi dan bekerja dengan sempurna, dengan semua buku besar mudah digunakan. Kami sangat senang dengan layanan ini sejak awal dan tidak pernah merasa kami tidak dapat mengangkat telepon dan mengajukan pertanyaan, betapapun konyolnya hal itu, kami selalu diperlakukan dengan sabar dan membantu. Terima kasih Klip IT Heritage Cornwall Ltd Hanya ingin menurunkan Anda agar memberi tahu Anda bahwa layanan dan dukungan dari perusahaan Anda sampai saat ini adalah kelas satu. Semua telah membantu dan Melanie khususnya telah mempertahankan nada yang sangat tenang, menyenangkan dan membantu meskipun saya membombardirnya dengan pertanyaan selama satu atau dua minggu terakhir. Saya sangat senang untuk mengatakan bahwa kami telah dan tetap sangat puas dengan kualitas paket, nilai pembelian awal yang baik dan biaya lisensi tahunan yang masuk akal yang terus membuat kami tetap up to date. Staf pendukung sangat membantu dan bersama dengan departemen akun kami memastikan bahwa saya selalu mengetahui bagaimana kinerja perusahaan kami. Saya sangat terkesan dengan layanan yang masih saya dapatkan dari CLiP IT Solutions. Semua orang selalu sangat membantu dan ceria, senang bisa menelepon. Sistem terus diperbarui dan masalah diurutkan dengan sangat cepat. Solusi IT CLiP sepertinya selalu bergerak sesuai kebutuhan klien mereka, dan memberikan dukungan yang ramah dan membantu. Mempertahankan hasil kerja keras Perkembangan Rosemead Limited Hanya sebuah catatan singkat untuk berterima kasih kepada semua orang di organisasi Anda atas profesionalisme, efisiensi, bantuan dan bimbingan Anda yang sempurna. Dukungan sistem tidak pernah sebagus ini dan dari akuntan sewaan bergigi panjang yang telah bekerja dengan banyak sistem dan tim pendukung sistem. Terima kasih. Kontraktor Listrik Lavelle CIA telah begitu mudah dinavigasi dengan setiap informasi dan laporan yang mungkin dapat saya minta tanpa judul dan opsi yang rumit yang relevan. CIA menangani faktur, aplikasi dan retensi sehingga sangat mudah untuk melacak hutang kita, apa yang harus kita bayar dan kapan. Alat biaya kerja sangat sederhana namun sangat berguna. PAYE sangat mudah digunakan untuk mengalokasikan biaya ke pekerjaan dengan langkah yang sangat mudah. Warner Contracting Ltd Kami sangat senang dengan paket ini, waktu yang dibutuhkan telah berkurang separuhnya dengan menerapkan Perangkat Lunak CLiP IT. Download PDF dari Backgrounder Dan Cadman ini adalah rekan di Center for Immigration Studies. Mark H. Metcalf adalah seorang mantan hakim di pengadilan imigrasi di Miami, Florida, di bawah Presiden George W. Bush, dia bertugas di beberapa pos di Departemen Kehakiman dan Pertahanan. Pada tanggal 20 November 2014, presiden memberikan pidato di seluruh televisi untuk berbicara tentang tindakan eksekutif yang akan dilakukannya pada hari berikutnya yang memungkinkan jutaan orang asing ilegal untuk tinggal dan bekerja di Amerika Serikat selama beberapa tahun berikutnya. 1 Bersamaan dengan pidato tersebut, Jeh Johnson, sekretaris Departemen Keamanan Dalam Negeri (DHS), menerbitkan serangkaian 10 memorandum yang menguraikan dan mengarahkan pelaksanaan berbagai aspek program dan kebijakan yang merupakan penyapu ini dan, dalam pandangan banyak , Tindakan eksekutif inkonstitusional yang berkaitan dengan masalah imigrasi. Salah satu memorandum kebijakan tersebut mengumumkan diakhirinya Secure Communities, sebuah program yang menggunakan pencocokan elektronik sidik jari untuk mengidentifikasi penjahat asing dalam waktu dekat di antara orang-orang yang ditangkap oleh polisi di seluruh negeri. Kurang diperhatikan, namun sama pentingnya, memorandum tersebut juga mengarahkan pada berakhirnya penggunaan tahanan imigrasi, yang memungkinkan agen imigrasi untuk mengambil hak asuh orang asing yang ditangkap pada akhir proses peradilan pidana mereka, dan pada saat dibebaskan dari tahanan atau hukuman yang dijatuhkan untuk mereka. Kejahatan 2 Latar Belakang ini memeriksa dasar-dasar hukum para tahanan, tempat mereka dalam skema penegakan imigrasi di pedalaman Amerika Serikat, dan kepentingan kritis mereka dalam menjaga keselamatan publik di masyarakat di seluruh negeri. Penulis menyimpulkan bahwa Kongres harus membuat proses baru melalui undang-undang yang menjelaskan wewenang dan keharusan untuk mentransfer orang asing dari tahanan federal ke lokal sehingga undang-undang imigrasi dapat diterapkan. Tahanan imigrasi merupakan bagian penting dari upaya Imigrasi dan Penegakan Bea Cukai (ICE) terhadap penjahat asing. Pada tahun fiskal federal 2013 saja, agen ICE dan petugas mengajukan 212.455 tahanan dengan berbagai polisi dan agen pemasyarakatan di Amerika Serikat. Akibat perubahan kebijakan yang dirancang untuk menghambat penggunaan tahanan, jumlah yang dikeluarkan telah anjlok. Pada tahun 2014, ICE mengajukan lebih dari 160.000 tahanan. Pemerintahan Obama mulai meremehkan alat dasar ini beberapa tahun yang lalu dengan cara yang jelas dan halus, termasuk memodifikasi bahasa pada formulir detainer dan mengeluarkan memorandum kebijakan yang membatasi kesempatan di mana petugas dan agen ICE Diizinkan untuk mengeluarkan tahanan terhadap alien kriminal. AP Pemimpin lebih lanjut melemahkan upaya penegakan imigrasi terhadap penjahat asing melalui pernyataan publik yang dibuat tanpa dasar hukum, yang mencirikan kepatuhan terhadap tahanan secara sukarela, meskipun ada bobot otoritas konstitusional dan hukum yang menunjukkan sebaliknya. Sanksi oleh negara dan Otoritas lokal yang menggagalkan otoritas federal dengan mengklaim kepatuhan adalah discretionary tampaknya tidak konstitusional di wajah mereka. Secara khusus, Klausul Supremasi Konstitusi dan Doktrin Preemption melarang perambahan negara di bidang eksklusivitas federal. Para tahanan imigrasi memerlukan agen negara bagian dan lokal untuk menahan pelaku asing berpotensi hingga 48 jam di luar tanggal rilis mereka. Masa jabatan ini tidak melanggar Amandemen Keempat, Kelima, dan Keenam, karena kemungkinan penyebab orang asing telah melanggar undang-undang federal ditetapkan dalam wadah itu sendiri (dikenal sebagai Formulir DHS I-247). Pemerintahan Obama telah gagal untuk mendukung Negara bagian dan lokal ketika mereka dituntut karena menghormati tahanan imigrasi, yang memimpin banyak lembaga semacam itu untuk mempertimbangkan kembali pendirian mereka sebelumnya yang mematuhi tahanan. Backgrounder ini menguraikan langkah-langkah yang harus diambil untuk mengembalikan alat penting ini. Langkah-langkah ini termasuk: Pernyataan publik dari Sekretaris Keamanan Dalam Negeri dan Jaksa Agung bahwa mereka akan melakukan tindakan hukum untuk memastikan kepatuhan terhadap tahanan dan bahwa mereka akan secara aktif mendukung daerah yang dituntut karena menghormati tahanan berdasarkan alasan bahwa mengeluarkan seorang petugas imigrasi adalah hak prerogatif dan wewenang. Dari pemerintah federal. (Catatan penulis: Kami menyadari betapa tidak sukanya administrasi ini melakukan sesuatu untuk mengembalikan tahanan ke tempatnya dalam skema undang-undang dan peraturan, namun merasa berkewajiban untuk meninggalkan rekomendasi ini sebagai pemegang tempat jika ada administrasi berikutnya yang menyadari dan Menghormati kewajiban konstitusionalnya sendiri untuk memastikan kepatuhan terhadap undang-undang federal, sesuai dengan Klausul Supremasi.) Penyesuaian terhadap standar sertifikasi hibah federal untuk memberikan Program Bantuan Alien Khusus untuk Negara Bagian (SCAAP) dan dana keamanan publik atau dana keamanan dalam negeri hanya untuk negara bagian atau wilayah yang Sesuai dengan tahanan imigrasi. Perubahan prosedural yang mendorong perwira ICE untuk mendapatkan, terlebih dahulu, menangkap surat perintah untuk orang asing yang mereka inginkan untuk mengajukan tahanan kapanpun praktis. Pemberitahuan kepada Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) untuk mengklarifikasi kepatuhan tersebut oleh negara bagian dan lokal Penegakan hukum dengan tahanan imigrasi diperlukan, ditambah dengan apropriat Sanksi untuk kegagalan melakukannya. Menetapkan undang-undang negara yang mewajibkan badan penegak hukum untuk memberi tahu otoritas imigrasi federal mengenai tanggal rilis penjahat asing dalam tahanan mereka. Apa Tahanan dan Mengapa Mereka Tahanan Imigrasi kontroversial memungkinkan agen federal untuk mengambil hak asuh orang asing yang dipegang oleh badan kepolisian negara bagian atau lokal sebelum dibebaskan. Menurut peraturan federal, detainer tersebut berfungsi untuk menasihati agen penegak hukum lain bahwa Departemen tersebut mencari hak asuh dari orang asing yang sekarang berada dalam pengawasan agen tersebut, untuk tujuan menangkap dan memindahkan alien tersebut. 3 Biasanya, tapi tidak selalu, ICE telah menjadi agen yang mengarsipkan detainer. Patroli Perbatasan juga secara rutin menggunakan tahanan dalam hubungannya dengan sheriff dan departemen kepolisian yang wilayah hukumnya berada di perbatasan barat daya dan utara. Peraturan tersebut menetapkan bahwa badan penegak hukum yang memiliki hak asuh orang asing harus memegang alien tersebut untuk otoritas imigrasi federal hingga 48 jam (tidak termasuk akhir pekan dan hari libur) daripada melepaskan alien pada obligasi, menunggu tindakan lokal lainnya atau faktor lainnya. Agen federal lainnya juga menggunakan tahanan sebagai cara untuk menahan orang-orang yang ditangkap oleh penegakan hukum negara bagian atau lokal sampai mereka dapat ditahan. Individu secara rutin dipegang oleh badan-badan negara bagian dan lokal untuk pemerintah federal karena sejumlah pelanggaran besar dan kecil, karena tidak hadir tanpa cuti dari angkatan bersenjata, untuk melakukan pembebasan bersyarat dan pelanggaran masa percobaan, terhadap pelanggaran besar kejahatan. Layanan Marshall AS sangat aktif dalam hal ini dan beroperasi di bawah ketentuan undang-undang federal yang menyatakan, (c) Kecuali jika diatur oleh undang-undang atau Peraturan Prosedur, Layanan Marshall Amerika Serikat akan melaksanakan semua proses, proses, dan perintah yang sah Dikeluarkan di bawah wewenang Amerika Serikat, dan akan memerintahkan semua bantuan yang diperlukan untuk melaksanakan tugasnya. (Penekanan ditambahkan.) 4 Kita tidak tahu apa-apa di mana baik Layanan Marshals atau agen federal lainnya mencirikan para tahanannya karena agen sukarela atau negara bagian dan lokal menolak untuk mematuhi mereka. Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, penentang penegakan imigrasi telah berusaha menghalangi dan mengganggu aktivitas penegakan ICE dengan melakukan kampanye untuk melegitimasi penggunaan tahanan, yang mereka benar-benar mengerti adalah alat kunci untuk ICE. Penegakan penentang telah mengajukan kedua argumen hukum dan politik. Beberapa orang berpendapat bahwa agen imigrasi tidak memiliki wewenang untuk mengeluarkan tahanan. Meskipun tidak ada bagian dari undang-undang federal yang menjelaskan kewenangan ini secara umum, tidak dapat dikatakan bahwa Kongres tidak mengetahui atau menolak penggunaan mereka. Sebenarnya, Kongres secara khusus telah menyetujui penggunaan mereka oleh otoritas imigrasi dalam kasus orang asing yang melanggar undang-undang narkoba. 5 Ironisnya, ketentuan tersebut ditambahkan atas desakan pejabat penegak hukum federal, negara bagian, dan lokal yang merasa gelisah bahwa agen dari Immigration and Naturalalization Service (INS) pendahulu ICE tidak secara rutin mengajukan tahanan untuk mengambil hak asuh atas orang-orang asing yang dituduh Memiliki sejumlah kecil obat terlarang seperti ganja. Upaya Administrasi Obama untuk Merusak Tahanan Kerusakan yang dilakukan pada penegakan imigrasi oleh pemerintahan Obama sejak 2009 tidak bisa dilebih-lebihkan. Sementara pejabat berulang kali mengklaim fokus pada alien kriminal, dan meyakinkan orang Amerika bahwa pelanggar hukum ditahan dan dideportasi, sebenarnya penegakan imigrasi dalam keadaan ambruk karena serangkaian perubahan kebijakan yang dikenal secara kolektif sebagai keputusan dan prioritas kepresidenan. Dalam prakteknya, kebijakan ini memberlakukan pembatasan yang ketat pada perwira ICE yang mana orang-orang asing dapat ditargetkan untuk deportasi dan membebaskan orang-orang asing yang paling ilegal dari tindakan penegakan hukum. Prioritas baru telah menetapkan bahwa hanya orang-orang asing yang memiliki hukuman pidana, pelanggar perbatasan baru-baru ini, sebelum deportees, atau pelarian yang melarikan diri dari proses deportasi harus dikenai sanksi imigrasi. Deportasi oleh ICE telah menurun secara signifikan selama beberapa tahun terakhir. Pada tahun 2014, ICE mendeportasi sekitar 100.000 alien dari pedalaman, yang kurang dari separuh dari 237.000 alien yang dideportasi dari pedalaman pada tahun 2009, tahun pertama Obamas. Deportasi asing yang kejam juga telah menurun secara signifikan (sebesar 40 persen sejak puncaknya di tahun 2011). 6 Sebelum tahun 2014, penindasan terhadap penegakan hukum dilakukan terutama dalam bentuk pembatasan jenis kasus yang dapat dilakukan petugas ICE. Misalnya, pada tanggal 21 Desember 2012, mantan Direktur ICE John Morton mengumumkan modifikasi pada formulir Immigration Detainer standar (Formulir I-247) dan mengeluarkan memorandum yang membatasi keadaan di mana petugas ICE dapat mengeluarkan tahanan. 7 Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir, sebagian besar alien yang dilepas yang ditemukan oleh petugas ICE telah ditemukan saat penangkapan oleh pemerintah setempat memicu pemberitahuan ke ICE setelah pertandingan sidik jari elektronik yang difasilitasi oleh program Secure Communities. Perbaikan dalam penyampaian informasi penegakan hukum federal dan lokal melalui interoperabilitas Secure Communities ini menghasilkan penggunaan yang lebih besar dari tahanan ICE daripada sebelumnya, karena ICE menjadi sadar akan banyak sekali alien yang bisa dilepas segera setelah penangkapan negara bagian atau lokal. Tak perlu dikatakan lagi, peningkatan signifikan dalam efektivitas ICE ini membuat kelompok keluhan etnis dan sekutu mereka marah di Kongres dan pemerintahan Obama. Penurunan tahanan yang dikeluarkan oleh ICE antara tahun 20112014, seperti yang ditunjukkan pada Tabel 1, mengungkapkan secara tepat bagaimana politik penggunaan tahanan berada di bawah administrasi ini dan bagaimana hal tersebut telah merespons, terhadap kerugian keamanan publik dan dengan mengorbankan penggunaan yang efisien dari Sumber daya penegakan imigrasi terbatas Kampanye untuk merongrong penggunaan tahanan memperoleh momentum yang substansial pada bulan Februari 2014, ketika Dan Ragsdale, yang kemudian bertindak sebagai kepala ICE, 8 menyarankan untuk menanggapi penyelidikan dari sekelompok anggota Kongres atas nama lembaga penegak hukum setempat yang bingung, bahwa sementara Tahanan imigrasi adalah bagian penting dari usaha ICE untuk menghapus alien kriminal yang berada di federal, negara bagian, atau hak asuh lokal, mereka tidak diwajibkan sebagai masalah hukum. Dengan demikian, ICE bergantung pada kerja sama mitra penegakan hukumnya dalam upaya mempromosikan keselamatan publik ini. (Penekanan ditambahkan.) Pernyataan Ragsdales, yang didukung oleh alasan hukum apa pun, sangat penting. Kabarnya, staf di divisi operasi dan hukum ICE telah mengajukan pendapat hukum yang berbeda, sesuai dengan posisi ICE yang telah lama ada sehingga mereka mengharapkan lembaga penegakan hukum lainnya menghormati dan mematuhi tahanannya, yang disusun oleh Ragsdale dalam merumuskan suratnya. Keberatan mereka atas responsnya tidak hanya didasarkan pada kebutuhan dan kebijakan institusional, tetapi juga pada peraturan federal: 8 CFR 287,7 (d), yang mengatakan: Atas tekad oleh Departemen untuk mengeluarkan sebuah wadah untuk seorang alien yang tidak ditahan oleh penjahat Badan peradilan, instansi tersebut harus menjaga hak asuh orang asing untuk jangka waktu tidak lebih dari 48 jam. Untuk mengizinkan anggapan asuh oleh Departemen. 9 (Penekanan ditambahkan.) Keterlibatan Ragsdales tidak luput dari perhatian, termasuk oleh para ahli hukum dalam tuntutan hukum perdata yang diajukan oleh orang asing dan pengacara pro bono mereka di American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) dan di tempat lain, terhadap ICE dan terhadap negara bagian dan lokal tersebut. law enforcement agencies who honor the detainers. The federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that detainers were voluntary (overruling a district judges finding prior to Ragsdales policy change), thus permitting a civil suit against a county jail to go forward. 10 More telling is how ICE treated its law enforcement partner in this instance. It settled with the plaintiffs and deserted the jailer and sheriffs offices, declining even to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, although the fundamental error in the case filing a detainer against a citizen originated with ICE itself. Nor was this the first time that ICE engaged in a strategy of cut and run from one of its erstwhile law enforcement partners. The same thing happened in Tennessee in 2012 11 and just recently in Oregon, where a federal magistrate ruled the Clackamas County jails strict compliance with an ICE detainer was unconstitutional because, it said, compliance with such detainers is voluntary. 12 The adverse effect of these decisions, especially when combined with ICEs indifference toward its partner agencies, began to accumulate. Various law enforcement agencies nationwide issued statements indicating they would decline compliance with some or all immigration detainers. The number has since risen to more than 300 police and sheriffs departments. While some of these agencies are in small jurisdictions where law enforcement agencies encounter criminal aliens less frequently, others include major metropolitan areas such as Chicago and New York, where the number of aliens held in a years time reaches into the thousands. The risk and the reality is that arrested criminal aliens are being released into American neighborhoods before their identities can be confirmed and federal custody assumed. The campaign to undercut detainers achieved its ultimate goal when DHS Secretary Johnson issued his policy memorandum on November 20 ordering an end to the filing of detainers except in extraordinary circumstances. Until then, even while in decline, detainers had been the primary tool used to notify state and local law enforcement and corrections agencies that an alien in their custody was subject to removal from the United States. Most dismaying is that in a footnote to his memorandum, the secretary alluded to the recent court decisions and suggested that use of detainers might violate the Constitution. First, the administration actively worked to undercut the detainer authorities of its own immigration agencies, limiting their use by policy and then without legal foundation declaring them to be voluntary. Now, in a classic example of disingenuous circularity, the administration uses the court decisions (which in turn were exercising due deference to ICEs baseless interpretation of voluntariness), in order to justify scrapping detainers in their entirety. What is more, opponents of detainers have chosen to misread the general import of the recent cases. One of the lawsuits was filed because ICE mistakenly lodged a detainer against a United States citizen, not an alien. Another lawsuit was filed when an alien was held significantly longer than 48 hours beyond his release date (what the regulation requires). Certainly such particular cases implicate the Fourth Amendment but they do not implicate detainers generally. Over the course of time, a series of court rulings established that state and local authorities may detain or arrest individuals for violations of federal immigration law, as long as the arrest is supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause and is authorized by state law. 13 Additionally, a 2002 Department of Justice (DOJ) opinion came to the same conclusion. Some analysts believe that the prior rulings and the DOJ opinion were significantly delimited by the 2012 Supreme Court decision in the case of Arizona v. United States . 14 It is beyond the purview of this report to fully explore that decision, but three things can be said with certainty: The court has still left room for state and local police action in the arena of immigration enforcement, provided that it is consonant with federal laws and regulations and occurs in the course of lawful state enforcement programs. Congress can open the door to additional state and local participation and initiatives by exercising its constitutional prerogatives in the legislative arena specifically through statutes, statements of congressional intent, and establishment or endorsement of cooperative enforcement programs in the course of its legislative and appropriations activities. In the words of the Congressional Research Service, the federal government also has the power to proscribe activities that subvert the legislatively established immigration system. This latter point is extremely important in the context of state and local activities (such as passage of laws, regulations, and policies directing police and sheriffs offices to ignore immigration detainers), which fundamentally impede effective immigration law enforcement against alien criminals in the interior of the United States, clearly contrary to both implied and express congressional intent. 15 In general, federal law, regulations, and policy encourage state and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. For instance, an unambiguous provision of the INA states, Notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law, no state or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States. 16 In nearly verbatim language, another provision of the INA prohibits state or local governments preventing their employees from communicating freely with immigration officials: A federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. 17 An additional subsection of that same provision also stipulates that The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information. 18 (Emphasis added.) One wonders: if the shall in the regulation relating to detainers is to be disregarded so cavalierly. Does this mean that the above-cited language requiring the INS (or its successor agencies) to provide information or assistance to other federal, state, or local agencies may also be disregarded Of course not, but under this administration, use of the word shall seems to have taken on an elastic Through the Looking Glass quality. 19 Other evidence of congressional intent to establish a collaborative environment between police and immigration enforcement agencies can be found in the statutory language creating certain types of local-federal partnerships. A notable example includes a program authorizing cross-designation of state or local officers to enforce immigration laws under Section 287(g) of the INA, commonly known as the 287(g) program. 20 The language of Section 287(g) also goes so far as to make clear that exchanges of information between immigration authorities and other federal, state, or local entities cannot be limited to, or require, formal agreements. Another significant example of the congressional expectation of cooperation on immigration law enforcement matters, among and between federal, state, and local officials, can be found in Section 103(a) of the INA, which permits the Attorney General (superseded by the Secretary of Homeland Security by the Homeland Security Act) to permit state and local officers to exercise immigration law enforcement functions in the event of an actual or imminent mass migration of aliens. 21 Additional language in that same section also permits the DHS secretary to enter into a cooperative agreement with any state, territory, or political subdivision thereof for the necessary construction, physical renovation, and acquisition of equipment, supplies, or materials required to establish acceptable conditions of confinement and detention services in any state or unit of local government that agrees to provide guaranteed bed space for persons detained by the service. 22 DHS agencies have established more than a dozen formal cooperative programs in addition to the 287(g) program described above, including the Criminal Alien Program, which provides for ICE agents to interview incarcerated aliens to determine removability prior to their release, and the Law Enforcement Support Center, which is a 247 call center that enables state and local officers to inquire about the immigration status of individuals they encounter. Virtually all of these programs have received congressional endorsement, if not always through specific statutory provisions such as those enumerated above, then certainly through the appropriations process. 23 Some legal experts have argued credibly that those jurisdictions that have changed their policies recently to end compliance with ICE detainers are misinterpreting the court rulings on detainers, and mistakenly relying on ideologically influenced assertions from the ACLU, which has aggressively sent notices to police and sheriffs offices and prosecutors offices, advising them of grave constitutional issues with an implicit threat of lawsuits should these organizations choose to continue complying with detainers. 24 For instance, contrary to what many sanctuary jurisdictions have claimed, the Oregon magistrate did not hold that ICE detainers need to be accompanied by a judicial warrant. 25 Federal Laws and Regulations Trump State Laws and Regulations Detainers are issued pursuant to federal regulations, which in turn rely on provisions in the INA authorizing officers and agents to make arrests with or without warrant for violation of the immigration laws. 26 The Supremacy Clause 27 of the Constitution and its Preemption Doctrine 28 forbid state encroachment in areas of federal exclusivity. The federal government possesses inherent sovereign powers in matters of immigration and immigration enforcement. The Supremacy Clause and the Preemption Doctrine assure that federal law prevails over state and local measures whenever a conflict arises between the two. 29 Federal immigration law is no different. Over no subject, in fact, is federal jurisdiction so complete as it is in immigration. 30 Still, the federal system does not work in a vacuum. Its success depends upon compliance with federal prerogatives 31 and comity 32 among state, local, and federal jurisdictions that complement their various missions. But it is precisely in the opposite direction that many sub-federal state and local agencies now proceed with the active encouragement of Obama appointees who have sought to redefine the meaning of federal laws without regard to their plain terms and clear intent. 33 If localities alone may decide whether to hold a suspect after receiving notice of an immigration detainer, then federal supremacy in immigration enforcement is now subject to unilateral exercises of previously unacknowledged state prerogatives prerogatives that have the effect of nullifying federal statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by the president a result no one can believe is either intended or acceptable, and which flies in the face of the Supreme Courts Arizona decision. As Justice Kennedy observed, writing for the majority, State laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law. This includes cases where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility, and those instances where the challenged state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. 34 Federal jurisdiction over immigration in all its expressions was, until the Ragsdale letter, presumed exclusive and nonpareil. However much Mr. Ragsdale insists that states may refuse a detainer, his argument fails under the weight of precedent proving him wrong. 35 In fact, federal supremacy in immigration, though frequently challenged, was not relinquished on such a scale until the Obama administration. His presidency has not changed the wording of federal statutes or a century and a half of Supreme Court precedent, but rulemaking and policy under his administration have turned immigration enforcement upside down and, in turn, set criminal aliens free by the thousands and left American neighborhoods less safe. 36 The U. S. Supreme Court has never sanctioned unilateral expansion of state immigration enforcement into a historically federal domain rather, the court has closely scrutinized state intrusion into federal immigration law. 37 In the same way a state or locality cannot assume those immigration enforcement powers that are forbidden it by the Constitution, so it also cannot refuse the demands of an immigration detainer. In addition to federal supremacy and preemption of state and local laws and policies, any careful, reasoned analysis of the issue must examine the interplay between refusal by state officials to honor detainers on one hand and, on the other, the provisions of federal law relating to harboring of illegal aliens and shielding them from detection a felony violation. 38 The provision states in pertinent part: (a) Criminal penalties (1) (A) Any person who . (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation. shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B). The harboring and shielding-from-detection provisions of the statute are not limited to private individuals. If a citizen may be charged with a felony for this action, then how can state or local officials be less culpable, particularly when they are law enforcement officers who are generally understood to be held to a higher standard where compliance with the law is concerned The quagmire in which ICE now finds itself is in large measure of its own making. It has severely limited the circumstances in which a detainer may be issued it has greatly reduced the number and type of aliens who may be detained it has spread the notion that honoring detainers is purely voluntary among its partners and then it has consistently abandoned those partners when lawsuits are filed and, of course, by having made a public assertion that honoring detainers is a matter of choice, ICE has given jurists who are ideologically disposed to be skeptical of immigration enforcement a very large hook to hang their hats on through the due deference doctrine by which courts give great leeway to executive agencies in the interpretation of their own rules. 39 (Ironically that self-same due deference could and should be applied to ICEs actual regulation, not the legally dubious correspondence from officials such as Ragsdale, which holds no place in the regulatory scheme.) But can ICE (or, more specifically, Ragsdale when he was acting as agency head) be trusted with the detainers are voluntary interpretation Quite possibly not. To those who follow such matters, it is disturbingly similar to the state and local agencies can opt in or opt out refrain used by ICE leaders in public statements and official documents, including letters to Congress, during the roll-out of their Secure Communities program. Ultimately the agency, and its bosses at DHS, had to eat those words. Worse, we now know that ICE and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials conspired with the acting Inspector General to cover up their deception even as the IGs office was being charged with investigating the missteps, misstatements, and ineptitude exhibited in the way Secure Communities was handled. 40 Why should we now believe that Mr. Ragsdale has any more credibility on the detainers issue than he did when acting as one of Mr. Mortons confidantes and advisors about Secure Communities Public Safety Impact of Non-Cooperation Policies Until the campaign to undermine immigration detainers gained traction not only from open borders groups, but from the very leaders charged with immigration enforcement, the detainers formed a critical part of ICEs law enforcement efforts against alien criminals. In federal fiscal year 2013 alone, ICE agents and officers filed 212,455 detainers with various police and correctional agencies in the United States. 41 The combination of local obstruction of ICE and ICEs self-imposed limits on enforcement priorities had already begun before Johnsons decision to terminate their use. According to a recent report from the Syracuse University Transactional Action Clearinghouse (TRAC), ICE detainers have dropped 39 percent since 2012. Interestingly, the report tells us that, TRAC shared its findings with ICE and asked the agency for insights into what was driving this downward trend. However, ICE declined to comment on why its agents were issuing fewer detainers. 42 Ironically, in a recent media article published by NJ published prior to the presidents executive action speech and promulgation of the Johnson memorandum ICE was much less reticent about its dissatisfaction with state and local jurisdictions ignoring their detainers. An ICE spokesman is quoted in the article as saying, When serious criminal offenders are released to the streets in a community, rather than to ICE custody, it undermines ICEs ability to protect public safety and impedes us from enforcing the nations immigration laws. Jurisdictions that ignore detainers bear the risk of possible public safety risks. 43 But the problem of ignoring detainers is not just about statistics, and it is far more than a matter of workload completion for ICE agents and officers in pursuing their mission, however significant those matters are. Fundamental governmental interests are involved, including community safety, officer safety, efficient use of taxpayer funds, and maintenance of an effective regimen of due process within the immigration system established by Congress: When sheriffs or police turn a suspect loose rather than hold him on the detainer filed, law-abiding members of the community are at risk should he re-offend (and there are many, often egregious, instances of such alien recidivists victimizing additional members of the public). 44 If ICE officers are obliged to go out and seek the individual once he has been released, they, too, are at greater risk of injury than if receiving him directly from local law enforcement officers in the secure constraints of a jail setting especially since the alien offender at the point of release, notwithstanding the detainer, is likely to know that they are aware of and looking for him. Furthermore, the time and energy wasted trying to track down and re-apprehend that alien after local police have released him equates to limited officer resources and public monies not available to do equally important immigration enforcement work elsewhere in an already overburdened system. Confronting this reality pokes a large hole in the administrations argument that its executive actions are for the purpose of enhancing public safety and shepherding scarce resources. What is more, the alien may not in fact be re-apprehended until after he has committed another crime, quite possibly a violent felony: According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2009, the average incarcerated alien had seven arrests and committed an average of 12 offenses. 45 A Congressional Research Service study commissioned by the House Judiciary Committee found that 26,412 aliens out of 159,286 released by ICE in a 2.5-year time period went on to commit 57,763 new crimes. These crimes included 8,500 DUIs, 6,000 drug offenses, and more than 4,000 major criminal offenses such as murder, assault, rape, and kidnapping. 46It is also important to understand that immigrant offenders often fail to follow the rules that is, attend court like everyone else. Immigration court records from 1996 through 2012 show 76 percent of 1.1 million deportation orders were issued against those who evaded court. These evasions compose the greatest source of unexecuted deportation orders in the immigration court system. Not even a quarter of those free pending trial some 268,000 actually came to court and finished their cases. 47Finally, there is the sobering fact that there are already nearly 900,000 alien absconders and fugitives at large in the country up from half a million a mere three years ago. 48 Each alien released despite the filing of a detainer, when multiplied by the thousands of sheriffs offices and police departments throughout the United States, adds significantly to that number, and puts the public at greater risk. Something must be done to stop the legal oblivion into which detainers have been thrown. But what Following are a series of common-sense recommendations. The Executive Branch. (Authors note: As indicated before, we acknowledge that our recommendations go in a direction completely contrary to that of this administration, meaning there is no chance whatever that they will adopt our suggestions, but we are constrained to raise them nonetheless in the interest of posterity and in the hope of a future chief executive who recognizes his constitutional and statutory responsibilities.) The administration has repeatedly claimed that it is interested in prioritizing the enforcement of immigration laws away from run-of-the-mill illegal aliens and toward criminal offenders. If administration leaders and cabinet heads wish Congress and the public at large to believe this, they should be working vigorously to protect key law enforcement techniques from the kind of blunting that the use of detainers has taken in the past couple of years instead of contributing to their demise as a tool. To that end: DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson should formally disavow the legal assertion made in Ragsdales letter and revisit his decision to end the use of detainers based on flawed legal reasoning. The DHS Secretary and the Attorney General should jointly issue a notice in the Federal Register publicly stating their intention to initiate legal action in U. S. District Court to obtain orders enjoining state and local governments from ignoring detainers in each and every jurisdiction where that takes place, all the way to the Supreme Court if need be. They should also assert, however, that the federal governments position is that, by honoring those detainers, state and local governments are not subject to tort suits because the decision-making inherent in deciding to file, or not file, a detainer rests with federal immigration authorities. The two cabinet members should also declare changes to the certification process for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) a program designed to reimburse state and local enforcement agencies for costs associated with the arrest and confinement of illegal aliens which would preclude those agencies from seeking SCAAP funds when they initiate policies that obstruct federal efforts to locate, identify, apprehend, and remove those criminals. This requires no change to the existing statute to accomplish it simply requires the will to do so. The fund is administered by the Justice Departments Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), but relies on ICE certification of lists of incarcerated aliens provided to BJA by states and localities. Simply declining to certify lists of incarcerated aliens submitted by jurisdictions that refuse to comply with detainers would result in them receiving no SCAAP funds. 49ICE officers should, whenever possible, begin the practice of procuring warrants of arrest for aliens against whom they intend to file detainers. Those warrants of arrest should be provided to the law enforcement agency at the time the detainer is filed. While such warrants are civil in nature because deportation proceedings are themselves civil proceedings they clearly signal to state and local agencies that ICE is following a procedure prescribed by federal law and regulation, and that cause exists for arrest and initiation of deportation proceedings. We note that this is not required by law, which clearly provides for warrantless immigration arrests. However, we recognize the importance of signaling to state and local jurisdictions that, whenever circumstances permit, a deliberative process was undertaken that has resulted in a probable cause finding that an individual in custody of the state or local agency is an alien subject to removal proceedings whom federal authorities wish to take into their own custody in order to initiate those proceedings, consistent with the provisions of the INA. 50 Some ICE offices have begun this practice. As expected, various legal advocacy groups have initiated a campaign against their use, arguing that only judicial warrants should be accepted by local law enforcement agencies. For example, in collaboration with advocacy groups, the Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety (EOPS) a state executive branch agency (controlled by the governor) argued against the acceptance of ICE warrants in a memorandum issued to the Massachusetts State Sheriffs Association. 51 The memorandum was replete with specious logic, including the assertion that warrants not issued by a judge, such as immigration warrants, have no force and effect and therefore should not affect decisions to comply or, more to the point, refuse to comply, with detainers. Interestingly, using this logic, parole violation warrants issued by the Massachusetts Parole Board a subordinate administrative agency of EOPS would also fail to pass legal muster. The memorandum was quickly disavowed by Governor Deval Patrick, but the arguments have started to find their way into other venues despite the obvious flaws in the logic. Likewise, using this logic, police and sheriffs departments should refuse to hold AWOL or deserting soldiers for military police, because they are handled under Article 85 the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which operates outside of the federal criminal justice system. State and Local Governments. State legislatures should expeditiously draft and pass to their governors for signature bills requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to notify federal immigration authorities of the release dates and times for all alien criminals within their custody. There are also a number of ways in which state and local governments can protect themselves from legal action, while at the same time cooperating with federal immigration enforcement initiatives and protecting their communities from alien recidivist offenders. State and local correctional, police, and sheriffs departments should initiate a dialogue with ICE whose purpose is to negotiate a memorandum of agreement (MOA) outlining the parameters of the law enforcement partnership. The memorandum of agreement should ideally contain the following provisions: An unambiguous statement from ICE that determinations about the filing of detainers or notices of action, requests for release dates, or other information relating to deportable aliens are based on federal immigration law, for which it is solely responsible. A commitment by ICE to take custody of aliens within the timeframe specified in federal regulations at 8 CFR 287.7 whenever a detainer is filed, which commitment should be included in the memorandum of agreement for clarity of understanding. Local training sessions by ICE for jail personnel involved in the handling of immigration detainers so that they will understand the various forms and their uses, which in their present incarnation are sometimes informational only and sometimes a request to detain. Specifically designated points of contact for both parties for maintenance and upholding of the memorandum of agreement, and additional points of contact available on a 24-hour7-day-weekly basis for critical problem resolution. Acknowledgement between the parties that in order for the correctional, police, or sheriffs department to comply with an ICE detainer, it must be accompanied by a Warrant for Arrest of Alien, except in exigent circumstances, which should be specified. Agreement that i n the event of a lawsuit against the police or sheriffs office based on honoring of an ICE detainer, ICE will provide all reasonable and necessary legal assistance, including friend of the court briefs acknowledging its responsibility for detainer decision-making. Participation of the police or sheriffs office in the ICE 287(g) program, in which designated sheriffs deputies andor jail officers are trained and cross-designated as immigration officers (at ICE expense), giving them access to ICE databases and information, and the authority to issue certain law enforcement documents, including detainers. (Note that such documents are issued under the supervision of ICE managers, thus ensuring that ICE remains responsible for the decision-making process.) Congress. A multiplicity of reasons exist to believe that many of the steps recommended above will not take place given the administrations abysmal track record, and lack of will, for sustaining any capacity for interior immigration enforcement. This being the case, the ultimate resolution may rest with Congress to craft statutory language that breaks the impasse. Almost all of the members of Congress who have argued for amnesty or a path to citizenship have concurrently asserted that they draw the line at aliens who break criminal laws. Its time to prove the sincerity of such claims by doing what is necessary to require the law enforcement agencies of states and localities to surrender to ICE those aliens who are subject to ICE detainers. Such actions could include: Advancing the SAFE Act, which in the 113th Congress was approved by the House Judiciary Committee. Provisions in this bill explicitly 1) extend to state and local law enforcement officers the same qualified immunities extended to federal officers and 2) authorize state and local agencies to comply with detainers filed by federal immigration authorities. 52 However, the language contained in those sections should be revisited in light of recent court decisions. At minimum, the language authorizing agencies to honor detainers should be rewritten to require that they comply with detainers. Congress should adopt, perhaps via a new Section 287A of the INA, a different paradigm for immigration processes that is more closely aligned to the notion of writs exercised by courts at all levels of government. The legislation would authorize certain federal immigration officials (to be designated by regulation) to issue and serve upon state and local agencies an Order to Detain and Produce Alien. Such an order would be enforceable in the United States District Courts by means of a show cause order from the presiding judge requiring state or local agency which fails or refuses to comply to explain why it has failed to do so. Considered dispassionately, as important as detainers are, they are merely the means to an end. What the immigration authorities ultimately wish is to take custody of the alien. Creating a specific statutory authority by which federal immigration officers may require state and local agencies to detain and produce the body provides both the means and the end needed to accomplish their duties. (An example of such possible legislation is attached as Appendix 1 to this Backgrounder .) Congress should also act to statutorily amend the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, if the Attorney General and Secretary of DHS fail to do so, to ensure that state and local governments cannot be safe havens for criminal aliens on the one hand, while demanding federal dollars to reimburse them for the costs associated with arrest and incarceration on the other. (An example of such possible legislation is attached as Appendix 2 to this Backgrounder .)Finally, whether moving toward the kind of solution contained in the SAFE Act, or toward a new paradigm more closely aligned to the notion of writs to produce the body, a hold harmless provision must also be crafted to protect state and local agencies from lawsuits when in good faith they honor detainers filed by federal officers. At present, state and local officers enjoy such protection on an individual basis when acting in a cross-designation capacity under Section 287(g). A new, expanded provision written into the law could encompass the hold harmless premise to an entire state or local organization when it honors decisions to file immigration detainers under authority of federal immigration laws. Immigration detainers are a critically important a tool in the ICE mission to apprehend alien criminals and protect the public safety. Preserving their use, defending them against continued attack in the courts, and establishing the means and requirement for state and local enforcement agencies to honor federal immigration laws should be a shared priority for all of the branches of the federal government. Appendix 1: Model Language for a New INA Section 287A 8 U. S. Code 1357a Order to Detain and Produce Alien (a) Authority to Issue an Order to Detain and Produce Alien Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Secretary to issue warrants of arrest or notices to appear in removal proceedings shall have power to issue an order to detain and produce an alien who is in the custody of another federal, state, or local law enforcement, correctional, mental or physical health, or social service agency for the purpose of taking custody of such an alien to initiate removal proceedings, or to effect the removal of an alien under an order of removal. (b) Obligations and Authorities of Receiving Agencies (1) Upon receipt of such an order, said agency is authorized and required to maintain custody of the alien for a period of up to 14 calendar days after the alien has completed the aliens sentence under Federal, State or local law, or is otherwise ready for release, in order to effectuate the transfer of the alien to Federal custody. (2) Should the agency in original receipt of the order transfer the alien to another agency for purposes of serving a sentence of incarceration, or for other purposes including medical treatment, it shall (A) promptly, but in no event later than 24 hours, notify the officer who issued the Order of the particulars of the transfer, and (B) serve upon the agency assuming custody a copy of the original order. (3) The agency which assumes custody shall be equally liable to comply with the requirement to detain and produce as if it were the recipient of the original order. (4) State and local law enforcement and correctional agencies are authorized to issue a detainer that would allow aliens who have served a sentence of incarceration under State or local law to be detained by the State or local prison or jail until the Secretary can take the alien into custody provided that notice of the detainer filed on behalf of the Secretary is transmitted within 24 hours to the nearest Immigration and Customs Enforcement office along with identifying biographic and offender information required to make a determination of alienage and removability. That office shall respond to the state or local agency making the notification within 24 hours, either confirming the detainer or ordering its withdrawal. (c) Immunity of Receiving Agencies No agencies nor officers or employees of agencies which have received an order to detain and produce an alien shall be liable for damages under law as a result of complying with such an order. (d) Failure or Refusal to Comply with Order to Detain and Produce Alien If a state or local agency refuses or fails in its duty to comply with an order to detain and produce an alien, the United States District Court shall, upon request of the United States Attorney for that district, issue an order requiring the agency to show cause why it did not do so and, upon a finding that the failure was intentional, shall hold the agency in contempt. Whether the failure to comply was intentional or negligent, it shall be in the Courts power to issue any such orders as are necessary to enjoin the agency from conduct that results in future refusal or failure. (e) Means of Service and Content of Order. (1) An order to detain and produce an alien may be served in person or by electronic means. (2) The order to detain and produce an alien shall contain at minimum the following information: (A) The name, date and place of birth of the alien, including known aliases or alternately claimed dates and places of birth (B) A brief statement of the grounds of removability, which shall not prevent superseding allegations and grounds from being used in any future charging document (C) The title and address of the agency receiving the order to detain and produce (D) The name and title of the officer issuing the order to detain and produce (E) The specific point of contact, and means by which the receiving agency should initiate that contact for purposes of notifying of an impending release, or of transfer of the alien to a subsequent agency and (F) A clear statement of the affirmative obligation of the receiving agency to comply with the order, and the consequences for refusal or failure to comply. Appendix 2: Model Language for a New INA Section 287B 8 U. S. Code 1357b Ineligibility for Federal Funding to States or Localities which Fail to Cooperate in Immigration Enforcement Efforts (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the government of a state, tribe, territory, or possession of the United States, or a political subdivision of any of the aforementioned, or the District of Columbia, (1) refuses or declines to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien filed by Homeland Security officers or agents against individuals known or suspected to be undocumented or criminal aliens subject to removal from the United States, or (2) enacts into law, or establishes by executive order, administrative regulation or policy, restrictions upon access to prisoners or detainees by federal officials enforcing the immigration laws of the United States, or upon cooperation with those federal officers by state and local law enforcement or correctional officers, or (3) refuses or declin es to exercise its authority to override the stated intention of one of its political subdivisions to engage in the conduct described in Paragraphs (1) or (2) above, neither said government nor any of its political subdivisions shall be eligible to receive funding from the Department of Justice State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. (b) For purposes of this act, refusal or declination of a government to exercise its authority as described in Section (a) includes, but is not limited to, statute, ordinance, order, rulemaking, policy, standard practice or directive on the part of a legislative or executive body or officer. (c) Within 30 days of enactment of this act, the Department of Homeland Security shall: (1) Prepare a comprehensive listing of all governments of states, tribes, territories or possessions, or political subdivisions thereof, or of the District of Columbia, which meet the ineligibility requirements described in Subsection (a) above (2) Send a notice to each government so listed informing it of the provisions of Subsection (a), asking that government whether it wishes to state affirmatively for the record its willingness and intent to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien, or to repeal any laws, or withdraw any executive orders, regulations or policies constituting a basis for ineligibility, and advising said government that failure to receive an affirmative response within 30 days of the date of the notice will result in ineligibility for and withdrawal of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding and (3) Send a concurrent notice to each state, territory or possession in wh ich a political subdivision has evidenced its unwillingness to participate, informing it of the provisions of Paragraph (a)(3), asking the state, territory or possession whether it wishes to exercise its authorities to override the stated intentions of the political subdivision, and advising that failure to receive an affirmative response within 30 days of the date of the notice will result in the state, territory or possession also becoming ineligible for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. (d) Upon expiration of the times described in Subsection (c), and in no event to exceed 30 days thereafter, the Department of Homeland Security shall transmit to the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Department of Justice a listing of the governments of any state, territory, possession, or political subdivision thereof, or of the District Columbia, which is ineligible for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. Said listing shall be final and determinative. (e) Subsequent to the initial notices and listing described in Subsections (c) and (d), within 30 days of being advised or becoming aware of a government refusing or declining to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien, or to permit law enforcement cooperation with immigration enforcement efforts, or to override the actions of a political subdivision in refusing to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien or to permit law enforcement cooperation with immigration enforcement efforts as described in Subsection (a), the Department of Homeland Security shall follow the same procedures and timeframes outlined in those sections to: (1) Inform said government that its actions will render it ineligible to receive funding, (2) Ascertain whether that government is willing to reconsider and to affirm its willingness to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien, or cooperate with immigration enforcement efforts, (3) Advise the state, territory or possession (if the uncooperative governmen t is a political subdivision) of the consequences of failure to exercise its authorities to override that governments decisions, and (4) Notify the Bureau of Justice Assistance of any governments which, having been given the opportunity, refuse or to decline to affirm, or override political subdivisions, thus rendering themselves ineligible for funding. (f) Congressional Reports (1) 120 days after enactment, (A) The Department of Homeland Security shall provide a report to the Congress outlining what steps have been taken to implement the provisions of this act. The Department shall append to its report a copy of the list described in Subsection (d) above. (B) The Bureau of Justice Assistance shall provide a report to the Congress outlining the steps taken to implement the provisions of this act, and append to its report a list of governments that have been debarred from receipt of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. (2) Within 120 days of the commencement of each new fiscal year, (A) The Department of Homeland Security shall provide a report to the Congress of its activities to monitor state, territories, possessions and their political subdivisions to ensure compliance with this Section, appending to its report a list of governments found not to be in compliance during the prior fiscal year, and (B) The Bureau of Justice Assistance shall provide a report to the Congress of its activities to ensure compliance with this Section, and append to its report a list of governments that have been debarred from receipt of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding during the prior fiscal year. 6 See Jessica M. Vaughan, ICE Enforcement Collapses Further in 2014. Center for Immigration Studies, October 2014 and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement report, Fiscal Year 2014 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report. as cited in the Los Angeles Times . December 4, 2014. 8 Ragsdale is now deputy director of ICE. However, at the time Ragsdale termed detainers as voluntary, he was de facto head of the agency. 9 8 CFR, 287.7. op cit. See, particularly, subsection (d) Temporary detention at Department request. 12 Flashalertnewswire, Summary of Judge Stewarts Opinion and Order on Summary Judgment. See also Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County, et al. . U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Case No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST. 13 Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel, legislative attorneys, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law. Congressional Research Service, September 10, 2012. 14 Supreme Court of the United States, Arizona et al. v. United States . No. 11182. Argued April 25, 2012, decided June 25, 2012. 15 Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel, op. cit. 19 See Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass . When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. 20 8 U. S.C. 1357(g). Unfortunately, as with Secure Communities, the Obama administration, responding to open borders advocates, has also eviscerated this previously robust nationwide program. 23 In fact, the now-defunct Secure Communities program was predicated upon language found in Public Law 110-329, which, in addition to providing the outlay of funds required for start-up and eventual national implementation, established a requirement of quarterly reports to the House and Senate committees on appropriations. See U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses within Title II of Division D of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, 122 STAT. 3594, enacted in September of 2008. Both the funding and the reporting requirements continued in appropriations acts passed by Congress and signed into law by the president every year thereafter. For this reason, the decision by the secretary to discontinue the program appears to fly in the face of congressional intent. 26 See 8 U. S.C. 1226 and 8 U. S.C. 1357. Note, particularly 8 U. S.C. 1357(d), discussed earlier in this paper, which states: - Powers of immigration officers and employees (d) Detainer of aliens for violation of controlled substances laws In the case of an alien who is arrested by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official for a violation of any law relating to controlled substances, if the official (or another official) (1) has reason to believe that the alien may not have been lawfully admitted to the United States or otherwise is not lawfully present in the United States, (2) expeditiously informs an appropriate officer or employee of the Service authorized and designated by the Attorney General of the arrest and of facts concerning the status of the alien, and (3) requests the Service to determine promptly whether or not to issue a detainer to detain the alien, the officer or employee of the Service shall promptly determine whether or not to issue such a detainer. If such a detainer is issued and the alien is not otherwise detained by Federal, State, or local officials, the Attorney General shall effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien. 27 Article VI of the U. S. Constitution states: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 28 The preemption doctrine is imposed when state law or regulation touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject. In the case of refusal to honor ICE detainers, state or local policies that ignore a federal directive are unconstitutional even though they purport to pursue or aid federal law. See Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U. S. 497 (1956) and Charleston amp Western Carolina R. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co. . 237 U. S. 597 (1915). 29 There is a reason for the existence federal Supremacy Clause, rooted in the history of our founding as a nation. The Articles of Confederation provided for only the loosest federal structure of government, preferring each colonystate to be co-equal and preeminent over that structure that did exist. In fact, the Articles did not refer to a nation, per se, but rather a league of states. The federal government possessed no chief executive indeed, no executive branch whatever, nor a judiciary. Each state felt free to establish its own trading rules, its own laws governing citizenship, etc. Needless to say, the weakness of such a structure was its undoing. 30 The source of federal power to regulate immigration comes through a combination of international and constitutional legal principles. The Chinese Exclusion Cases (beginning with Chae Chan Ping v. United States . 130 U. S. 581 (1889)) were the first cases to hold that the federal authority to exclude non-citizens is an incident of national sovereignty. The Supreme Court reasoned that every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest. Immigration, the court found, is a matter of vital national concern. The court distinguished between national and local spheres. It is the role of the federal government to oversee matters of national concern, while it is the province of the states to govern local matters. Therefore, the court found that the inherent sovereign power to regulate immigration clearly resides in the federal government. Subsequent cases reinforced national sovereignty as the source of federal power to control immigration and consistently reasserted the plenary and unqualified scope of this power. Fong Yue Ting v. United States . 149 U. S. 698 (1893) explicitly held that the power to expel or deport (now remove) non-citizens rests upon the same ground as the exclusion power and is equally absolute and unqualified. 31 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States . 1831. Stated Story: The propriety of this clause Supremacy Clause would seem to result from the very nature of the Constitution. If it was to establish a national government, that government ought, to the extent of its powers and rights, to be supreme. It would be a perfect solecism to affirm, that a national government should exist with certain powers and yet, that in the exercise of those powers it should not be supreme. See also The Founders Constitution . Volume 4, Article 6, Clause 2, Document 42, Chicago: University of Chicago Press and Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 3 vols. Boston, 1833 . 32 Comity is legal reciprocity, the principle that one jurisdiction will extend certain courtesies to other jurisdictions within the same nation, particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative, and judicial acts. Part of the presumption of comity is that other jurisdictions will reciprocate the courtesy shown to them. In the United States, comity also refers to the Privileges and Immunities Clause (sometimes called the Comity Clause) in Article Four, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U. S. Constitution. The clause provides that The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. See Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. 33 Elizabeth Price Foley, Presidents Cannot Ignore Laws as Written. The New York Times . January 29, 2014. Stated Professor Foley: President Obama has shown a penchant for ignoring the plain language of our laws. He unilaterally rewrote the employer mandate and several other provisions of the Affordable Care Act, failing to faithfully execute a law which declares, unambiguously, that these provisions shall apply beginning January 1, 2014. Similarly, in suspending deportation for a class of young people who entered this country illegally, the president defied the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that any alien who is inadmissible at the time of entry into the country shall be removed. 34 Supreme Court, op. cit. . p. 8 35 The Supreme Court has adjudicated disputes between federal and sub-federal entities in this arena for almost 150 years, siding overwhelmingly with the federal government and striking down state and local laws. 36 Jessica Vaughan, ICE Document Details 36,000 Criminal Alien Releases in 2013, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder . May 2014. 37 See Chy Lung v. Freeman . 92 U. S. 275, 280 (1875) and Hines v. Davidowitz . 312 U. S. 52, 62 (1941). These cases hold That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization, and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution was pointed out by authors of the Federalist in 1787, and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. 38 The relevant statute can be found at Section 274(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U. S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) . 39 For one detailed explanation of judicial deference to administrative agencies, arising from a Supreme Court decision of 2004, see Randolph J. May, Defining Deference Down: Independent Agencies and Chevron Deference. Administrative Law Review . Vol. 58, No. 2, Spring 2006 (58 Admin. L. Rev. 428 (2006)). 44 See the cases of Erick Maya. of Cook County, Ill. who was recently sentenced to 122 years in prison for murdering his ex-girlfriend, and who was at large despite an immigration detainer, and Hector Ramires. of Chelsea, Mass. who is currently in custody on murder charges in an incident that occurred several months after arrests for armed robbery, in which ICE declined to issue detainers. 48 Jessica Vaughan, op. cit. . and Jessica Vaughan, The Alternative to Immigration Detention: Fugitives. Center for Immigration Studies blog, October 18, 2011. 49 For more information on the issue of SCAAP funding, and the hypocrisy inherent in state and local agencies demanding reimbursement for incarceration costs of aliens they refuse to turn over to ICE, see Russ Doubleday and Jessica Vaughan, Subsidizing Sanctuaries: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder . November 2010, and Jessica Vaughan, After the Election, More Flexibility for Sanctuaries. Center for Immigration Studies blog, November 26, 2012. 50 INA Section 236(a), codified at 8 U. S.C. 1226(a). states in relevant part, On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. 51 For more on the EOPS memorandum and its flawed logic, see Dan Cadmans blog, Mass. Public Safety Office Seeks to Impede Immigration Enforcement. Center for Immigration Studies, September 16, 2014. 52 For an analysis of the SAFE Act, see W. D. Reasoner, Better SAFE Than Sorry. Center for Immigration Studies, August 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment