[ad_1]
SAN DIEGO (AP) – In the last few weeks of the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security has quietly signed agreements with at least four states that threaten to temporarily derail President Joe Biden’s efforts to reverse the policies of immigration from his predecessor.
The agreements say Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana and Texas are entitled to a 180-day consultation period before executive policy changes take effect. The Biden administration rejects this argument on the grounds that immigration is the sole responsibility of the federal government under the Constitution.
Former President Donald Trump has relied heavily on executive powers for his immigration program because he has not been able to gain sufficient support for his policies in Congress. Now some of his supporters say Biden goes too far in doing the same to reverse them.
The first legal test is in Texas, where the Republican governor and attorney general are challenging the President’s 100-day moratorium on evictions, which went into effect on Friday.
The Department of Homeland Security told lawmakers shortly before Biden’s inauguration last week that it had reached nine agreements, mostly with states, according to a congressional official speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss information that is not yet publicly available.
The ministry declined to comment, citing the lawsuit. The Trump administration, generally keen to outlaw immigration enforcement, has been publicly silent on the deals, which were first reported by BuzzFeed News.
The nine-page agreements known as the Sanctuary for Americans First Enactment, or SAFE, are expansive. They require state and local governments to be given 180 days’ notice of changes in the number of immigration officers, the number of people released from immigration custody, application priorities, criteria for asylum and who meets the conditions required to obtain legal status.
Without providing evidence, the agreements indicate that more flexible enforcement can hurt education, health care, housing and jobs.
Sheriff Sam Page of Rockingham County, North Carolina, on the border with Virginia, signed an agreement on December 22.
“Any incoming administration is likely to make policy changes,” the sheriff said. “Policy changes at the federal level affect us at the local level. We hope that the SAFE Agreement will promote timely communications on any important policy changes to come. We are simply asking for notice of these changes. “
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed an agreement on Dec. 15 to “stem the tide of illegal immigration,” spokesman Cory Dennis said.
“While some may try to blur the lines, there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration, and it is important to recognize it,” he said. “Our office will continue to be a watchdog for any changes in immigration policies that could harm the people of Louisiana.”
In Indiana, former Attorney General Curtis Hill, a Republican, signed the deal on December 22. Rachel Hoffmeyer, spokeswoman for Gov. Eric Holcomb, said he would stay in place after an initial review.
Katie Conner, a spokeswoman for Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, confirmed that the state had signed up, saying it “has many cooperative agreements with federal, state and local enforcement agencies, including DHS.
In addition to the deportation moratorium, the Biden administration suspended a policy aimed at making asylum seekers in Mexico wait for hearings in the U.S. immigration court. Six of Biden’s 17 executive decrees on Day 1 dealt with immigration, such as stopping work on a border wall with Mexico and lifting a travel ban for people from several Muslim-majority countries.
Hiroshi Motomura, professor of law and immigration policy at the University of California Los Angeles Law School, called the agreements “a very unusual last-minute thing” and said they raised questions about how an administration can tie its hands. of his successor. He believes that a moratorium on deportation fell within the power of the president.
Steve Legomsky, professor emeritus at the University of Washington Law School and former chief lawyer for the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agreements were “a terrible idea” that could create “a race to the bottom, ”anti-immigration states competing with each other to drive immigrants elsewhere.
“Throughout our history, immigration policy has been understood as the exclusive responsibility of the federal government,” said Legomsky.
Maintaining immigration enforcement with the federal government allows the nation to speak with one voice as a matter of foreign policy and inter-state coherence, Legomsky said. “We cannot have 50 sets of conflicting immigration laws at the same time,” he said.
The Biden administration made similar arguments in court on Sunday after Texas asked a federal judge to block the moratorium on deportation.
Texas, which has challenged the deferred action program for child arrivals to protect hundreds of thousands of young people from deportation, argued the moratorium violated its agreement with homeland security. The state also argued that the moratorium violated federal rule-making procedures.
U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton in Victoria, Texas, who was appointed by Trump last year, held hearings Friday and Monday to consider Texas’ claim.
___
Associated Press editors Ben Fox in Washington, Gary Robertson in Raleigh, NC, Casey Smith in Indianapolis, Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Anita Snow in Phoenix contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
Source link