L&T Publisher Earl Watt
Who is responsible when it comes to immigration? Who can set the policy and enforce it? Who can’t?
We are all familiar with the separation of powers and the checks and balances of government, but we usually miss a very important separation.
Most are familiar with the three branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — and how they are a check on one another.
The 10th Amendment establishes another key restriction on the federal government as well as a key restriction on state governments, and how the two do not overlap.
The 10th Amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The federal government can only do what the Constitution says it can do. If the Constitution doesn’t specifically give power to the federal government, that power resides with the states.
But if the Constitution does give a power to the federal government, then that authority does not reside with the states.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” That means the federal government determines immigration policy, and the federal government alone.
And yet we have seen uprisings in the most liberal pockets of America trying to challenge the role of the federal government on enforcing immigration policy.
The 10th Amendment made it clear that there is a separation between federal and state.
In one way, this is beneficial to those who don’t believe states should be involved in enforcing immigration policy.
That is absolutely true. States have no authority when it comes to determining legal status.
For those who do not want states to be involved in immigration enforcement, that is good news.
The flip side of that is states cannot provide alternative paths to residency, either. It goes without saying that if a state can’t do it, cities can’t, either.
The best policy for states to take when it comes to immigration is one of silence.
States play no role legislatively or through the executive branch. That is why I believe Joe Biden should have been impeached along with Alejandro Mayorkis during the Biden presidency. The Constitution requires the president to faithfully execute the laws of the United States, and by ignoring immigration law, Biden and Secretary Mayorkis created the problem we are now facing as a nation.
But Kansas cannot create a solution. Nor can California. Or New York.
Only the federal government can enforce federal law.
Which brings us to cooperation with federal agencies.
There is no requirement in the U.S. Constitution that requires local or state law enforcement officers to assist in the enforcement of federal law.
While cooperation would be helpful in reducing conflict, no state is required to provide it.
While most officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, local and state officers do not have the legal authority to enforce federal law. What they promise to do is not impede on someone’s federal rights, like illegal search and seizure, etc.
But local and state officers do have an obligation to uphold local and state laws which usually include maintaining the peace.
If a federal action is taking place, it will happen within the borders of a state, whether that state likes it or not.
And federal agents do have the authority to arrest anyone who has violated federal law in entering the country illegally or overstaying a visa.
Regardless of claims to the contrary, overstaying a visa is not the same as receiving a speeding ticket. You don’t get deported for being 10 miles an hour over the limit, but you do get deported for overstaying a visa.
It is misleading and dangerous to claim otherwise, and it puts people at risk, believing it is no big deal to allow your visa to expire. It is a big deal and could end with a raid on someone’s home and a deportation arrest. I advise you keep your visa current.
Not cooperating with law enforcement can lead to many unnecessary situations that put lives at risk. We expect our local units of government to cooperate with each other as much as possible. Why wouldn’t we expect the same with federal law enforcement?
Whether it is a city police officer, sheriff’s deputy, state trooper or ICE agent knocking at your door with a warrant, they are all officers with the authority to be there.
If one group chooses to interfere, additional consequences may follow, from obstruction to withholding federal funds.
If anyone is pulled over in Kansas for any reason, we are all required to provide identification. If someone does not have legal status for being in the United States, that is a risk that can lead to deportation. If a state does not report that to federal authorities, they are aiding and abetting a federal crime. As law enforcement officers who know how hard it is when others are aiding law breaking, it would seem they naturally want to aid their federal counterparts.
But it is not required. In Kansas, it is against the law to create a “sanctuary city” or to try to prevent local and state officers from cooperating with federal officers with the passage of HB 2717 in 2022.
Kansas recently reinforced its commitment to provide education to all students regardless of legal status through college. States can do that because they are under no obligation to enforce federal law, and children brought to the country illegally had no say in the matter. In essence, they were trafficked.
Providing an education is the right thing to do, and they are required to be actively seeking citizenship.
Our system is broken. It cumbersome and expensive. Now that the border is secure, it’s time to revisit ways to improve the system. But fighting the feds isn’t it.
