My ancestors were exactly the same kinds of people that today’s illegal aliens are, and they came to the USA for exactly the same reasons, and did exactly the same kinds of things after they got here. The only difference is, when my ancestors got here, they tried to lock the door behind them. I’m not sure that difference is praiseworthy.
I don’t think that they’re all from Mexico. That was an example.
And just because you have a copy of your birth certificate at home (as do I) doesn’t mean that everyone does. The US is not supposed to be a “papers please” kind of country, and I wouldn’t want to live in such a place.
That’s not entirely correct.
This deserves a long discussion, but there are three avenues to enforcing federal law: the federal government, private actors, and state government actors.
The federal government aspect is obvious: federal officials may impose fines or criminal penalties against an offender.
Private enforcement might seem surprising, but it’s quite common. A federal law may allow, for example, a person who was not paid at least federal minimum wage to personally sue his employer for both recompense and punitive or liquidated damages. This creates an incentive for private parties to initiate enforcement of federal law. The False Claims Act, at 31 USC §§ 3729 et seq, is another example. A private person can sue a government contractor for fraud against the government, even if he is not personally harmed. (He’s a “relator,” a person who stands in for another party, and gets a portion of whatever damages are recovered). The idea here is that a company secretly doing wrong is now vulnerable, because its employees now have a financial motive to blow the whistle.
Finally, state actors can enforce federal law when the federal law authorizes them to do so. The consumer protection arena is full of examples; a state attorney general can sue to enforce federal flammable fabric standards, per 15 USC § 1194(a).
So, in the specific case of immigration, the answer is that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has a specific program: the 287(g) program, named for the Immigration and Nationality Act Section in which the authority appears:
To expand on Bricker’s answer, there are also two or three other times when local cops can enforce immigration law as authorized under federal law. It’s all laid out pretty clearly in Arizona v. U.S.
If you claim lawful presence – that is, being a citizen, or a lawful permanent resident – you are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge, and cannot be immediately removed.
Lawful presence is much broader than citizenship and LPR status. It includes having a visa or claiming asylum or claiming entitlement to a U-visa, among others.
And not all people who make such a claim go before an IJ. For example, people claiming asylum must past a “credible fear” hearing before an ICE officer first.
As a policy matter, the key point is that lots of people are actually entitled to relief from removal but don’t know it and are removed by expedited removal before they can talk to an attorney.
Yeah! This will open up all sorts of employment opportunities. I’m going to be waiting at Home Depot tomorrow morning. What time do they open? Who’s with me?
Undoubtedly correct.
I think the point I was making was more in response to the OP’s apparent fear that because a person lacked a birth certificate on his person, he could be summarily deported. But you’re absolutely right that legal presence can rest on lots of possible grounds.
According to a piece in the NYT you can pick radicchio for a CA farmer who supported Trump and insists he must hire undocumented workers so chooses to believe Trump won’t interfere ‘as a businessman’; after several years working for him you could make up to $11 an hour!
From the article:
This does not equal “Federal agents conduct sweeping immigration enforcement raids in at least 6 states”. With 11 million illegal immigrants you basically have to do 50,000 a week for the rest of Trump’s 4 year term. Hundreds means you are basically only doing 1% of what is needed.
Raids can be sweeping in lots of ways apart from whether they would be enough to remove 11 million people from the country.
The main way in which they are sweeping is that Trump has abandoned all pretense of prioritization. His EO says that you are a priority if you are a threat to public safety, and that every undocumented person (except for visa over-stayers) is a threat to public safety. Ergo…
Exactly. It’s not just about absolute numbers.
I’ve always wondered why they target things like chicken processing factories over brazen pro-amnesty rallies. Sure, I bet many people throwing their support into it are here legally, but I also imagine most have got their ID on them.
Most of the current sweeps are targeting criminals.
Not just in NY. The article reports 75% of the 680 rounded up nationwide had convictions for serious crimes.
The crime rate, in these cities will dip just a little for awhile.
No, it doesn’t say that they had convictions for serious crimes, though you can be forgiven for misreading Kelly’s intentionally misleading quote that way.
What is says is that 75% were convicted of some crime, and then he gives the worst examples. The truth is that many of the 75% were convicted of crimes including crossing the border illegally or re-entering after removal.
Plus, let’s not forget the 25%, who are people Trump claimed he would not be trying to remove.
ICE has run away with its tail between its legs more than a few times for trying such tactics. Fortunately, we live in a country of laws, where it’s illegal to racially profile people and illegal to detain them on suspicion of being in violation of immigration laws just because they aren’t carrying ID at a “brazen pro-amnesty” rally.
Where else would keep your birth certificates ?? I know people that do and so do I .
Mine is in a small safe deposit box at my bank.
I don’t need to show no steenking certificate.
And . . . "certificates? How many do you have??
OP, I am just curious to this point. The Obama administration deported 2 million and that would average out to 20,833 per month for his 96 months in office.
Were you complaining then ?
I am searching for a cite, but am pretty sure I read this past week that deportations/raids were down from the average monthly total.