{"id":14088,"date":"2017-05-11T09:54:49","date_gmt":"2017-05-11T13:54:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=14088"},"modified":"2018-12-28T12:50:26","modified_gmt":"2018-12-28T17:50:26","slug":"la-schools-to-ice-you-need-a-hall-pass-to-enforce-immigration-law","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2017\/05\/11\/la-schools-to-ice-you-need-a-hall-pass-to-enforce-immigration-law\/","title":{"rendered":"LA Schools to ICE: You Need a Hall Pass to Enforce Immigration Law"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a disturbing new display of both arrogance and ignorance, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has stated that<\/a>: \u201cNo immigration officers will be allowed on campus without clearance from the superintendent of schools, who will consult with district lawyers. Until that happens, they won\u2019t be let in, even if they arrive with a legally valid subpoena.\u201d<\/p>\n

Newsflash: The Department of Homeland Security is a federal law enforcement agency with nationwide jurisdiction. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers don\u2019t need the permission of school officials to enter a public building in furtherance of their duties. Section 287<\/a> of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) confers very broad law enforcement powers upon both ICE and CBP officers, including the authority to interrogate, without warrant, any persons believed to be an alien as to their right to be or to remain in the United States.<\/p>\n

And there\u2019s also no evidence that ICE or CBP is carrying out enforcement actions in schools, or has any plans to do so. This appears to be yet another instance of the ACLU and other open-borders organizations prioritizing feelings over facts.<\/p>\n

Both ICE<\/a> and CBP<\/a> have \u201csensitive locations policies.\u201d However, as those policies explicitly state, they were intended to ensure that immigration officers exercise sound judgment when conducting operations in locations that the public may perceive as requiring special procedures \u2013 such as hospitals and places of worship. Nevertheless, as both policies also make plain, they were not intended to categorically prohibit lawful enforcement operations in any particular location. The INA does not impose any obligation upon immigration officers to play \u201cmother-may-I\u201d with hospital administrators and school officials.<\/p>\n

The LAUSD announcement is part of a disturbing trend. The open-borders lobby simply doesn\u2019t like immigration enforcement. Whenever it doesn\u2019t get its way, it stomps its feet, and says, \u201cYou may be able to enforce your pesky immigration laws but you can\u2019t do it in my backyard! And you can\u2019t do it without a subpoena <\/em>(or warrant, or court order, etc.)!\u201d<\/p>\n

There\u2019s just a few problems with that position: That\u2019s not how federalism works. Per the terms of the Constitution, immigration enforcement is an exclusively federal domain belonging to the political branches of the federal government \u2013 Congress and the Executive. The Supreme Court made that abundantly clear in its decision in Arizona v. United States<\/em><\/a>.<\/em> Regardless of whether the LAUSD, the ACLU, the California state legislature, or any one else, likes it, the federal government is 100% justified in exercising its constitutional authority in hospitals, churches, and schools in the Golden State if ICE determines that such action is justified by circumstance. And since both ICE and CBP have appropriate policies in place \u2013 there seems to be little need for concern that DHS will go bulling through middle schools arresting illegal alien tween-agers any time soon.<\/p>\n

And a subpoena<\/em> is a command to appear at a specified time and place to give testimony<\/a> to a tribunal or commission on a particular legal issue. Immigration officers aren\u2019t required to obtain a subpoena<\/em> prior to conducting an interrogation or effectuating an arrest. A subpoena<\/em> is required only when ICE or CBP wishes to compel someone to provide testimony or oblige someone to produce records. In fact, in most cases, immigration officers aren\u2019t even required to obtain a warrant – the plain language of INA Section 287(a)(2)<\/a> makes it clear that Congress was concerned with the likelihood that illegal aliens would escape if immigration authorities were saddled with a rigid warrant requirement.<\/p>\n

American-style collaborative federalism is dependent upon balancing the interests of the states and the federal government. However, that balance is pretty clearly established. The federal government is responsible for defense, diplomacy and national security \u2013 issues that affect us all equally, as a nation. When state entities, like the LAUSD, inappropriately intrude into the federal sphere they place their political interests, and those of illegal aliens, above those of American citizens. They also turn California into a magnet for alien terrorists and criminals. Therefore, it\u2019s high time for the Trump administration to remind<\/a> California, and other rogue jurisdictions, that immigration is a national issue and none of the states is entitled to compromise the security of Union and the integrity of its borders.