{"id":21381,"date":"2019-04-19T14:00:05","date_gmt":"2019-04-19T18:00:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/live-immigrationreform.pantheonsite.io\/?p=21381"},"modified":"2019-04-19T14:00:08","modified_gmt":"2019-04-19T18:00:08","slug":"north-carolina-legislation-on-287g-partnerships-should-go-national-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/04\/19\/north-carolina-legislation-on-287g-partnerships-should-go-national-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"North Carolina Legislation On 287(g) Partnerships Should Go National"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

As sanctuary cities continue to proliferate, states must be proactive and innovative in their responses.\u00a0 They must pass laws that actually promote public safety and keep dangerous criminal aliens off the streets. North Carolina is considering a bill that would do just that, and other states should take note.

House Bill (HB) 452<\/a>, sponsored by Representative Cody Henson (R), would require the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (DPS) to participate in the federal 287(g)<\/a> program, which delegates federal authority to state and local agencies to more actively cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This isn\u2019t unprecedented. Three states\u2019 correction facilities already participate in 287(g): Arizona<\/a>, Georgia<\/a>, and (surprisingly enough) Massachusetts<\/a>.\u00a0 All three require their departments of corrections to cooperate with ICE on detainers and perform immigration enforcement functions inside those prisons. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But those agreements are in place\nby administrative action only\u2014orders or directives from whatever secretary or\ncommissioner is currently in charge of the department.  They aren\u2019t permanent and can be terminated\nat any time.  That is why states need to\npass laws requiring 287(g) for their state-level law enforcement and\ncorrections agencies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HB 452 is a roadmap for\nother states to follow.  It would require\nevery law enforcement agency under the broad umbrella of DPS to perform\nimmigration enforcement functions, including not just the state\u2019s adult and\njuvenile prisons, but also Alcohol Law Enforcement (ALE), the State Bureau of\nInvestigations (SBI), the State Highway Patrol, and even the North Carolina\nNational Guard. If the bill becomes law, it would dramatically improve how the\nstate helps ICE locate and remove criminal aliens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is important for three\nreasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the agreement would give\nstate personnel the authority they need to work more effectively with ICE. It\nwould allow them to alert ICE to illegal aliens under arrest, give ICE access\nto state facilities, transfer inmates into ICE custody, and generate\nimmigration detainers for illegal aliens in local jails or state prisons. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, it\u2019s likely 287(g) could relieve the state of potential liability, because the agreement delegates federal authority to state personnel who are authorized and trained to perform immigration enforcement functions. It could also give participating state personnel access to legal representation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) if they are named as defendants in litigation. All of their legal costs might then be absorbed by DOJ if private counsel is hired. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third, requiring 287(g) by\nstate law rather than mere administrative action would make it significantly more\ndifficult for any future governor or other official to terminate the agreement unilaterally\nunless the state legislature passes a new law. This assures the agreement will\nstay in place more or less permanently regardless of who\u2019s in office.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That doesn\u2019t mean it won\u2019t receive\ncriticism, of course. The open-borders lobby will predictably object to states\nparticipating in the 287(g) program, but they hardly have any real argument to\nmake against it. Unlike many illegal aliens in the custody of county jails who\nare being held pre-trial, the majority of illegal aliens in a state prison have\nalready been convicted and sentenced for a felony.  Nevertheless, the facts could be ignored and\nthe lawsuits could come. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of bending to\npolitical pressure, state lawmakers should ask themselves who do they want to protect\nmore\u2014dangerous criminals or law-abiding citizens? If it\u2019s the latter, they\nshould take action immediately and pass laws requiring 287(g).  HB 452 in North Carolina shows them the way.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As sanctuary cities continue to proliferate, states must be proactive and innovative in their responses.\u00a0 They must pass laws that actually promote public safety and keep dangerous criminal aliens off the streets. North Carolina is considering a bill that would do just that, and other states should take note. House Bill (HB) 452, sponsored by<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":74,"featured_media":15221,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[14],"tags":[5307,1524,640],"yst_prominent_words":[5297,5305,5303,5295,5301,5294,2008,1988,5290,2159,5292,2473,5293,5291,5289,5306,5304,5296,2373,5300],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21381"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/74"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21381"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21381\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21382,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21381\/revisions\/21382"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/15221"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21381"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21381"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21381"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=21381"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}