Chairman. I am somewhat confused by the amendment. We rejected an amendment that went in the opposite direction when we deliberated in committee and that was one which explicitly gave an assignment of authority to local and State government law enforcement agencies to deal with immigration law. The current law or current practice is guided right now by the Attorney Generals directive. In most cases. it indicates that the INS remains responsible for all arrests for immigration violations. but it does seek cooperation in some instances with local and State governments. My concern is that this may go too far in the opposite direction. The gentleman said this does not stop the practice of a local jail or penitentiary being used by the INS. I would have to say to the gentleman there is some argument on that. I made a request of the INS just this afternoon to clarify it and they feel there is some confusion. at least. and they fear that it may limit their authority to do that. first. Second. this seems to go in the opposite direction of the bill of the gentleman from California H.R. 4909. which mandated that State and local officials notify the Immigration Service when they were holding someone who they believed to be in violation of the law. With respect to the question brought up by the gentleman from Texas . in which he said that if there were an allpoints bulletin for some excludable alien in the United States. that may or may not be allowed to be followed up on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.
Keywords matched
Immigration immigration