Speech #1090052664

The first assertion is that the Federal Government is trying to burden State and local governments with an unfunded mandate. Every police and sheriff s department across the country must make choices every day regarding their enforcement priorities and resources. Certainly. their legal authority and law enforcement goals are not served by being shut out of immigration law enforcement. It is a curious argument to say that local police are helped by being denied their lawful powers to voluntarily aid Federal immigration authorities. They should not be forced to ignore laws being broken in their presence and in their communities. The second myth that antilocal enforcement advocates would have policymakers believe is twofold: that a current cooperative partnership exists between local police and immigrant communities. and that immigration enforcement will cause immigrant victims and witnesses of crimes to abandon these cooperative partnerships. One advocacy group. the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. argues: "These combined measures will ensure that more immigrants will avoid contact with law enforcement. putting entire communities at risk. For instance. immigrant victims of crime will hesitate to report the crimes to the police if they fear adverse immigration consequences from their contact with the officials." Again. the argument fails because State and local police retain their independent power to make prosecution choices. They are not required to report illegal alien victims or witnesses to Federal authorities or to investigate crimes they do not want to investigate. To make sure that this is understood. the authors of this bill have agreed to add language clarifying that nothing in the bill requires State and local officers to report crime victims or witnesses to Federal immigration authorities. Perhaps the most egregious assertion made by opponents of effective enforcement is the allegation that State and local law enforcement officers will use their inherent enforcement authority as a license to engage in racial profiling. harassment. and discrimination. Specifically. the National Council of La Raza strongly opposes State and local law enforcement participation because it claims such involvement is "likely to result in increased racial profiling. police misconduct. and civil rights violations." This argument is curious because it would effectively grant more protection to noncitizens here illegally than to citizens. who are subject to arrest by State and Federal law enforcement officers for violations of Federal law. It is curious logic to say that we trust our police to enforce laws against citizens but not against noncitizens here illegally. State and local police are trained to protect the civil rights of all types of suspects and defendants and they do so every day in this country. In Alabama.