Crime and policing have historically been mostly under the management of city and local governments. Immigration on the other hand, seems a problem that requires coordination and consistency at the federal level. States obviously can pursue different policies, but that leads to unfairness and an overflow on immigrants in some and not others; it is not surprising that immigration has been one of the hottest issues demanding attention on Capitol Hill and in the White House. President Obama for example, has revealed in his proposed budget for 2013 that he plans to expand the Secure Communities program, as part of a goal to reach a deportation quota.
So what happens when federal agencies demand local police forces to carry out duties that may undermine their ability to serve their own mandates, namely, combat crime and promote security in their local communities? The US operates on federalism principles at the state-federal level, although it is mostly unitary at the local-state level. That is, the state can make a stand against federal policies and agencies on constitutional grounds. Therefore, one solution for jurisdictions such as Southwest Detroit would be to have state legislature work in their protection.
States like Illinois and California have been working since last year to pass state law that would allow jurisdictions in their states to actually withdraw from Secure Communities, which was originally voluntary and allowed jurisdictions to opt-out, but later became impossible to do so as DHS redefined "opt-out". Secure Communities is only a program under a federal agency, not federal law or a congressional mandate. For groups like AIR and jurisdictions like Southwest Detroit, working through their state legislature to bypass the DHS restrictions may be their best bet. Rate this posting:
{[['
']]}
']]}