O que você deve fazer como um empreiteiro do Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) 4. Verifique os subcontratados Antes de poder pagar um novo subcontratado, você precisará verificar com HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). HMRC irá dizer-lhe: se eles estão registrados para o Esquema de Indústria da Construção (CIS) que taxa de dedução para usar ou se você pode pagá-los sem fazer deduções Você também deve verificar os subcontratantes youve usado antes, se você não incluí-los em um retorno CIS no Atuais ou últimos 2 anos fiscais. Como verificar Você pode verificar os subempreiteiros usando: O que você precisa Verifique se você tem: a referência única do contribuinte (UTR) o número de referência para o seu escritório de contas HMRC sua referência do empregador HMRC Você também precisa de seus subcontratados: Eles deram quando se registraram com CIS) UTR número de Seguro Nacional se eles forem um número de registro de companhia de comerciante único se eles forem uma companhia limitada Você pode verificar vários subcontratados de uma vez usando o sistema de Intercâmbio de Dados Eletrônico (EDI). Builders Software de contabilidade especificamente adaptado para o Reino Unido CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY CIA pacote de software é escrito e desenvolvido exclusivamente para o Reino Unido Building Industry Não há add-on pacotes ou planilhas necessárias para cobrir necessidades exclusivas da indústria de construção, como CIS, Job Costing. Retenções. Contabilidade de subcontratados, Aplicações (Pagamentos de estágio) e Certificações. Isso significa que nosso software de construção é muito mais fácil de usar do que outros softwares no mercado. SAVE TIME com software de contabilidade de construção totalmente integrado Você só precisa inserir informações uma vez CIA é desenvolvido especificamente para a indústria de construção do Reino Unido e não um pacote de software de contabilidade genérico modificado para construtores. Sabemos o que um construtor precisa Com a maioria dos outros softwares de contabilidade de construção, os usuários têm que manter várias planilhas para registrar transações específicas para negócios de construção, como deduções de CIS, Cálculo de custos de trabalho e Retenções e atualizar um sistema de contas também. Como a CIA é um pacote de software de contabilidade totalmente integrado, uma entrada é tudo o que é necessário para atualizar TODAS as áreas relevantes. Por exemplo, ao introduzir uma factura subcontratada tributável, as Contas, o Razão CIS, o IVA e o Cálculo do Custo de Trabalho são actualizados simultaneamente. SALVE O DINHEIRO com o software detalhado do cálculo de custos do trabalho O custo do trabalho é tão importante quanto suas contas à maioria de nossos clientes. À medida que as faturas são registradas na CIA, os custos são atribuídos automaticamente aos trabalhos relevantes, permitindo que você compare seus custos reais com os orçamentos que você tem permitido. Com o CIA Job Costing software você pode imediatamente spot quando youve sido sobrecarregado, ou descobrir anomalias em seus orçamentos. MANTENHA ATUALIZADO com a alteração da legislação Com a CIA, você recebe atualizações automaticamente à medida que a legislação do Reino Unido muda. Quando o sistema CIS foi introduzido em 2007, nossos usuários já tinham um software atualizado que refletia novos requisitos. Os usuários também estavam prontos para a nova legislação em 2010 exigindo que os retornos de IVA fossem produzidos on-line. As alterações PAYE também são atualizadas automaticamente e o PAYE Plus é reconhecido pelo HMRC como compatível com os requisitos de Informações em Tempo Real (RTI). Mantenha tudo o que precisa em um só lugar com o nosso SOFTWARE CIS De verificar e pagar novos subcontratados. Para a emissão de declarações de retorno mensal e e-mail, nosso software vai ajudar. A CIA verifica os subcontratados automaticamente usando um link direto com o HMRC. Quando você paga um subcontratado, a CIA vai saber se você tem que deduzir o imposto e em que taxa, ele vai mesmo calculá-lo automaticamente para você. Cada mês você tem que produzir um retorno para o HMRC detalhando todos os pagamentos feitos aos subcontratados, nosso software do CIS fará este automaticamente usando o HMRC Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). Levante INVOICES com rapidez e precisão O software CIA permite que você identifique facilmente o que precisa ser adicionado à fatura ao faturar o cliente. Isso ajuda você a evitar esquecer a factura de quaisquer itens menores ou variações, e nunca mais vai perder os custos entre o contrato inicial. CIA também inclui diário de retenção que é atualizado como cada etapa de pagamento é processado e lembra quando o pagamento de retenção é devido. Contabilidade, Custeio de Trabalho e Software CIS para Construtores O software CIA (Construction Industry Accounts) é um software de construção projetado exclusivamente para a indústria de construção do Reino Unido e abrange o CIS Scheme e Job Costing. Foram associados com Clipit desde a sua criação e sempre encontraram o software perfeito para trabalhar dentro da indústria da construção. Seu fácil de navegar ao redor ea helpline é inestimável às vezes. Technic Mechanical Services Bom sistema confiável com excelente suporte da Equipe na CLiP IT. Os relatórios de Software para as contas eo cálculo de custos são claros e concisos e CLiP IT sempre tentará e combinará seus requisitos de software particulr sempre que possível. Estou feliz por ser um site de referência. Davies Homes (Somerton) Ltd O software CLiP IT Solutions trouxe uma lufada de ar fresco ao nosso negócio, a interface amigável ea flexibilidade de relatórios trouxe uma nova dimensão que combina nossas atividades de negócios com o nosso sistema de contabilidade onde todos os outros falharam. Estamos realmente satisfeitos com a ajuda, suporte e funcionamento geral do software CLiP IT, a equipe está muito conhecedora do seu sistema e se, em raras ocasiões, os problemas não podem ser resolvidos imediatamente, eles Irá trabalhar nele e mantê-lo informado sobre o progresso em todos os momentos. Fairways Engineering Ltd Temos vindo a utilizar CLiP IT Software para um número de anos e têm sido mais do que feliz com o seu desempenho. Ele atende a todas as necessidades contábeis de uma empresa de construção, custo de trabalho exato, acompanhamento de retenção e fácil de usar módulos CIS. O pacote de folha de pagamento também é muito fácil de usar e atualizar informações fácil de seguir. O Grupo Cadman Fomos atraídos pelo Software porque as questões específicas para a nossa indústria foram claramente compreendidas pela CLiP IT, e não foi apenas um pacote padrão com um add-on de construção. Descobrimos que o software é fácil de usar e nos forneceu muitas informações úteis. Sempre achamos o apoio muito bom, com uma resposta rápida e bem informada a quaisquer problemas que tivemos. Robore Cuts Limited Temos vindo a utilizar soluções ClipIT desde 2008 e provou ser um bom pacote de software, fácil de usar, com uma excelente equipe de suporte. Não hesitaria em recomendar esta empresa. Utilizamos o CLiP IT e o Pacote CIA desde o seu início e descobrimos que é simples e fácil de usar, com caminhos fáceis de seguir e vasta informação disponível. O serviço de backup é inigualável. Nós não hesitamos em recomendar CLiP IT s pacote para qualquer perspectiva de usuários. James Wilkes Limited Seu como se CIA (Construction Industry Accounts) foi escrito por alguém sentado na minha cadeira. Eu não posso acreditar como é fácil de usar. Eu tenho usado Construct para os últimos cinco anos e eu gostaria de saber sobre você antes disso. Eu recebo todo o trabalho de custeio e informações de gerenciamento que eu preciso sem nenhum barulho em tudo. Lloyd Clough amp Sons Ltd O serviço de apoio é excelente. Pessoas amigáveis e experientes estão lá para ajudar no final de uma linha telefônica. É o melhor suporte técnico que já tivemos. McCane Construction Ltd À medida que me aproximo do final do meu primeiro ano trabalhando com você, gostaria apenas de agradecer a toda a equipe de suporte do Clip It por ser tão eficiente, experiente e útil. Todas as consultas foram tratadas com paciência e de forma amigável e fácil de entender é muito reconfortante saber que a ajuda é apenas um telefonema de distância. Este produto tem o nosso endosso, é amigável e a equipe de backup são excelentes. R Molding amp Co (Salisbury Ltd) Nós mudamos nosso software de contas de computador para CLiP IT Solutions em 2005 e ficamos muito satisfeitos com o sistema e suporte de backup recebido durante este tempo. A instalação e transferência de dados do nosso antigo sistema foi direta e achamos o CLiP IT Software amigável, particularmente o CIS final de procedimentos sim. A equipe sempre foram atenciosa e cortês quando temos chamado para assistência. Perry amp Son Ltd Nossa empresa tem usado o software CIA para os últimos sete anos e sempre foram extremamente feliz com o software, as suas capacidades eo apoio fornecido. Ele nos permite administrar nossa empresa com eficiência e precisão e não teríamos nenhuma hesitação em recomendá-lo a outras empresas para a contabilidade completa e provisão de custos de trabalho. John Scott Construtores Tendo agora usado minha versão Lite da CIA para os últimos 6 meses eu não consigo pensar em coisas boas o suficiente para dizer sobre isso e sim, mais definitivamente os depoimentos são realmente escritos por clientes satisfeitos Como eu gostaria de ter comprado o software a partir do dia um Do início da nossa empresa - o custo de que teria sido longe compensado pela poupança que teria nos fez. Urban Jungle Construction Ltd Entrei em Northcott Building Contractors em agosto de 2007. Minha posição é a de gerente de escritório. Esta empresa tinha recentemente transição de Sage para CIA software e, como tal, tinha pouco conhecimento do sistema para passar para mim. Depois de usar o sistema, posso dizer honestamente que eu achei muito amigável e de grande valor para as necessidades do nosso negócio. Northcott Building Contractors Ltd Nosso negócio tem crescido e mudou significativamente ao longo dos últimos seis anos, no entanto uma constante nos últimos cinco anos tem sido a confiabilidade do nosso software de construção. CIA Software oferece o melhor cliente e suporte técnico que já encontrei. D Whittle Construction Ltd Eu não hesito em recomendar Clip IT Solutions para quem quer ouvir, na verdade eu iria tão longe como para dizer que é provavelmente o melhor investimento único que já fiz em nome da empresa, é realmente Que bom Temos vindo a utilizar CLiP IT Software por três anos e encontrá-lo muito fácil de usar com a entrada direta e relatórios claros. É particularmente útil para o CIS e eu encontrei os retornos mensais automáticos e as verificações do Subcontractor rápidas e eficientes. Quaisquer solicitações de backup ou alterações e requisitos foram respondidas rapidamente ea equipe são extremamente atenciosa e confortáveis. Gynn Construction Ltd Temos vindo a utilizar o software da CIA há vários anos e sempre encontramos o sistema para cobrir tudo o que precisávamos. Há 18 meses, adicionamos as opções de Campos personalizáveis, CRM, Geração de Documentos, Calendário e Tarefas de Trabalho. Eu (e regularmente) recomendo fortemente os módulos extras para o software da CIA, muitas vezes me pergunto como lidamos antes de implementar o novo sistema. Barnet Window Company Ltd Embora a nossa empresa passou por um período de transição nos últimos 6 anos, como temos implementado novo software, temos senti confiantes de que as soluções de Clipit sempre permanecerá como nosso software de pacotes de contas preferenciais. Utilizamos o sistema para PAYE, CIS, Ledger de Compras de Vendas, Relatórios de Custos de Emprego, Diários de Retenção e Reconciliação Bancária. Cuttle Construção Limitada George Bros (Construtores) Ltd têm usado o clipe de TI pacote de contabilidade por muitos anos e também conheceu os membros do pessoal por um tempo considerável. Nós não hesitaria em recomendar o seu pacote de contas para qualquer pessoa na indústria da construção. Custos de trabalho, ledger de compra ledger nominal todos atualizados a partir de uma entrada. George Bros (Builders) Ltd gostaria de expressar nossos agradecimentos à sua Linha de Atendimento ao Cliente. O serviço que você fornece é profissional, amigável e muito solidária. Emerton Roofing (Western) Limited Temos estado com soluções Clipit agora desde 2006 ea razão para escolhê-los sobre outros sistemas foi o fato de que é voltada para a indústria da construção e nos fornece tudo o que precisamos de PAYE para CIS, faturamento, aplicações para Pagamentos e custos de trabalho, juntamente com a gravação de contas muito bom. Mannings Harlequin Ltd Temos vindo a utilizar Clip-lo desde 2006 e toda a equipe são sempre muito eficiente, amigável e educado. A linha de suporte permite que os problemas sejam resolvidos imediatamente e rapidamente. Qualquer alteração na legislação é tratada de forma profissional e as mudanças no software são sempre amigáveis. Todo o pacote nos permite administrar nossos negócios com eficiência e confiança. Sibley Bros LLP CLiP Soluções de TI forneceram um pacote de primeira classe permitindo análise detalhada para todos os nossos requisitos de contabilidade e custo, além do bônus de backup excelente fornecendo suporte rápido - altamente recomendado. Bramber Construction Co. Ltd O software de contabilidade é claro e direto e ainda torna o IVA e CIS retorna fácil. Facturação, custeio de trabalho e relatórios são facilmente realizados e nas ocasiões em que precisamos de assistência extra a equipe de suporte estão prontamente disponíveis, muito conhecedor e mais importante muito paciente TW Construct Ltd Gostaria de dizer um grande obrigado a todos em Clip it Solutions , Já que ter o pacote de contas Clip it Solutions (por muitos anos) ele fez meu trabalho e contas funcionar sem problemas, e eu sei que se eu tiver qualquer problema, a ajuda é apenas um telefonema de distância, e é sempre resolvido com eficiência. Eu recomendaria altamente este produtos a qualquer um que está pensando sobre o pacote changingnew. Arien Contractors Ltd Eu tenho usado ClipIt por muitos anos, acho que o sistema muito adequado para as necessidades de nossas empresas, a equipe de suporte e muito útil e eficiente e eu certamente não gostaria de usar qualquer outro pacote. Morris Construction Ltd Clip IT soluções conexões add-on para HMRC são o epítome do usuário amigável, como é o pacote global. Eu usei algum software feito sob medida no passado que tentou incorporar mais do que apenas as funções regulares da contabilidade, eo resultado foi um camelo completo (que é um cavalo construído pelo comitê) O apoio que nós recebemos é o melhor que nós temos tido nunca . Há sempre alguém para responder às nossas perguntas e resolver todas as perguntas. Recomendamos CLiP IT a ninguém. Os funcionários são muito prestativos e educados. Cumberlidge Tilers Ltd Eu posso recomendar altamente ClipIT para a construção. Somos uma empresa nova e muitos dos programas atuais são caros e complicados. A CIA é extremamente amigável e a equipe de suporte está prontamente disponível para qualquer dúvida. Eu não poderia fazer sem este programa. É realmente o melhor. Flooring Solutions (NE) Ltd Tendo sido no setor financeiro da Indústria da Construção por muitos anos e tendo experimentado inúmeros pacotes de software de contabilidade (incluindo vários pacotes Bespoke), posso realmente dizer que tenho sido mais impressionado com soluções CLiPIT, tanto De modo que eu tenho usado seu software da indústria da contabilidade da construção por mais de 4 anos agora. CIA pela Clip It Solutions é um excelente pacote de software. Ele remove todas as tensões. É simples, fácil e eficiente de usar. O serviço ao cliente é soberbo, sempre disposto e pronto para ajudar com paciência e compreensão. Gostaria de recomendar o software e toda a empresa sem um segundo pensamento. Na APEC procuramos um pacote de software que pudéssemos usar para gerir nossas contas e ajudar com o cálculo de custos do projeto sem ser muito complicado, tem sido uma busca longa e infrutífera, mesmo recorrendo a olhar para ter nosso próprio software feito sob medida, então nós Encontrou a CIA que mudou imediatamente a forma como gerimos o nosso negócio permitindo que ambos os directores tenham todas as informações que queremos na ponta dos dedos. Direito de nossa investigação inicial para Clipit, temos sido extremamente satisfeito com o profissionalismo e conhecimento da equipe em Yeovil. A instalação, set-up e treinamento foi muito bem e as atualizações, orientação e aconselhamento foram de primeira classe. Reconhecemos imediatamente os benefícios do pacote quando a CIS faz relatórios, faz declarações de IVA, custa trabalhos e mantém o controle da retenção. Passmore Builders Ltd O pacote fornecido pela Clip IT Solutions é excelente. O pacote CIA é adaptado para a indústria da construção e funciona perfeitamente, com todos os ledgers sendo fácil de usar. Temos sido muito felizes com o serviço desde o início e nunca sentimos que não podemos pegar o telefone e fazer uma pergunta, não importa quão tolo pode parecer, estamos sempre tratados com paciência e ajuda. Obrigado Clip IT Heritage Cornwall Ltd Só queria deixá-lo uma linha para que você saiba que o serviço e suporte da sua empresa até à data tem sido de primeira classe. Todos têm sido útil e Melanie em particular tem mantido um tom muito calmo, agradável e útil apesar de eu bombardeá-la com perguntas sobre a última semana ou duas. Estou muito satisfeito em dizer que temos sido e permanecem muito satisfeitos com a qualidade do pacote, o bom custo de aquisição de valor inicial ea taxa de licença anual razoável que continuou a manter-nos atualizados. A equipe de suporte tem sido muito útil e, juntamente com o nosso próprio departamento de contas garantir que eu estou sempre atualizado com a forma como a nossa empresa está realizando. Estou muito impressionado com o serviço que ainda recebo da CLiP IT Solutions. Todos é sempre muito útil e alegre, é um prazer para chamar. O sistema é constantemente atualizado e quaisquer problemas são classificados muito rapidamente. As Soluções de TI CLiP sempre pareciam se mover com as necessidades de seus clientes e oferecer suporte amigável e útil. Mantenha o bom trabalho Rosemead Developments Limited Apenas uma nota rápida para agradecer a todos na sua organização para o seu profissionalismo consumado, eficiência, ajuda e orientação. O suporte ao sistema nunca foi tão bom e este é de um contador fretado com dentes longos que trabalhou com muitos sistemas e equipes de suporte do sistema. Obrigado. Lavelle Electrical Contractors CIA tem sido tão fácil de navegar com cada pedaço de informação e relatório que eu poderia possivelmente pedir sem títulos complexos e opções que arent relevante. CIA lida com facturas, aplicações e retenções tornando muito fácil rastrear o que estamos devidos, o que devemos e quando. A ferramenta de cálculo de custos de trabalho é tão simples, mas tão útil. O PAYE é muito fácil de usar alocando custos aos trabalhos em etapas muito fáceis. Warner Contracting Ltd Estamos tão satisfeitos com o pacote, o tempo que leva tem reduzido pela metade, implementando CLiP IT Software. Download um PDF desta documentação Dan Cadman é um bolseiro no Centro de Estudos de Imigração. Mark H. Metcalf é um ex-juiz do tribunal de imigração em Miami, Flórida, sob a presidência de George W. Bush, que ocupou vários cargos nos departamentos de Justiça e Defesa. Em 20 de novembro de 2014, o presidente deu um discurso televisivo em todo o país para falar sobre as ações executivas que levaria no dia seguinte permitindo que milhões de estrangeiros ilegais vivessem e trabalhassem nos Estados Unidos nos próximos anos. 1 Concorrente com o discurso, Jeh Johnson, secretário do Departamento de Segurança Interna (DHS), publicou uma série de 10 memorandos descrevendo e dirigindo a implementação das várias facetas dos programas e políticas que constituiriam esta varredura e, na opinião de muitos , Ação executiva inconstitucional relacionada a questões de imigração. Um desses memorandos de política anunciou o fim de Comunidades Seguras, um programa que usa correspondência eletrônica de impressões digitais para identificar criminosos estrangeiros em tempo quase real entre as pessoas presas pela polícia nacional. Menos notado, mas igualmente importante, o memorando também direcionou o fim do uso de imigrantes, o que permite que os agentes de imigração tomem a custódia de estrangeiros presos no final de seu processo de justiça criminal e após a liberação da prisão ou qualquer sentença imposta por eles Crimes. 2 Este documento de antecedência examina os fundamentos jurídicos dos detentores, o seu lugar no regime legal de aplicação da imigração no interior dos Estados Unidos e sua importância crítica na manutenção da segurança pública em comunidades em todo o país. Os autores concluem que o Congresso deve criar um novo processo através de legislação que esclarece a autoridade e imperativo para a transferência de estrangeiros de custódia local para federal para que as leis de imigração podem ser aplicadas. Os detainers da imigração formam uma parte significativa de esforços da imigração e da aplicação da alfândega (ICE) de encontro aos criminosos estrangeiros. Somente no ano fiscal de 2013, agentes e agentes da ICE registraram 212.455 detenções com várias agências policiais e correcionais nos Estados Unidos. Como resultado das mudanças de política destinadas a inibir o uso de detentores, o número emitido caiu. A administração Obama começou a subcotar essa ferramenta fundamental há vários anos, por meio de meios abertos e sutis, incluindo a modificação da linguagem na forma de detentores e a emissão de memorandos de política que limitam as ocasiões em que oficiais e agentes do ICE são Permitiu a emissão de detentores contra criminosos aliens. ICE líderes têm ainda undercut esforços de fiscalização imigratória contra criminosos estrangeiros através de pronunciamentos públicos feitos sem fundamento jurídico, caracterizando o cumprimento dos detainers como voluntários, apesar do peso da autoridade constitucional e legal indicando o contrário. As autoridades locais que frustrar a autoridade federal, alegando que o cumprimento é discricionário parecem ser inconstitucionais em sua face. Especificamente, a Cláusula de Supremacia da Constituição e sua Doutrina Preemptiva proíbem a invasão do estado em áreas de exclusividade federal. Os detentores de imigração exigem que as agências estaduais e locais detenham detentores estrangeiros potencialmente até 48 horas após sua data de liberação. Este período de detenção não viola a Quarta, Quinta e Sexta Emendas, uma vez que uma causa provável de acreditar que um alienígena violou a lei federal é estabelecida no próprio detentor (conhecido como Formulário DHS I-247). A administração Obama falhou em apoiar Estaduais e locais quando eles são processados por honrar detentores de imigração, levando muitas dessas agências a reconsiderar suas posições anteriores de cumprir com detainers. Este documento descreve as etapas que devem ser tomadas para restaurar esta importante ferramenta. Essas etapas incluem: Declarações públicas do Secretário de Segurança Interna e Procurador-Geral que iniciarão ações legais para garantir o cumprimento dos detentores e que eles apoiarão ativamente as localidades processadas por honrar detentores com base em que a emissão de um detentor de imigração é uma prerrogativa e autoridade Do governo federal. (Nota dos autores: Reconhecemos a extrema improbabilidade de esta administração fazer qualquer coisa para restaurar os detentores no seu lugar no regime legal e regulamentar, mas se sentem obrigados a deixar esta recomendação como um lugar-titular no caso de uma administração subseqüente vem a reconhecer e ) Ajustes aos padrões federais de certificação de concessão para fornecer o Programa Estadual de Assistência de Alienígenas Criminais (SCAAP) federal e outros fundos de segurança pública ou de segurança interna somente para estados ou localidades que tenham a obrigação constitucional de garantir a conformidade com a lei federal. A mudança de procedimento que incentiva os oficiais do ICE para obter, adiantado, ordens de apreensão para estrangeiros contra quem eles desejam arquivar detainers sempre que prático. Emendas à Lei de Inmigração e Nacionalidade (INA) para esclarecer que o cumprimento por estado e local De imigração é exigido, juntamente com os E sanções para a falta de fazê-lo. Estabelecimento das leis estaduais que exigem que as agências de aplicação da lei para notificar as autoridades federais de imigração de datas de lançamento de criminosos estrangeiros em sua custódia. O que são Detainers e por que eles são controvertidos Os detainers da imigração permitem que as agências federais tomem a custódia dos estrangeiros prendidos pelas agências de polícias locais ou do estado antes de sua liberação. De acordo com regulamentos federais, o detentor serve para aconselhar outra agência de aplicação da lei que o Departamento procura a custódia de um estrangeiro presentemente na custódia daquela agência, com a finalidade de prender e remover o estrangeiro. 3 Normalmente, mas nem sempre, o ICE tem sido a agência que arquivou o detentor. A Patrulha de Fronteira também rotineiramente usou detentores em seus tratos com xerifes e departamentos policiais cujas jurisdições abrangem as fronteiras sudoeste e norte. Os regulamentos estipulam que a agência de execução da lei que tem a custódia do estrangeiro deve manter o estrangeiro para as autoridades federais de imigração por até 48 horas (excluindo fins de semana e feriados) em vez de liberar o estrangeiro em caução, pendente outras ações locais ou outros fatores. Outras agências federais também usam detainers como uma forma de manter os indivíduos presos pelo estado ou aplicação da lei local até que eles podem ser levados sob custódia. Os indivíduos são rotineiramente detidos pelas agências estaduais e locais para o governo federal para uma série de ofensas grandes e pequenas, de estar ausente sem licença das forças armadas, para liberdade condicional e violação de liberdade condicional, para delitos graves graves. O Serviço de Marechais dos Estados Unidos é particularmente ativo neste aspecto e opera sob uma disposição da lei federal que declara: (c) Salvo disposição em contrário da lei ou da Regra de Procedimento, o Serviço de Marechais dos Estados Unidos executará todas as ordens legais, processos e ordens Emitido sob a autoridade dos Estados Unidos, e comandará toda a assistência necessária para executar suas funções. (Ênfase acrescentada.) 4 Não sabemos de casos em que o Serviço de Marechais ou outra agência federal tenha caracterizado seus detentores como voluntários ou as agências estatais e locais se recusaram a cumpri-los. Nos últimos anos, os opositores da imigração têm procurado obstruir e interferir com as atividades de fiscalização do ICE, levando a cabo uma campanha para deslegitimar o uso de detainers, que eles entendem plenamente são uma ferramenta chave para a ICE. Os oponentes da execução colocaram argumentos legais e políticos. Alguns sustentam que as agências de imigração não têm autoridade para emitir detentores. Embora não exista nenhuma seção do estatuto federal que especifique essa autoridade em termos gerais, não se pode dizer que o Congresso não esteja ciente ou desaprova seu uso. De fato, o Congresso sancionou especificamente seu uso por autoridades de imigração no caso de estrangeiros que violam leis de drogas. 5 Ironicamente, essa disposição foi acrescentada por insistência de autoridades federais, estaduais e locais que estavam agitando os agentes do Serviço de Imigração e Naturalização (SIN), precursor do ICE, que não estavam rotineiramente arquivando detentores da custódia de estrangeiros acusados Posse de pequenas quantidades de drogas proibidas, como a maconha. Esforços da administração de Obama para minar os Detainers O dano feito à aplicação da imigração pelo governo de Obama desde 2009 não pode ser exagerado. Enquanto as autoridades afirmam repetidamente que se concentram em estrangeiros criminosos, e asseguram aos americanos que os criminosos são detidos e deportados, de fato a imigração está em estado de colapso devido a uma série de mudanças políticas conhecidas coletivamente como discrição e priorização. Na prática, essas políticas impõem restrições severas aos oficiais do ICE quanto aos aliens que podem ser alvo de deportação e isentam a maioria dos estrangeiros ilegais de ações de execução. As novas prioridades estipulam que apenas os estrangeiros com condenações penais, os transgressores de fronteiras recentes, os deportados anteriores ou os fugitivos que fugiram de um processo de deportação devem ser sujeitos a medidas de imigração. As deportações da ICE diminuíram significativamente nos últimos anos. Em 2014, ICE deportou aproximadamente 100.000 estrangeiros do interior, que é menos da metade dos 237.000 estrangeiros deportados do interior em 2009, Obamas primeiro ano no escritório. As deportações de estrangeiros criminosos também diminuíram significativamente (em 40% desde o pico em 2011). 6 Antes de 2014, a supressão da aplicação da lei se deu principalmente sob a forma de restrições sobre os tipos de casos que os agentes da ICE poderiam perseguir. Por exemplo, em 21 de dezembro de 2012, o ex-diretor do ICE, John Morton, anunciou modificações no formulário padrão de Imigração (Formulário I-247) e emitiu um memorando limitando as circunstâncias sob as quais o pessoal do ICE poderia emitir detentores. 7 Nos últimos anos, a maior parte dos estrangeiros removíveis encontrados por oficiais do ICE foram descobertos quando uma prisão por autoridades locais provocou uma notificação ao ICE após um jogo eletrônico de impressão digital facilitado pelo programa Comunidades Seguras. Essa melhora no compartilhamento de informações federais e locais de aplicação da lei através da interoperabilidade de Comunidades Seguras resultou em maior uso de detentores de ICE do que nunca, pois a ICE tomou conhecimento de muitos alienígenas removíveis imediatamente após uma prisão estadual ou local. Escusado será dizer que essa melhora significativa na eficiência dos ICEs enfureceu grupos de queixas étnicas e seus aliados no Congresso e na administração Obama. A desaceleração das imobilizações emitidas pela ICE entre 2011 e 2014, como mostra a Tabela 1, revela exatamente como o uso político dos detentores se tornou sob esta administração e como ela respondeu, em detrimento da segurança pública e à custa do uso eficiente de Recursos de imigração limitados. A campanha para minar o uso de detentores ganhou um impulso substancial em fevereiro de 2014, quando Dan Ragsdale, então chefe interino da ICE, 8 aconselhou em resposta a um inquérito de um grupo de membros do Congresso em nome de agências locais confusas de aplicação da lei, Os detainers da imigração são uma parte importante do esforço de ICEs remover os estrangeiros criminosos que estão na custódia federal, do estado, ou do local, não são obrigatórios como uma matéria da lei. Como tal, o ICE confia na cooperação de seus parceiros de aplicação da lei neste esforço para promover a segurança pública. (Ênfase acrescentada.) A afirmação de Ragsdales, que não foi respaldada por nenhum raciocínio legal, foi decisiva. Segundo informações, o pessoal das divisões de operações e jurídicas da ICE apresentou um parecer jurídico diferente, consistente com a posição de longa data do ICE, segundo a qual esperava que outras agências de aplicação da lei honrassem e cumprissem com seus detainers, o que Ragsdale anulou ao formular sua carta. Suas objeções à sua resposta foram fundadas não apenas sobre as necessidades e políticas institucionais, mas também sobre a regulamentação federal: 8 CFR 287.7 (d), que diz: Após a determinação do Departamento de emitir um detainer para um estrangeiro não de outra forma detido por um criminoso Agência de justiça, essa agência deve manter a custódia do estrangeiro por um período não superior a 48 horas. A fim de permitir a assunção de custódia pelo Departamento. O movimento de Ragsdales não passou despercebido, inclusive por juristas no curso de ações civis arquivadas por estrangeiros e seus advogados pro bono na União Americana de Liberdades Civis (ACLU) e em outros lugares, contra a ICE e contra as autoridades estaduais e locais law enforcement agencies who honor the detainers. The federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that detainers were voluntary (overruling a district judges finding prior to Ragsdales policy change), thus permitting a civil suit against a county jail to go forward. 10 More telling is how ICE treated its law enforcement partner in this instance. It settled with the plaintiffs and deserted the jailer and sheriffs offices, declining even to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, although the fundamental error in the case filing a detainer against a citizen originated with ICE itself. Nor was this the first time that ICE engaged in a strategy of cut and run from one of its erstwhile law enforcement partners. The same thing happened in Tennessee in 2012 11 and just recently in Oregon, where a federal magistrate ruled the Clackamas County jails strict compliance with an ICE detainer was unconstitutional because, it said, compliance with such detainers is voluntary. 12 The adverse effect of these decisions, especially when combined with ICEs indifference toward its partner agencies, began to accumulate. Various law enforcement agencies nationwide issued statements indicating they would decline compliance with some or all immigration detainers. The number has since risen to more than 300 police and sheriffs departments. While some of these agencies are in small jurisdictions where law enforcement agencies encounter criminal aliens less frequently, others include major metropolitan areas such as Chicago and New York, where the number of aliens held in a years time reaches into the thousands. The risk and the reality is that arrested criminal aliens are being released into American neighborhoods before their identities can be confirmed and federal custody assumed. The campaign to undercut detainers achieved its ultimate goal when DHS Secretary Johnson issued his policy memorandum on November 20 ordering an end to the filing of detainers except in extraordinary circumstances. Until then, even while in decline, detainers had been the primary tool used to notify state and local law enforcement and corrections agencies that an alien in their custody was subject to removal from the United States. Most dismaying is that in a footnote to his memorandum, the secretary alluded to the recent court decisions and suggested that use of detainers might violate the Constitution. First, the administration actively worked to undercut the detainer authorities of its own immigration agencies, limiting their use by policy and then without legal foundation declaring them to be voluntary. Now, in a classic example of disingenuous circularity, the administration uses the court decisions (which in turn were exercising due deference to ICEs baseless interpretation of voluntariness), in order to justify scrapping detainers in their entirety. What is more, opponents of detainers have chosen to misread the general import of the recent cases. One of the lawsuits was filed because ICE mistakenly lodged a detainer against a United States citizen, not an alien. Another lawsuit was filed when an alien was held significantly longer than 48 hours beyond his release date (what the regulation requires). Certainly such particular cases implicate the Fourth Amendment but they do not implicate detainers generally. Over the course of time, a series of court rulings established that state and local authorities may detain or arrest individuals for violations of federal immigration law, as long as the arrest is supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause and is authorized by state law. 13 Additionally, a 2002 Department of Justice (DOJ) opinion came to the same conclusion. Some analysts believe that the prior rulings and the DOJ opinion were significantly delimited by the 2012 Supreme Court decision in the case of Arizona v. United States . 14 It is beyond the purview of this report to fully explore that decision, but three things can be said with certainty: The court has still left room for state and local police action in the arena of immigration enforcement, provided that it is consonant with federal laws and regulations and occurs in the course of lawful state enforcement programs. Congress can open the door to additional state and local participation and initiatives by exercising its constitutional prerogatives in the legislative arena specifically through statutes, statements of congressional intent, and establishment or endorsement of cooperative enforcement programs in the course of its legislative and appropriations activities. In the words of the Congressional Research Service, the federal government also has the power to proscribe activities that subvert the legislatively established immigration system. This latter point is extremely important in the context of state and local activities (such as passage of laws, regulations, and policies directing police and sheriffs offices to ignore immigration detainers), which fundamentally impede effective immigration law enforcement against alien criminals in the interior of the United States, clearly contrary to both implied and express congressional intent. 15 In general, federal law, regulations, and policy encourage state and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. For instance, an unambiguous provision of the INA states, Notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law, no state or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States. 16 In nearly verbatim language, another provision of the INA prohibits state or local governments preventing their employees from communicating freely with immigration officials: A federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. 17 An additional subsection of that same provision also stipulates that The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information. 18 (Emphasis added.) One wonders: if the shall in the regulation relating to detainers is to be disregarded so cavalierly. Does this mean that the above-cited language requiring the INS (or its successor agencies) to provide information or assistance to other federal, state, or local agencies may also be disregarded Of course not, but under this administration, use of the word shall seems to have taken on an elastic Through the Looking Glass quality. 19 Other evidence of congressional intent to establish a collaborative environment between police and immigration enforcement agencies can be found in the statutory language creating certain types of local-federal partnerships. A notable example includes a program authorizing cross-designation of state or local officers to enforce immigration laws under Section 287(g) of the INA, commonly known as the 287(g) program. 20 The language of Section 287(g) also goes so far as to make clear that exchanges of information between immigration authorities and other federal, state, or local entities cannot be limited to, or require, formal agreements. Another significant example of the congressional expectation of cooperation on immigration law enforcement matters, among and between federal, state, and local officials, can be found in Section 103(a) of the INA, which permits the Attorney General (superseded by the Secretary of Homeland Security by the Homeland Security Act) to permit state and local officers to exercise immigration law enforcement functions in the event of an actual or imminent mass migration of aliens. 21 Additional language in that same section also permits the DHS secretary to enter into a cooperative agreement with any state, territory, or political subdivision thereof for the necessary construction, physical renovation, and acquisition of equipment, supplies, or materials required to establish acceptable conditions of confinement and detention services in any state or unit of local government that agrees to provide guaranteed bed space for persons detained by the service. 22 DHS agencies have established more than a dozen formal cooperative programs in addition to the 287(g) program described above, including the Criminal Alien Program, which provides for ICE agents to interview incarcerated aliens to determine removability prior to their release, and the Law Enforcement Support Center, which is a 247 call center that enables state and local officers to inquire about the immigration status of individuals they encounter. Virtually all of these programs have received congressional endorsement, if not always through specific statutory provisions such as those enumerated above, then certainly through the appropriations process. 23 Some legal experts have argued credibly that those jurisdictions that have changed their policies recently to end compliance with ICE detainers are misinterpreting the court rulings on detainers, and mistakenly relying on ideologically influenced assertions from the ACLU, which has aggressively sent notices to police and sheriffs offices and prosecutors offices, advising them of grave constitutional issues with an implicit threat of lawsuits should these organizations choose to continue complying with detainers. 24 For instance, contrary to what many sanctuary jurisdictions have claimed, the Oregon magistrate did not hold that ICE detainers need to be accompanied by a judicial warrant. 25 Federal Laws and Regulations Trump State Laws and Regulations Detainers are issued pursuant to federal regulations, which in turn rely on provisions in the INA authorizing officers and agents to make arrests with or without warrant for violation of the immigration laws. 26 The Supremacy Clause 27 of the Constitution and its Preemption Doctrine 28 forbid state encroachment in areas of federal exclusivity. The federal government possesses inherent sovereign powers in matters of immigration and immigration enforcement. The Supremacy Clause and the Preemption Doctrine assure that federal law prevails over state and local measures whenever a conflict arises between the two. 29 Federal immigration law is no different. Over no subject, in fact, is federal jurisdiction so complete as it is in immigration. 30 Still, the federal system does not work in a vacuum. Its success depends upon compliance with federal prerogatives 31 and comity 32 among state, local, and federal jurisdictions that complement their various missions. But it is precisely in the opposite direction that many sub-federal state and local agencies now proceed with the active encouragement of Obama appointees who have sought to redefine the meaning of federal laws without regard to their plain terms and clear intent. 33 If localities alone may decide whether to hold a suspect after receiving notice of an immigration detainer, then federal supremacy in immigration enforcement is now subject to unilateral exercises of previously unacknowledged state prerogatives prerogatives that have the effect of nullifying federal statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by the president a result no one can believe is either intended or acceptable, and which flies in the face of the Supreme Courts Arizona decision. As Justice Kennedy observed, writing for the majority, State laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law. This includes cases where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility, and those instances where the challenged state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. 34 Federal jurisdiction over immigration in all its expressions was, until the Ragsdale letter, presumed exclusive and nonpareil. However much Mr. Ragsdale insists that states may refuse a detainer, his argument fails under the weight of precedent proving him wrong. 35 In fact, federal supremacy in immigration, though frequently challenged, was not relinquished on such a scale until the Obama administration. His presidency has not changed the wording of federal statutes or a century and a half of Supreme Court precedent, but rulemaking and policy under his administration have turned immigration enforcement upside down and, in turn, set criminal aliens free by the thousands and left American neighborhoods less safe. 36 The U. S. Supreme Court has never sanctioned unilateral expansion of state immigration enforcement into a historically federal domain rather, the court has closely scrutinized state intrusion into federal immigration law. 37 In the same way a state or locality cannot assume those immigration enforcement powers that are forbidden it by the Constitution, so it also cannot refuse the demands of an immigration detainer. In addition to federal supremacy and preemption of state and local laws and policies, any careful, reasoned analysis of the issue must examine the interplay between refusal by state officials to honor detainers on one hand and, on the other, the provisions of federal law relating to harboring of illegal aliens and shielding them from detection a felony violation. 38 The provision states in pertinent part: (a) Criminal penalties (1) (A) Any person who . (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation. shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B). The harboring and shielding-from-detection provisions of the statute are not limited to private individuals. If a citizen may be charged with a felony for this action, then how can state or local officials be less culpable, particularly when they are law enforcement officers who are generally understood to be held to a higher standard where compliance with the law is concerned The quagmire in which ICE now finds itself is in large measure of its own making. It has severely limited the circumstances in which a detainer may be issued it has greatly reduced the number and type of aliens who may be detained it has spread the notion that honoring detainers is purely voluntary among its partners and then it has consistently abandoned those partners when lawsuits are filed and, of course, by having made a public assertion that honoring detainers is a matter of choice, ICE has given jurists who are ideologically disposed to be skeptical of immigration enforcement a very large hook to hang their hats on through the due deference doctrine by which courts give great leeway to executive agencies in the interpretation of their own rules. 39 (Ironically that self-same due deference could and should be applied to ICEs actual regulation, not the legally dubious correspondence from officials such as Ragsdale, which holds no place in the regulatory scheme.) But can ICE (or, more specifically, Ragsdale when he was acting as agency head) be trusted with the detainers are voluntary interpretation Quite possibly not. To those who follow such matters, it is disturbingly similar to the state and local agencies can opt in or opt out refrain used by ICE leaders in public statements and official documents, including letters to Congress, during the roll-out of their Secure Communities program. Ultimately the agency, and its bosses at DHS, had to eat those words. Worse, we now know that ICE and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials conspired with the acting Inspector General to cover up their deception even as the IGs office was being charged with investigating the missteps, misstatements, and ineptitude exhibited in the way Secure Communities was handled. 40 Why should we now believe that Mr. Ragsdale has any more credibility on the detainers issue than he did when acting as one of Mr. Mortons confidantes and advisors about Secure Communities Public Safety Impact of Non-Cooperation Policies Until the campaign to undermine immigration detainers gained traction not only from open borders groups, but from the very leaders charged with immigration enforcement, the detainers formed a critical part of ICEs law enforcement efforts against alien criminals. In federal fiscal year 2013 alone, ICE agents and officers filed 212,455 detainers with various police and correctional agencies in the United States. 41 The combination of local obstruction of ICE and ICEs self-imposed limits on enforcement priorities had already begun before Johnsons decision to terminate their use. According to a recent report from the Syracuse University Transactional Action Clearinghouse (TRAC), ICE detainers have dropped 39 percent since 2012. Interestingly, the report tells us that, TRAC shared its findings with ICE and asked the agency for insights into what was driving this downward trend. However, ICE declined to comment on why its agents were issuing fewer detainers. 42 Ironically, in a recent media article published by NJ published prior to the presidents executive action speech and promulgation of the Johnson memorandum ICE was much less reticent about its dissatisfaction with state and local jurisdictions ignoring their detainers. An ICE spokesman is quoted in the article as saying, When serious criminal offenders are released to the streets in a community, rather than to ICE custody, it undermines ICEs ability to protect public safety and impedes us from enforcing the nations immigration laws. Jurisdictions that ignore detainers bear the risk of possible public safety risks. 43 But the problem of ignoring detainers is not just about statistics, and it is far more than a matter of workload completion for ICE agents and officers in pursuing their mission, however significant those matters are. Fundamental governmental interests are involved, including community safety, officer safety, efficient use of taxpayer funds, and maintenance of an effective regimen of due process within the immigration system established by Congress: When sheriffs or police turn a suspect loose rather than hold him on the detainer filed, law-abiding members of the community are at risk should he re-offend (and there are many, often egregious, instances of such alien recidivists victimizing additional members of the public). 44 If ICE officers are obliged to go out and seek the individual once he has been released, they, too, are at greater risk of injury than if receiving him directly from local law enforcement officers in the secure constraints of a jail setting especially since the alien offender at the point of release, notwithstanding the detainer, is likely to know that they are aware of and looking for him. Furthermore, the time and energy wasted trying to track down and re-apprehend that alien after local police have released him equates to limited officer resources and public monies not available to do equally important immigration enforcement work elsewhere in an already overburdened system. Confronting this reality pokes a large hole in the administrations argument that its executive actions are for the purpose of enhancing public safety and shepherding scarce resources. What is more, the alien may not in fact be re-apprehended until after he has committed another crime, quite possibly a violent felony: According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2009, the average incarcerated alien had seven arrests and committed an average of 12 offenses. 45 A Congressional Research Service study commissioned by the House Judiciary Committee found that 26,412 aliens out of 159,286 released by ICE in a 2.5-year time period went on to commit 57,763 new crimes. These crimes included 8,500 DUIs, 6,000 drug offenses, and more than 4,000 major criminal offenses such as murder, assault, rape, and kidnapping. 46It is also important to understand that immigrant offenders often fail to follow the rules that is, attend court like everyone else. Immigration court records from 1996 through 2012 show 76 percent of 1.1 million deportation orders were issued against those who evaded court. These evasions compose the greatest source of unexecuted deportation orders in the immigration court system. Not even a quarter of those free pending trial some 268,000 actually came to court and finished their cases. 47Finally, there is the sobering fact that there are already nearly 900,000 alien absconders and fugitives at large in the country up from half a million a mere three years ago. 48 Each alien released despite the filing of a detainer, when multiplied by the thousands of sheriffs offices and police departments throughout the United States, adds significantly to that number, and puts the public at greater risk. Something must be done to stop the legal oblivion into which detainers have been thrown. But what Following are a series of common-sense recommendations. The Executive Branch. (Authors note: As indicated before, we acknowledge that our recommendations go in a direction completely contrary to that of this administration, meaning there is no chance whatever that they will adopt our suggestions, but we are constrained to raise them nonetheless in the interest of posterity and in the hope of a future chief executive who recognizes his constitutional and statutory responsibilities.) The administration has repeatedly claimed that it is interested in prioritizing the enforcement of immigration laws away from run-of-the-mill illegal aliens and toward criminal offenders. If administration leaders and cabinet heads wish Congress and the public at large to believe this, they should be working vigorously to protect key law enforcement techniques from the kind of blunting that the use of detainers has taken in the past couple of years instead of contributing to their demise as a tool. To that end: DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson should formally disavow the legal assertion made in Ragsdales letter and revisit his decision to end the use of detainers based on flawed legal reasoning. The DHS Secretary and the Attorney General should jointly issue a notice in the Federal Register publicly stating their intention to initiate legal action in U. S. District Court to obtain orders enjoining state and local governments from ignoring detainers in each and every jurisdiction where that takes place, all the way to the Supreme Court if need be. They should also assert, however, that the federal governments position is that, by honoring those detainers, state and local governments are not subject to tort suits because the decision-making inherent in deciding to file, or not file, a detainer rests with federal immigration authorities. The two cabinet members should also declare changes to the certification process for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) a program designed to reimburse state and local enforcement agencies for costs associated with the arrest and confinement of illegal aliens which would preclude those agencies from seeking SCAAP funds when they initiate policies that obstruct federal efforts to locate, identify, apprehend, and remove those criminals. This requires no change to the existing statute to accomplish it simply requires the will to do so. The fund is administered by the Justice Departments Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), but relies on ICE certification of lists of incarcerated aliens provided to BJA by states and localities. Simply declining to certify lists of incarcerated aliens submitted by jurisdictions that refuse to comply with detainers would result in them receiving no SCAAP funds. 49ICE officers should, whenever possible, begin the practice of procuring warrants of arrest for aliens against whom they intend to file detainers. Those warrants of arrest should be provided to the law enforcement agency at the time the detainer is filed. While such warrants are civil in nature because deportation proceedings are themselves civil proceedings they clearly signal to state and local agencies that ICE is following a procedure prescribed by federal law and regulation, and that cause exists for arrest and initiation of deportation proceedings. We note that this is not required by law, which clearly provides for warrantless immigration arrests. However, we recognize the importance of signaling to state and local jurisdictions that, whenever circumstances permit, a deliberative process was undertaken that has resulted in a probable cause finding that an individual in custody of the state or local agency is an alien subject to removal proceedings whom federal authorities wish to take into their own custody in order to initiate those proceedings, consistent with the provisions of the INA. 50 Some ICE offices have begun this practice. As expected, various legal advocacy groups have initiated a campaign against their use, arguing that only judicial warrants should be accepted by local law enforcement agencies. For example, in collaboration with advocacy groups, the Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety (EOPS) a state executive branch agency (controlled by the governor) argued against the acceptance of ICE warrants in a memorandum issued to the Massachusetts State Sheriffs Association. 51 The memorandum was replete with specious logic, including the assertion that warrants not issued by a judge, such as immigration warrants, have no force and effect and therefore should not affect decisions to comply or, more to the point, refuse to comply, with detainers. Interestingly, using this logic, parole violation warrants issued by the Massachusetts Parole Board a subordinate administrative agency of EOPS would also fail to pass legal muster. The memorandum was quickly disavowed by Governor Deval Patrick, but the arguments have started to find their way into other venues despite the obvious flaws in the logic. Likewise, using this logic, police and sheriffs departments should refuse to hold AWOL or deserting soldiers for military police, because they are handled under Article 85 the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which operates outside of the federal criminal justice system. State and Local Governments. State legislatures should expeditiously draft and pass to their governors for signature bills requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to notify federal immigration authorities of the release dates and times for all alien criminals within their custody. There are also a number of ways in which state and local governments can protect themselves from legal action, while at the same time cooperating with federal immigration enforcement initiatives and protecting their communities from alien recidivist offenders. State and local correctional, police, and sheriffs departments should initiate a dialogue with ICE whose purpose is to negotiate a memorandum of agreement (MOA) outlining the parameters of the law enforcement partnership. The memorandum of agreement should ideally contain the following provisions: An unambiguous statement from ICE that determinations about the filing of detainers or notices of action, requests for release dates, or other information relating to deportable aliens are based on federal immigration law, for which it is solely responsible. A commitment by ICE to take custody of aliens within the timeframe specified in federal regulations at 8 CFR 287.7 whenever a detainer is filed, which commitment should be included in the memorandum of agreement for clarity of understanding. Local training sessions by ICE for jail personnel involved in the handling of immigration detainers so that they will understand the various forms and their uses, which in their present incarnation are sometimes informational only and sometimes a request to detain. Specifically designated points of contact for both parties for maintenance and upholding of the memorandum of agreement, and additional points of contact available on a 24-hour7-day-weekly basis for critical problem resolution. Acknowledgement between the parties that in order for the correctional, police, or sheriffs department to comply with an ICE detainer, it must be accompanied by a Warrant for Arrest of Alien, except in exigent circumstances, which should be specified. Agreement that i n the event of a lawsuit against the police or sheriffs office based on honoring of an ICE detainer, ICE will provide all reasonable and necessary legal assistance, including friend of the court briefs acknowledging its responsibility for detainer decision-making. Participation of the police or sheriffs office in the ICE 287(g) program, in which designated sheriffs deputies andor jail officers are trained and cross-designated as immigration officers (at ICE expense), giving them access to ICE databases and information, and the authority to issue certain law enforcement documents, including detainers. (Note that such documents are issued under the supervision of ICE managers, thus ensuring that ICE remains responsible for the decision-making process.) Congress. A multiplicity of reasons exist to believe that many of the steps recommended above will not take place given the administrations abysmal track record, and lack of will, for sustaining any capacity for interior immigration enforcement. This being the case, the ultimate resolution may rest with Congress to craft statutory language that breaks the impasse. Almost all of the members of Congress who have argued for amnesty or a path to citizenship have concurrently asserted that they draw the line at aliens who break criminal laws. Its time to prove the sincerity of such claims by doing what is necessary to require the law enforcement agencies of states and localities to surrender to ICE those aliens who are subject to ICE detainers. Such actions could include: Advancing the SAFE Act, which in the 113th Congress was approved by the House Judiciary Committee. Provisions in this bill explicitly 1) extend to state and local law enforcement officers the same qualified immunities extended to federal officers and 2) authorize state and local agencies to comply with detainers filed by federal immigration authorities. 52 However, the language contained in those sections should be revisited in light of recent court decisions. At minimum, the language authorizing agencies to honor detainers should be rewritten to require that they comply with detainers. Congress should adopt, perhaps via a new Section 287A of the INA, a different paradigm for immigration processes that is more closely aligned to the notion of writs exercised by courts at all levels of government. The legislation would authorize certain federal immigration officials (to be designated by regulation) to issue and serve upon state and local agencies an Order to Detain and Produce Alien. Such an order would be enforceable in the United States District Courts by means of a show cause order from the presiding judge requiring state or local agency which fails or refuses to comply to explain why it has failed to do so. Considered dispassionately, as important as detainers are, they are merely the means to an end. What the immigration authorities ultimately wish is to take custody of the alien. Creating a specific statutory authority by which federal immigration officers may require state and local agencies to detain and produce the body provides both the means and the end needed to accomplish their duties. (An example of such possible legislation is attached as Appendix 1 to this Backgrounder .) Congress should also act to statutorily amend the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, if the Attorney General and Secretary of DHS fail to do so, to ensure that state and local governments cannot be safe havens for criminal aliens on the one hand, while demanding federal dollars to reimburse them for the costs associated with arrest and incarceration on the other. (An example of such possible legislation is attached as Appendix 2 to this Backgrounder .)Finally, whether moving toward the kind of solution contained in the SAFE Act, or toward a new paradigm more closely aligned to the notion of writs to produce the body, a hold harmless provision must also be crafted to protect state and local agencies from lawsuits when in good faith they honor detainers filed by federal officers. At present, state and local officers enjoy such protection on an individual basis when acting in a cross-designation capacity under Section 287(g). A new, expanded provision written into the law could encompass the hold harmless premise to an entire state or local organization when it honors decisions to file immigration detainers under authority of federal immigration laws. Immigration detainers are a critically important a tool in the ICE mission to apprehend alien criminals and protect the public safety. Preserving their use, defending them against continued attack in the courts, and establishing the means and requirement for state and local enforcement agencies to honor federal immigration laws should be a shared priority for all of the branches of the federal government. Appendix 1: Model Language for a New INA Section 287A 8 U. S. Code 1357a Order to Detain and Produce Alien (a) Authority to Issue an Order to Detain and Produce Alien Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Secretary to issue warrants of arrest or notices to appear in removal proceedings shall have power to issue an order to detain and produce an alien who is in the custody of another federal, state, or local law enforcement, correctional, mental or physical health, or social service agency for the purpose of taking custody of such an alien to initiate removal proceedings, or to effect the removal of an alien under an order of removal. (b) Obligations and Authorities of Receiving Agencies (1) Upon receipt of such an order, said agency is authorized and required to maintain custody of the alien for a period of up to 14 calendar days after the alien has completed the aliens sentence under Federal, State or local law, or is otherwise ready for release, in order to effectuate the transfer of the alien to Federal custody. (2) Should the agency in original receipt of the order transfer the alien to another agency for purposes of serving a sentence of incarceration, or for other purposes including medical treatment, it shall (A) promptly, but in no event later than 24 hours, notify the officer who issued the Order of the particulars of the transfer, and (B) serve upon the agency assuming custody a copy of the original order. (3) The agency which assumes custody shall be equally liable to comply with the requirement to detain and produce as if it were the recipient of the original order. (4) State and local law enforcement and correctional agencies are authorized to issue a detainer that would allow aliens who have served a sentence of incarceration under State or local law to be detained by the State or local prison or jail until the Secretary can take the alien into custody provided that notice of the detainer filed on behalf of the Secretary is transmitted within 24 hours to the nearest Immigration and Customs Enforcement office along with identifying biographic and offender information required to make a determination of alienage and removability. That office shall respond to the state or local agency making the notification within 24 hours, either confirming the detainer or ordering its withdrawal. (c) Immunity of Receiving Agencies No agencies nor officers or employees of agencies which have received an order to detain and produce an alien shall be liable for damages under law as a result of complying with such an order. (d) Failure or Refusal to Comply with Order to Detain and Produce Alien If a state or local agency refuses or fails in its duty to comply with an order to detain and produce an alien, the United States District Court shall, upon request of the United States Attorney for that district, issue an order requiring the agency to show cause why it did not do so and, upon a finding that the failure was intentional, shall hold the agency in contempt. Whether the failure to comply was intentional or negligent, it shall be in the Courts power to issue any such orders as are necessary to enjoin the agency from conduct that results in future refusal or failure. (e) Means of Service and Content of Order. (1) An order to detain and produce an alien may be served in person or by electronic means. (2) The order to detain and produce an alien shall contain at minimum the following information: (A) The name, date and place of birth of the alien, including known aliases or alternately claimed dates and places of birth (B) A brief statement of the grounds of removability, which shall not prevent superseding allegations and grounds from being used in any future charging document (C) The title and address of the agency receiving the order to detain and produce (D) The name and title of the officer issuing the order to detain and produce (E) The specific point of contact, and means by which the receiving agency should initiate that contact for purposes of notifying of an impending release, or of transfer of the alien to a subsequent agency and (F) A clear statement of the affirmative obligation of the receiving agency to comply with the order, and the consequences for refusal or failure to comply. Appendix 2: Model Language for a New INA Section 287B 8 U. S. Code 1357b Ineligibility for Federal Funding to States or Localities which Fail to Cooperate in Immigration Enforcement Efforts (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the government of a state, tribe, territory, or possession of the United States, or a political subdivision of any of the aforementioned, or the District of Columbia, (1) refuses or declines to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien filed by Homeland Security officers or agents against individuals known or suspected to be undocumented or criminal aliens subject to removal from the United States, or (2) enacts into law, or establishes by executive order, administrative regulation or policy, restrictions upon access to prisoners or detainees by federal officials enforcing the immigration laws of the United States, or upon cooperation with those federal officers by state and local law enforcement or correctional officers, or (3) refuses or declin es to exercise its authority to override the stated intention of one of its political subdivisions to engage in the conduct described in Paragraphs (1) or (2) above, neither said government nor any of its political subdivisions shall be eligible to receive funding from the Department of Justice State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. (b) For purposes of this act, refusal or declination of a government to exercise its authority as described in Section (a) includes, but is not limited to, statute, ordinance, order, rulemaking, policy, standard practice or directive on the part of a legislative or executive body or officer. (c) Within 30 days of enactment of this act, the Department of Homeland Security shall: (1) Prepare a comprehensive listing of all governments of states, tribes, territories or possessions, or political subdivisions thereof, or of the District of Columbia, which meet the ineligibility requirements described in Subsection (a) above (2) Send a notice to each government so listed informing it of the provisions of Subsection (a), asking that government whether it wishes to state affirmatively for the record its willingness and intent to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien, or to repeal any laws, or withdraw any executive orders, regulations or policies constituting a basis for ineligibility, and advising said government that failure to receive an affirmative response within 30 days of the date of the notice will result in ineligibility for and withdrawal of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding and (3) Send a concurrent notice to each state, territory or possession in wh ich a political subdivision has evidenced its unwillingness to participate, informing it of the provisions of Paragraph (a)(3), asking the state, territory or possession whether it wishes to exercise its authorities to override the stated intentions of the political subdivision, and advising that failure to receive an affirmative response within 30 days of the date of the notice will result in the state, territory or possession also becoming ineligible for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. (d) Upon expiration of the times described in Subsection (c), and in no event to exceed 30 days thereafter, the Department of Homeland Security shall transmit to the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Department of Justice a listing of the governments of any state, territory, possession, or political subdivision thereof, or of the District Columbia, which is ineligible for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. Said listing shall be final and determinative. (e) Subsequent to the initial notices and listing described in Subsections (c) and (d), within 30 days of being advised or becoming aware of a government refusing or declining to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien, or to permit law enforcement cooperation with immigration enforcement efforts, or to override the actions of a political subdivision in refusing to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien or to permit law enforcement cooperation with immigration enforcement efforts as described in Subsection (a), the Department of Homeland Security shall follow the same procedures and timeframes outlined in those sections to: (1) Inform said government that its actions will render it ineligible to receive funding, (2) Ascertain whether that government is willing to reconsider and to affirm its willingness to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien, or cooperate with immigration enforcement efforts, (3) Advise the state, territory or possession (if the uncooperative governmen t is a political subdivision) of the consequences of failure to exercise its authorities to override that governments decisions, and (4) Notify the Bureau of Justice Assistance of any governments which, having been given the opportunity, refuse or to decline to affirm, or override political subdivisions, thus rendering themselves ineligible for funding. (f) Congressional Reports (1) 120 days after enactment, (A) The Department of Homeland Security shall provide a report to the Congress outlining what steps have been taken to implement the provisions of this act. The Department shall append to its report a copy of the list described in Subsection (d) above. (B) The Bureau of Justice Assistance shall provide a report to the Congress outlining the steps taken to implement the provisions of this act, and append to its report a list of governments that have been debarred from receipt of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. (2) Within 120 days of the commencement of each new fiscal year, (A) The Department of Homeland Security shall provide a report to the Congress of its activities to monitor state, territories, possessions and their political subdivisions to ensure compliance with this Section, appending to its report a list of governments found not to be in compliance during the prior fiscal year, and (B) The Bureau of Justice Assistance shall provide a report to the Congress of its activities to ensure compliance with this Section, and append to its report a list of governments that have been debarred from receipt of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding during the prior fiscal year. 6 See Jessica M. Vaughan, ICE Enforcement Collapses Further in 2014. Center for Immigration Studies, October 2014 and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement report, Fiscal Year 2014 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report. as cited in the Los Angeles Times . December 4, 2014. 8 Ragsdale is now deputy director of ICE. However, at the time Ragsdale termed detainers as voluntary, he was de facto head of the agency. 9 8 CFR, 287.7. op cit. See, particularly, subsection (d) Temporary detention at Department request. 12 Flashalertnewswire, Summary of Judge Stewarts Opinion and Order on Summary Judgment. See also Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County, et al. . U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Case No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST. 13 Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel, legislative attorneys, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law. Congressional Research Service, September 10, 2012. 14 Supreme Court of the United States, Arizona et al. v. United States . No. 11182. Argued April 25, 2012, decided June 25, 2012. 15 Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel, op. Cit. 19 See Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass . When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less. A questão é, disse Alice, se você pode fazer palavras significam tantas coisas diferentes. 20 8 U. S.C. 1357(g). Unfortunately, as with Secure Communities, the Obama administration, responding to open borders advocates, has also eviscerated this previously robust nationwide program. 23 In fact, the now-defunct Secure Communities program was predicated upon language found in Public Law 110-329, which, in addition to providing the outlay of funds required for start-up and eventual national implementation, established a requirement of quarterly reports to the House and Senate committees on appropriations. See U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses within Title II of Division D of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, 122 STAT. 3594, enacted in September of 2008. Both the funding and the reporting requirements continued in appropriations acts passed by Congress and signed into law by the president every year thereafter. For this reason, the decision by the secretary to discontinue the program appears to fly in the face of congressional intent. 26 See 8 U. S.C. 1226 and 8 U. S.C. 1357. Note, particularly 8 U. S.C. 1357(d), discussed earlier in this paper, which states: - Powers of immigration officers and employees (d) Detainer of aliens for violation of controlled substances laws In the case of an alien who is arrested by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official for a violation of any law relating to controlled substances, if the official (or another official) (1) has reason to believe that the alien may not have been lawfully admitted to the United States or otherwise is not lawfully present in the United States, (2) expeditiously informs an appropriate officer or employee of the Service authorized and designated by the Attorney General of the arrest and of facts concerning the status of the alien, and (3) requests the Service to determine promptly whether or not to issue a detainer to detain the alien, the officer or employee of the Service shall promptly determine whether or not to issue such a detainer. If such a detainer is issued and the alien is not otherwise detained by Federal, State, or local officials, the Attorney General shall effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien. 27 Article VI of the U. S. Constitution states: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 28 The preemption doctrine is imposed when state law or regulation touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject. In the case of refusal to honor ICE detainers, state or local policies that ignore a federal directive are unconstitutional even though they purport to pursue or aid federal law. See Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U. S. 497 (1956) and Charleston amp Western Carolina R. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co. . 237 U. S. 597 (1915). 29 There is a reason for the existence federal Supremacy Clause, rooted in the history of our founding as a nation. The Articles of Confederation provided for only the loosest federal structure of government, preferring each colonystate to be co-equal and preeminent over that structure that did exist. In fact, the Articles did not refer to a nation, per se, but rather a league of states. The federal government possessed no chief executive indeed, no executive branch whatever, nor a judiciary. Each state felt free to establish its own trading rules, its own laws governing citizenship, etc. Needless to say, the weakness of such a structure was its undoing. 30 The source of federal power to regulate immigration comes through a combination of international and constitutional legal principles. The Chinese Exclusion Cases (beginning with Chae Chan Ping v. United States . 130 U. S. 581 (1889)) were the first cases to hold that the federal authority to exclude non-citizens is an incident of national sovereignty. The Supreme Court reasoned that every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest. Immigration, the court found, is a matter of vital national concern. The court distinguished between national and local spheres. It is the role of the federal government to oversee matters of national concern, while it is the province of the states to govern local matters. Therefore, the court found that the inherent sovereign power to regulate immigration clearly resides in the federal government. Subsequent cases reinforced national sovereignty as the source of federal power to control immigration and consistently reasserted the plenary and unqualified scope of this power. Fong Yue Ting v. United States . 149 U. S. 698 (1893) explicitly held that the power to expel or deport (now remove) non-citizens rests upon the same ground as the exclusion power and is equally absolute and unqualified. 31 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States . 1831. Stated Story: The propriety of this clause Supremacy Clause would seem to result from the very nature of the Constitution. If it was to establish a national government, that government ought, to the extent of its powers and rights, to be supreme. It would be a perfect solecism to affirm, that a national government should exist with certain powers and yet, that in the exercise of those powers it should not be supreme. See also The Founders Constitution . Volume 4, Article 6, Clause 2, Document 42, Chicago: University of Chicago Press and Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 3 vols. Boston, 1833 . 32 Comity is legal reciprocity, the principle that one jurisdiction will extend certain courtesies to other jurisdictions within the same nation, particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative, and judicial acts. Part of the presumption of comity is that other jurisdictions will reciprocate the courtesy shown to them. In the United States, comity also refers to the Privileges and Immunities Clause (sometimes called the Comity Clause) in Article Four, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U. S. Constitution. The clause provides that The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. See Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. 33 Elizabeth Price Foley, Presidents Cannot Ignore Laws as Written. The New York Times . January 29, 2014. Stated Professor Foley: President Obama has shown a penchant for ignoring the plain language of our laws. He unilaterally rewrote the employer mandate and several other provisions of the Affordable Care Act, failing to faithfully execute a law which declares, unambiguously, that these provisions shall apply beginning January 1, 2014. Similarly, in suspending deportation for a class of young people who entered this country illegally, the president defied the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that any alien who is inadmissible at the time of entry into the country shall be removed. 34 Supreme Court, op. Cit. . P. 8 35 The Supreme Court has adjudicated disputes between federal and sub-federal entities in this arena for almost 150 years, siding overwhelmingly with the federal government and striking down state and local laws. 36 Jessica Vaughan, ICE Document Details 36,000 Criminal Alien Releases in 2013, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder . May 2014. 37 See Chy Lung v. Freeman . 92 U. S. 275, 280 (1875) and Hines v. Davidowitz . 312 U. S. 52, 62 (1941). These cases hold That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization, and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution was pointed out by authors of the Federalist in 1787, and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. 38 The relevant statute can be found at Section 274(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U. S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) . 39 For one detailed explanation of judicial deference to administrative agencies, arising from a Supreme Court decision of 2004, see Randolph J. May, Defining Deference Down: Independent Agencies and Chevron Deference. Administrative Law Review . Vol. 58, No. 2, Spring 2006 (58 Admin. L. Rev. 428 (2006)). 44 See the cases of Erick Maya. of Cook County, Ill. who was recently sentenced to 122 years in prison for murdering his ex-girlfriend, and who was at large despite an immigration detainer, and Hector Ramires. of Chelsea, Mass. who is currently in custody on murder charges in an incident that occurred several months after arrests for armed robbery, in which ICE declined to issue detainers. 48 Jessica Vaughan, op. Cit. . and Jessica Vaughan, The Alternative to Immigration Detention: Fugitives. Center for Immigration Studies blog, October 18, 2011. 49 For more information on the issue of SCAAP funding, and the hypocrisy inherent in state and local agencies demanding reimbursement for incarceration costs of aliens they refuse to turn over to ICE, see Russ Doubleday and Jessica Vaughan, Subsidizing Sanctuaries: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder . November 2010, and Jessica Vaughan, After the Election, More Flexibility for Sanctuaries. Center for Immigration Studies blog, November 26, 2012. 50 INA Section 236(a), codified at 8 U. S.C. 1226(a). states in relevant part, On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. 51 For more on the EOPS memorandum and its flawed logic, see Dan Cadmans blog, Mass. Public Safety Office Seeks to Impede Immigration Enforcement. Center for Immigration Studies, September 16, 2014. 52 For an analysis of the SAFE Act, see W. D. Reasoner, Better SAFE Than Sorry. Center for Immigration Studies, August 2013.
Comments
Post a Comment