SAN DIEGO (AP) – During the last weeks of the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security has quietly signed agreements with at least four states that threaten to temporarily derail President Joe Biden’s efforts to undo his predecessor’s immigration policies .
Under the agreements, Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana and Texas are entitled to a 180-day consultation period before changes in executive policy take effect. The Biden administration rejects this argument considering that immigration is the sole responsibility of the federal government under the Constitution.
Former President Donald Trump relied heavily on the executive branch for his immigration agenda because he was unable to get enough support for his policies in Congress. Now some of his supporters say Biden is going too far in doing the same to reverse them.
The first legal test takes place in Texas, where the Republican governor and attorney general are challenging the Democratic president’s 100-day moratorium on deportations, which went into effect Friday.
The Department of Homeland Security told lawmakers shortly before Biden took office last week that it reached nine agreements, most with states, according to a congressional official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss information. which is not yet publicly available.
The department declined to comment, citing the lawsuit. The Trump administration, generally eager to deceive the enforcement of immigration, remained public silence on the deals, which were first reported by BuzzFeed News.
The nine-page agreements known as Sanctuary for Americans First Enactment, or SAFE, are expansive. They require state and local governments to receive a 180-day notice of changes in the number of immigration agents, the number of people released from immigration custody, enforcement priorities, asylum criteria, and that meet the requirements to obtain legal status.
Without providing evidence, the agreements state that more intense enforcement can harm education, health care, housing and employment.
Sheriff Sam Page of Rockingham County, North Carolina, on the border with Virginia, signed an agreement on Dec. 22.
“Any incoming administration is likely to make policy changes,” the sheriff said. “Policy changes at the federal level affect us at the local level. We hope that the SAFE agreement will encourage timely communications on any significant policy changes. We are simply asking for notice of these changes. “
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed an agreement Dec. 15 to “curb the tide of illegal immigration,” spokesman Cory Dennis said.
“While some may try to blur the lines, there is a difference between legal and illegal immigration and it is important to recognize that,” he said. “Our office will continue to be a watchdog for any changes in immigration policies that may harm the people of Louisiana.”
In Indiana, former state attorney general Curtis Hill, a Republican, signed the deal on Dec. 22. Rachel Hoffmeyer, a spokeswoman for Gov. Eric Holcomb, said it will remain in effect after an initial review.
Katie Conner, a spokeswoman for Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, confirmed that the state signed, saying it “has numerous cooperation agreements with federal, state and local enforcement agencies, including DHS.”
In addition to the deportation moratorium, the Biden administration suspended a policy to make asylum seekers wait in Mexico for hearings in the U.S. immigration court. Six of the 17 executive orders on Biden’s first day dealt with immigration, such as stopping work on a border wall with Mexico and lifting a travel ban on people from several predominantly Muslim countries.
Hiroshi Motomura, a professor of immigration law and policy at the University of California School of Law in Los Angeles, called the agreements “very unusual” and said they raise questions about how an administration can link the hands of his successor. He believes a deportation moratorium was within the power of a president.
Steve Legomsky, professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Law and former chief adviser to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agreements are “a terrible idea” that could create “a race to the bottom.” , with states opposing immigration competing against each of them. another to drive immigrants to other places.
“Throughout our history, it has been understood that immigration policy is the sole responsibility of the federal government,” Legomsky said.
Maintaining immigration compliance with the federal government allows the nation to speak with one voice as a matter of foreign policy and coherence between states, Legomsky said. “We can’t have 50 conflicting sets of immigration laws at the same time,” he said.
The Biden administration filed similar arguments in a court hearing Sunday after Texas asked a federal judge to block the deportation moratorium.
Texas, which has led a challenge to the Deferred Action Program for Child Arrivals to protect the deportation of hundreds of thousands of youth, argued that the moratorium violated its agreement with Homeland Security. The state also argued that the moratorium violates federal regulatory procedures.
U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton in Victoria, Texas, who was appointed last year by Trump, held hearings Friday and Monday to consider Texas’ petition.
___
Associated Press writers Ben Fox in Washington, Gary Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina, Casey Smith in Indianapolis, Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Anita Snow in Phoenix contributed to this report.