SAN DIEGO (AP) – During the closing weeks of the Trump administration, the Department of Homeland Security quietly signed agreements with at least four states that temporarily derail President Joe Biden’s attempts to reverse his predecessor’s immigration policies.
Under the agreements, Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, and Texas are entitled to a 180-day consultation period before executive policy changes take effect. The Biden government rejects that argument because, according to the constitution, immigration is the sole responsibility of the federal government.
Former President Donald Trump relied heavily on executive powers for his immigration agenda because he was unable to build enough support for his policies in Congress. Now some of his supporters say Biden is going too far to do the same to turn them back.
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 took effect Friday.
The Homeland Security Department told lawmakers shortly before Biden’s inauguration last week that it had reached nine agreements, mostly with states, according to a congressional official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss information that is not yet publicly available.
The department declined to comment, citing the lawsuit. The Trump administration, which was mostly eager to trumpet immigration enforcement, remained publicly silent on the deals, which were first reported by BuzzFeed News.
The nine-page agreements known as Sanctuary for Americans First Enactment, or SAFE, have been expanded. They require state and local governments to be notified 180 days in advance of changes in the number of immigration officers, the number of people released from immigration, enforcement priorities, asylum criteria and who is eligible for legal status.
Without providing any evidence, the agreements say that relaxation of enforcement could harm education, health care, housing and jobs.
Sheriff Sam Page of Rockingham County, North Carolina, on the Virginia border, signed an agreement on December 22.
“Any incoming government is likely to make policy changes,” the sheriff said. “Policy changes at the federal level affect us at the local level. It is our hope that the SAFE agreement will promote timely communication of important upcoming policy changes. We simply ask for notice of these changes. “
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed an agreement on Dec. 15 to “reverse the flow of illegal immigration,” said spokesman Cory Dennis.
“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 to immigration policy that could harm the people of Louisiana.”
In Indiana, former state attorney general Curtis Hill, a Republican, signed the agreement on December 22. Rachel Hoffmeyer, spokeswoman for Governor Eric Holcomb, said it will remain in place after an initial review.
Katie Conner, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Mark Brnovich in Arizona, confirmed that the state has signed the signing, saying it has “numerous cooperative agreements with federal, state and local enforcement agencies, including DHS.”
In addition to the deportation moratorium, the Biden administration suspended a policy to keep asylum seekers in Mexico waiting for hearings in the US immigration court. Six of Biden’s 17 first-day executive orders dealt with immigration, such as stopping work on a border wall with Mexico and lifting travel bans on people from several predominantly Muslim countries.
Hiroshi Motomura, professor of immigration law and policy at the University of California at the Los Angeles School of Law, called the agreements “a very unusual, last-minute kind of thing” and said they raise questions about how an administration can tie the hands of his successor. He believes a president has power over a deportation moratorium.
Steve Legomsky, a professor emeritus at Washington University School of Law and former senior adviser to US Citizenship and Immigration Services, said the agreements are “ a terrible idea ” that could create “ a race to the bottom, ” with states opposed to immigration , compete with each other. others to displace immigrants.
“Throughout our history, immigration policy has been considered the exclusive responsibility of the federal government,” said Legomsky.
Keeping immigration enforcement with the federal government allows the nation to speak with one voice as a matter of foreign policy and consistency across states, Legomsky said. We “cannot run 50 conflicting immigration laws at once,” he said.
The Biden administration made similar arguments in a court filing Sunday after Texas asked a federal judge to block the deportation moratorium.
Texas, which has challenged the Child Arrival Delayed Action Program to protect hundreds of thousands of youth from deportation, argued that the moratorium violated the Homeland Security agreement. The state also argued that the moratorium is in violation of federal regulatory procedures.
US District Judge Drew Tipton in Victoria, Texas, who was appointed by Trump last year, held hearings on Friday and Monday to consider Texas’s request.
___
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.