State and Federal Responsibilities in Immigration Enforcement and National Security

Immigration to the United States of America has a long and storied history, from the earliest arrivals to the new country to the most recent of those that seek freedom and opportunity. As national security concerns increase around the world, understanding who is coming to the country is important. The enforcement of immigration laws in the United States is a complex interplay between state and federal powers. How does this interplay affect the enforcement of immigration laws, and what is the impact on the nation’s security? When the federal government fails to enforce immigration laws, is it then the responsibility of states to enforce their borders?

Constitutional and Legal Framework

The Supreme Court has determined that the federal government has plenary power (exclusive and complete authority) to regulate immigration. In Arizona v. United States, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that this authority rests, in part, on the Constitution’s power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” (Crook, 2012).

The Constitution does not explicitly mention immigration. Courts have found the federal government's authority through implied powers derived from related clauses, including the power to regulate naturalization, foreign commerce, and foreign relations, classifying it as an "incident to a sovereign." The courts apply a high degree of deference to the federal government when deciding immigration issues, particularly when national security is a concern. (Immigration: Overview, n.d.).

Although the courts have stated that immigration is the domain of the federal government, states have enacted laws and policies that affect immigration. These laws and policies can sometimes be a mix between political motivations and national security concerns.

State and Local Involvement

The federal government’s involvement of states in immigration enforcement has evolved with changing political priorities. Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, state and local police had participated in immigration enforcement only on occasion. Afterward, the Department of Justice (DOJ) seemed to abandon the concept that immigration was the sole domain of the federal government. The DOJ attempted to enlist state and local law enforcement in the “War on Terror” by entering non-citizen’s immigration status into the National Crime Information Center’s (NCIC) national database, thus encouraging state and local law enforcement to make arrests based on this information (Wishnie, 2004).

Beginning with the election of President Obama in 2008, the enforcement priorities of immigration law changed. While the administration increased deportations of criminal non-citizens, critics noted a significant rise in unauthorized immigration and the perception of reduced enforcement of civil immigration violations. Border states such as Arizona began attempts to enforce federal immigration law. Between 2005 and 2008, the Arizona legislature passed four anti-immigration bills, but each bill passed was vetoed by the Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano (Park & Norpoth, 2016).

In 2010, with the election of Republican Jan Brewer as governor, the Arizona legislature passed Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070), known as “The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.” The law made it a state crime to be in the United States illegally and required local and state enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status if they have reason to suspect that a person is in the country illegally.

In Arizona v. United States (2011), the federal government argued that federal immigration laws preclude Arizona's efforts at cooperative law enforcement. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion agreed with the federal government on the major points, invalidating most of the state provisions and only allowing the provision that permits Arizona law enforcement to communicate with federal authorities during arrests not based on immigration status. The decision effectively re-enforces the idea that the federal government has sole authority over immigration enforcement.

More recently, with the increased influx of unauthorized immigration, Texas responded with a law that makes it illegal to cross the Texas/Mexico border anywhere other than an official port-of-entry. Texas maintains that the law is necessary given the federal government’s inability or inaction in enforcing immigration law. By calling the influx an "invasion," Texas attempts to invoke authority under the Article I, Section 10 Invasion Clause of the Constitution, which allows states to act when invaded. Texas's attempt to change immigration from a political issue to one of national defense is a change in approach, though federal courts have historically interpreted "invasion" to mean a hostile, state-level military action, not an influx of non-state actors or migrants (Sullivan, 2024). Federal district courts have repeatedly blocked the law, displaying the ongoing tension between state and federal authority.

National Security Concerns

National security concerns are central to immigration enforcement. The policies involved in border enforcement, deportations, and vetting of immigrants all have relevancy when determining public policy due to the rationale behind their implementation and their intended and unintended consequences.

Border Enforcement

Border enforcement includes various measures, such as physical barriers, surveillance technology, and the use of border patrol agents. The prevention of unauthorized border crossings is not only a matter of immigration control but presents substantial national security concerns.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has the main responsibility for border enforcement. The U.S. Border Patrol, a division of DHS, attempts to prevent illegal entry by deterring or attempting to capture those that enter unauthorized. This is the frontline defense against individuals who may pose a security threat (Border Patrol Overview, n.d.).

Critics of strict border enforcement argue that increased border enforcement can worsen humanitarian crises without effectively impacting the flow of migrants. Enforcement actions do not deter migrants but instead create situations where migrants risk their lives to avoid border enforcement, necessitating human trafficking and taking dangerous routes. Furthermore, a heavy focus on border enforcement may draw resources away from official points of entry, such as airports and ports (Cornelius, 2001).

Deportation

Individuals who are in the country without authorization, especially those involved in criminal activity, are subject to deportation. This is a critical component related to national security, as deporting those involved in criminal activity is an attempt to protect U.S. citizens from the dangers these people may pose. The threat of deportation is also a deterrent to unauthorized entry. Most immigrants detained within fourteen days of entry are subject to “rapid removal,” a DHS policy that allows for deportation without a judge’s order unless the immigrant is claiming asylum from persecution (The Removal System of the United States: An Overview, 2022).

Vetting

The United States has various processes for the vetting of immigrants into the country (National Vetting Center, n.d.). These processes involve background checks to screen against watchlists, biometrics, and in-depth interviews, which are crucial in identifying national security threats before individuals enter the United States.

Reflection and Conclusion

The purpose of government is to protect the God-given rights of the American people (Jefferson, 1776). National security is one of the most important ways that government can protect our rights, as protecting the country from foreign invaders is paramount. It is misguided to believe that the states would have agreed to form a union without security from invasion.

If the federal government, for political reasons, decides not to enforce federal immigration law, then it is incumbent upon the states to defend themselves. The argument for state self-defense is based on the idea that the federal government has created a political vacuum through inconsistent enforcement, leading states to seek legal justification to defend their territorial integrity. Furthermore, Christian thought infers that Christianity is a personal quest to obtain a relationship with God, not a governing authority for nations. The Bible calls Christians to obey the law (English Standard Bible, 2001/2016, Romans 13: 1-7), which would imply that unauthorized entry into a country is against its teachings.

The balance between state and federal responsibilities in immigration enforcement and national security is complex and often driven by public safety concerns and political influences. The constitutional and legal frameworks state that the federal government holds plenary authority over immigration decisions. However, this fact has not prevented states from implementing their own laws and policies regarding the issue.

The adoption of sanctuary cities and states, the implementation of Arizona’s SB 1070, and the recent passage of Texas’ border law have all confused the traditional role of the federal government as the sole arbitrator of immigration law. While the Supreme Court consistently upholds the federal government's authority, the Executive Branch's policies evolve with changing political landscapes, from overly aggressive tactics to relaxed policies, creating the perception of an unwillingness to enforce the law. This leads to legal battles that display the ongoing tensions between states and the federal government.

References
Arizona v. United States. (2011). Oyez. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-182
Border Patrol Overview. (n.d.). U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/overview
Cornelius, W. A. (2001). Death at the Border: Efficacy and Unintended Consequences of US
Immigration Control Policy. Population and Development Review, 27(4), 661–685.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2695182
Crook, J. (2012). U.S. Supreme Court finds conflict between Arizona immigration Statute and
federal foreign affairs powers. The American Journal of International Law, 106(4), 844.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1282266694
English Standard Bible. (2016). Literal Word. https://esv.literalword.com/ (Original work
published 2001)
Immigration: Overview. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause
18/immigration-overview
Jefferson, T. (1776). The Declaration of Independence
National Vetting Center. (n.d.). U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/national-vetting-center
Park, J., & Norpoth, H. (2016). Policy popularity: The Arizona immigration law. Electoral
Studies, 44, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.05.010
Sullivan, B. (2024, March 20). What to know about SB 4, the Texas immigration law in the
9
courts now. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/20/1239651676/sb4-texas-immigration
law
The Removal System of the United States: An Overview. (2022, August 9). American
Immigration Council. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/removal
system-united-states-overview
Wishnie, M. (2004). State and local police enforcement of immigration laws. University of
Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 6(5), 1084–1115.
https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/upjcl6&i=1098