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 immigrants 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 to
regulate immigration. In Arizona v. United States, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy
explained this by stating that the authority of the federal government rests, in part, on the
Constitution’s power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” (Crook, 2012).
The Constitution does not mention immigration. The courts have assumed the authority
to be with the federal government through relying on related subjects that do appear in the
Constitution. The federal government has authority over naturalization, foreign commerce, and
foreign relations. The federal government has the powers “incident to a sovereign.” The court
will give the federal government leeway when deciding immigration issues, especially 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 politics and national security concerns.
State and Local Involvement

Over time, the federal government’s involvement of states in immigration enforcement
has evolved, transforming as politics change. Before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
state and local police had participated in immigration enforcement on occasion, but, afterward, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) seemingly abandoned the concept that immigration was the sole
domain of the federal government. After the terrorist attacks, the DOJ seemingly 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 arrest based on this information.
(Wishnie, 2004).
Beginning with the election of President Obama in 2008, the enforcement of immigration
law changed. There was a significant rise in the amount of illegal immigration into the United
States and the appearance that administration was not enforcing immigration law. 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, 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; it
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. The federal government filed
a lawsuit to bar the implementation of the law.

In Arizona v. United States, 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, only allowing the provision that
allows Arizona law enforcement to communicate with federal authorities during arrest that are
not based on immigration status. (Arizona V. United States, 2011). The decision effectively
reenforces the idea that the federal government has sole authority over immigration enforcement.
More recently, with the increased influx of illegal 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 governments inability or
inaction in enforcing immigration law. Although the federal courts have repeatedly given the
federal government sole authority to enforce immigration law, Texas makes the argument that
the Constitution gives states the authority to act when invaded. (Sullivan, 2024). By calling it an
invasion, this gives Texas authority under Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution.
Texas’ attempt to change immigration from a political issue to one of national defense is a
change in approach. Several federal district courts have blocked the law but the Supreme Court
allowed the law to go into effect until the Court makes a final decision about the law. Even after
the Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect, and another federal district court once again
placed an injunction on the enforcement of the law.
National Security Concerns
National security concerns are central to immigration enforcement in the United States.
National security is a legitimate concern when considering policies involved in border
enforcement, deportations, and vetting of immigrants to the United States. The rationale behind
their implementation, intended and unintended consequences, and impact of policies, all have

relevancy when determining public policy.
Border Enforcement
Border enforcement and protection include various measures, such as physical barriers,
technology for surveillance, and the use of border patrol agents. The prevention of illegal border
crossings are not only a matter for immigration but presents substantial national security concerns.
The Department of Homeland security has the main responsibility for border
enforcement. The United States Border Patrol, a division of Homeland Security, attempts to
prevent illegal entry by deterring or attempting to capture those that enter illegally. This is the
frontline defense against individuals that may pose a security threat. (Border Patrol Overview,
n.d.).
Critics of strict border enforcement argue that increased border enforcement can add to
humanitarian crisis without impacting the flow of immigrants. Enforcement actions do not deter
migrants but instead create situations where migrants can risk their lives to avoid border
enforcement. These migrants will continue to attempt to gain entry until they are successful. This
creates the need for human trafficking and taking dangerous routes. The focus on border
enforcement may also take resources away from points of entry such as airports and ports of
entry. (Cornelius, 2001).
Deportation
Individuals who are in the country illegally, especially those involved in criminal activity,
can be subject to deportation. This is a critical component related to national security. Deporting
those involved in criminal activity is an attempt by the government to protect U.S. citizens from
the dangers these people may pose. The threat of deportation is also a deterrent to illegal entry
into the United States. Those that have recently entered the country have a higher chance of

deportation. Most immigrants detained within fourteen days of entry are subject to “rapid
removal.” This is 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 look for any
individuals that may pose a security threat before they enter the United States. This includes
screening against watchlists, biometrics, and in-depth interviews. The vetting process is crucial
in identifying national security threats.
Reflection
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. Protecting the country from foreign invaders is paramount. It does not matter
if those invaders are a foreign military or an influx of people that may or may not share our
values. If the federal government, for political reasons, decides not to enforce federal
immigration law then it is incumbent upon the states to defend themselves. This was the
agreement made with the adoption of the Constitution. It is misguided to believe that somehow
the states would have agreed to form a union without security from invasion. There can be an
argument made that the 2nd Amendment was about the necessity of the States (the people) to
protect themselves against invaders.
An understanding of Christian thought about illegal immigration and national security is
one that infers that Christianity is a personal quest to obtain a relationship with God. This is not a
governing authority for nations. The Bible calls Christians to obey the law. (English Standard
Bible, 2001/2016, Romans 13: 1-7). This would imply that entering a country illegally would be
against the teachings of the Bible.
Conclusion
The balance between state and federal responsibilities in immigration enforcement and
national security is complex often debated with public safety and political influences. The
constitutional and legal frameworks state that the federal government has “plenary” authority
over immigration decisions. This fact has not prevented states from implementing their own laws
and policies regarding the issue. Often these decisions are based on political divisions rather than
a true concern for national security. The adoption of sanctuary cities and states, the
implementation of Arizona’s SB 1070, and the recent passage of Texas’ law regarding
immigration enforcement, has confused the traditional role of the federal government as sole
arbitrator of immigration law. The Supreme Court has been consistent in upholding the federal
governments role, however, the federal government policies evolve with changing political
landscapes from overly aggressive tactics to relaxed policies that give the perception of an
unwillingness to enforce the law. This leads to legal battles displaying 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