By Scott Jenkins, Utah Senate Majority Leader, and Jon Greiner, State Senator in Weber & Davis Counties

Critics of effective federal-state partnership on immigration enforcement have said 1) this is a federal civil issue, 2) damage will be done to informant relations, 3) crime rates may go up, and 4) that policing immigration is a job that local law enforcement does not want.

It is irresponsible to suggest these few factors sum up a very complicated equation and even more reckless to insinuate this opinion represents the Utah law enforcement community.

Utah needs to take a balanced approach to solving immigration issues, and that approach will inevitably involve discussions on appropriate, state-controlled use of local law enforcement to assist the federal government in carrying out their responsibility.

Arizona’s new law is supported by a framework of legal precedent. It didn’t happen in a vacuum. In 2006 Rhode Island, for example, made a law with a provision wherein local law enforcement may exchange information with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service in order to; (1) verify the immigration status of a person if the person is arrested for any criminal offense; (2) request criminal investigation information with reference to persons named in service records; or (3) otherwise comply with any requirement of federal law. The United States Supreme Court, in 2005, ruled in the Muehler v Mena case that state and local officers may question criminal suspects and detainees about their immigration status. It is also noteworthy that the U.S. Congress passed, in 1996, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), which specifically authorizes-to the extent permitted by “relevant State and local law”- arrest by state and local officers of non-citizens who have committed the federal crime of illegal re-entry and previously deported felons (deported or left country after felony conviction). Our federal circuit court, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, has held that state and local officers have inherent authority to enforce immigration laws, whether the violations in question are criminal or civil in nature. Those decisions are reflected in U.S. v Santana-Garcia (2001) and U.S. v Salinas Calderon (1984). Miller v U.S., in 1958, found that arrests by local officers for federal violations are to be determined by state law.

The fact is the simple crossing into this country illegally, by whatever means, is a federal criminal misdemeanor.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there were 12.4 million illegal immigrants in America in 2007 (civil immigration crimes such as overstaying a visa raises that total another three million or so). There are about 8,000 ICE agents. When you look at the numbers you realize federal enforcement of immigration law is a logistical impossibility. However, there are over 700,000 state and local sworn officers in this nation. When the feds get serious about immigration enforcement we will be ready to help, but the parameters of the partnership must be carefully defined in law by each state.

Our network in Utah law enforcement believe we need to be working to define the parameters of a necessary federal-state partnership. The Utah law enforcement community has not authorized anyone to represent them otherwise and look to the state legislature and local elected political leaders for guidance. The challenge at hand, then, is to craft policies that work for our state. The Governor’s Roundtable on Immigration will be a good next step in the discussion, which will continue through the legislative session.

Originally published in the Salt Lake Tribune.