Can States Regulate Immigration? Part 3
Prince William County, Virginia
28 Jul 2007 in Regulatory Economics, Regulatory Policy
On July 10, the Board of Supervisors of Prince William County, Virginia, approved an ordinance concerning the enforcement of federal immigration law within its borders. Prince William County is a southern suburb of Washington, DC.
The major elements of the resolution (which the County Attorney says is not a change in law):
- County employees are directed to "support the enforcement of federal immigration law"
- County employees are directed to verify eligibility for federal, state, or local public service benefits, and verify any claim of legal domicile within the County, and they are explicitly shielded them from any interference by county agencies or officials when they do so
- County police officers "shall inquire into the citizenship or immigration status of any person detained for violation of state law or municipal ordinance;" where a detainee "indicates" non-citizenship or legal immigration status, police "shall verify lawful presence" in accordance with 8 U.S.C. 1373(c)
- The County Police Department is directed to enter into a "cooperative agreement" with the federal Department of Homeland Security as provided for by 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)
- A personal legally domiciled within the County has a private right of action to file for a writ of mandamus to compel compliance by any non-cooperating County agency
LAW ENFORCEMENT
A December 2006 Powerpoint presentation by the County Police Department sets forth in bullet form the applicable federal and state laws governing, among other things, local police cooperation with DHS.
FederalAccording to the presentation, it takes five weeks of training for a local police officer to be certified by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Furthermore, the program is intended only to apprehend "criminal illegal aliens who pose significant threat to national security or public safety." The high cost of participation has resulted in limited state and local interest in the program.
StateLocal police have the authority under Virginia Code Section 19.2-81.6 to arrest illegal aliens if the officer confirms that the individual
- Is an alien, illegally present in the US;
- Has been previously convicted of a felony in the US; and
- Was deported or left the US after such conviction.
The presentation shows the Police Department preferred not to take any greater responsibility for enforcing federal immigration law. "Immigration enforcement," says the Department, "is a Federal responsibility." The Department opposed any further integration with federal immigration authorities. The resolution appears to explicitly reject this advice. Police Chief Charlie Deane reiterated his opposition (PDF pages 3-6) before the resolution was approved. Although the resolution explicitly bars Deane and his subordinate officers from interfering with officers' efforts to do more, it's unclear how many County police officers are inclined to do more and what percentage of them would risk their careers by taking action in conflict with the wishes of the chief.
ECONOMICS
The practical effect of this local action is at best ambiguous. County supervisors postponed until fall the task of converting it into a legally enforceable ordinance. Moreover, the active opposition of the police chief is a significant barrier, and it explains the reason why the resolution explicitly includes language enabling any legal County resident to force compliance through legal action. Nevertheless, in a contest between elected officials and the police chief, officers are likely to follow the chief's lead.
Activists for illegal aliens object to the resolution, especially its law enforcement directives. They propose two lines of attack. First, they seek to encourage more legal aliens to seek citizenship so they can vote, but it's not clear how many immigrants are eligible for citizenship. This percentage seems likely to be small; advocacy by immigrant groups for the recent federal immigration bill, which included a rapid path to citizenship, would have been superfluous otherwise.
Second, they propose to execute an economic boycott during the week of August 27 -- September 3. The purpose of the boycott is to demonstrate the economic power of illegal aliens -- and those who sympathize with them -- by making the absence of their consumption noticeable. During this period, illegal aliens are supposed "to avoid large chain supermarkets and mega-stores and to patronize smaller, Latino-owned markets instead." These latter establishments presumably are more expensive, less convenient, or both; otherwise, they would be full of illegal alien shoppers and large chain supermarkets and mega-stores would not.
Boycott organizers display limited facility with economics, however, as what they are proposing almost certainly could not have the economic effect they intend. Even if they achieved 100% compliance within their community and retailers fully and immediately responded, the effect would be to cause a downward shift in demand and lower prices for citizens and non-sympathizers. That would make illegal aliens' economic effects transparent, but in a way almost certain to backfire on them by emboldening their opponents with empirical evidence. This is reminiscent of the regularly proclaimed "gas free days" in which opponents of "Big Oil" try to influence energy policy by buying on Tuesday or Thursday the gasoline they otherwise would buy on Wednesday.
Community compliance with the boycott is almost certain to be spotty and its effects not discernible, thereby undermining the message of economic power that they seek to communicate. To be effective, a boycott must be sustained for years and joined by vast numbers of consumers, or conducted in a political rather than an economic marketplace.
Sometimes, boycotts have exactly the opposite effect organizers intend. Constable's article in the Washington Post includes a vignette showing how this happens:
Previous efforts to stage boycotts on behalf of immigrant causes have had mixed results in the Washington area. Last year, when national immigrant groups organized a boycott to protest deportations, some local leaders opposed participating, but Juarez's group led a construction-work slowdown and the temporary closure of some Latino shops in Northern Virginia.Actions that lead to the closure of Latino shops, presumably owned by illegal aliens or their sympathizers, cannot possibly help the cause.
Resolution 07-10E
County Executive's memorandum
County Attorney's memorandum
County Police Department Powerpoint (December 2006)
