President Donald Trump at the border wall with Mexico in San Luis, Arizona, on June 23.Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
The federal police forces that descended on Portland, Oregon, make it all too clear that the tactics at U.S. borders are being imported to the heartland. As the power and purview of the Department of Homeland Security expands, so do the battles over federal jurisdiction and immigration law. In their new book, The President and Immigration Law, law professors Adam Cox and Cristina Rodrguez engage in a fundamental reexamination of executive power over immigration law. They start at the nations founding and end at the current impasse over DACA, asylum policies, and Donald Trumps wall on the Mexico border. The book, published by Oxford University Press, will be available on Kindle this week and in print on Sept. 1. In an interview conducted over email, we discussed how enforcement has become the central priority of the U.S. immigration system, with an empowered president sitting atop the massive immigration apparatus, sidelining a largely inactive Congress. In their view, this apparatus has opened the door to a regime in which law enforcement powers increasingly encroach on community life. Their answers have been edited and condensed for clarity.
Dahlia Lithwick: So the book starts with the provocative point that can be summed up essentially as, Sorry, the executive branch really does have almost unlimited authority over immigration. Can you start from the beginning and tell us how the public, on the left in the Trump era and on the right under Barack Obama, got this issue so wrong in your view?
Rodrguez: The dramatic immigration policies of the Obama and Trump administrations have led people across the ideological spectrum to lament that we have an executive run amok, circumventing a Congress unable to act. But the turn to administrative action is not just the result of our current partisan polarization, nor is it necessarily constitutionally abusive. Today, the presidents power stems from the simple fact that he sits atop a massive deportation machinery, under construction since the early 20th century and increasingly militarized and flush with resources since 9/11. Couple this machinery with the fact that the law makes anyone who lacks immigration status deportableapproximately 11 million peopleand we see that the president is in charge of a massive shadow immigration system, with the authority and responsibility to determine who within it may stay and who shall be removed.
But even though the presidents power is broad, it is not unconstrained. The president and the immigration agencies still operate within the confines of federal statutes, as well as the Constitution. The Department of Homeland Security could not invent new grounds for deportation that Congress has not listed in the immigration code, for example. And even though some recent decisions of the Roberts court significantly weaken constitutional restraints on both Congress and the executive, principles of due process continue to cabin enforcement discretion.
In surveying the state of presidential immigration law, we point to numerous examples of executive actions that push against statutory limits: the Trump administrations all-out assault on asylum law or its questionable interpretation of statutes authorizing redirection of military construction funds to the border wall comes immediately to mind. But its also important to understand that the legal edifice Congress has created actually authorizes much of Trumps maximalist enforcement. In fact, the Trump administration is shining a light on wide-ranging and easy to exploit statutory delegations in immigration and beyond. It turns out that much of Trumps abusive behavior is actually a joint project between the political branches. This is the case for the administrations early ban on immigrants from several majority-Muslim countries, its expansion of summary deportation procedures, and even its drastic COVID-19 immigration restrictions.
And what role do the states play, say in the debate over sanctuary cities or, now, the presidents efforts to strip representation from areas with large immigrant populations?
Cox: State and local governments have tried to control immigrants and immigrant movement since the early days of the country. And they have never stopped importuning the federal governmentsometimes to pass restrictive immigration laws or to enforce more aggressively, other times to facilitate immigration or to keep federal agents out of their jurisdictions. Before California became a sanctuary jurisdiction, it tried to exclude Chinese immigrants from its territory in the late 19th century and keep undocumented children out of its schools in the late 20th.
In the book, we tell the story of how the federal government has tried to consolidate its control over immigration policy by sidelining state and local governments. The Supreme Court has greatly assisted this ambition by repeatedly declaring that the Constitution assigns immigration enforcement exclusively to the federal government. And yet, state and local officials remain a thorn in the federal governments side for at least two reasons.
The first is clearly political. Immigration has always been center stage in American politics, and local officials seek political advantage by opposing federal immigration policies, often when the opposite party occupies the presidency. Republican governors have challenged the Obama administrations efforts to resettle refugees from Syria and passed their own enforcement laws. Democratic governors have nurtured the sanctuary movement by refusing to assist the federal government in immigration enforcement.
The second reason for local influence is more mundane and bureaucratic but no less consequential. The federal government depends deeply on state and local law enforcement agencies to help enforce federal immigration law. State and local agencies are far more likely than DHS to come into contact with deportable noncitizens, and state and local criminal justice systems are therefore enmeshed with the immigration enforcement bureaucracy. This integration gives local agents considerable power: They can feed the federal enforcement regime, or they can stymie it by refusing to cooperate.
The meat of your critique is of the enforcement model that is now predominating immigration policy. Can you describe what that means and how it works?
Rodrguez: President Obama, who initiated DACA and supported major immigration reform that included legalization of the unauthorized population as a whole, was also labeled deporter in chief because of the hundreds of thousands of immigrants removed during his time in office. This juxtaposition is not a sign of hypocrisy. Instead, it underscores the sheer scale of the enforcement zone in immigration law. As part of the same set of responsibilities, the president can extend major relief as a matter of grace while still presiding over the continual churning of the deportation machine.
An enforcement mindset ultimately colors all presidents approaches to immigration policy; the use and calibration of force are central to the system. The Obama administrations response to the Central American refugee crisis at the Southern border perfectly reflects this. Senior officials ordered the detention of border crossers, including families with small children, in a conscious effort to deter future migrants with the threat of incarceration and to persuade some of those who had already arrived to abandon their asylum claims. The Trump administration took this enforcement approach to cruel and torturous new heights through its family separation policy. Across both administrations, the clash of the militarized border with migrants seeking protection has produced a humanitarian catastrophe with roots not just in the politics of the moment but also in the way enforcement has come to dominate immigration law and its administration.
So what do you say when CBP or ICE gets involved in what looks to be domestic policing, which we have seen at minimum in Portland? Is this a constitutional problem? A DHS problem? Or is it simply inevitable that what is lawful at the border eventually migrates into domestic policing?
Cox: What has happened in Portland appears to be an example of an administration enamored of law enforcement tools exploiting the powers Congress has clearly delegated to it. Under a federal statute, the Department of Homeland Security is expressly authorized to mobilize its officials, including those ordinarily assigned immigration functions, to assist in the protection of federal property. On the face of the law, this might seem like an unobjectionable power. But the statutory provision and the enormous law enforcement capacity it triggers underscore that DHS, by design, is not just about protecting the homeland from the outside but also about policing the interior. In other words, recent events are not about the border creeping into the interior but about how domestic law enforcement statutes can be distended.
We can do much better than our currentsystem. Cristina Rodrguez
The culture of DHS has also played a huge role in what has gone on. In our book, we write at length about the distilled enforcement mindset within the immigration enforcement bureaucracy, which since 9/11 has become increasingly militarized in its tools and ideology. Political officials at times have sought to curb that enforcement culture. But in the hands of current leadership, enforcement officials mission has expanded, and the statutes that authorize immigration police to take on other law enforcement functions have brought enforcement culture to political protests.
To be very clear, the fact that the administration can point to statutory authorization for the deployment of immigration officials to police the interior for nonimmigration reasons does not mean that the law enforcement actions in Portland have all been legal. Federal officials may well have exceeded their statutory authority by reaching beyond the protection of federal property. There is also reason to be concerned that they have violated protesters Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure and possibly even First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble, as a recent lawsuit by Protect Democracy powerfully alleges.
One good thing about your framing is that the intractable immigration problems start to look like they could have solutionspolitical and nonlegal solutionsthat could garner bipartisan support. Can you sketch out the fixes you envision?
Rodrguez: Political consensus in this domain has always been elusive, but we can do much better than our current system. The first step should be to shrink the enormous shadow immigration system that makes the logic of enforcement so central to immigration policymaking. We must adopt a legalization program, which would recognize in law what has for generations been understood informallythat many unauthorized noncitizens should not be deported. But real reform will also require new tools to prevent a similar unauthorized population from arising in the future. Advocates and reformers have long called for statutes of limitations on immigration offenses and for giving the executive the power to engage in rolling legalizations for settled immigrants. Congress must take these options seriously.
The second step would be to reimagine the executives expressly delegated powersbut not just to limit them. On the one hand, there are statutory fixes that we would support to make presidential power more accountable: We would cabin authority under INA Section 212(f), the suspension power on which President Trump relied for his travel ban and COVID-19 orders, by requiring that the president provide a strong factual basis for his assertion of the power to exclude in the interest of public safety. But we should also consider expanding the presidents formal role in admitting immigrants: If he is to be entrusted with the authority to exclude large groups of noncitizens pursuant to the suspension power, he should also be given clear authority to admit noncitizens to a legally secure (if temporary) status during times of crisis. Similarly, Congress should consider delegating to the executive branch a role in setting annual immigrant admissions numbersa function until now performed only by Congress, leaving quotas calcified in statute without regard to changing circumstances around the world.
Reforms to these delegated authorities should also include changes to the powers of ICE and CBP, the immigration police. Some ideas include restricting by statute the policing techniques these agencies use in the border region (where the Supreme Court has historically imposed fewer Fourth Amendment constraints), shrinking the definition of the border region, and narrowing or even ending most immigration detention.
These are grand legislative ambitions. But even if Congress remains paralyzed, there is room for important reform. We also explore how best to manage the enforcement regime as it currently stands through creative use of checks internal to the executive branch. It would be a mistake to respond to the Trump administration by using constitutional doctrine to restrain the presidents ability to control enforcement policy. So long as the shadow system continues to exist, doing so would have disastrous consequences. Immigration policy would be rudderless, controlled by low-level agents rather than high-level officials whose actions are more accountable and transparent. With a president like Trump, we may wind up with enforcement priorities we abhor. But leaving these fundamentally political choices in the hands of a semi-militarized law enforcement culture would be worse.
We can only realize these many goals, of course, if we see the presidency as a constructive institutionone that is salvageable and worth saving. Our book is in a sense a call to rejuvenate the presidency, too. Understanding the history of presidential control over immigration law offers us a sometimes depressing, often hopeful, window into the possibilities for renewal.
Readers like you make our work possible. Help us continue to provide the reporting, commentary, and criticism you wont find anywhere else.
How the president became the deporter in chief. - Slate
- What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean? | United States Courts - December 30th, 2022 [December 30th, 2022]
- Fourth Amendment EPIC - Electronic Privacy Information Center - December 30th, 2022 [December 30th, 2022]
- With The Onions support, satirist asks court to revive lawsuit against police who arrested him - SCOTUSblog - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Trump legal counsel vows 'Fourth Amendment based' challenge to Mar-a ... - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Utah Court of Appeals reverses sex offender's conviction, claiming state failed to prosecute case for 2 years - FOX 13 News Utah - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Accused killer sent home in Indianapolis triple murder trial; evidence thrown out - WTHR - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- What is Fog Reveal? A legal scholar explains the app some police forces are using to track people without a warrant - Cobb County Courier - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- Some Texas Lawyers Think Greg Abbott's Border Initiative Is UnconstitutionalBut They're Afraid to Challenge It - Texas Monthly - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- West Virginia midterm elections: What to know about voting in Mon County - The Daily Athenaeum - thedaonline - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- HIGHPEAK ENERGY, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance... - October 19th, 2022 [October 19th, 2022]
- WMU Law professor says if federal probe is opened, the 4th and 5th amendments will be key in Lyoya case - FOX 17 West Michigan News - April 28th, 2022 [April 28th, 2022]
- NJ Appeals Court: Lower Court Mixed Up 4th And 5th Amendment And Either Way, Phone Passcodes Can Be Compelled - Techdirt - April 28th, 2022 [April 28th, 2022]
- Department of Justice reaches agreement with Springfield about policing - Reminder Publications - April 28th, 2022 [April 28th, 2022]
- Op-ed: The Constitution in a time of change - Courier & Press - April 28th, 2022 [April 28th, 2022]
- Sinclair Closes Refinancing and Extension of STG Credit Facilities - Business Wire - April 28th, 2022 [April 28th, 2022]
- SP PLUS CORP : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an Off-Balance Sheet... - April 28th, 2022 [April 28th, 2022]
- 'You Have The Right To Remain Silent JUST KIDDING!' Says Biden Administration - Above the Law - April 28th, 2022 [April 28th, 2022]
- In review: key recent IP developments and trends in China - Lexology - April 28th, 2022 [April 28th, 2022]
- Syracuse police had other options for dealing with 8-year-old accused of stealing. They didn't use them. - City & State - April 28th, 2022 [April 28th, 2022]
- Jon Bernthal embedded with Baltimore police to play city's dirtiest cop in HBO's "We Own This City" - Salon - April 28th, 2022 [April 28th, 2022]
- When the government hides spy cameras on your land, fight back in court | Opinion - Tennessean - December 14th, 2021 [December 14th, 2021]
- Comparing drug patent linkage in China and the US - Lexology - December 14th, 2021 [December 14th, 2021]
- Rockford Black Lives Matter case over bond hearings is now in hands of US Court of Appeals - Rockford Register Star - December 14th, 2021 [December 14th, 2021]
- Man convicted of raping two lifeguards appeals to Va. Supreme Court over DNA collected from drinking straws - WTOP - December 14th, 2021 [December 14th, 2021]
- We Hear You: Parents Must Fight to Save Public Schools - Daily Signal - December 14th, 2021 [December 14th, 2021]
- Judge Denies Motion to Suppress DNA Evidence on Cup Used by Accused in Police Interview; Defense Claimed Client Denied Water on 6-Hour Trip, then... - November 29th, 2021 [November 29th, 2021]
- European Union: COVID-19 State aid update - State aid Temporary Framework prolonged and additional aid for recovery possible (6th Amendment) -... - November 29th, 2021 [November 29th, 2021]
- Govt That Spies Has Insatiable Appetite - KMJ Now - February 4th, 2021 [February 4th, 2021]
- No-knock search warrants began in Wisconsin, Rep. Myers wants to end them here - Wisconsin Examiner - February 4th, 2021 [February 4th, 2021]
- Close the Gaps - East Bay Express - February 4th, 2021 [February 4th, 2021]
- Is Americas Approach to Cannabis Racist? Study Shows Its Worse Than You Think - GreenState - February 4th, 2021 [February 4th, 2021]
- Federal appeals court allows reporters to sue SWAT officer who tear-gassed them during Ferguson protests - JURIST - February 4th, 2021 [February 4th, 2021]
- Invoking Scalia, Sotomayor Presses for Broad Fourth Amendment Protections - Reason - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- EFF Files Amicus Brief Arguing That Law Enforcement Access to Wi-Fi Derived Location Data Violates the Fourth Amendment - EFF - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- Main Points Of The Fourth Amendment To Chinese Patent Law (Approved On October 17, 2020, Effective From June 1, 2021) - Intellectual Property - China... - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- Column: Michigan can bring privacy into the 21st century - The Oakland Press - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- IMPD dismissed from Dreasjon Reed lawsuit - WTHR - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- The Criminal Justice of Amy Coney Barrett - Washington Monthly - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- A guide to the statewide constitutional amendments on the ballot in November 2020 - Yellowhammer News - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- RUTHS HOSPITALITY GROUP, INC. : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an... - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- Assembly Committee Clears Verrelli & Benson Bill Protecting Employees from Employer Tracking Device Violations - InsiderNJ - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- The tyranny of the experts - Leader & Times - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- Mike R. Galli is recognized by Continental Who's Who - PRNewswire - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- Mail Voting Litigation in 2020, Part II: Submission of Mail-In Ballots - Lawfare - October 30th, 2020 [October 30th, 2020]
- In its 4th revision to the SEC, Palantir tries to explain what the hell is going on - TechCrunch - September 20th, 2020 [September 20th, 2020]
- City of Pierre among South Dakota towns ordered to pay a total of $440000 because of forced catheterizations - Drgnews - September 20th, 2020 [September 20th, 2020]
- Former Torrington officer seeks to have evidence suppressed before trial - Scottsbluff Star Herald - September 20th, 2020 [September 20th, 2020]
- Council To Have One-Day Session To Learn About Police - The Rhino TImes - September 20th, 2020 [September 20th, 2020]
- Things to Know Before Your Neighborhood Installs an Automated License Plate Reader - EFF - September 20th, 2020 [September 20th, 2020]
- Attorney argues Haynes and his brother bribed witness to recant his testimony in 1999 murder case - Kankakee Daily Journal - September 20th, 2020 [September 20th, 2020]
- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgs Lasting Impact on U.S. Traffic Laws - The Art of Gears - September 20th, 2020 [September 20th, 2020]
- Editorial, August 10, 2020: Your cellphone might be "Big Brother" - Richmond.com - August 10th, 2020 [August 10th, 2020]
- Legal Brief: Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment - SecurityInfoWatch - August 10th, 2020 [August 10th, 2020]
- Common Ways to Fight Against a Drug Possession Charge - Student Assembly of the State University of New York - August 10th, 2020 [August 10th, 2020]
- Trump Judge Casts Deciding Vote to Grant Qualified Immunity on First Amendment Retaliation Claim: Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears - People For the... - August 10th, 2020 [August 10th, 2020]
- Did Judge Reeves Reach the Correct Result in Jamison v. McClendon? - Reason - August 10th, 2020 [August 10th, 2020]
- The Police Lie. All the Time. Can Anything Stop Them? - Slate - August 10th, 2020 [August 10th, 2020]
- The Court of Justice of the European Union in Schrems II: The impact of GDPR on data flows and national security - Brookings Institution - August 10th, 2020 [August 10th, 2020]
- Calls for police reform and racial justice spur a flurry of resolutions before the ABA House - ABA Journal - August 10th, 2020 [August 10th, 2020]
- Reporters Committee amicus brief in Alasaad v. Wolf - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - August 8th, 2020 [August 8th, 2020]
- Meet the Judge Who Thinks a Black Man Walking Around Is a Crime - Rewire.News - August 8th, 2020 [August 8th, 2020]
- Who will police Springfields cops? - The Boston Globe - August 8th, 2020 [August 8th, 2020]
- 'Defund the police' is not a real reform strategy - The Maine Wire - August 8th, 2020 [August 8th, 2020]
- Assessing Indias obsession with data localisation - Deccan Herald - August 8th, 2020 [August 8th, 2020]
- How 9/11 and the US Civil War provided the framework for federal agents in Portland - News@Northeastern - August 7th, 2020 [August 7th, 2020]
- Senators Graham And Blumenthal Can't Even 'Earn' The EARN IT Act: Looking To Sneak Vote Through Without Debate - Techdirt - August 6th, 2020 [August 6th, 2020]
- The Constitutional Case Against Trumps Use of the Department of Homeland Security - The New Yorker - August 6th, 2020 [August 6th, 2020]
- 'Trump's Troops Are Breaking the Law and Creating Chaos' - FAIR - August 6th, 2020 [August 6th, 2020]
- Portland demonstrates that government spying on citizens has become commonplace, and easy - Washington Times - August 6th, 2020 [August 6th, 2020]
- Plainclothes NYC police grab protester and throw her into unmarked car - WSWS - August 6th, 2020 [August 6th, 2020]
- Majority of Kingston aldermen view Kingstonian project tax pact favorably, with conditions - The Daily Freeman - August 4th, 2020 [August 4th, 2020]
- Officers on the street without ID or insignia is dangerous - News-Press Now - August 4th, 2020 [August 4th, 2020]
- "It's the decent thing to do" - News - Fowler Tribune - August 4th, 2020 [August 4th, 2020]
- What would the Founding Fathers do? - Smoky Mountain News - August 4th, 2020 [August 4th, 2020]
- Want To Reform The Police? Get Rid Of Qualified Immunity - WBUR - August 3rd, 2020 [August 3rd, 2020]
- Who is Zane James, why were his brother and father detained by police in Cottonwood Heights protest? - MEAWW - August 3rd, 2020 [August 3rd, 2020]
- Unpacking DHS's Troubling Explanation of the Portland Van Video - Lawfare - August 1st, 2020 [August 1st, 2020]
- Capitol Hill grilling of tech CEOs highlights expansion of 'geofence warrants' - WRAL.com - August 1st, 2020 [August 1st, 2020]
- R Sikoryaks latest project is a word-for-word adaptation of the U.S. Constitution - Boing Boing - August 1st, 2020 [August 1st, 2020]