The Intersection Between Immigration Enforcement and Civil Rights

What happens when constitutional rights are ignored in order to secure national safety? This question has become the center of debates and court cases across the country, often the result of new policies initiated throughout the last two decades. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has become a common sight throughout communities, instilling the fear of deportation within minorities. The tension between the agency and the citizens of the country has become widespread and publicized, contributing to protests and outrage fighting against their presence on streets. The issue with the agency resides in its failure to uphold basic constitutional rights and its racial profiling towards immigrants. It is clear that immigration enforcement practices, particularly within government agencies, cross constitutional limits. This contributes to violations of due process and protections guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Immigration enforcement in America functions through a series of federal statutes and local agreements. Federal acts such as the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) enable federal agencies to arrest and deport violators of immigration laws. Specifically, Section 287(g) of the act authorizes local law enforcement to assist and collaborate with federal agencies in detaining undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, rather than promoting public safety, this act provides opportunities for widespread civil rights violations. The issue is mainly centered around the Constitution, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment secures individuals from unreasonable searches and guarantees equal protections, most notably due process. Contrastingly, immigration services inconsistently apply such protection under the guise of national security. Such inconsistencies were shown when numerous legalized citizens were targeted by ICE agents solely based on accent, appearance, or assumed immigration status. Such actions have led to public concerns of infringement on basic constitutional rights, destroying the trust many citizens have in law enforcement. Several immigrant-based communities are subjected to aggressive enforcement tactics, increasing the fear of deportation among immigrants alike. Essentially, the system designed to uphold immigration laws is committing unconstitutional practices itself.

Several court cases accentuate the contrast between immigration enforcement and civil rights. Cases such as Arizona v. United States (2012) argued over the controversial SB 1070 law, which was created for the local police to gain the power to detain any suspected undocumented individuals. The Supreme Court rejected three provisions of the law that enabled that power and reaffirmed one provision that potentially led to increased racial profiling. The Court stated that the issue of immigration was a federal responsibility, although local law enforcement would have the power to request immigration status during lawful stops. An ongoing case that represents this problem is Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, a Supreme Court case that is a class action lawsuit against ICE agents’ practices in making immigration-related detainments and arrests in the Los Angeles area. The case revolves around the unconstitutional practices federal immigration agents have enforced throughout the past year to detain immigrants. The plaintiffs argue that such stops are unlawful as they violate the Fourth Amendment, which requires “reasonable suspicion.” Comparatively, many agents rely upon ethnicity, language spoken, and the jobs these individuals work in. This underlines the injustice in the actions of law enforcement and the transgression upon individual liberties. This particular case has led to many members of the Latino community within Los Angeles to question if those in custody are provided their Fourteenth Amendment rights, specifically the right to due process and equal protection. The tactics used to detain individuals are inherently harmful and cause more speculation about whether the government is truly providing the resources for a fair trial.

The connection between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies presents a destructive convergence of law enforcement and immigration policies. As local law officials begin to detain immigrants, they undermine the integrity of the Constitution itself and the community served. Numerous cases of legal immigrants being deported have covered headlines, debating whether the government is truly trying to create a safer America or detaining those who are immigrants. The aggressive tactics used to arrest people have struck fear into communities all over the nation, especially those who have legal documentation. A major example of this is the recent $100,000 supplemental fee on H1B petitions; this prevents companies from hiring skilled workers located out of the country. Immigration agencies must prioritize accountability, reform, and strict regulation of civil rights when conducting business. Congress must make significant addendums to laws, expanding more on the discriminatory practices used to detain certain individuals. Ultimately, immigration policy should not be pursued if the consequence is a violation of constitutional liberties.

The convergence of immigration enforcement and civil rights presents itself as a predominant constitutional challenge. The current system compromises due process, equal protection, and the freedom from unlawful searches or seizures. The cases Arizona v. United States and Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem both illustrate the struggle to define the border between legitimate enforcement and civil rights violations. Immigration systems must respect the rights provided by the Constitution regardless of citizenship status. America’s strength revolves around its adherence to equality and liberty. The protection of civil rights will continue to remain an imperative topic within the country if it continues to devolve.