Suchergebnisse

This brief narrative captures the second wave of "immigrant sanctuary"—a term used to describe the state and local government practice of restricting police departments from participation in immigration enforcement. The immigrant sanctuaries of the Homeland Security era are of unique significance given the ongoing dialogue among legal scholars regarding the significance of local law enforcement participation in national and domestic security administration after 2001, as well as the legal framework structuring cooperative security governance. Despite the broad powers wielded by the federal government in security administration, the Supreme Court's holding in Printz v. United States serves as a substantial check against federal overreach. Hand wringing by legal scholars over the Court's reasoning in Printz and the rigid rules against commandeering attached to this reasoning have obscured the fact that the case now stands as a bulwark against the expansion of federal authority over state, county, and local police. Given the holding in Printz, ICE cannot require the active participation of subnational police in immigration enforcement and must instead—despite its previous assertions to the contrary—solicit this support through state and local governments who may, in turn, participate in immigration enforcement of their own volition. In the empirical portion of this article, I present the case of immigrant sanctuary as a platform from which to consider the promise and peril of anti-commandeering jurisprudence in the Homeland Security era. My empirical analysis of immigrant sanctuary is based on an original dataset I created, made up of coded data from seventy-five immigrant sanctuary laws and policies and basic demographic information from the associated jurisdictions. I build a backdrop upon which to consider the data analysis in Part I, by explicating the anti-commandeering rule and outlining the legal debate over its costs, benefits, and constitutionality in the Homeland Security era. In Part II, I provide an ...

The dissertation investigates the reemergence of "immigrant sanctuary" in the United States between 2001 and 2008. Immigrant sanctuaries are the product of state and local law or administrative policy that restricts cooperation between police and federal immigration enforcement authorities. The idea of the immigrant sanctuary arose among churches in the 1980s and returned in the 2000s among subnational governments in response to new federal perspectives on domestic security. Immigration scholars have explained contemporary immigrant sanctuaries and other subnational policies benefitting immigrants as "pro-immigrant" and as a function of liberal ideology. Upon conducting historical-comparative analysis, qualitative comparative analysis, and case study analysis of immigrant sanctuaries in the Homeland Security era, I find that the phenomenon grows largely from a desire among state and local jurisdictions to maintain autonomy in crime governance and, similarly, a political orientation against expansive federal government power. I argue that this sensibility is trans-partisan and should be distinguished from the politics of immigration. I show that public support for autonomous and decentralized crime governance has historical precedent in the subnational sanctuaries of the Prohibition era of the 1920s and also that subnational sanctuaries, regardless of their underlying motivation, can be challenged and subverted by reports of sensational crimes committed by the social group the sanctuary is meant to protect. Moreover, even when a jurisdiction continues its support of sanctuary in light of such reports, moral panics by constituencies and public officials external to the jurisdiction are sufficient to erode sanctuary policy and practice. More broadly, the dissertation presents findings and analytical frameworks that provide insight into contestation between the federal government and subnational governments regarding the quality and scope of crime governance. These insights are particularly valuable at a national moment in which federal officials claim integrated and collaborative security administration as a prerequisite for strong domestic security.

This Article presents findings from an analysis of police chokehold policies enacted at the federal, state, and municipal levels of government. In addition to identifying the jurisdictions that restricted police chokeholds in the wake of George Floyd's death on May 25, 2020, the Article conveys (via analysis of an original dataset) the considerable variance in the quality of police chokehold regulation. While many jurisdictions regulate the police chokehold, the strength of such regulations should not be taken for granted. Police chokehold policies vary by the type of chokehold barred ("air choke" and/or carotid choke), the degree of the chokehold restriction, an officer's "duty to intervene" when observing improper police application of the chokehold, and the type of sanction attached to a chokehold policy violation (criminal and/or administrative). Following the presentation of chokehold policy variance, the authors recommend an absolute bar of both air chokes and carotid chokes. However, in contemplating such a policy, policymakers should consider whether an officer authorized to use deadly force but barred from applying the air or carotid choke will be inclined to use his firearm as a force alternative.