By Chip Brown, guest columnist | That there are approximately 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States prompts calls from some quarters that they be summarily rounded up and deported. But not only is that much easier said than done, it will—in South Carolina and all other states—require the co-opting of local law enforcement agencies by the federal government and be very costly. Inevitably, it will result in violations of constitutional rights of American citizens who are inadvertently caught up in the dragnet. Here’s why:
The co-opting of local law enforcement officers (LEOs)
The rounding up, detention, processing and deportation of millions of illegal aliens is a labor-intensive undertaking.
In the U.S., there is no national police force and no federal agency with enough personnel to carry off this mass deportation task, absent the use of the military. The bulk of general law enforcement in the United Sates is carried out by local law enforcement agencies. So the federal government must rely to an inordinate degree upon South Carolina’s municipal and county law enforcement agencies and officers (and those of other states as well). These agencies will be required to redirect their general law enforcement efforts to effectuate a mass deportation of millions of illegals. The usual public safety functions of the local LEOs will be subordinated to the federal demands, since federal law preempts local law. This shift in focus will be felt by those in the community who have long relied on local LEOs for the protection of people and property they afford.
The mandates of this proposed mass deportation will impinge upon, if not reorder, the public safety priorities that local government officials have set for their communities. Thus, in addition to a fiscal impact, there will be a policy impact. Police chiefs, sheriffs and members of councils, through their budgets, policies, and administrative decisions, have established public safety priorities and routines based upon community needs and what they can afford. Those would at least be disrupted, if not overwhelmed, by the federal preemption. If a law enforcement agency cannot perform function A (say, mass civil immigration law enforcement) without taking time and/or money away from function B (say, general criminal law enforcement and related public safety services), one of the two has to be sacrificed. A mass deportation effort will result in general criminal law enforcement being sacrificed.
The cost to local governments
I would caution South Carolina’s city and county council members and local taxpayers to consider also the fiscal impact a mass deportation effort could have on their jurisdictions.
Any such effort would be an unfunded mandate on local government. All states’ right advocates in the General Assembly should recoil at the costs and policy implications of such a mandate. Whether one agrees that local law enforcement agencies should take on responsibilities that are traditionally the province of federal immigration agencies, once local governments are compelled to assume that responsibility, there will inevitably be a fiscal impact on them.
Even if there were to be federal funds appropriated as aid to local jurisdictions for the purpose of rounding up illegal aliens, if past experience is any example, that funding would lag and, in the end, be insufficient to cover local government costs for their participation in the effort. Local taxpayers will have to pick up the difference. Aside from that, there is no way to compensate local governments and their citizens for the undesirable consequences that result from a suspension or reduction of the general law enforcement function to accommodate the mass deportation function.
Constitutional violations, resulting litigation and associated costs
It is a credible argument to warn that the proposed mass roundup and deportation of illegal aliens will net not just illegal aliens but law-abiding citizens as well. That will likely result in some rights violations, which could well result in some legal judgments of liability against individuals and jurisdictions. And, that would result in some measure of public expenditure locally.
Subjecting local governments to the potential liabilities inherent in mass deportation efforts is irresponsible. Therefore, the federal government, if it pursues a mass deportation strategy, should fully indemnify local officials and agencies against legal challenges that may arise out of their enforcement of immigration pertaining to deportation efforts.
When this nation and this state are faced with a fait accompli (such as the existence of millions of illegal aliens within their borders), the prudent and most promising response is to frankly acknowledge the intractability of the situation (and the impossibility of obtaining an ideal solution) and focus their energy and resources on making the best of a bad situation. Wishing for the status quo ante and exciting among the public expectations that such an ideal solution is feasible is disingenuous if not demagogic. Ignoring that reality will lead to failed policy solutions.
Chip Brown is a teaching associate at Coastal Carolina University. Have a comment? Send to: feedback@statehousereport.com.
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!