Cis Trading System

Hva du må gjøre som entreprenør for byggebransjen (CIS) 4. Kontroller underleverandører Før du kan betale en ny underleverandør, må du verifisere dem med HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). HMRC vil fortelle deg om de er registrert for byggebransjen (CIS), hvilken fradragsrate du skal bruke eller hvis du kan betale dem uten å trekke fradrag. Du må også kontrollere underleverandører du har brukt før, hvis du ikke har tatt med dem på en CIS-avkastning i nåværende eller siste 2 skatteår. Hvordan verifisere Du kan verifisere underleverandører ved å bruke: Hva du trenger: Sørg for at du har: Din Unique Taxpayer Reference (UTR) referansenummeret til HMRC-kontoret ditt HMRC-arbeidsgiverhenvisning Du trenger også dine underleverandører: Juridisk firmanavn (eller handelsnavn de ga da de registrerte seg med CIS) UTR National Insurance Number, hvis de er et enkeltaksjeselskapsregistreringsnummer hvis de er et aksjeselskap Du kan bekrefte flere underleverandører på en gang ved hjelp av EDI-systemet (Electronic Data Interchange). Konto, jobbkostnad og CIS-programvare for Builders Accounting programvare som er skreddersydd for UK CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY CIA-programvarepakken, er skrevet og utviklet utelukkende for britisk byggebransje. Det finnes ingen tilleggspakker eller regneark som er nødvendige for å dekke unike byggebransjens behov som CIS, Job Costing. Retentions. Underleverandører regnskap, Applikasjoner (Stage Betalinger) og sertifiseringer. Dette betyr at vår byggeprogramvare er mye enklere å bruke enn annen programvare på markedet. SPAR TID med fullt integrert byggeprogramvare Du trenger bare å skrive inn informasjon når CIA er utviklet spesielt for den britiske byggebransjen og ikke en generell regnskapsprosedyrepakke som er modifisert for byggherrer. Vi vet hva en byggherre trenger Med flertallet av andre byggeprogrammer, må brukerne opprettholde ulike regneark for å registrere transaksjoner som er spesifikke for byggevirksomhet som CIS-fradrag, Jobbkostnad og Retentions, og deretter oppdatere et kontosystem. Fordi CIA er en fullt integrert regnskapsprosesspakke, er en oppføring alt nødvendig for å oppdatere alle relevante områder. For eksempel, når du skriver inn en skattepliktig underleverandørfaktura, blir alle kontoer, CIS Ledger, Moms og Jobbkalkulering oppdatert samtidig. SPAR PENGER med detaljert jobbkostnadsprogramvare Jobbkalkulering er like viktig som kontiene til de fleste av våre kunder. Da fakturaer inngår i CIA, blir kostnadene automatisk tildelt de aktuelle jobbene, slik at du kan sammenligne de faktiske kostnadene med budsjettene du har tillatt. Med CIA Job Costing-programvare kan du umiddelbart oppdage når du har blitt overladet, eller oppdag anomalier i budsjettene dine. HOLD OPP TIL DATO med endring av lovgivning Med CIA mottar du automatisk oppgraderinger når og når Storbritannias lovgivning endres. Når CIS-ordningen ble introdusert i 2007, hadde brukerne allerede oppdatert programvare som gjenspeiler nye krav. Brukere var også klare for den nye lovgivningen i 2010 som krever at momsmeldinger skal produseres online. PAYE-endringer oppdateres også automatisk, og PAYE Plus er anerkjent av HMRC i samsvar med REI-krav (Real Time Information). Behold alt du trenger på ett sted med vår CIS SOFTWARE Fra verifisering og betaling av nye underleverandører. å utstede månedlige avkastninger og e-postopplysninger, vil vår programvare hjelpe. CIA kontrollerer underleverandører automatisk ved hjelp av en direkte kobling med HMRC. Når du betaler en underleverandør, vil CIA vite om du må trekke skatt og i hvilken grad, vil den selv automatisk beregne den for deg. Hver måned må du returnere HMRC med detaljer om alle betalinger som er gjort til underleverandører. Vår CIS-programvare vil gjøre dette automatisk ved hjelp av HMRC Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). Løft INVOICES raskt og nøyaktig CIA-programvare lar deg enkelt identifisere hva som må legges til fakturaen når du fakturerer kunden. Dette hjelper deg med å unngå å glemme å fakturere noen mindre varer eller variasjoner, og du vil aldri igjen miste kostnadene blant den opprinnelige kontrakten. CIA inneholder også oppbevaringsdagbok som oppdateres etter hvert trinns betaling er behandlet og påminner deg når oppbevaringsbetalingen forfaller. Regnskap, jobbkostnad og CIS-programvare for byggere Byggindustrierkontoer (CIA) - programvare er en konstruksjonsprogramvare utviklet for den britiske byggebransjen og dekker CIS-ordningen og jobbkostnadene. Har vært tilknyttet Clipit siden starten, og har alltid funnet programvaren perfekt for å jobbe innen byggebransjen. Det er lett å navigere rundt og hjelpelinjen er uvurderlig til tider. Teknisk Mekanisk Service Godt pålitelig system med utmerket støtte fra Teamet på CLiP IT. Programvarerapportene for både kontoene og kostnadsberegningen er klare og konsise og CLiP IT vil alltid prøve og matche dine spesifikke Programvarekrav der det er mulig. Jeg er glad for å være en referanseside. Davies Homes (Somerton) Ltd CLiP IT Solutions-programvare har brakt pusten til vår virksomhet, det brukervennlige grensesnittet og rapporteringsfleksibiliteten har gitt en ny dimensjon som dovetails våre forretningsaktiviteter med vårt regnskapssystem der alle andre mislyktes. Det er virkelig regnskap for byggebransjen Vi har vært veldig fornøyd med hjelpen, støtten og den generelle driften av CLiP IT-programvaren, teamet er alle svært kunnskapsrike i systemet, og i sjeldne tilfeller kan problemer ikke løses umiddelbart, de vil jobbe med det og holde deg informert om fremdriften til enhver tid. Fairways Engineering Ltd Vi har brukt CLiP IT Software i en årrekke og har vært mer enn fornøyd med ytelsen. Den oppfyller alle regnskapsbehovene til et byggefirma, nøyaktig jobbkostnad, retensjonssporing og brukervennlige CIS-moduler. Lønnspakken er også veldig brukervennlig og oppdateringsinformasjon lett å følge. Cadman-gruppen Vi var tiltrukket av programvaren fordi problemene spesielt for vår bransje var tydelig forstått av CLiP IT, og det var ikke bare en standardpakke med en tilleggsbygging. Vi har funnet programvaren enkel å bruke, og den har gitt oss mye nyttig informasjon. Vi har alltid funnet støtten til å være veldig god, med et raskt og kunnskapsrikt svar på eventuelle problemer vi har hatt. Robore Cuts Limited Vi har brukt ClipIT Solutions siden 2008, og det har vist seg å være en god programvarepakke, enkel å bruke, med et utmerket supportteam. Ville ikke nøle med å anbefale dette selskapet. Vi har brukt CLiP IT og CIA-pakken siden starten, og har funnet det enkelt og enkelt å bruke, med enkle å følge stier og stor informasjon tilgjengelig. Back-up-tjenesten er uten sidestykke. Vi har ingen nøle med å anbefale CLiP IT s-pakken til alle perspektivbrukere. James Wilkes Limited Dens som om CIA (Construction Industry Accounts) er skrevet av noen som satt i stolen min. Jeg kan ikke tro hvor lett det er å bruke. Jeg har brukt Construct for de siste fem årene, og jeg skulle ønske jeg visste om deg før da. Jeg får all jobbkostnads - og ledelsesinformasjonen jeg trenger uten oppstyr i det hele tatt. Lloyd Clough amp Sons Ltd Støttetjenesten er flott. Behagelige, kunnskapsrike pasientfolk er der for å hjelpe på slutten av en telefonlinje. Det er den beste tekniske støtten vi noensinne har hatt. McCane Construction Ltd Når jeg nærmer seg slutten av mitt første år som jobber med deg, vil jeg bare si takk til alle Clip It-supportteamet for å være så effektiv, kunnskapsrik og nyttig. Alle spørsmål har blitt behandlet tålmodig og på en vennlig og lett forståelig måte er det veldig beroligende å vite at hjelp er bare en telefonsamtale unna. Dette produktet har vår anbefaling, det er brukervennlig og back-up-teamet er utmerket. R Molding Amp Co (Salisbury Ltd) Vi endret vår datakontoprogramvare til CLiP IT Solutions i 2005 og har vært veldig fornøyd med systemet og sikkerhetskopiert støtte mottatt i løpet av denne tiden. Installasjonen og overføringen av data fra vårt gamle system var rett fram og vi finner CLiP IT Software brukervennlig, spesielt CIS-slutten av ja prosedyrer. Personalet har alltid vært hjelpsomme og høflige når vi har bedt om hjelp. Perry Amp Son Ltd Vårt firma har brukt CIA-programvaren de siste syv årene og har alltid vært svært fornøyd med programvaren, dens evner og støtten som tilbys. Det gjør oss i stand til å drive vårt firma effektivt og nøyaktig, og vi vil ikke nøle med å anbefale det til andre selskaper for fullstendig regnskaps - og jobbkostnadsbestemmelse. John Scott Builders Etter å ha brukt min Lite-versjon av CIA de siste 6 månedene, kan jeg ikke tenke på nok gode ting å si om det, og ja de fleste av disse er virkelig skrevet av fornøyde kunder. Hvordan jeg skulle ønske jeg hadde kjøpt programvaren fra første dag av begynnelsen av vårt selskap - kostnaden av det ville vært langt oppveist av besparelsene det ville ha gjort oss. Urban Jungle Construction Ltd Jeg ble med i Northcott Building Contractors i august 2007. Min posisjon er kontoransvarlig. Dette selskapet hadde nylig overgått fra Sage til CIA-programvare og som sådan hadde lite kunnskap om at systemet skulle passere meg. Etter å ha brukt systemet kan jeg ærlig si at jeg har funnet det veldig brukervennlig og av stor verdi for våre forretningsbehov. Northcott Building Contractors Ltd Vår virksomhet har vokst og endret seg betydelig de siste seks årene, men en konstant de siste fem årene har vært påliteligheten av vår byggeprogramvare. CIA Software tilbyr den aller beste kunde og teknisk støtte jeg noensinne har møtt. D Whittle Construction Ltd Jeg nøl ikke med å anbefale Clip IT Solutions til alle som vil høre, faktisk ville jeg gå så langt som å si at det er sannsynligvis den beste enkeltinvesteringen jeg noensinne har gjort på vegne av selskapet, det er egentlig så bra Vi har brukt CLiP IT Software i tre år og finner det veldig brukervennlig med enkle innspill og klare rapporter. Det er spesielt nyttig for CIS, og jeg har funnet automatisk månedlig avkastning og underleverandør verifikasjoner raskt og effektivt. Eventuelle forespørsler om sikkerhetskopiering eller endringer og krav har blitt besvart raskt, og ansatte er svært hjelpsomme og imøtekommende. Gynn Construction Ltd Vi har brukt CIA-programvaren i flere år og har alltid funnet systemet til å dekke alt vi trengte. For 18 måneder siden la vi til valgene Tailorable, CRM, Document Generation, Calendar og Work Task. Jeg vil (og regelmessig gjøre) sterkt anbefale de ekstra modulene for CIA-programvaren, jeg lurer ofte på hvordan vi klarte før vi implementerte det nye systemet. Barnet Window Company Ltd Selv om vårt firma har gått gjennom en overgangsperiode de siste 6 årene da vi har implementert ny programvare, har vi følt oss sikre på at Clipit Solutions alltid vil forbli som vår foretrukne programvarepakkepakke. Vi bruker systemet for PAYE, CIS, Sales amp Purchase Ledger, Job Costing Rapporter, Retention Diaries og Bank Avstemming. Cuttle Construction Limited George Bros (Builders) Ltd har brukt Clip IT-regnskapspakken i mange år, og kjente også medarbeiderne i lang tid. Vi ville ikke nøle med å anbefale sin konto pakke for alle i byggebransjen. Jobbkalkulasjoner, kjøpsleder amp nominell hovedbok oppdatert fra en oppføring. George Bros (Builders) Ltd vil gjerne uttrykke vår takk til kundeservicehjelpen din. Tjenesten du gir er profesjonell, vennlig og veldig støttende. Emerton Roofing (Western) Limited Vi har vært med Clipit Solutions nå siden 2006, og årsaken til at du valgte dem over andre systemer var faktumet at det er rettet mot byggebransjen og forsyner oss med alt vi trenger fra PAYE til CIS, fakturering, applikasjoner for utbetalinger og jobbkostnader sammen med veldig gode kontoer. Mannings Harlequin Ltd Vi har brukt Clip It siden 2006, og hele laget er alltid veldig effektivt, vennlig og høflig. Støttelinjen gjør det mulig å løse problemer umiddelbart og raskt. Enhver endring i lovgivningen behandles på en profesjonell måte og endringer i programvare er alltid brukervennlige. Hele pakken lar oss drive vår virksomhet effektivt og med tillit. Sibley Bros LLP CLiP IT-løsninger har gitt en førsteklasses pakke som gir detaljert analyse for alle våre regnskaps - og kostnadsbehov, pluss bonusen med utmerket sikkerhetskopiering som gir rask støtte - anbefales. Bramber Construction Co. Ltd Regnskapsprogramvaren er tydelig og grei, og gjør at MOMS og CIS returnerer enkelt. Fakturering, jobbkostnad og rapportering gjøres enkelt og i tilfeller når vi trenger ekstra hjelp, er støttetjenesten lett tilgjengelig, svært kunnskapsrik og viktigst veldig tålmodig. TW Construct Ltd Jeg vil gjerne si en stor takk til alle på Clip it Solutions , siden jeg har klart i klientpakken i Clip it Solutions (i mange år), har det gjort arbeidet mitt og kontoen jevnt, og jeg vet at hvis jeg har noen problemer, er hjelp bare en telefonsamtale unna, og løses alltid effektivt. Jeg vil anbefale disse produktene til alle som tenker på changenew-pakken. Arien Contractors Ltd Jeg har brukt ClipIt i mange år, jeg finner systemet veldig godt egnet for selskapets behov, støttepersonalet og veldig hjelpsomme og effektive, og jeg vil gjerne ikke bruke noen annen pakke. Morris Construction Ltd Clip IT Solutions tilleggsforbindelser til HMRC er epitom av brukervennlig, som er den samlede pakken. Jeg har brukt noen skreddersydd programvare tidligere, som har forsøkt å innlemme mer enn bare de vanlige regnskapsfunksjonene, og resultatet har vært en komplett kamel (det er en hest som er konstruert av komiteen) Støtten vi mottar er det beste vi noensinne har hatt . Det er alltid noen som svarer på spørsmålene våre og sorterer ut eventuelle spørsmål. Vi vil anbefale CLiP IT til noen. Personalet er veldig hjelpsomme og høflige. Cumberlidge Tilers Ltd Jeg kan anbefale ClipIT for Construction. Vi er et nytt selskap, og mange av dagens programmer er kostbare og kompliserte. CIA er ekstremt brukervennlig og støttepersonalet er lett tilgjengelig for eventuelle spørsmål. Jeg kunne ikke gjøre uten dette programmet. Det er virkelig det beste. Flooring Solutions (NE) Ltd Etter å ha vært i finanssektoren i byggebransjen i mange år og har prøvd utallige Accounting Software Packages (inkludert flere skreddersydde pakker), kan jeg virkelig si at jeg har vært mest imponert over CLiPIT Solutions, så mye slik at jeg har brukt sin Construction Industry Accounts-programvare i over 4 år nå. CIA av Clip It Solutions er en utmerket programvarepakke. Det fjerner alle stressene. Det er enkelt, enkelt og effektivt å bruke. Kundeservice er flott, alltid villig og klar til å hjelpe med tålmodighet og forståelse. Jeg vil anbefale programvaren og hele selskapet uten en annen tanke. På APEC har vi søkt etter en programvarepakke som vi kunne bruke til å drive kontoer og hjelpe med prosjektkostnadene uten å være for komplisert. Det har vært et langt og ubrukbart søk selv å ty til å ha vår egen programvare skreddersydd, da vi fant CIA som umiddelbart har forandret måten vi driver vår virksomhet på, slik at begge styremedlemmer har all den informasjonen vi vil ha på fingertuppene. Fra vår første forespørsel til Clipit har vi vært svært fornøyd med profesjonaliteten og kunnskapen til teamet på Yeovil. Installasjonen, oppsettet og opplæringen gikk veldig jevnt, og oppdatoer, veiledning og råd har vært førsteklasses. Vi anerkjente straks fordelene med pakken når CIS rapportering, gjør momsmeldinger, koster jobber og holder orden på oppbevaring. Passmore Builders Ltd Pakken levert av Clip IT Solutions er utmerket. CIA-pakken er skreddersydd for byggebransjen og fungerer perfekt, og alle ledgers er enkle å bruke. Vi har vært veldig fornøyd med tjenesten siden begynnelsen og aldri føler at vi ikke kan hente telefonen og stille et spørsmål, uansett hvor dumt det kan virke, blir vi alltid behandlet med tålmodighet og hjelp. Takk Clip IT Heritage Cornwall Ltd Bare ønsket å slippe en linje for å fortelle deg at tjenesten og støtten fra din bedrift til dags dato har vært førsteklasses. Alle har vært hjelpsomme, og spesielt Melanie har opprettholdt en veldig rolig, hyggelig og hjelpsom tone til tross for at jeg bombarderer henne med spørsmål i løpet av den siste uken eller to. Jeg er veldig glad for å si at vi har vært og forblir veldig fornøyd med pakkenes kvalitet, den gode verdien av innledende kjøpesum og den rimelige årlige lisensavgiften som har fortsatt å holde oss oppdatert. Støttepersonalet har vært veldig hjelpsom, og sammen med vår egen kontoavdeling sikrer jeg at jeg alltid er oppdatert med hvordan vårt selskap utfører. Jeg er veldig imponert over tjenesten jeg fortsatt mottar fra CLiP IT Solutions. Alle er alltid veldig hjelpsomme og munter, det er en glede å ringe. Systemet oppdateres kontinuerlig og eventuelle problemer sorteres veldig raskt. CLiP IT Solutions har alltid syntes å bevege seg med kundenes behov, og levere vennlig og hjelpsom støtte. Fortsett det gode arbeidet Rosemead Developments Limited Bare et kort notat for å takke alle i organisasjonen for din fullstendige profesjonalitet, effektivitet, hjelp og veiledning. Systemstøtte har aldri vært så bra, og dette er fra en tannregistrert regnskapsfører som har jobbet med mange systemer og systemstøtteteam. Takk skal du ha. Lavelle Electrical Contractors CIA har vært så lett å navigere med alle opplysninger og rapportere jeg muligens kan be om uten komplekse titler og alternativer som ikke er relevante. CIA håndterer fakturaer, applikasjoner og retusjoner som gjør det veldig enkelt å spore hva vi skylder, hva vi skylder og når. Arbeidskostnadsverktøyet er så enkelt, men så nyttig. Løpet er veldig enkelt å bruke allokering av kostnader til jobber i svært enkle trinn. Warner Contracting Ltd Vi er så fornøyd med pakken, den tiden det tar har halvert ved å implementere CLiP IT Software. Last ned en PDF fra denne backgrounder Dan Cadman er stipendiat ved Senter for utlendingsstudier. Mark H. Metcalf er en tidligere dommer ved innvandringsretten i Miami, Fla. Under president George W. Bush, og han tjenestegjorde i flere stillinger på Justis - og forsvarsdepartementet. Den 20. november 2014 ga presidenten en tv-landsdekkende adresse for å snakke om de utøvende handlingene han ville ta neste dag, slik at millioner av ulovlige romvesener kan bo og jobbe i USA i de neste årene. 1 Samtidig med talen Jeh Johnson, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sekretær, publiserte en serie på 10 memoranda som beskriver og styrer gjennomføringen av de ulike fasene i programmene og retningslinjene som ville utgjøre dette feiende, og i mange synsvinkler , forfatningsmessig utøvende handling knyttet til innvandringsspørsmål. En av de politiske memorandene annonserte en slutt på Secure Communities, et program som bruker elektronisk samsvarende fingeravtrykk for å identifisere fremmede kriminelle i nær sanntid blant folkene som er arrestert av politiet landsomfattende. Mindre oppmerksom, men like viktig, endret memorandumet også bruken av innvandringsfangere som gjør det mulig for innvandringsagenter å ta forvaring av arresterte romvesener ved avslutningen av deres straffesaker og ved frigjøring fra varetekt eller straff for deres forbrytelser. 2 Denne backgrounder undersøker de rettslige grunnleggerne av internere, deres plass i den lovbestemte ordningen for innvandringshåndhevelse i det indre av USA, og deres kritiske betydning for å opprettholde offentlig sikkerhet i samfunn over hele landet. Forfatterne konkluderer med at Kongressen bør skape en ny prosess gjennom lovgivning som tydeliggjør myndigheten og nødvendigheten av overføring av romvesener fra lokal til føderal forvaring, slik at innvandringslovene kan håndheves. Innvandringsfangerpersoner utgjør en betydelig del av innvandrings - og tullforfølgelsesarbeidet (ICE) - arbeidet mot fremmede kriminelle. I det føderale regnskapsåret 2013, sendte ICE-agenter og - offiserer 212 455 fengslere med ulike politi - og korrespondanseorganer i USA. Som et resultat av politiske endringer som er utformet for å hemme bruk av internettere, har nummeret som er utstedt, gått ned. I 2014 arkiverte ICE over 160 000 internere. Obama-administrasjonen begynte å underkaste dette grunnleggende verktøyet for flere år siden, ved å si både åpen og subtil, blant annet å endre språket på internettersformen og utstede policy memoranda som begrenser anledninger hvor ICE-offiserer og agenter er Tillatelse til å utlevere arrestører mot kriminelle romvesenere. Lederne i ledelsen har ytterligere underkuttet innvandringshåndhevelsesprosessen mot fremmede kriminelle gjennom offentlige uttalelser uten juridisk grunnlag, og karakteriserer overholdelse av fanger som frivillig, til tross for vekten av konstitusjonell og juridisk myndighet som angir det motsatte. lokale myndigheter som frustrerer føderale myndigheter ved å kreve samsvar er skjønnsmessige synes å være ukonstitusjonelle på deres ansikt. Konklusjonens overordnede klausul og dens Forebyggelsesdoktrin forbyder statlig innblanding i områder med føderal eksklusivitet. Innenriksgjennomførere krever at statlige og lokale byråer holder utlendingsforbrytere potensielt opptil 48 timer utover deres utgivelsesdato. Denne holdingsperioden er ikke i strid med fjerde, femte og sjette endringen, siden sannsynlig årsak til å tro på at en fremmed har krenket føderal lov, er det fremført i fengselet selv (kjent som DHS Form I-247). Obama-administrasjonen har ikke støttet statslige og lokale håndhevelsesbyråer når de blir saksøkt for å hedre innvandringsfangere, noe som fører mange slike byråer til å revurdere sine tidligere stillinger for å overholde fengslere. Denne Backgrounder skisserer trinn som bør tas for å gjenopprette dette viktige verktøyet. Disse trinnene inkluderer: Offentlige uttalelser fra sekretæren for hjemlandssikkerhet og advokat general at de vil innlede rettslige tiltak for å sikre overholdelse av internasjonalsjefene, og at de aktivt vil støtte lokaliteter saksøkt for å hedre fengslere på grunnlag av at utstedelse av innvandringsfanger er en prerogativ og myndighet av den føderale regjeringen. (Forfatterens notat: Vi anerkjenner ekstremt usannsynligheten for denne administrasjonen å gjøre noe for å gjenopprette fengselshavere til deres plass i lovbestemte og regulatoriske ordningen, men føler seg forpliktet til å forlate denne anbefalingen som stedholder i tilfelle en etterfølgende administrasjon kommer til å gjenkjenne og ære sine egne forfatningsmessige forpliktelser for å sikre samsvar med føderal lov, i samsvar med Supremacy Clause.) Tilpasninger til føderale stipend sertifisering standarder for å gi føderale State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) og annen offentlig sikkerhet eller hjemland sikkerhet finansiering bare til stater eller steder som overholde innvandrerfangene. En prosedyreendring som oppfordrer ICE-offiserene til å oppnå i forveien arrestordrer for utlendinger mot hvem de ønsker å arkivere internettere når det er praktisk. Tilpasning til innvandrings - og nasjonalitetsloven (INA) for å klargjøre at overholdelse av statlige og lokale forhold Lovhåndhevelse med innvandringsfangerne er nødvendig, kombinert med hensiktsmessig e sanksjoner for unnlatelse av å gjøre det. Opprettelse av statlige lover som krever rettshåndhevelsesorganer å varsle føderale innvandringsmyndigheter om utgivelsesdatoer for fremmede kriminelle i deres varetekt. Hva er fanger og hvorfor er de kontroversielle innvandrerfangstfolk muliggjøre føderale byråer å ta forvaring av romvesener holdt av statlige eller lokale politibyråer før deres utgivelse. I henhold til føderale forskrifter tjener detainer å gi råd til et annet rettshåndhevelsesbyrå at avdelingen søker varetekt av en fremmed som for øyeblikket er i varetekt for det aktuelle byrået, med det formål å arrestere og fjerne utlendingen. 3 Vanligvis, men ikke alltid, har ICE vært et byrå som arkiverer arrestøren. Border Patrol har også rutinemessig brukt fengslere i sin samhandling med sheriffs og politi avdelinger hvis jurisdiksjoner spenner over sørvest og nordlige grenser. Forskriften fastsetter at lovhåndhevingsbyrået som har forvaring av utlendingen, skal holde utlendingen for føderale innvandringsmyndigheter i inntil 48 timer (unntatt helger og helligdager) i stedet for å slippe utlendingen på bånd, i påvente av andre lokale tiltak eller andre forhold. Andre føderale byråer bruker også interneringsfolk som en måte å holde personer arrestert av staten eller lokal rettshåndhevelse til de kan bli tatt i varetekt. Personer holdes rutinemessig av statlige og lokale byråer for den føderale regjeringen for en rekke lovbrudd som er store og små, fra å være fraværende uten forlatelse fra de væpnede styrkene, til parole og prøvetaking, til store forbrytelser. US Marshals Service er spesielt aktiv i denne forbindelse og opererer i henhold til en bestemmelse i føderal lov som angir, c) Unntatt som det fremgår av lov eller forretningsorden, skal United States Marshals Service utføre alle lovlige skrivelser, prosesser og ordrer utstedt under myndighet i USA, og skal beordre all nødvendig hjelp til å utføre sine plikter. (Vi legger vekt på.) 4 Vi vet ikke om hvor Marshals-tjenesten eller et annet føderalt byrå har preget sine internere som frivillige eller statlige og lokale byråer har nektet å overholde dem. I de siste årene har motstandere av innvandringshåndhevelse forsøkt å hindre og forstyrre ICE-håndhevelsesaktiviteter ved å drive en kampanje for å legitimere bruk av internettere, som de forstår fullt ut er et sentralt verktøy for ICE. Håndhevelse motstandere har lagt fram både juridiske og politiske argumenter. Noen har opprettholdt at innvandringsbyråer mangler myndighet til å utstede fengselere. Selv om det ikke er noen del av den føderale loven som staver ut denne myndigheten generelt, kan det ikke sies at kongressen enten er uvitende om eller misbilliger bruken av dem. Faktisk har Kongressen spesielt sanksjonert deres bruk av innvandringsmyndigheter i tilfelle av romvesener som bryter med narkotikalovgivningen. 5 Ironisk nok ble denne bestemmelsen lagt til på grunn av føderale, statslige og lokale rettshåndhevelse tjenestemenn som ble agitated at agenter av immigrasjon og naturaliseringstjeneste (INS) forløperen til ICE ikke var rutinemessig arkivere fengselshavere å ta forvaring av romvesener belastet med besittelse av mindre mengder forbudte rusmidler som marihuana. Obama-administrasjonens innsats for å undergrave fangerne Skaden som har blitt gjort for å gjennomføre innvandringshåndhevelse fra Obama-administrasjonen siden 2009, kan ikke overvurderes. Mens tjenestemenn gjentatte ganger hevder å fokusere på kriminelle romvesener, og forsikre amerikanere om at lovbrytere blir arrestert og deportert, er faktisk innvandringshåndhevelse i en sammenbruddssituasjon på grunn av en rekke politiske endringer som er kjent kollektivt som rettsmål og prioritering. I praksis legger disse retningslinjene alvorlige restriksjoner på ICE-offiserer om hvilke romvesener som må rettes mot deportasjon og unngår de fleste ulovlige romvesener fra håndhevelseshandlinger. De nye prioritetene har fastsatt at bare de utlendingene med kriminelle overbevisninger, de siste grensekryssene, tidligere deportees eller flyktninger som avviklet fra utvisningssaker, skulle bli utsatt for innvandringshåndhevelse. Deportasjoner av ICE har falt betydelig de siste årene. I 2014 deporterte ICE omtrent 100.000 romvesener fra interiøret, som er mindre enn halvparten av de 237.000 romvesenene som ble deportert fra interiøret i 2009, Obamas første år på kontoret. Kriminalomsorgsdeportasjoner har også falt betydelig (med 40 prosent siden toppen i 2011). 6 Før 2014 ble undertrykkelsen av håndhevelse hovedsakelig i form av restriksjoner på hvilke typer saker som ICE-offiserer kunne forfølge. For eksempel, 21. desember 2012, sendte tidligere ICE-direktør John Morton kunngjøringer til standard innvandringsholderens formular (Form I-247) og utstedte et memorandum som begrenser omstendighetene for at ICE-personell kunne utlevere arrestører. 7 De senere årene har de fleste flyttbare romvesenene oppdaget av ICE-offiserer blitt oppdaget når en arrestasjon av lokale myndigheter utløste en varsling til ICE etter en elektronisk fingeravtrykkskamp som ble lansert av Secure Communities-programmet. Denne forbedringen i føderal og lokal rettshåndhevelse informasjonsdeling ved hjelp av Secure Communities interoperabilitet resulterte i større bruk av ICE-fanger enn noen gang før, da ICE ble oppmerksom på mange flere flyttbare romvesener umiddelbart etter en statlig eller lokal arrestasjon. Unødvendig å si, denne betydelige forbedringen i ICEs effektivitet forstyrret etniske grunngrupper og deres allierte i kongressen og Obama-administrasjonen. Nedgangen i fengselsbevis utstedt av ICE mellom årene 20112014, som vist i Tabell 1, avslører nøyaktig hvor politisk bruken av fengslere ble under denne administrasjonen og hvordan den har reagert, til skade for den offentlige sikkerhet og på bekostning av effektiv bruk av begrensede innvandringshåndhevelsesressurser. Kampanjen for å undergrave bruken av arrestører fikk betydelig fart i februar 2014, da Dan Ragsdale, da han fungerte som leder av ICE, 8 rådde til svar på en forespørsel fra en gruppe medlemmer av kongressen på vegne av forvirrede lokale rettshåndhevelsesorganer, at mens Innvandringsfangerne er en viktig del av ICEs forsøk på å fjerne kriminelle romvesener som befinner seg i føderal, statlig eller lokal varetekt, de er ikke obligatoriske som lovvalg. Som sådan er ICE avhengig av samarbeidet med sine politimyndigheter i denne innsatsen for å fremme offentlig sikkerhet. (Emphasis added.) Ragsdales påstand, som ble støttet av ingen juridisk begrunnelse uansett, var viktig. Tilsynelatende hadde ansatte i både operasjonene og juridiske divisjonene i ICE utarbeidet en annen juridisk oppfatning, i tråd med ICEs langsiktige posisjon, at det forventet at andre rettshåndhevelsesorganer skulle ære og overholde sine internasjonalsjef, som Ragsdale overrode i å formulere brevet. Deres innsigelser mot hans svar ble grunnlagt ikke bare på institusjonelle behov og politikk, men også på føderal regulering: 8 CFR 287.7 (d), som sier: Ved en avgjørelse fra avdelingen om å utstede en fengsel for en fremmed, som ikke ellers blir arrestert av en kriminell rettsbyrå, skal et slikt byrå opprettholde varetekten for utlendingen i en periode som ikke overstiger 48 timer. for å tillate fordeling av varetekt av avdelingen. 9 (Legg vekt på.) Ragsdales flytting gikk ikke ubemerket, blant annet av jurister i sivilrettesaker som var innlevert av romvesener og deres pro bono advokater ved American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) og andre steder, mot ICE og mot disse statlige og lokale law enforcement agencies who honor the detainers. The federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that detainers were voluntary (overruling a district judges finding prior to Ragsdales policy change), thus permitting a civil suit against a county jail to go forward. 10 More telling is how ICE treated its law enforcement partner in this instance. It settled with the plaintiffs and deserted the jailer and sheriffs offices, declining even to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, although the fundamental error in the case filing a detainer against a citizen originated with ICE itself. Nor was this the first time that ICE engaged in a strategy of cut and run from one of its erstwhile law enforcement partners. The same thing happened in Tennessee in 2012 11 and just recently in Oregon, where a federal magistrate ruled the Clackamas County jails strict compliance with an ICE detainer was unconstitutional because, it said, compliance with such detainers is voluntary. 12 The adverse effect of these decisions, especially when combined with ICEs indifference toward its partner agencies, began to accumulate. Various law enforcement agencies nationwide issued statements indicating they would decline compliance with some or all immigration detainers. The number has since risen to more than 300 police and sheriffs departments. While some of these agencies are in small jurisdictions where law enforcement agencies encounter criminal aliens less frequently, others include major metropolitan areas such as Chicago and New York, where the number of aliens held in a years time reaches into the thousands. The risk and the reality is that arrested criminal aliens are being released into American neighborhoods before their identities can be confirmed and federal custody assumed. The campaign to undercut detainers achieved its ultimate goal when DHS Secretary Johnson issued his policy memorandum on November 20 ordering an end to the filing of detainers except in extraordinary circumstances. Until then, even while in decline, detainers had been the primary tool used to notify state and local law enforcement and corrections agencies that an alien in their custody was subject to removal from the United States. Most dismaying is that in a footnote to his memorandum, the secretary alluded to the recent court decisions and suggested that use of detainers might violate the Constitution. First, the administration actively worked to undercut the detainer authorities of its own immigration agencies, limiting their use by policy and then without legal foundation declaring them to be voluntary. Now, in a classic example of disingenuous circularity, the administration uses the court decisions (which in turn were exercising due deference to ICEs baseless interpretation of voluntariness), in order to justify scrapping detainers in their entirety. What is more, opponents of detainers have chosen to misread the general import of the recent cases. One of the lawsuits was filed because ICE mistakenly lodged a detainer against a United States citizen, not an alien. Another lawsuit was filed when an alien was held significantly longer than 48 hours beyond his release date (what the regulation requires). Certainly such particular cases implicate the Fourth Amendment but they do not implicate detainers generally. Over the course of time, a series of court rulings established that state and local authorities may detain or arrest individuals for violations of federal immigration law, as long as the arrest is supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause and is authorized by state law. 13 Additionally, a 2002 Department of Justice (DOJ) opinion came to the same conclusion. Some analysts believe that the prior rulings and the DOJ opinion were significantly delimited by the 2012 Supreme Court decision in the case of Arizona v. United States . 14 It is beyond the purview of this report to fully explore that decision, but three things can be said with certainty: The court has still left room for state and local police action in the arena of immigration enforcement, provided that it is consonant with federal laws and regulations and occurs in the course of lawful state enforcement programs. Congress can open the door to additional state and local participation and initiatives by exercising its constitutional prerogatives in the legislative arena specifically through statutes, statements of congressional intent, and establishment or endorsement of cooperative enforcement programs in the course of its legislative and appropriations activities. In the words of the Congressional Research Service, the federal government also has the power to proscribe activities that subvert the legislatively established immigration system. This latter point is extremely important in the context of state and local activities (such as passage of laws, regulations, and policies directing police and sheriffs offices to ignore immigration detainers), which fundamentally impede effective immigration law enforcement against alien criminals in the interior of the United States, clearly contrary to both implied and express congressional intent. 15 In general, federal law, regulations, and policy encourage state and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. For instance, an unambiguous provision of the INA states, Notwithstanding any other provision of federal, state, or local law, no state or local government entity may be prohibited, or in any way restricted, from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States. 16 In nearly verbatim language, another provision of the INA prohibits state or local governments preventing their employees from communicating freely with immigration officials: A federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. 17 An additional subsection of that same provision also stipulates that The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a federal, state, or local government agency seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information. 18 (Emphasis added.) One wonders: if the shall in the regulation relating to detainers is to be disregarded so cavalierly. Does this mean that the above-cited language requiring the INS (or its successor agencies) to provide information or assistance to other federal, state, or local agencies may also be disregarded Of course not, but under this administration, use of the word shall seems to have taken on an elastic Through the Looking Glass quality. 19 Other evidence of congressional intent to establish a collaborative environment between police and immigration enforcement agencies can be found in the statutory language creating certain types of local-federal partnerships. A notable example includes a program authorizing cross-designation of state or local officers to enforce immigration laws under Section 287(g) of the INA, commonly known as the 287(g) program. 20 The language of Section 287(g) also goes so far as to make clear that exchanges of information between immigration authorities and other federal, state, or local entities cannot be limited to, or require, formal agreements. Another significant example of the congressional expectation of cooperation on immigration law enforcement matters, among and between federal, state, and local officials, can be found in Section 103(a) of the INA, which permits the Attorney General (superseded by the Secretary of Homeland Security by the Homeland Security Act) to permit state and local officers to exercise immigration law enforcement functions in the event of an actual or imminent mass migration of aliens. 21 Additional language in that same section also permits the DHS secretary to enter into a cooperative agreement with any state, territory, or political subdivision thereof for the necessary construction, physical renovation, and acquisition of equipment, supplies, or materials required to establish acceptable conditions of confinement and detention services in any state or unit of local government that agrees to provide guaranteed bed space for persons detained by the service. 22 DHS agencies have established more than a dozen formal cooperative programs in addition to the 287(g) program described above, including the Criminal Alien Program, which provides for ICE agents to interview incarcerated aliens to determine removability prior to their release, and the Law Enforcement Support Center, which is a 247 call center that enables state and local officers to inquire about the immigration status of individuals they encounter. Virtually all of these programs have received congressional endorsement, if not always through specific statutory provisions such as those enumerated above, then certainly through the appropriations process. 23 Some legal experts have argued credibly that those jurisdictions that have changed their policies recently to end compliance with ICE detainers are misinterpreting the court rulings on detainers, and mistakenly relying on ideologically influenced assertions from the ACLU, which has aggressively sent notices to police and sheriffs offices and prosecutors offices, advising them of grave constitutional issues with an implicit threat of lawsuits should these organizations choose to continue complying with detainers. 24 For instance, contrary to what many sanctuary jurisdictions have claimed, the Oregon magistrate did not hold that ICE detainers need to be accompanied by a judicial warrant. 25 Federal Laws and Regulations Trump State Laws and Regulations Detainers are issued pursuant to federal regulations, which in turn rely on provisions in the INA authorizing officers and agents to make arrests with or without warrant for violation of the immigration laws. 26 The Supremacy Clause 27 of the Constitution and its Preemption Doctrine 28 forbid state encroachment in areas of federal exclusivity. The federal government possesses inherent sovereign powers in matters of immigration and immigration enforcement. The Supremacy Clause and the Preemption Doctrine assure that federal law prevails over state and local measures whenever a conflict arises between the two. 29 Federal immigration law is no different. Over no subject, in fact, is federal jurisdiction so complete as it is in immigration. 30 Still, the federal system does not work in a vacuum. Its success depends upon compliance with federal prerogatives 31 and comity 32 among state, local, and federal jurisdictions that complement their various missions. But it is precisely in the opposite direction that many sub-federal state and local agencies now proceed with the active encouragement of Obama appointees who have sought to redefine the meaning of federal laws without regard to their plain terms and clear intent. 33 If localities alone may decide whether to hold a suspect after receiving notice of an immigration detainer, then federal supremacy in immigration enforcement is now subject to unilateral exercises of previously unacknowledged state prerogatives prerogatives that have the effect of nullifying federal statutes passed by Congress and signed into law by the president a result no one can believe is either intended or acceptable, and which flies in the face of the Supreme Courts Arizona decision. As Justice Kennedy observed, writing for the majority, State laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law. This includes cases where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility, and those instances where the challenged state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. 34 Federal jurisdiction over immigration in all its expressions was, until the Ragsdale letter, presumed exclusive and nonpareil. However much Mr. Ragsdale insists that states may refuse a detainer, his argument fails under the weight of precedent proving him wrong. 35 In fact, federal supremacy in immigration, though frequently challenged, was not relinquished on such a scale until the Obama administration. His presidency has not changed the wording of federal statutes or a century and a half of Supreme Court precedent, but rulemaking and policy under his administration have turned immigration enforcement upside down and, in turn, set criminal aliens free by the thousands and left American neighborhoods less safe. 36 The U. S. Supreme Court has never sanctioned unilateral expansion of state immigration enforcement into a historically federal domain rather, the court has closely scrutinized state intrusion into federal immigration law. 37 In the same way a state or locality cannot assume those immigration enforcement powers that are forbidden it by the Constitution, so it also cannot refuse the demands of an immigration detainer. In addition to federal supremacy and preemption of state and local laws and policies, any careful, reasoned analysis of the issue must examine the interplay between refusal by state officials to honor detainers on one hand and, on the other, the provisions of federal law relating to harboring of illegal aliens and shielding them from detection a felony violation. 38 The provision states in pertinent part: (a) Criminal penalties (1) (A) Any person who . (iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation. shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B). The harboring and shielding-from-detection provisions of the statute are not limited to private individuals. If a citizen may be charged with a felony for this action, then how can state or local officials be less culpable, particularly when they are law enforcement officers who are generally understood to be held to a higher standard where compliance with the law is concerned The quagmire in which ICE now finds itself is in large measure of its own making. It has severely limited the circumstances in which a detainer may be issued it has greatly reduced the number and type of aliens who may be detained it has spread the notion that honoring detainers is purely voluntary among its partners and then it has consistently abandoned those partners when lawsuits are filed and, of course, by having made a public assertion that honoring detainers is a matter of choice, ICE has given jurists who are ideologically disposed to be skeptical of immigration enforcement a very large hook to hang their hats on through the due deference doctrine by which courts give great leeway to executive agencies in the interpretation of their own rules. 39 (Ironically that self-same due deference could and should be applied to ICEs actual regulation, not the legally dubious correspondence from officials such as Ragsdale, which holds no place in the regulatory scheme.) But can ICE (or, more specifically, Ragsdale when he was acting as agency head) be trusted with the detainers are voluntary interpretation Quite possibly not. To those who follow such matters, it is disturbingly similar to the state and local agencies can opt in or opt out refrain used by ICE leaders in public statements and official documents, including letters to Congress, during the roll-out of their Secure Communities program. Ultimately the agency, and its bosses at DHS, had to eat those words. Worse, we now know that ICE and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials conspired with the acting Inspector General to cover up their deception even as the IGs office was being charged with investigating the missteps, misstatements, and ineptitude exhibited in the way Secure Communities was handled. 40 Why should we now believe that Mr. Ragsdale has any more credibility on the detainers issue than he did when acting as one of Mr. Mortons confidantes and advisors about Secure Communities Public Safety Impact of Non-Cooperation Policies Until the campaign to undermine immigration detainers gained traction not only from open borders groups, but from the very leaders charged with immigration enforcement, the detainers formed a critical part of ICEs law enforcement efforts against alien criminals. In federal fiscal year 2013 alone, ICE agents and officers filed 212,455 detainers with various police and correctional agencies in the United States. 41 The combination of local obstruction of ICE and ICEs self-imposed limits on enforcement priorities had already begun before Johnsons decision to terminate their use. According to a recent report from the Syracuse University Transactional Action Clearinghouse (TRAC), ICE detainers have dropped 39 percent since 2012. Interestingly, the report tells us that, TRAC shared its findings with ICE and asked the agency for insights into what was driving this downward trend. However, ICE declined to comment on why its agents were issuing fewer detainers. 42 Ironically, in a recent media article published by NJ published prior to the presidents executive action speech and promulgation of the Johnson memorandum ICE was much less reticent about its dissatisfaction with state and local jurisdictions ignoring their detainers. An ICE spokesman is quoted in the article as saying, When serious criminal offenders are released to the streets in a community, rather than to ICE custody, it undermines ICEs ability to protect public safety and impedes us from enforcing the nations immigration laws. Jurisdictions that ignore detainers bear the risk of possible public safety risks. 43 But the problem of ignoring detainers is not just about statistics, and it is far more than a matter of workload completion for ICE agents and officers in pursuing their mission, however significant those matters are. Fundamental governmental interests are involved, including community safety, officer safety, efficient use of taxpayer funds, and maintenance of an effective regimen of due process within the immigration system established by Congress: When sheriffs or police turn a suspect loose rather than hold him on the detainer filed, law-abiding members of the community are at risk should he re-offend (and there are many, often egregious, instances of such alien recidivists victimizing additional members of the public). 44 If ICE officers are obliged to go out and seek the individual once he has been released, they, too, are at greater risk of injury than if receiving him directly from local law enforcement officers in the secure constraints of a jail setting especially since the alien offender at the point of release, notwithstanding the detainer, is likely to know that they are aware of and looking for him. Furthermore, the time and energy wasted trying to track down and re-apprehend that alien after local police have released him equates to limited officer resources and public monies not available to do equally important immigration enforcement work elsewhere in an already overburdened system. Confronting this reality pokes a large hole in the administrations argument that its executive actions are for the purpose of enhancing public safety and shepherding scarce resources. What is more, the alien may not in fact be re-apprehended until after he has committed another crime, quite possibly a violent felony: According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2009, the average incarcerated alien had seven arrests and committed an average of 12 offenses. 45 A Congressional Research Service study commissioned by the House Judiciary Committee found that 26,412 aliens out of 159,286 released by ICE in a 2.5-year time period went on to commit 57,763 new crimes. These crimes included 8,500 DUIs, 6,000 drug offenses, and more than 4,000 major criminal offenses such as murder, assault, rape, and kidnapping. 46It is also important to understand that immigrant offenders often fail to follow the rules that is, attend court like everyone else. Immigration court records from 1996 through 2012 show 76 percent of 1.1 million deportation orders were issued against those who evaded court. These evasions compose the greatest source of unexecuted deportation orders in the immigration court system. Not even a quarter of those free pending trial some 268,000 actually came to court and finished their cases. 47Finally, there is the sobering fact that there are already nearly 900,000 alien absconders and fugitives at large in the country up from half a million a mere three years ago. 48 Each alien released despite the filing of a detainer, when multiplied by the thousands of sheriffs offices and police departments throughout the United States, adds significantly to that number, and puts the public at greater risk. Something must be done to stop the legal oblivion into which detainers have been thrown. But what Following are a series of common-sense recommendations. The Executive Branch. (Authors note: As indicated before, we acknowledge that our recommendations go in a direction completely contrary to that of this administration, meaning there is no chance whatever that they will adopt our suggestions, but we are constrained to raise them nonetheless in the interest of posterity and in the hope of a future chief executive who recognizes his constitutional and statutory responsibilities.) The administration has repeatedly claimed that it is interested in prioritizing the enforcement of immigration laws away from run-of-the-mill illegal aliens and toward criminal offenders. If administration leaders and cabinet heads wish Congress and the public at large to believe this, they should be working vigorously to protect key law enforcement techniques from the kind of blunting that the use of detainers has taken in the past couple of years instead of contributing to their demise as a tool. To that end: DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson should formally disavow the legal assertion made in Ragsdales letter and revisit his decision to end the use of detainers based on flawed legal reasoning. The DHS Secretary and the Attorney General should jointly issue a notice in the Federal Register publicly stating their intention to initiate legal action in U. S. District Court to obtain orders enjoining state and local governments from ignoring detainers in each and every jurisdiction where that takes place, all the way to the Supreme Court if need be. They should also assert, however, that the federal governments position is that, by honoring those detainers, state and local governments are not subject to tort suits because the decision-making inherent in deciding to file, or not file, a detainer rests with federal immigration authorities. The two cabinet members should also declare changes to the certification process for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) a program designed to reimburse state and local enforcement agencies for costs associated with the arrest and confinement of illegal aliens which would preclude those agencies from seeking SCAAP funds when they initiate policies that obstruct federal efforts to locate, identify, apprehend, and remove those criminals. This requires no change to the existing statute to accomplish it simply requires the will to do so. The fund is administered by the Justice Departments Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), but relies on ICE certification of lists of incarcerated aliens provided to BJA by states and localities. Simply declining to certify lists of incarcerated aliens submitted by jurisdictions that refuse to comply with detainers would result in them receiving no SCAAP funds. 49ICE officers should, whenever possible, begin the practice of procuring warrants of arrest for aliens against whom they intend to file detainers. Those warrants of arrest should be provided to the law enforcement agency at the time the detainer is filed. While such warrants are civil in nature because deportation proceedings are themselves civil proceedings they clearly signal to state and local agencies that ICE is following a procedure prescribed by federal law and regulation, and that cause exists for arrest and initiation of deportation proceedings. We note that this is not required by law, which clearly provides for warrantless immigration arrests. However, we recognize the importance of signaling to state and local jurisdictions that, whenever circumstances permit, a deliberative process was undertaken that has resulted in a probable cause finding that an individual in custody of the state or local agency is an alien subject to removal proceedings whom federal authorities wish to take into their own custody in order to initiate those proceedings, consistent with the provisions of the INA. 50 Some ICE offices have begun this practice. As expected, various legal advocacy groups have initiated a campaign against their use, arguing that only judicial warrants should be accepted by local law enforcement agencies. For example, in collaboration with advocacy groups, the Secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety (EOPS) a state executive branch agency (controlled by the governor) argued against the acceptance of ICE warrants in a memorandum issued to the Massachusetts State Sheriffs Association. 51 The memorandum was replete with specious logic, including the assertion that warrants not issued by a judge, such as immigration warrants, have no force and effect and therefore should not affect decisions to comply or, more to the point, refuse to comply, with detainers. Interestingly, using this logic, parole violation warrants issued by the Massachusetts Parole Board a subordinate administrative agency of EOPS would also fail to pass legal muster. The memorandum was quickly disavowed by Governor Deval Patrick, but the arguments have started to find their way into other venues despite the obvious flaws in the logic. Likewise, using this logic, police and sheriffs departments should refuse to hold AWOL or deserting soldiers for military police, because they are handled under Article 85 the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which operates outside of the federal criminal justice system. State and Local Governments. State legislatures should expeditiously draft and pass to their governors for signature bills requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to notify federal immigration authorities of the release dates and times for all alien criminals within their custody. There are also a number of ways in which state and local governments can protect themselves from legal action, while at the same time cooperating with federal immigration enforcement initiatives and protecting their communities from alien recidivist offenders. State and local correctional, police, and sheriffs departments should initiate a dialogue with ICE whose purpose is to negotiate a memorandum of agreement (MOA) outlining the parameters of the law enforcement partnership. The memorandum of agreement should ideally contain the following provisions: An unambiguous statement from ICE that determinations about the filing of detainers or notices of action, requests for release dates, or other information relating to deportable aliens are based on federal immigration law, for which it is solely responsible. A commitment by ICE to take custody of aliens within the timeframe specified in federal regulations at 8 CFR 287.7 whenever a detainer is filed, which commitment should be included in the memorandum of agreement for clarity of understanding. Local training sessions by ICE for jail personnel involved in the handling of immigration detainers so that they will understand the various forms and their uses, which in their present incarnation are sometimes informational only and sometimes a request to detain. Specifically designated points of contact for both parties for maintenance and upholding of the memorandum of agreement, and additional points of contact available on a 24-hour7-day-weekly basis for critical problem resolution. Acknowledgement between the parties that in order for the correctional, police, or sheriffs department to comply with an ICE detainer, it must be accompanied by a Warrant for Arrest of Alien, except in exigent circumstances, which should be specified. Agreement that i n the event of a lawsuit against the police or sheriffs office based on honoring of an ICE detainer, ICE will provide all reasonable and necessary legal assistance, including friend of the court briefs acknowledging its responsibility for detainer decision-making. Participation of the police or sheriffs office in the ICE 287(g) program, in which designated sheriffs deputies andor jail officers are trained and cross-designated as immigration officers (at ICE expense), giving them access to ICE databases and information, and the authority to issue certain law enforcement documents, including detainers. (Note that such documents are issued under the supervision of ICE managers, thus ensuring that ICE remains responsible for the decision-making process.) Congress. A multiplicity of reasons exist to believe that many of the steps recommended above will not take place given the administrations abysmal track record, and lack of will, for sustaining any capacity for interior immigration enforcement. This being the case, the ultimate resolution may rest with Congress to craft statutory language that breaks the impasse. Almost all of the members of Congress who have argued for amnesty or a path to citizenship have concurrently asserted that they draw the line at aliens who break criminal laws. Its time to prove the sincerity of such claims by doing what is necessary to require the law enforcement agencies of states and localities to surrender to ICE those aliens who are subject to ICE detainers. Such actions could include: Advancing the SAFE Act, which in the 113th Congress was approved by the House Judiciary Committee. Provisions in this bill explicitly 1) extend to state and local law enforcement officers the same qualified immunities extended to federal officers and 2) authorize state and local agencies to comply with detainers filed by federal immigration authorities. 52 However, the language contained in those sections should be revisited in light of recent court decisions. At minimum, the language authorizing agencies to honor detainers should be rewritten to require that they comply with detainers. Congress should adopt, perhaps via a new Section 287A of the INA, a different paradigm for immigration processes that is more closely aligned to the notion of writs exercised by courts at all levels of government. The legislation would authorize certain federal immigration officials (to be designated by regulation) to issue and serve upon state and local agencies an Order to Detain and Produce Alien. Such an order would be enforceable in the United States District Courts by means of a show cause order from the presiding judge requiring state or local agency which fails or refuses to comply to explain why it has failed to do so. Considered dispassionately, as important as detainers are, they are merely the means to an end. What the immigration authorities ultimately wish is to take custody of the alien. Creating a specific statutory authority by which federal immigration officers may require state and local agencies to detain and produce the body provides both the means and the end needed to accomplish their duties. (An example of such possible legislation is attached as Appendix 1 to this Backgrounder .) Congress should also act to statutorily amend the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, if the Attorney General and Secretary of DHS fail to do so, to ensure that state and local governments cannot be safe havens for criminal aliens on the one hand, while demanding federal dollars to reimburse them for the costs associated with arrest and incarceration on the other. (An example of such possible legislation is attached as Appendix 2 to this Backgrounder .)Finally, whether moving toward the kind of solution contained in the SAFE Act, or toward a new paradigm more closely aligned to the notion of writs to produce the body, a hold harmless provision must also be crafted to protect state and local agencies from lawsuits when in good faith they honor detainers filed by federal officers. At present, state and local officers enjoy such protection on an individual basis when acting in a cross-designation capacity under Section 287(g). A new, expanded provision written into the law could encompass the hold harmless premise to an entire state or local organization when it honors decisions to file immigration detainers under authority of federal immigration laws. Immigration detainers are a critically important a tool in the ICE mission to apprehend alien criminals and protect the public safety. Preserving their use, defending them against continued attack in the courts, and establishing the means and requirement for state and local enforcement agencies to honor federal immigration laws should be a shared priority for all of the branches of the federal government. Appendix 1: Model Language for a New INA Section 287A 8 U. S. Code 1357a Order to Detain and Produce Alien (a) Authority to Issue an Order to Detain and Produce Alien Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Secretary to issue warrants of arrest or notices to appear in removal proceedings shall have power to issue an order to detain and produce an alien who is in the custody of another federal, state, or local law enforcement, correctional, mental or physical health, or social service agency for the purpose of taking custody of such an alien to initiate removal proceedings, or to effect the removal of an alien under an order of removal. (b) Obligations and Authorities of Receiving Agencies (1) Upon receipt of such an order, said agency is authorized and required to maintain custody of the alien for a period of up to 14 calendar days after the alien has completed the aliens sentence under Federal, State or local law, or is otherwise ready for release, in order to effectuate the transfer of the alien to Federal custody. (2) Should the agency in original receipt of the order transfer the alien to another agency for purposes of serving a sentence of incarceration, or for other purposes including medical treatment, it shall (A) promptly, but in no event later than 24 hours, notify the officer who issued the Order of the particulars of the transfer, and (B) serve upon the agency assuming custody a copy of the original order. (3) The agency which assumes custody shall be equally liable to comply with the requirement to detain and produce as if it were the recipient of the original order. (4) State and local law enforcement and correctional agencies are authorized to issue a detainer that would allow aliens who have served a sentence of incarceration under State or local law to be detained by the State or local prison or jail until the Secretary can take the alien into custody provided that notice of the detainer filed on behalf of the Secretary is transmitted within 24 hours to the nearest Immigration and Customs Enforcement office along with identifying biographic and offender information required to make a determination of alienage and removability. That office shall respond to the state or local agency making the notification within 24 hours, either confirming the detainer or ordering its withdrawal. (c) Immunity of Receiving Agencies No agencies nor officers or employees of agencies which have received an order to detain and produce an alien shall be liable for damages under law as a result of complying with such an order. (d) Failure or Refusal to Comply with Order to Detain and Produce Alien If a state or local agency refuses or fails in its duty to comply with an order to detain and produce an alien, the United States District Court shall, upon request of the United States Attorney for that district, issue an order requiring the agency to show cause why it did not do so and, upon a finding that the failure was intentional, shall hold the agency in contempt. Whether the failure to comply was intentional or negligent, it shall be in the Courts power to issue any such orders as are necessary to enjoin the agency from conduct that results in future refusal or failure. (e) Means of Service and Content of Order. (1) An order to detain and produce an alien may be served in person or by electronic means. (2) The order to detain and produce an alien shall contain at minimum the following information: (A) The name, date and place of birth of the alien, including known aliases or alternately claimed dates and places of birth (B) A brief statement of the grounds of removability, which shall not prevent superseding allegations and grounds from being used in any future charging document (C) The title and address of the agency receiving the order to detain and produce (D) The name and title of the officer issuing the order to detain and produce (E) The specific point of contact, and means by which the receiving agency should initiate that contact for purposes of notifying of an impending release, or of transfer of the alien to a subsequent agency and (F) A clear statement of the affirmative obligation of the receiving agency to comply with the order, and the consequences for refusal or failure to comply. Appendix 2: Model Language for a New INA Section 287B 8 U. S. Code 1357b Ineligibility for Federal Funding to States or Localities which Fail to Cooperate in Immigration Enforcement Efforts (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the government of a state, tribe, territory, or possession of the United States, or a political subdivision of any of the aforementioned, or the District of Columbia, (1) refuses or declines to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien filed by Homeland Security officers or agents against individuals known or suspected to be undocumented or criminal aliens subject to removal from the United States, or (2) enacts into law, or establishes by executive order, administrative regulation or policy, restrictions upon access to prisoners or detainees by federal officials enforcing the immigration laws of the United States, or upon cooperation with those federal officers by state and local law enforcement or correctional officers, or (3) refuses or declin es to exercise its authority to override the stated intention of one of its political subdivisions to engage in the conduct described in Paragraphs (1) or (2) above, neither said government nor any of its political subdivisions shall be eligible to receive funding from the Department of Justice State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. (b) For purposes of this act, refusal or declination of a government to exercise its authority as described in Section (a) includes, but is not limited to, statute, ordinance, order, rulemaking, policy, standard practice or directive on the part of a legislative or executive body or officer. (c) Within 30 days of enactment of this act, the Department of Homeland Security shall: (1) Prepare a comprehensive listing of all governments of states, tribes, territories or possessions, or political subdivisions thereof, or of the District of Columbia, which meet the ineligibility requirements described in Subsection (a) above (2) Send a notice to each government so listed informing it of the provisions of Subsection (a), asking that government whether it wishes to state affirmatively for the record its willingness and intent to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien, or to repeal any laws, or withdraw any executive orders, regulations or policies constituting a basis for ineligibility, and advising said government that failure to receive an affirmative response within 30 days of the date of the notice will result in ineligibility for and withdrawal of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding and (3) Send a concurrent notice to each state, territory or possession in wh ich a political subdivision has evidenced its unwillingness to participate, informing it of the provisions of Paragraph (a)(3), asking the state, territory or possession whether it wishes to exercise its authorities to override the stated intentions of the political subdivision, and advising that failure to receive an affirmative response within 30 days of the date of the notice will result in the state, territory or possession also becoming ineligible for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. (d) Upon expiration of the times described in Subsection (c), and in no event to exceed 30 days thereafter, the Department of Homeland Security shall transmit to the Bureau of Justice Assistance in the Department of Justice a listing of the governments of any state, territory, possession, or political subdivision thereof, or of the District Columbia, which is ineligible for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. Said listing shall be final and determinative. (e) Subsequent to the initial notices and listing described in Subsections (c) and (d), within 30 days of being advised or becoming aware of a government refusing or declining to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien, or to permit law enforcement cooperation with immigration enforcement efforts, or to override the actions of a political subdivision in refusing to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien or to permit law enforcement cooperation with immigration enforcement efforts as described in Subsection (a), the Department of Homeland Security shall follow the same procedures and timeframes outlined in those sections to: (1) Inform said government that its actions will render it ineligible to receive funding, (2) Ascertain whether that government is willing to reconsider and to affirm its willingness to honor Orders to Detain and Produce an Alien, or cooperate with immigration enforcement efforts, (3) Advise the state, territory or possession (if the uncooperative governmen t is a political subdivision) of the consequences of failure to exercise its authorities to override that governments decisions, and (4) Notify the Bureau of Justice Assistance of any governments which, having been given the opportunity, refuse or to decline to affirm, or override political subdivisions, thus rendering themselves ineligible for funding. (f) Congressional Reports (1) 120 days after enactment, (A) The Department of Homeland Security shall provide a report to the Congress outlining what steps have been taken to implement the provisions of this act. The Department shall append to its report a copy of the list described in Subsection (d) above. (B) The Bureau of Justice Assistance shall provide a report to the Congress outlining the steps taken to implement the provisions of this act, and append to its report a list of governments that have been debarred from receipt of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding. (2) Within 120 days of the commencement of each new fiscal year, (A) The Department of Homeland Security shall provide a report to the Congress of its activities to monitor state, territories, possessions and their political subdivisions to ensure compliance with this Section, appending to its report a list of governments found not to be in compliance during the prior fiscal year, and (B) The Bureau of Justice Assistance shall provide a report to the Congress of its activities to ensure compliance with this Section, and append to its report a list of governments that have been debarred from receipt of State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funding during the prior fiscal year. 6 See Jessica M. Vaughan, ICE Enforcement Collapses Further in 2014. Center for Immigration Studies, October 2014 and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement report, Fiscal Year 2014 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report. as cited in the Los Angeles Times . December 4, 2014. 8 Ragsdale is now deputy director of ICE. However, at the time Ragsdale termed detainers as voluntary, he was de facto head of the agency. 9 8 CFR, 287.7. op cit. See, particularly, subsection (d) Temporary detention at Department request. 12 Flashalertnewswire, Summary of Judge Stewarts Opinion and Order on Summary Judgment. See also Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County, et al. . U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Case No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST. 13 Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel, legislative attorneys, Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law. Congressional Research Service, September 10, 2012. 14 Supreme Court of the United States, Arizona et al. v. United States . No. 11182. Argued April 25, 2012, decided June 25, 2012. 15 Michael John Garcia and Kate M. Manuel, op. cit. 19 See Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass . When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less. Spørsmålet er, sa Alice, om du kan lage ord betyr så mange forskjellige ting. 20 8 U. S.C. 1357(g). Unfortunately, as with Secure Communities, the Obama administration, responding to open borders advocates, has also eviscerated this previously robust nationwide program. 23 In fact, the now-defunct Secure Communities program was predicated upon language found in Public Law 110-329, which, in addition to providing the outlay of funds required for start-up and eventual national implementation, established a requirement of quarterly reports to the House and Senate committees on appropriations. See U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Salaries and Expenses within Title II of Division D of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, 122 STAT. 3594, enacted in September of 2008. Both the funding and the reporting requirements continued in appropriations acts passed by Congress and signed into law by the president every year thereafter. For this reason, the decision by the secretary to discontinue the program appears to fly in the face of congressional intent. 26 See 8 U. S.C. 1226 and 8 U. S.C. 1357. Note, particularly 8 U. S.C. 1357(d), discussed earlier in this paper, which states: - Powers of immigration officers and employees (d) Detainer of aliens for violation of controlled substances laws In the case of an alien who is arrested by a Federal, State, or local law enforcement official for a violation of any law relating to controlled substances, if the official (or another official) (1) has reason to believe that the alien may not have been lawfully admitted to the United States or otherwise is not lawfully present in the United States, (2) expeditiously informs an appropriate officer or employee of the Service authorized and designated by the Attorney General of the arrest and of facts concerning the status of the alien, and (3) requests the Service to determine promptly whether or not to issue a detainer to detain the alien, the officer or employee of the Service shall promptly determine whether or not to issue such a detainer. If such a detainer is issued and the alien is not otherwise detained by Federal, State, or local officials, the Attorney General shall effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien. 27 Article VI of the U. S. Constitution states: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. 28 The preemption doctrine is imposed when state law or regulation touch a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject. In the case of refusal to honor ICE detainers, state or local policies that ignore a federal directive are unconstitutional even though they purport to pursue or aid federal law. See Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U. S. 497 (1956) and Charleston amp Western Carolina R. Co. v. Varnville Furniture Co. . 237 U. S. 597 (1915). 29 There is a reason for the existence federal Supremacy Clause, rooted in the history of our founding as a nation. The Articles of Confederation provided for only the loosest federal structure of government, preferring each colonystate to be co-equal and preeminent over that structure that did exist. In fact, the Articles did not refer to a nation, per se, but rather a league of states. The federal government possessed no chief executive indeed, no executive branch whatever, nor a judiciary. Each state felt free to establish its own trading rules, its own laws governing citizenship, etc. Needless to say, the weakness of such a structure was its undoing. 30 The source of federal power to regulate immigration comes through a combination of international and constitutional legal principles. The Chinese Exclusion Cases (beginning with Chae Chan Ping v. United States . 130 U. S. 581 (1889)) were the first cases to hold that the federal authority to exclude non-citizens is an incident of national sovereignty. The Supreme Court reasoned that every national government has the inherent authority to protect the national public interest. Immigration, the court found, is a matter of vital national concern. The court distinguished between national and local spheres. It is the role of the federal government to oversee matters of national concern, while it is the province of the states to govern local matters. Therefore, the court found that the inherent sovereign power to regulate immigration clearly resides in the federal government. Subsequent cases reinforced national sovereignty as the source of federal power to control immigration and consistently reasserted the plenary and unqualified scope of this power. Fong Yue Ting v. United States . 149 U. S. 698 (1893) explicitly held that the power to expel or deport (now remove) non-citizens rests upon the same ground as the exclusion power and is equally absolute and unqualified. 31 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States . 1831. Stated Story: The propriety of this clause Supremacy Clause would seem to result from the very nature of the Constitution. If it was to establish a national government, that government ought, to the extent of its powers and rights, to be supreme. It would be a perfect solecism to affirm, that a national government should exist with certain powers and yet, that in the exercise of those powers it should not be supreme. See also The Founders Constitution . Volume 4, Article 6, Clause 2, Document 42, Chicago: University of Chicago Press and Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 3 vols. Boston, 1833 . 32 Comity is legal reciprocity, the principle that one jurisdiction will extend certain courtesies to other jurisdictions within the same nation, particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative, and judicial acts. Part of the presumption of comity is that other jurisdictions will reciprocate the courtesy shown to them. In the United States, comity also refers to the Privileges and Immunities Clause (sometimes called the Comity Clause) in Article Four, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U. S. Constitution. The clause provides that The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. See Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School. 33 Elizabeth Price Foley, Presidents Cannot Ignore Laws as Written. New York Times . January 29, 2014. Stated Professor Foley: President Obama has shown a penchant for ignoring the plain language of our laws. He unilaterally rewrote the employer mandate and several other provisions of the Affordable Care Act, failing to faithfully execute a law which declares, unambiguously, that these provisions shall apply beginning January 1, 2014. Similarly, in suspending deportation for a class of young people who entered this country illegally, the president defied the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that any alien who is inadmissible at the time of entry into the country shall be removed. 34 Supreme Court, op. cit. . s. 8 35 The Supreme Court has adjudicated disputes between federal and sub-federal entities in this arena for almost 150 years, siding overwhelmingly with the federal government and striking down state and local laws. 36 Jessica Vaughan, ICE Document Details 36,000 Criminal Alien Releases in 2013, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder . May 2014. 37 See Chy Lung v. Freeman . 92 U. S. 275, 280 (1875) and Hines v. Davidowitz . 312 U. S. 52, 62 (1941). These cases hold That the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization, and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution was pointed out by authors of the Federalist in 1787, and has since been given continuous recognition by this Court. 38 The relevant statute can be found at Section 274(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U. S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) . 39 For one detailed explanation of judicial deference to administrative agencies, arising from a Supreme Court decision of 2004, see Randolph J. May, Defining Deference Down: Independent Agencies and Chevron Deference. Administrative Law Review . Vol. 58, No. 2, Spring 2006 (58 Admin. L. Rev. 428 (2006)). 44 See the cases of Erick Maya. of Cook County, Ill. who was recently sentenced to 122 years in prison for murdering his ex-girlfriend, and who was at large despite an immigration detainer, and Hector Ramires. of Chelsea, Mass. who is currently in custody on murder charges in an incident that occurred several months after arrests for armed robbery, in which ICE declined to issue detainers. 48 Jessica Vaughan, op. cit. . and Jessica Vaughan, The Alternative to Immigration Detention: Fugitives. Center for Immigration Studies blog, October 18, 2011. 49 For more information on the issue of SCAAP funding, and the hypocrisy inherent in state and local agencies demanding reimbursement for incarceration costs of aliens they refuse to turn over to ICE, see Russ Doubleday and Jessica Vaughan, Subsidizing Sanctuaries: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder . November 2010, and Jessica Vaughan, After the Election, More Flexibility for Sanctuaries. Center for Immigration Studies blog, November 26, 2012. 50 INA Section 236(a), codified at 8 U. S.C. 1226(a). states in relevant part, On a warrant issued by the Attorney General, an alien may be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the United States. 51 For more on the EOPS memorandum and its flawed logic, see Dan Cadmans blog, Mass. Public Safety Office Seeks to Impede Immigration Enforcement. Center for Immigration Studies, September 16, 2014. 52 For an analysis of the SAFE Act, see W. D. Reasoner, Better SAFE Than Sorry. Center for Immigration Studies, August 2013.