Listening to Iowa Republicans talk about illegal immigration, their horror at how President Joe Biden directs federal resources and policies with regard to borders is palpable. Just as obvious, though, is the strength of belief among Republicans nationwide that contrasting Biden with Donald Trump on immigration is among their most promising paths to victory in November’s general election.
It is in that context that Gov. Kim Reynolds is poised to sign into law a bill that sounds “tough” but almost certainly will change nothing for, at minimum, many months. It will change nothing because it plainly is incompatible with federal law, regardless of advocates’ insistence that states are threatened by an “invasion.” A federal appeals court has placed a nearly identical Texas law on hold for exactly that reason.
Besides the practical impotence of the bill, its operation, if it eventually took effect, would not make Iowa better. It would create more work and potentially expense for local law enforcement and it would punitively deny rights to migrants without documentation.
Iowa should have left well enough alone. Once the bill is signed, a legal challenge and judicial injunction should follow promptly.
This isn’t a real solution to immigration challenges
Senate File 2340 creates a crime called “illegal reentry.” Migrants who have previously been deported or denied entry to the United States could be arrested if they’re found in Iowa. The penalties are geared toward getting defendants out of the country: The criminal cases can be dropped in favor of deportation if the defendant agrees, and removal is a required condition of sentencing after conviction.
The legal problems this poses are considerable, but it’s worth weighing practical concerns at the outset. Undocumented immigrants’ distrust of law enforcement would presumably increase if state law empowers and encourages them to enforce this law. And would people who do have permission to be in the country be more likely to be questioned over their status? Do local police need more work?
The bill requires that an official be designated to ensure that people ordered to leave Iowa for a port of entry actually do so. This provision strains the Republican “every state is a border state” mantra. “The cost to transport an individual to a port of entry is unknown. Although the fiscal impact cannot be estimated, it may be significant,” nonpartisan analysts wrote about the Iowa bill. No lobbyist representing Iowa law enforcement organizations registered in favor of the bill.
Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, told the Associated Press that “to train a bunch of state officers in a field of enforcement in which they have zero background and zero training is an operational headache.”
Courts have already said this approach isn’t allowed
As for the legal side: The US Supreme Court decided in 2012 that states are not permitted under the Constitution to freelance their own immigration-enforcement schemes, turning back an aggressive Arizona law. US District Judge David Ezra last month ruled that Texas’ law suffered from the same defect as Arizona’s. Texas is arguing that it has been “invaded” and gets more leeway under Article I of the Constitution as a result; Ezra was unimpressed, writing that “surges in immigration do not constitute an ‘invasion’ within the meaning of the Constitution.”
The reasons for leaving immigration policy in the federal government’s hands are many. As the Texas law bounced through the court system, US Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that its implementation would “disrupt sensitive foreign relations, frustrate the protection of individuals fleeing persecution, hamper active federal enforcement efforts, undermine federal agencies’ ability to detect and monitor imminent security threats, and deter noncitizens from reporting abuse or trafficking.”
The question of whether Texas can eventually enforce its law is now before a federal appeals court and could eventually go back to the US Supreme Court. It’s unlikely that any such law will be allowed to take effect anytime soon. For now, in other words, Iowa’s Senate File 2340 amounts to posturing more than policy.
What Iowa needs is harder than playing politics
“Extraordinary times require extraordinary measures,” Rep. Steve Holt, a Denison Republican, said on the Iowa House floor as he acknowledged the complexity of the legal landscape. But even if the Supreme Court overturns its 2012 ruling in the Arizona cases or buys into the idea that “invasion” justifies a bill like Iowa’s, this approach still is not prudent.
Those unhappy with how President Joe Biden handles immigration should vote him out of office, or insist that Congress pass laws to restrict his discretion. Those remedies are in line with the Constitution. What’s not helpful is challenging the White House’s authority with a bill that does nothing now and could make things worse later.
Lucas Grundmeier, on behalf of the Register’s editorial board
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Iowa isn’t getting tough on immigration. This bill is all politics.
