A number of cities, counties and states have limited their cooperation with ICE, arguing that it creates additional costs and breeds fear that could harm public safety.
The comments came as a surprise to immigration and civil liberties advocates, considering recent efforts by the Department of Homeland Security to mend its relationships with local law enforcement agencies.
The attorneys general of 17 states are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for invalidating agency-approved state implementation plans (SIPs) governing emissions from power plant startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) operations.
The states have asked a federal court to review the EPA’s June-issued final rule, which deems SIP provisions concerning SSM operations in 36 states (applicable in 45 statewide and local jurisdictions) as “substantially inadequate to meet [Clean Air Act] requirements.” The rule issued a “SIP call” directing affected states to correct SSM provisions to reflect recent court decisions, which have voided exemptions previously adopted and approved into SIPs many years ago.
Exemptions removed include affirmative defense provisions, which, owing to the April 2014 federal court decision in NRDC v.
EPA, can no longer insulate generators from monetary penalties for Clean Air Act violations that result from facility startup, shutdown, and equipment malfunction.
The rule requires states to submit revised SIPs by November 2016.
The EPA says it issued the final rule in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by the Sierra Club. 11 statement that the EPA’s final rule is a “heavy-handed federal overreach [that] threatens to upend a system that the EPA has approved multiple times.” She said that the EPA’s “imprudent rush to settle the matter has led the agency to adopt an illegal final rule that is in conflict with the Clean Air Act and imposes on Florida’s right to determine the most effective strategy for achieving air quality standards.” States suing the EPA are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia.
WASHINGTON -- The director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement said Thursday that she would support a law to require local law enforcement to hold immigrants for ICE even if they oppose doing so -- seemingly flying in the face of recent efforts by the Obama administration to mend relationships with frustrated localities.
But on Friday, ICE Director Sarah Saldaña walked back the remarks to be sure there was "no confusion," saying, "Any effort at federal legislation now to mandate state and local law enforcement’s compliance with ICE detainers will, in our view, be a highly counterproductive step and lead to more resistance and less cooperation in our overall efforts to promote public safety." (Read her full statement at the end of the story.)Speaking at a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing Thursday, Saldaña lamented local laws and policies against holding suspected deportable immigrants beyond when they would otherwise be released.
The principles behind Secure Communities sound simple enough: When people are arrested, if they are flagged as undocumented, ICE sends a detainer request asking police to hold them, and then comes to pick them up.
But opponents say there are a number of serious problems with that process.
It means people who might otherwise be released within hours could be held much longer, risking civil liberties violations and burdening the jails with additional costs.