Several other bills were introduced in the 109th Congress that would have strengthened the role of state and local law enforcement officers in enforcing immigration law, including the Clear Application of the Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2005, H.R. 3137; the Enforcement First Immigration Reform Act of 2005, H.R. 3938; the Rewarding Employers Act of 2005 for complying with the law and ensuring uniform application to stop terrorism, H.R. 3333; the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005, p. 1362; the Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act 2005, p. 1438; and Securing America`s Borders Act, p. 2454. Unlike these bills, the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Act of 2005, H.R. 2092, would have limited the role of state and local law enforcement in immigration law.
Paragraph 1357(g) allows for a great deal of flexibility. Section 1252c(a) states in part: For example, if state or local officials question the immigration status of a person they have detained for a state or local violation, they may contact an ICE officer at the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC).5 The federal agent may then place a detainee on top of the suspect and ask the state agent to: to keep the suspect in custody until a decision can be made on his immigration status. Section 1252c did not preclude state authorities from arresting for federal violation. With respect to the first conclusion, the opinion focuses on the power of states as sovereign entities to retain certain police powers under the Constitution, namely the inherent power to make arrests for violations of federal law. As regards the second conclusion, the 2002 opinion discredits much of the authority cited in the 1996 and 1989 opinions, takes into account previously unexamined case law and formulates the issue of pre-emption differently (from previous opinions).30 The analysis of the third conclusion examines the legislative history of Article 1252c and a case of the tenth circle, to find a strong presumption against the right of first refusal.