• Services
  • Attorneys
  • Media & Insights
  • Online Payment
Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey. A description of the selection methodology can be found here.
  • Services
  • Attorneys
  • Media & Insights
  • About Us
  • Delivering Value
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Meritas
  • Contact Us
  • Online Payment
    A
    Alternative Dispute ResolutionAntitrust & Trade RegulationAppellate Practice
    B
    Banking & Financial ServicesBankruptcy, Creditors’ Rights, and Financial RestructuringBeer LawBusiness Law
    C
    Cannabis LawConstruction LawCooperative and Condominium Law (Co-op & Condo)Criminal Defense
    E
    Economic Development LawElder Care & Special Needs LawElectronic Discovery ("E-Discovery")Environmental LawEstate Planning and Administration & Wealth PreservationExecutive Compensation and Employment Strategies
    F
    Food, Beverage & HospitalityFranchise Law
    H
    Health Care & Life SciencesHealth Care ProvidersHigher EducationHospitals and Health Networks
    I
    ImmigrationInsurance CoverageIntellectual PropertyIntellectual Property Litigation, Arbitration, and Dispute ResolutionIntellectual Property Portfolio Strategy, Management & LicensingInternational BusinessInternet Law
    L
    Labor & EmploymentLiquor Law, Licensing, Manufacturing, and DistributionLitigation
    M
    Media Law & Creative Economy PracticeMergers & AcquisitionsMunicipal Law
    N
    Non-Profit Law
    P
    Patent Preparation and ProsecutionPharmaceutical / Medical Devices / Pharma ServicesProducts and Consumer Liability DefenseProfessional LiabilityPublic Utilities
    R
    Real Estate, Finance, and Land Use
    S
    SecuritiesSolar Energy
    T
    TaxationTelecommunicationsTrademark & Copyright Protection & Enforcement
    V
    Venture Tech & Emerging Growth Companies
    W
    White Collar Investigations & DefenseWorkers’ Compensation
    • New Jersey
    • New York
    • Pennsylvania
    • Blogs
    • Articles
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Resources

    Categories

    Citizenship Crime DACA Deportation Detention DREAM Act EB-5 Education Elections Employers General Immigration Government Green Card Hot Topics ICE LGBTQ+ Refugees Social Media Sponsorship Uncategorized Undocumented USCIS Visas
    Blogs > Immigration Matters > DHS and States Sign SAFE...
    NM PR
    Visit Profile

    DHS and States Sign SAFE Agreement That Could Obstruct Biden’s Upcoming Immigration Policies

    DHS and States Sign SAFE Agreement That Could Obstruct Biden’s Upcoming Immigration Policies

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has signed agreements with many states that will pose a threat to the Biden administration’s goals. The DHS has signed the Sanctuary for Americans First Enactment Agreement (SAFE) with Arizona, Louisiana, Indiana, and the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office in North Carolina. This SAFE agreement could seriously hamstring the administration’s goals of pausing deportations, prioritizing immigration arrests to immigrants with serious criminal backgrounds, and increasing avenues to asylum.

    The Sanctuary for Americans First Enactment Agreement

    Under the SAFE agreements, the DHS would give notice of immigration policy changes and the states would have six months to review them and submit comments. Only after this review can the DHS move forward with the proposed changes. The DHS would require the states to sign agreements confirming that the DHS provided the required notice.

    “DHS recognizes that Agency, like other state agencies and municipalities, is directly and concretely affected by changes to DHS rules and policies that have the effect of easing, relaxing, or limiting immigration enforcement,” notes the agreement with Arizona. “Such changes can negatively impact Agency’s law enforcement needs and budgets, as well as its other important health, safety, and pecuniary interests of the State of Arizona.”

    The agreement states that the DHS will “prioritize the protection of the United States” by enforcing immigration laws in a way that prioritizes detention and results in arrests of “removable aliens.” Further, the DHS will provide “an opportunity to consult and comment on the proposed action, before taking any such action listed above.” The agreement provides injunctive relief whereby if either of the parties refuses to comply with the agreement, the State can request termination of the agreement with 180 days of notice.

    Reactions to the SAFE Agreement

    Sarah Pierce, a policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, told BuzzFeed News “In its final days, the Trump administration is staying true to its strategy of trying anything and everything to implement its restrictive immigration agenda and give it staying power after their time in office.”

    Lt. Kevin Suthard, a spokesperson for the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office signed the agreement last year. “It’s not political, it’s about public safety. Doing all that we can to keep the residents of Rockingham County that we serve safe,” he said in an email to BuzzFeed News. “That it is always our number one priority.”

    Immigration Law Professor of Santa Clara University School of Law, Pratheepan Gulasekaram, said the agreement is a mechanism for the states to potentially sue the administration over the changing policies in federal court. “This is just another last-ditch effort to try and ingrain a reckless hyper enforcement system, but completely unmoored from legal, constitutional ways of implementing policy,” he said.

    Senior advocate and policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, Naureen Shah, called the agreements “a transparent attempt by Trump officials to tie the Biden-Harris administration’s hands and preserve Trump’s grotesque immigration enforcement policy.”

    Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, who resigned in the last week of December, said that “Unfortunately, this action is warranted by recent events, including the ongoing and meritless court rulings regarding the validity of my authority as Acting Secretary.” Many policies that Wolf issued while in office were challenged in court, as attorneys argued the legality of his appointment to his role. In many cases, the federal judges noted that Wolf was not lawfully appointed, thereby blocking the DHS policies for that reason.

    It remains unsure what effects these agreements will have once the Biden administration starts rolling out its immigration reforms.

    To learn more about this blog post or if you have any other immigration concerns, please feel free to contact me at info@norris-law.com or (484) 544-0022.

    NM PR
    Visit Profile

    Related Posts

    Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Immigration Enforcement Protocol Accused Attacker of Paul Pelosi Present in the United States Illegally; Faces Deportation Department of Homeland Security Announces Updated Migration Enforcement Process for Venezuelans

    Share

    Tags

    #asylum #Biden #Homeland Security

    Helpful links

    • About Us
    • News
    • Services
    • Blogs
    • Attorneys
    • Articles
    • (COVID-19)
    • Award Methodology
    • Events
    • Join our Team
    Connect
    Online Payment

    Connect with Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Instagram
    • Youtube

    Join our growing team

    We are looking for quality attorneys to help us do more for our clients. At Norris McLaughlin, each attorney has the same opportunity to succeed whether you’re at the beginning of a career or pinnacle of the profession.

    Learn More

    Subscribe to our content

    Receive timely legal information delivered to your inbox

    This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
    © , Norris McLaughlin, P.A., All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
    VIEW OUR DISCLAIMER,  TERMS OF USE,  AND PRIVACY POLICY

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume you consent to our cookie policy. Learn more