State preemption of local government discretion is examined through the lenses of county cooperation with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and “immigration federalism.” Through a mixed-method approach, we examine why counties collaborate with ICE as well as how and why they deviate from state preemptions on local support for immigration. Analysis of a sample restricted to Georgia and Texas, states with especially robust preemptive anti-immigrant laws, suggests that special interests—those related to immigrant-dependent industries important to county economies—have significant influence over county decisions to minimize cooperation with ICE.
AdelmanRobertReidLesley WilliamsMarkleGailWeissSaskiaJaretCharles. 2016. Urban crime rates and the changing face of immigration: Evidence across four decades. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice15 (1): 52–77.
BarrilleauxCharles J.MillerMark E.. 1988. The political economy of state Medicaid policy. American Political Science Review82 (4): 1089–107.
4.
BowmanAnn O’M.KearneyRichard C.. 2012. Are U.S. cities losing power and authority? Perceptions of local government actors. Urban Affairs Review48 (4): 528–46.
5.
BriffaultRichard. 2018. The challenge of the new preemption. Stanford Law Review70 (6): 1995–2027.
6.
CasellasJason P.WallaceSophia Jordán. 2020. Sanctuary cities: Public attitudes toward enforcement collaboration between local police and federal immigration authorities. Urban Affairs Review56 (1): 32–64.
7.
ChandDaniel E.SchreckhiseWilliam D.. 2015. Secure communities and community values: Local context and discretionary immigration law enforcement. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies41 (10): 1621–43.
8.
ChavezJorge M.ProvineDoris Marie. 2009. Race and the response of state legislatures to unauthorized immigrants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science623 (1): 78–92.
9.
CraigMaureen A.RichesonJennifer A.. 2014. On the precipice of a “majority-minority” America: Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political ideology. Psychological Science25:1189–97.
10.
CreekHeather M.YoderStephen. 2012. With a little help from our feds: Understanding state immigration enforcement policy adoption in American Federalism. Policy Studies Journal40 (4): 674–97.
11.
FarrisEmily M.HolmanMirya R.. 2017. All politics is local? County sheriffs and localized policies of immigration enforcement. Political Research Quarterly70 (1): 142–54.
12.
FiskJonathan M.2016. Fractured relationships: Exploring municipal defiance in Colorado, Texas, and Ohio. State and Local Government Review48 (2): 75–86.
13.
FowlerL.WittStephanie. 2019. State preemption of local authority: Explaining patterns of state adoption of preemption measures. Publius: The Journal of Federalism49 (3): 540–59.
Georgia House Bill 87, Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of2011, Georgia General Assembly 2011-2012 Regular Session.
16.
JaegerJillian. 2016. Securing communities or profits? The effect of federal-local partnerships on immigration enforcement. State Politics & Policy Quarterly16 (3): 362–86.
MorseAnnDeatherageLydiaIbarraVeronica. 2017. Sanctuary policy FAQ. National Council of State Legislatures, March 30.
22.
NewtonLina. 2018. Immigration politics by proxy: State agency in an era of national reluctance. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies44 (12): 2086–105.
23.
NewtonLina. 2020. Who governs immigrant labor? Status, residency, and rights in federal and state law. Publius: The Journal of Federalism50 (3): 473–93.
24.
Nicholson-CrottyJillNicholson-CrottySean. 2011. Industry strength and immigrant policy in the American states. Political Research Quarterly64 (3): 612–24.
RamakrishnanKarthickWongTom (Tak). 2010. Partisanship, not Spanish: Explaining municipal ordinances affecting undocumented immigrants. In Taking local control: Immigration policy activism in U.S. cities and states, edited by VarsanyiMonica W., 73–93. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
ReichG.2018. Hitting a wall? The Trump administration meets immigration federalism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism48 (3): 372–95.
31.
ReichGaryBarthJay. 2012. Immigration restriction in the states: Contesting the boundaries of federalism?Publius: The Journal of Federalism42 (3): 422–48.
32.
Riverstone-NewellLori. 2012. Bottom-up activism: A local political strategy for higher policy change. Publius42 (3): 401–21.
33.
Riverstone-NewellLori. 2017. The rise of state preemption laws in response to local policy innovation. Publius: The Journal of Federalism47 (3): 403–25.
34.
SchraggerRichard C.2018. The attack on American cities. Texas Law Review96 (6): 1164–233.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 2020. Detainer non-cooperation threatens public safety. August 24. https://www.ice.gov/spotlight/declined-detainers (accessed December 21, 2020).
ValentinoNicholas A.BraderTedJardinaAshley E.. 2013. Immigration opposition among U.S. whites: General ethnocentrism or media priming of attitudes about Latinos?Political Psychology34 (2): 149–66.
40.
VarsanyiMonica W.2011. Neoliberalism and nativism: Local anti-immigrant policy activism and an emerging politics of scale. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research35 (2): 295–311.
41.
VarsanyiMonica W.LewisPaul G.ProvineDoris MarieDeckerScott. 2012. A multilayered jurisdictional patchwork: Immigration federalism in the United States. Law & Policy34 (2): 138–58.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
