Leadership Theories and Undocumented Immigrants in Gainesville

Introduction: Law Enforcement and Undocumented Immigrants in Gainesville

The city of Gainesville has a population of about 54,000, of whom approximately 3,200 are undocumented immigrants. The law enforcement community in this city is charged with protecting these undocumented residents on the one hand while enforcing federal immigration laws on the other. The extent to which undocumented residents fear that police will enforce those laws may be the extent to which they are discouraged from seeking help when they need it, thereby exacerbating existing crime levels. Conversely, the extent to which law enforcement authorities fail to enforce immigration laws may be the extent to which they are perceived as derelict in their official duties.

To determine the optimal course of action for law enforcement authorities facing these conflicting priorities, this paper reviews the relevant literature, including a discussion of so-called "sanctuary cities" and "sanctuary counties." A summary of the research and important findings concerning these conflicting responsibilities—and the optimal course of action law enforcement authorities should take to fulfill their official responsibilities in the best interests of the community—is presented in the conclusion.

Federal Immigration Law and the Role of Local Law Enforcement

Local and state law enforcement agencies are being placed in a difficult position when it comes to the enforcement of federal immigration laws. As one legal analyst emphasizes, "The federal government's increased reliance upon local police to assist in federal enforcement efforts, coupled with Congress's failure to pass meaningful reform, has transformed the local police chief into the public face of the immigration debate in his community" (Tidwell, 2014, p. 105). In this capacity, local and state law enforcement authorities are being forced to identify an appropriate approach to protecting the safety and welfare of undocumented residents while simultaneously being called upon to arrest those same individuals if they are found to be in criminal or civil violation of federal immigration laws. The federal initiative known as "Secure Communities" specifically requests cooperation from local and state police departments in this effort, including sharing fingerprints of arrested undocumented immigrants with federal authorities—a practice that Tidwell (2014) maintains "raises the question of whether the two competing concerns are mutually exclusive" (p. 106).

The federal immigration laws governing illegal immigration are clear in their purpose and intent. For instance, 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(1)(A) (2008) states that "Any alien who at the time of entry or adjustment of status was within one or more of the classes of aliens inadmissible by the law existing at such time is deportable," and 8 U.S.C. Section 1227(a)(1)(B) (2008) likewise provides that "Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this chapter or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa has been revoked under section 1201(i) of this title, is deportable." Given that these are the laws of the land, and given that the Fourteenth Amendment extends their coverage to the state and local levels, it would seem reasonable to assume that law enforcement authorities at every level would be obligated to enforce them. Nevertheless, critics of these laws argue that the Tenth Amendment guarantees local and state law enforcement authorities the right to refuse to provide this type of assistance if doing so is viewed as contrary to the public's best interests (Tidwell, 2015).

These issues have assumed far greater importance following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the jihadist-inspired shootings in San Bernardino, California in December 2015. As Koback (2004) emphasizes, "Enforcing our nation's immigration laws is one of the most daunting challenges faced by the federal government" (para. 1). Proponents of local and state cooperation argue that the challenges involved mean the federal government needs all the help it can get in identifying and prosecuting undocumented immigrants. Koback (2004) points out that "With an estimated 8–10 million illegal aliens already present in the United States and fewer than 2,000 interior enforcement agents at its disposal, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE) has a Herculean task on its hands—one that it simply cannot accomplish alone" (para. 2). Moreover, such cooperative approaches have a lengthy precedent. Tidwell (2015) notes that "While the Constitution vests the power to enact and enforce immigration law in the federal government, state and local authorities have long played a role in our country's interior immigration enforcement efforts" (p. 106).

The overarching goal of the federal government is to ensure that each undocumented immigrant is apprehended and deported unless otherwise eligible for an amnesty program, and the nation's local law enforcement communities represent the additional resources the federal government believes are needed to do the job more effectively. As Koback concludes, "The assistance of state and local law enforcement agencies can mean the difference between success and failure in enforcing immigration laws. The more than 650,000 police officers nationwide represent a massive force multiplier" (2004, para. 3). Moreover, Section 133 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996—"Acceptance of State Services to Carry Out Immigration Enforcement"—stipulates in part that:

[T]he [U.S.] Attorney General may enter into a written agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States . . . may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State and local law.

Two important points emerge from this legislation. First, there is no mandatory requirement that obligates local or state law enforcement officials to enforce federal immigration laws; the operative language is "may enter"—that is, "can" rather than "shall" or "must." Second, this Act places the economic burden of enforcing federal immigration laws squarely on local and state police departments, an expense they may not be able to afford when other law enforcement priorities exist.

Other guidelines from the federal government are also carefully framed in voluntary terms. A 2005 Supreme Court decision in Muehler v. Mena (544 U.S. 93) held that law enforcement authorities at all levels are authorized to inquire about immigration status during any lawful contact with residents; however, the Court did not hold that they are specifically required to do so (Local law enforcement may cooperate with immigration enforcement, 2016). A U.S. Department of Justice memorandum dated September 8, 2005, similarly states: "State and local cops can make arrests after traffic stops if they find civil immigration violations, such as someone overstaying a visa. No specific federal authority is needed for local officers to make such arrests" (cited in Local law enforcement may cooperate with immigration enforcement, 2016, para. 3). The memorandum also indicated, however, that local and state authorities are only authorized to enforce immigration laws when criminal immigration violations are involved, such as entering the country illegally (Local law enforcement may cooperate with immigration enforcement, 2016).

There has been general consensus nationwide that local and state law enforcement authorities are authorized to make arrests when they encounter people in violation of criminal immigration laws. Some confusion remains, however, concerning their authority over civil violations of federal immigration law that may also be grounds for deportation (Local law enforcement may cooperate, 2016). According to the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, "This confusion was, to some extent, fostered by an erroneous 1996 opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice, the relevant part of which has since been withdrawn" (Local law enforcement may cooperate, 2016, para. 5). Despite this initial confusion, there is now widespread agreement that local and state police officers also possess the inherent authority to arrest undocumented immigrants for either criminal or civil offenses of federal immigration laws, and this authority has never been challenged by courts of competent jurisdiction (Local law enforcement may cooperate, 2016). Notwithstanding these guidelines, however, law enforcement authorities in some local jurisdictions have relied on the Tenth Amendment to refuse cooperation (Tidwell, 2015).

These dynamics suggest that law enforcement authorities in jurisdictions such as Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas—where there are large numbers of undocumented immigrants—may be more willing to help the federal government enforce immigration laws. States that are geographically removed from border regions will be less inclined to do so, given both the costs involved and the concern that undocumented residents may be less willing to contact police when they need help for fear of arrest and deportation. Nevertheless, proponents of enlisting local and state assistance argue that the threat to public safety represented by global terrorist organizations demands a cooperative nationwide response that includes all law enforcement resources (States can and must help enforce federal immigration law, 2014).

Sanctuary Cities: Policies, Characteristics, and Crime Outcomes

Some communities have elected to disregard calls for assistance from the federal government, relying on the sovereignty provisions of the Tenth Amendment and assigning a far lower priority to the enforcement of federal immigration laws. These communities have invited all residents—regardless of citizenship status—to become otherwise law-abiding members of the community. In response to the increasing numbers of undocumented immigrants in many American cities, some municipalities have approached law enforcement from a completely different perspective: prioritizing the provision of police services to all residents irrespective of immigration status, while declining to prosecute residents for their immigration status alone. These types of cities have become known as "sanctuary cities," where undocumented immigrants are virtually exempt from local law enforcement action for their immigration status unless they commit a serious crime. Villazor (2015) reports that "Sanctuary city describes some municipalities that have adopted sanctuary, non-cooperation, or confidentiality policies for undocumented residents, which may be viewed as inclusionary types of laws" (p. 573). According to Rose (2012), the sanctuary city movement began during the 1980s, long before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 would create new concerns over undocumented immigration. A growing number of American cities—including New York City, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Phoenix, San Francisco, Austin, Dallas, Detroit, and Miami—have elected to become sanctuary cities (Rose, 2012).

Although specific provisions vary by jurisdiction, some defining characteristics of most sanctuary cities include a refusal to use municipal funds to enforce federal immigration laws. Villazor cites the example of San Francisco, where "sanctuary law prohibits the use of city funds and resources to aid in federal enforcement of immigration law" (2015, p. 573). Similarly, Rose (2012) reports that "The most common protection [afforded by sanctuary cities] involved prohibiting municipal workers from inquiring into anyone's immigration status" (p. 41). San Francisco not only prohibits municipal employees from inquiring about immigration status but also prohibits reporting undocumented immigrants to federal authorities unless they have been arrested for a felony (Villazor, 2015).

Even in some states where illegal immigration has reached significant levels, such as Texas, some cities have elected sanctuary status. Spadanuta (2007) reports that "The Houston, Texas Police Department's Immigration policy states that it will not detain a person solely based on the belief that the individual is an illegal immigrant and officers will not ask about legal status unless a person is arrested and taken to jail" (p. 27). Some sanctuary cities, such as Cambridge, Massachusetts, even refuse to describe undocumented immigrants using the word "illegal." Pursuant to the City Resolution implementing Cambridge's sanctuary status, "Cambridge, Massachusetts rejects the use of the word 'illegal' to describe human beings" (cited in Rose, 2012, p. 42).

There has been growing interest in whether the sanctuary city approach is a viable alternative to rigorous enforcement of civil and criminal federal immigration violations, particularly with regard to crime rates. A study by the Center for Immigration Studies using FBI Uniform Crime data analyzed murder rates in sanctuary San Francisco and found that non-sanctuary cities of comparable size experienced higher crime levels. Shaw (2015) reports that "San Francisco had 5.75 murders per 100,000 residents in 2013. The rates were higher among non-sanctuary cities: Indianapolis had 15.17 murders per 100,000, followed by Dallas at 11.39, Columbus at 11.06, Jacksonville at 10.99, and Fort Worth at 6.08" (para. 2).

Other studies, however, have found higher crime rates in some sanctuary cities. Los Angeles is also a sanctuary city, where police officers are charged with protecting undocumented immigrants from federal prosecution. According to one critic, "When combined with the criminal aliens' attraction to cities that won't cooperate with federal law enforcement, you create a slum of violence, a city that tells criminals the rule of law is fluid and vague" (Bruce, 2016, para. 3). This criticism is supported by crime rate statistics from Los Angeles that identified significant percentage increases in virtually every category of violent crime. Bruce (2016) reports that the Los Angeles Police Department recorded 280 homicides—up 10.2% from 2014—and 1,097 shooting victims, a 12.6% increase. The LAPD also experienced an 8.6% increase in robberies and rapes, and a 27.5% increase in aggravated assaults (Bruce, 2016). Despite these increases, Los Angeles city leaders remained committed to sanctuary status, a commitment that critics charge places the entire city at increased risk of violent crime. As Bruce concludes, "All divisions of the LAPD reported an increase in all crime, violence and property offenses. Yet never is the elephant in the city mentioned: the impact of an open border and the horrific impact a sanctuary city has on the quality of life for all residents" (2016, para. 5). Taken together, it is clear that not all sanctuary cities have experienced the same outcomes as a result of their efforts to afford undocumented immigrants a measure of protection.

What Is Leadership? Definitions and Key Distinctions

People such as Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt are widely regarded as great leaders who changed world history and affected the lives of millions. There remains less agreement, however, concerning a specific definition of leadership and the differences that exist between leaders, managers, and followers—an issue that has assumed increasing importance as public and private sector organizations seek to achieve and sustain high performance. To address these differences with more precision, the following section reviews the relevant literature to define leaders, managers, and followers, and discusses how various leadership theories—Great Leader Theory, servant leadership, transformational leadership, and situational leadership—can explain, shape, and improve the governance and management of public policy.

There is no universally accepted definition of leadership. As Helmrich (2016) observes, "Some people think leadership means guiding others to complete a particular task, while others believe it means motivating the members of your team to be their best selves" (para. 1). Despite these differences, some commonalities exist: "Leaders are people who know how to achieve goals and inspire people along the way" (Helmrich, 2016, para. 2). This definition could also apply to many managers, but there are other defining characteristics that help illuminate the differences. Hur (2008) advises that "Leadership can be defined as those activities that influence subordinates to strive willingly to attain the goals of the organization" (para. 2).

Every organization has numerous levels of authority, and the relationship between leadership and management is inextricable depending on time, place, and situation. Hur concludes that "Leadership and management must go hand-in-hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves" (2008, para. 3). Nevertheless, recent scholarship has focused on identifying discrete differences between leaders and managers. According to Murray (2016), the main differences can be conceptualized as follows:

Managers administer; leaders innovate. Managers are copies; leaders are originals. Managers maintain; leaders develop. Managers focus on systems and structure; leaders focus on people. Managers rely on control; leaders inspire trust. Managers have a short-range view; leaders have a long-range perspective. Managers ask how and when; leaders ask what and why. Managers keep their eyes on the bottom line; leaders keep their eyes on the horizon. Managers imitate; leaders originate. Managers accept the status quo; leaders challenge it. Managers are the classic good soldier; leaders are their own person. Managers do things right; leaders do the right thing (Murray, 2016, para. 3).

These differences are not carved in stone. Many executives wear both leadership and management hats as circumstances warrant, and this trend has become more pronounced as both public and private sector organizations have implemented flatter structures to improve performance. Latham (2008) notes that "What with the general flattening out of business hierarchies, these are no longer mutually exclusive skill sets" (p. 38).

Followers can be defined as employees in lower echelons of an organizational hierarchy who report to someone above them. Even here, a growing tendency exists to use line employees as members of self-directed teams in ways that require them to assume aspects of management and leadership in their day-to-day work (Maxwell, 2014). Despite the absence of universally accepted definitions, there are defining characteristics of leaders, managers, and followers that are useful for analyzing how an organization achieves its goals. Because countless studies have confirmed that effective leadership and organizational performance are inextricably linked, it is important to understand what leadership styles are used in today's workplace.

References

Armajani, B. (2007, August). What transformational leaders do. Government Finance Review, 23(4), 79–83.

Bahn, S. (2013, April 1). Transformational leaders? The pivotal role that supervisors play in safety culture. International Journal of Training Research, 11(1), 17–21.

Bambale, A., & Jaafaru, S. F. (2012, May 1). Servant leadership as employee-organization approach for performance of employee citizenship behaviors in the Nigeria's electric power sector. Journal of Marketing and Management, 3(1), 1–5.

Berger, T. A. (2014, Fall). Servant leadership 2.0: A call for strong theory. Sociological Viewpoints, 30(1), 146–150.

Bruce, T. (2016, January 4). Talking truth to a sanctuary city: Crime rises in Los Angeles and other cities awash in illegal immigrants. The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/4/tammy-bruce-crime-rises-in-sanctuary-cities/?page=all

Chand, S. (2015). Great man theory and trait theory of leadership. YourArticle. Retrieved from http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/leadership/great-man-theory-and-trait-theory-of-leadership/28004/

Helmrich, B. (2016, April 5). 33 ways to define leadership. Business News Daily. Retrieved from http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/3647-leadership-definition.html

Hofstede, G. (2016). Geert Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Retrieved from https://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html

Hur, M. H. (2008, March 15). Exploring differences in leadership styles: A study of manager tasks, follower characteristics, and task environments in Korean human service organizations. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(3), 359–366.

Koback, K. W. (2004, June). State and local authority to enforce immigration law: A unified approach for stopping terrorists. Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved from http://cis.org/StateEnforcement-LocalEnforcement

Latham, J. R. (2008, September). The lines between leaders and managers are getting blurred. Information Outlook, 12(9), 38.

Local law enforcement may cooperate with immigration enforcement. Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. Retrieved from http://www.cairco.org/legal/local-cooperation-ice

Luo, H., & Liu, S. (2014, November 30). Effect of situational leadership and employee readiness match on organizational citizenship behavior in China. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(10), 1725–1730.

Maxwell, J. C. (2014, December). Ever-important empathy: Great leaders see the world through their followers' eyes. Success, 24–26.

Modekurti, M. (2007, December). The nature of leadership: Reptiles, mammals, and the challenge of becoming a great leader. South Asian Journal of Management, 14(4), 155–160.

Murray, A. (2016). What is the difference between management and leadership? The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://guides.wsj.com/management/developing-a-leadership-style/what-is-the-difference-between-management-and-leadership/

Rose, A. (2012). Showdown in the Sonoran Desert: Religion, law, and the immigration controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shanker, M., & Sayeed, O. B. (2012, January). Role of transformational leaders as change agents: Leveraging effects on organizational climate. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(3), 470–477.

Shaw, J. (2015, October 15). Violent crime rates in sanctuary cities compared to similarly sized nonsanctuary cities. Newsmax. Retrieved from http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/sanctuary-cities-violent-crime/2015/10/15/id/696489/

Spadanuta, L. (2007, September). Are cities sapping immigration laws? Security Management, 51(9), 26–30.

States can and must help enforce federal immigration law. (2014). American Patrol. Retrieved from

Tidwell, N. (2014, Spring). Fragmenting the community: Immigration enforcement and the unintended consequences of local police non-cooperation policies. St. John's Law Review, 88(1), 105–110.

Villazor, R. C. (2010, April). Sanctuary cities and local citizenship. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 37(2), 573–577.