Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
ImmPolitic Blog
(0 comments, 152 posts)
This user hasn't shared any profile information
Home page: http://www.immigrationforum.org/blog
Posts by ImmPolitic Blog
Border Control vs. Sealing the Border
010 months ago
The topic of “operational control” of the border has been a hot topic in Congress lately, and the Forum has just posted a new analysis explaining the issue.
For many years now, politicians wanting to show how tough they can be on immigration have advocated more and more border enforcement. In 2006, Congress defined operational control in the Secure Fence Act as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the U.S.
The Border Patrol, on the other hand, uses a layered approach in which resources are deployed based on risk to gain effective control of the border.
As the Forum’s paper points out, the concept of operational control as defined by statute is unrealistic; a tightly sealed border has only been approximated by totalitarian states that have lined their border with armed guards. For the U.S. to completely seal the border the cost would be, as Richard Stana of the Government Accountability Office put it so kindly, “probably out of reasonable consideration.” It would also create an image of this country more like that of the old East Germany.
By managing resources with the goal of gaining effective control, more or fewer resources are deployed in a given area based on risk assessment. For example, remote areas offer few opportunities to melt into the general population, so there is less need for the Border Patrol to immediately respond to an illegal crossing as it is happening. Illegal crossings in urban areas offer greater opportunity to evade detection if they are not responded to immediately.
Everywhere else in the U.S., law enforcement manages crime in their communities. In a community, a rash of crime might lead to the hiring of more police, but eventually, even though crimes continue to be committed, the police manage the crime at a rate acceptable to the community given the costs. A local politician who called for the hiring of 10 more police officers every time a crime is committed would not long keep his job. Communities have to balance their budgets.
Not so at the federal level. Border enforcement is the whipping post to which politicians like to tie their opponents. When a crime is committed by a border intruder, politicians will call for a thousand more Border Patrol agents or deployment of the National Guard. They don’t have to worry about how to pay; the money can be borrowed.
Exhibit A: On March 30, Representative Ed Royce (R-CA) introduced the “Keeping the Pledge on Immigration Act of 2011.” This bill calls for the deployment of up to 4,000 additional National Guard on the border (more, if the Governor of a border state wants more) until the Secretary of DHS certifies that the government has achieved “operational control” of the U.S.-Mexico border as defined in the Secure Fence Act. The bill also calls for more border fencing, and mandates the full implementation of the US-VISIT system’s entry and exit controls within four years. (The bill also has an interior enforcement section that would, among other things, ban certain community policing policies developed by law enforcement agencies for effective policing in immigrant communities.)
The bill has no provision to raise revenue to pay for sealing the border or for its other provisions, so, even as budget negotiators are wrangling over how much to cut the budget, others are proposing to pile on more debt.
A better approach is to strive for effective control that allows the Border Patrol to deploy resources to areas that pose the greatest risk. It makes much more sense, strategically and financially.
For more on “operational control,” read our paper.
Image by Flickr User siyublog
Border Control vs. Sealing the Border
010 months ago
The topic of “operational control” of the border has been a hot topic in Congress lately, and the Forum has just posted a new analysis explaining the issue.
For many years now, politicians wanting to show how tough they can be on immigration have advocated more and more border enforcement. In 2006, Congress defined operational control in the Secure Fence Act as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the U.S.
The Border Patrol, on the other hand, uses a layered approach in which resources are deployed based on risk to gain effective control of the border.
As the Forum’s paper points out, the concept of operational control as defined by statute is unrealistic; a tightly sealed border has only been approximated by totalitarian states that have lined their border with armed guards. For the U.S. to completely seal the border the cost would be, as Richard Stana of the Government Accountability Office put it so kindly, “probably out of reasonable consideration.” It would also create an image of this country more like that of the old East Germany.
By managing resources with the goal of gaining effective control, more or fewer resources are deployed in a given area based on risk assessment. For example, remote areas offer few opportunities to melt into the general population, so there is less need for the Border Patrol to immediately respond to an illegal crossing as it is happening. Illegal crossings in urban areas offer greater opportunity to evade detection if they are not responded to immediately.
Everywhere else in the U.S., law enforcement manages crime in their communities. In a community, a rash of crime might lead to the hiring of more police, but eventually, even though crimes continue to be committed, the police manage the crime at a rate acceptable to the community given the costs. A local politician who called for the hiring of 10 more police officers every time a crime is committed would not long keep his job. Communities have to balance their budgets.
Not so at the federal level. Border enforcement is the whipping post to which politicians like to tie their opponents. When a crime is committed by a border intruder, politicians will call for a thousand more Border Patrol agents or deployment of the National Guard. They don’t have to worry about how to pay; the money can be borrowed.
Exhibit A: On March 30, Representative Ed Royce (R-CA) introduced the “Keeping the Pledge on Immigration Act of 2011.” This bill calls for the deployment of up to 4,000 additional National Guard on the border (more, if the Governor of a border state wants more) until the Secretary of DHS certifies that the government has achieved “operational control” of the U.S.-Mexico border as defined in the Secure Fence Act. The bill also calls for more border fencing, and mandates the full implementation of the US-VISIT system’s entry and exit controls within four years. (The bill also has an interior enforcement section that would, among other things, ban certain community policing policies developed by law enforcement agencies for effective policing in immigrant communities.)
The bill has no provision to raise revenue to pay for sealing the border or for its other provisions, so, even as budget negotiators are wrangling over how much to cut the budget, others are proposing to pile on more debt.
A better approach is to strive for effective control that allows the Border Patrol to deploy resources to areas that pose the greatest risk. It makes much more sense, strategically and financially.
For more on “operational control,” read our paper.
Image by Flickr User siyublog
Southwest Senate Retirements Should Trigger Immigration Gut Check for Both Parties
010 months ago
Since the 112th Congress came to order, eight senior Senators have announced their retirements in 2012–four of which represent states in the American West. Senators, Jon Kyl (R-AZ), John Ensign (R-NV), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) have decided to call it quits, giving way to new talent from their states.
As the Census has shown us, demographics have changed dramatically in these states since these Senators last ran for re-election. An explosive boom in the Latino population has driven enormous growth in each of these states, and nationwide, there are now more than 50 million Latinos, representing 16% of the country’s total population. This demographic shift has made Latinos the largest minority group in America with game-changing implications for electoral politics.
Already, Hispanic voters were the fastest growing electoral demographic in key swing states between 2004 and 2008, increasing in share of eligible voters from 8.2% to 9.5%. However, the Latino population boom has not been distributed evenly, and it has been most pronounced in the American Southwest, precisely where many long-time incumbents have decided to pass on reelection, and where both parties will spend inordinate amounts of money. In Texas, Latinos represent nearly 34% of the potential electorate; in New Mexico, 42.5%; Arizona, 21.3%; and Nevada, 17.3%. This demographic shift has made Latino voters THE critical voting bloc in each of these sure-to-be-contested Senate races.
According to polling, immigration has become a litmus test issue for Latino voters. Candidates who espouse anti-immigrant policies or oppose comprehensive immigration reform are dead on arrival with this demographic. Thus it behooves the parties to choose their candidates carefully with the long-term implications for their respective parties in mind.
Latino Voters in the West and Southwest Represent a Challenge and Opportunity for Democrats and Republicans
The 2010 midterm elections provided a valuable lesson to both parties. Western and Southwestern states—where Latinos wielded the most influence—proved to be the critical Senate contests. Indeed, after the votes were counted, Latino voters had saved control of the United States Senate for the Democratic Party. Republican candidates who espoused anti-immigrant policies or called for harsh crackdowns on immigration were defeated in Nevada, Colorado, and California.
Incumbent Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won in an upset by 5 points against Republican challenger Sharron Angle, who angered Nevada’s large and growing number of Latino voters with her aggressive campaign rhetoric aimed at illegal immigrants. Somewhere between 69% and 90% of Hispanics voted for Reid according to exit polls and Latinos accounted for 12% of the total vote. In Colorado, a combination of Republican Ken Buck’s anti-immigrant position, and Senator Michael Bennet’s espousal of the DREAM Act and immigration reform helped the Democrat win Latino voters overwhelmingly and propel Bennet to victory. In California, a combination of Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s and Senate candidate Carly Fiorina’s nonsensical flip-flop positions on immigration reform propelled a Democrat back into the Governor’s mansion and a sent Senator Barbara Boxer back to Washington for a fourth term.
Nationally, Congressional Republicans won just 38% of the Latino vote in 2010. This is an ominous sign for Republicans strategists who must assemble a broad coalition to defeat President Obama and keep key states in the Republican column in 2012. While Republicans made historic gains in 2010, the electorate that turns out on Nov 6th 2012 will be vastly different than 2010 voters. It will be much larger, younger, and more heavily Latino than in any election in U.S. history. For both parties to broaden the electoral battleground, they’ll need candidates who appeal to these new voters.
Meanwhile, the harshly anti-immigrant segment of the Republican Party has created an intensely negative perception of the Party among Latino and immigrant voters. They continue to reinforce this perception by championing draconian anti-immigrant legislation including legislation styled on Arizona’s SB 1070. As Politico reported about a new California statewide poll,
“Latino voters across the state hold widely negative views of the Republican Party, according to the survey, which was conducted by a GOP pollster and consultant and conceived as a tool to help the party make inroads with Hispanic voters. Many respondents said they see the GOP as too conservative and don’t trust it on the issue of immigration reform.”
The poll showed that an astonishingly high 47% of Latino voters have an intensely negative view of the Republican Party and only 26% view them favorably.
Republicans like Jan Brewer, Russell Pearce, and a throng of other restrictionist politicians pushing anti-immigrant bills have put a Republican face on anti-immigrant laws; and Latino and immigrant voters don’t like what they see. As a result, and because of demographic trends, the Republican Party may be sentencing itself to electoral doom. This is particularly true in New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Texas where the enormous growth in the Latino electorate may turn previously out-of-reach senate seats—like Hutchison’s and Kyl’s—into winnable contests for the Democrats. The nasty rhetoric coming from some members of the Republican Party on immigration—a litmus test issue for Latino voters—has severely damaged the Republican brand.
While Latino voters may have soured on the Republican brand, they know that Democrats have failed to deliver, repeatedly, on their promises to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, a central campaign promise from the President and the Senate Majority Leader. And while polling last month suggests that many Latinos approve of President Obama’s performance in key states, only around 43% said they would vote for him next year, according to Latino Decisions.
The numbers show the explosive growth of Latino voters in these key southwestern states, but it remains to be seen whether either party will be able to translate these numbers into political power. For example, while Latino voters in Texas represent a potential 33.7 percent of the electorate, more than 2.1 million eligible Latino voters aren’t registered. If Texas Democrats ever hope to win statewide elected office again—something that hasn’t happened in nearly two decades—they’ll need to recruit and register legions of new Latino voters, nominate candidates with pro-immigrant and pro-Latino policies, and ensure these new voters turnout on Election Day. For Republicans to continue their statewide dominance, they’ll need to win large numbers of Latino voters. This job will be made more difficult by a small but vocal segment of the party that continues to call for harsh crackdowns on immigrants and attempts to push Arizona-style anti-immigrant legislation through the Legislature.
Thus to be taken seriously by Latino voters, both parties would be best served by candidates who espouse common sense, pro-immigration reform policies. While Arizona Senator Jon Kyl has been one of the most vocal opponents of immigration reform in years past, his potential Republican successor will not have all of the significant advantages of incumbency and will face an electorate that is younger and more Latino. She or he will not be able to espouse the same enforcement-only policies and harsh rhetoric and expect to be taken seriously by a Latino electorate energized by the nasty anti-immigrant debate in Arizona.
Former President George W. Bush proved that Republicans can attract Latino voters. He performed better among Latino voters than any other Republican presidential candidate ever, losing the Latino vote by only 60-40 to John Kerry. This was just enough to put him over the top in critical states like New Mexico. However, the former President was decidedly pro-immigration reform.
This doesn’t mean that the GOP can recruit candidates who just tone down the rhetoric. They must choose candidates that have strong pro-immigration reform credentials and who don’t back away from their stance on immigration reform when they face a tough primary. Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake, a GOP candidate for Senator Kyl’s seat, recently abandoned his previously pro-immigration reform position, presumably to protect his right-flank in a Republican primary. However, this kind of naked flip-flopping on immigrants and immigration reform turns off Latino voters, as GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman learned in California. During a tough GOP primary, Whitman called for harsh crackdowns on illegal immigrants. After securing the GOP nomination, Whitman tried to pivot to the general election with warm and fuzzy messages to Latino voters on English and Spanish language television. It didn’t work. Latino voters remembered her campaign’s harsh tone and negative campaign ads demonizing immigrants and voted overwhelmingly for her Democratic opponent in the general election.
It’s clear we will have at least four new faces from the Southwest in the next United States Senate. However, for both parties to win long-term with Latino voters in Texas, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico, they’ll need the right candidates and the right policies that appeal to an electorate increasingly dominated by Latinos. By nominating pro-immigrant candidates and espousing common sense immigration policies, both parties have an opportunity to ensure that the nation’s demographic destiny comports with their long-term and chief goal: winning elections.
Image by Flickr user meg_whitman_no_es_nuestra_amiga
Southwest Senate Retirements Should Trigger Immigration Gut Check for Both Parties
010 months ago
Since the 112th Congress came to order, eight senior Senators have announced their retirements in 2012–four of which represent states in the American West. Senators, Jon Kyl (R-AZ), John Ensign (R-NV), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) have decided to call it quits, giving way to new talent from their states.
As the Census has shown us, demographics have changed dramatically in these states since these Senators last ran for re-election. An explosive boom in the Latino population has driven enormous growth in each of these states, and nationwide, there are now more than 50 million Latinos, representing 16% of the country’s total population. This demographic shift has made Latinos the largest minority group in America with game-changing implications for electoral politics.
Already, Hispanic voters were the fastest growing electoral demographic in key swing states between 2004 and 2008, increasing in share of eligible voters from 8.2% to 9.5%. However, the Latino population boom has not been distributed evenly, and it has been most pronounced in the American Southwest, precisely where many long-time incumbents have decided to pass on reelection, and where both parties will spend inordinate amounts of money. In Texas, Latinos represent nearly 34% of the potential electorate; in New Mexico, 42.5%; Arizona, 21.3%; and Nevada, 17.3%. This demographic shift has made Latino voters THE critical voting bloc in each of these sure-to-be-contested Senate races.
According to polling, immigration has become a litmus test issue for Latino voters. Candidates who espouse anti-immigrant policies or oppose comprehensive immigration reform are dead on arrival with this demographic. Thus it behooves the parties to choose their candidates carefully with the long-term implications for their respective parties in mind.
Latino Voters in the West and Southwest Represent a Challenge and Opportunity for Democrats and Republicans
The 2010 midterm elections provided a valuable lesson to both parties. Western and Southwestern states—where Latinos wielded the most influence—proved to be the critical Senate contests. Indeed, after the votes were counted, Latino voters had saved control of the United States Senate for the Democratic Party. Republican candidates who espoused anti-immigrant policies or called for harsh crackdowns on immigration were defeated in Nevada, Colorado, and California.
Incumbent Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won in an upset by 5 points against Republican challenger Sharron Angle, who angered Nevada’s large and growing number of Latino voters with her aggressive campaign rhetoric aimed at illegal immigrants. Somewhere between 69% and 90% of Hispanics voted for Reid according to exit polls and Latinos accounted for 12% of the total vote. In Colorado, a combination of Republican Ken Buck’s anti-immigrant position, and Senator Michael Bennet’s espousal of the DREAM Act and immigration reform helped the Democrat win Latino voters overwhelmingly and propel Bennet to victory. In California, a combination of Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s and Senate candidate Carly Fiorina’s nonsensical flip-flop positions on immigration reform propelled a Democrat back into the Governor’s mansion and a sent Senator Barbara Boxer back to Washington for a fourth term.
Nationally, Congressional Republicans won just 38% of the Latino vote in 2010. This is an ominous sign for Republicans strategists who must assemble a broad coalition to defeat President Obama and keep key states in the Republican column in 2012. While Republicans made historic gains in 2010, the electorate that turns out on Nov 6th 2012 will be vastly different than 2010 voters. It will be much larger, younger, and more heavily Latino than in any election in U.S. history. For both parties to broaden the electoral battleground, they’ll need candidates who appeal to these new voters.
Meanwhile, the harshly anti-immigrant segment of the Republican Party has created an intensely negative perception of the Party among Latino and immigrant voters. They continue to reinforce this perception by championing draconian anti-immigrant legislation including legislation styled on Arizona’s SB 1070. As Politico reported about a new California statewide poll,
“Latino voters across the state hold widely negative views of the Republican Party, according to the survey, which was conducted by a GOP pollster and consultant and conceived as a tool to help the party make inroads with Hispanic voters. Many respondents said they see the GOP as too conservative and don’t trust it on the issue of immigration reform.”
The poll showed that an astonishingly high 47% of Latino voters have an intensely negative view of the Republican Party and only 26% view them favorably.
Republicans like Jan Brewer, Russell Pearce, and a throng of other restrictionist politicians pushing anti-immigrant bills have put a Republican face on anti-immigrant laws; and Latino and immigrant voters don’t like what they see. As a result, and because of demographic trends, the Republican Party may be sentencing itself to electoral doom. This is particularly true in New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Texas where the enormous growth in the Latino electorate may turn previously out-of-reach senate seats—like Hutchison’s and Kyl’s—into winnable contests for the Democrats. The nasty rhetoric coming from some members of the Republican Party on immigration—a litmus test issue for Latino voters—has severely damaged the Republican brand.
While Latino voters may have soured on the Republican brand, they know that Democrats have failed to deliver, repeatedly, on their promises to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, a central campaign promise from the President and the Senate Majority Leader. And while polling last month suggests that many Latinos approve of President Obama’s performance in key states, only around 43% said they would vote for him next year, according to Latino Decisions.
The numbers show the explosive growth of Latino voters in these key southwestern states, but it remains to be seen whether either party will be able to translate these numbers into political power. For example, while Latino voters in Texas represent a potential 33.7 percent of the electorate, more than 2.1 million eligible Latino voters aren’t registered. If Texas Democrats ever hope to win statewide elected office again—something that hasn’t happened in nearly two decades—they’ll need to recruit and register legions of new Latino voters, nominate candidates with pro-immigrant and pro-Latino policies, and ensure these new voters turnout on Election Day. For Republicans to continue their statewide dominance, they’ll need to win large numbers of Latino voters. This job will be made more difficult by a small but vocal segment of the party that continues to call for harsh crackdowns on immigrants and attempts to push Arizona-style anti-immigrant legislation through the Legislature.
Thus to be taken seriously by Latino voters, both parties would be best served by candidates who espouse common sense, pro-immigration reform policies. While Arizona Senator Jon Kyl has been one of the most vocal opponents of immigration reform in years past, his potential Republican successor will not have all of the significant advantages of incumbency and will face an electorate that is younger and more Latino. She or he will not be able to espouse the same enforcement-only policies and harsh rhetoric and expect to be taken seriously by a Latino electorate energized by the nasty anti-immigrant debate in Arizona.
Former President George W. Bush proved that Republicans can attract Latino voters. He performed better among Latino voters than any other Republican presidential candidate ever, losing the Latino vote by only 60-40 to John Kerry. This was just enough to put him over the top in critical states like New Mexico. However, the former President was decidedly pro-immigration reform.
This doesn’t mean that the GOP can recruit candidates who just tone down the rhetoric. They must choose candidates that have strong pro-immigration reform credentials and who don’t back away from their stance on immigration reform when they face a tough primary. Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake, a GOP candidate for Senator Kyl’s seat, recently abandoned his previously pro-immigration reform position, presumably to protect his right-flank in a Republican primary. However, this kind of naked flip-flopping on immigrants and immigration reform turns off Latino voters, as GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman learned in California. During a tough GOP primary, Whitman called for harsh crackdowns on illegal immigrants. After securing the GOP nomination, Whitman tried to pivot to the general election with warm and fuzzy messages to Latino voters on English and Spanish language television. It didn’t work. Latino voters remembered her campaign’s harsh tone and negative campaign ads demonizing immigrants and voted overwhelmingly for her Democratic opponent in the general election.
It’s clear we will have at least four new faces from the Southwest in the next United States Senate. However, for both parties to win long-term with Latino voters in Texas, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico, they’ll need the right candidates and the right policies that appeal to an electorate increasingly dominated by Latinos. By nominating pro-immigrant candidates and espousing common sense immigration policies, both parties have an opportunity to ensure that the nation’s demographic destiny comports with their long-term and chief goal: winning elections.
Image by Flickr user meg_whitman_no_es_nuestra_amiga
How to Save Your Local Public Safety Budget
010 months ago
Earlier this month, the New York Times reported on the dire funding situation for law enforcement in Camden, New Jersey. “Callers to 911 who report things like home burglaries or car break-ins are asked to file a report over the phone or at police headquarters; officers rarely respond in person. “If it doesn’t need a gun and a badge at that location,” officers are not sent, the city’s police chief, J. Scott Thomson, said last week.”
Around the country, local budgets are making painful cuts, and fundamental public safety services like police and firefighters are getting hatcheted. Dallas, TX; Mesa, AZ; Hartford, CT; Naperville, IL… The Police Executive Research Forum reported at the end of 2010 that more than half of all the police departments they surveyed are going through major cuts, to an average of 7% of their budgets.
At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security is putting more pressure on local law enforcement agencies and jails to help them enforce federal immigration laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement runs many programs that depend on local jurisdictions holding immigrants in local jails, and the temporary detention of immigrants for the federal government can be a significant financial burden for cities and counties, according to a new analysis by the National Immigration Forum.
The way this happens seems at first to be technical and complicated, but is actually quite simple. When ICE learns that a local jail has a non-citizen in their custody (such as through the Secure Communities program, the Criminal Alien Program, the 287(g) Program, or some other informal collaboration between local police and ICE) ICE files a detainer, requesting that jail to hold the person for two extra days, so that ICE has the opportunity to come take custody of the person and put him or her into deportation proceedings. This may apply regardless of whether the immigrant is documented or undocumented. In fact, detainers have even been erroneously lodged against U.S. Citizens, over whom ICE has no jurisdiction.
Well, those two extra days in city jail cost the city money, which ICE does not reimburse. In New York City, where the cost of each person’s single day in jail is $170, those extra 48 hours for holding people on ICE detainers may cost more than $1.3 million per year.
In reality, the cost of detainers is far greater than the cost of just two days in jail, according to the Forum’s analysis. Detainers are widely misused, frequently resulting in prolonged unlawful detention far beyond 48 hours per person. An immigration detainer is not a warrant or a basis for arrest, but it is not uncommon for immigrants to be stopped by police and brought to a jail simply so that ICE can lodge a detainer against them. This practice results in immigrants being jailed without even being charged with a crime.
Immigrants facing criminal charges, both major and quite minor, are commonly denied bail due to a detainer. As a result, many immigrants who are not dangerous and would otherwise be released spend weeks in jail before their criminal trial. And jailing people is very expensive.
It’s worth emphasizing that this is not about serious criminals who are a public safety hazard. People charged with violent crimes are often ineligible for bail, regardless of citizenship. People charged with offenses like public drunkenness or trespassing are usually released, and told to show up to court in a month—that is, unless they are immigrants with a detainer against them, in which case they’ll probably spend that entire month in jail, at an enormous cost to the county budget, not to mention to the immigrants and their families.
So in Irving, Texas, where the county budget for 2010-11 faces a $20 million shortfall, the county should perhaps consider scaling back on the way it collaborates with ICE, and exactly how much it is willing to spend holding immigrants on detainers. And Camden, where recent layoffs have left the city with fewer police on the force than any time since 1949, ought to take a look at who exactly they are holding for ICE, and if that’s an essential part of their law enforcement budget.
Image: iStockphoto/helenecanada
How to Save Your Local Public Safety Budget
010 months ago
Earlier this month, the New York Times reported on the dire funding situation for law enforcement in Camden, New Jersey. “Callers to 911 who report things like home burglaries or car break-ins are asked to file a report over the phone or at police headquarters; officers rarely respond in person. “If it doesn’t need a gun and a badge at that location,” officers are not sent, the city’s police chief, J. Scott Thomson, said last week.”
Around the country, local budgets are making painful cuts, and fundamental public safety services like police and firefighters are getting hatcheted. Dallas, TX; Mesa, AZ; Lynnwood, WA; Oakland, CA, Tulsa, OK, and Norton, MA… The Police Executive Research Forum reported at the end of 2010 that more than half of all the police departments they surveyed are going through major cuts, to an average of 7% of their budgets.
At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security is putting more pressure on local law enforcement agencies and jails to help them enforce federal immigration laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement runs many programs that depend on local jurisdictions holding immigrants in local jails, and the temporary detention of immigrants for the federal government can be a significant financial burden for cities and counties, according to a new analysis by the National Immigration Forum.
The way this happens seems at first to be technical and complicated, but is actually quite simple. When ICE learns that a local jail has a non-citizen in their custody (such as through the Secure Communities program, the Criminal Alien Program, the 287(g) Program, or some other informal collaboration between local police and ICE) ICE files a detainer, requesting that jail to hold the person for two extra days, so that ICE has the opportunity to come take custody of the person and put him or her into deportation proceedings. This may apply regardless of whether the immigrant is documented or undocumented. In fact, detainers have even been erroneously lodged against U.S. Citizens, over whom ICE has no jurisdiction.
Well, those two extra days in city jail cost the city money, which ICE does not reimburse. In New York City, where the cost of each person’s single day in jail is $170, those extra 48 hours for holding people on ICE detainers may cost more than $1.3 million per year.
In reality, the cost of detainers is far greater than the cost of just two days in jail, according to the Forum’s analysis. Detainers are widely misused, frequently resulting in prolonged unlawful detention far beyond 48 hours per person. An immigration detainer is not a warrant or a basis for arrest, but it is not uncommon for immigrants to be stopped by police and brought to a jail simply so that ICE can lodge a detainer against them. This practice results in immigrants being jailed without even being charged with a crime.
Immigrants facing criminal charges, both major and quite minor, are commonly denied bail due to a detainer. As a result, many immigrants who are not dangerous and would otherwise be released spend weeks in jail before their criminal trial. And jailing people is very expensive.
It’s worth emphasizing that this is not about serious criminals who are a public safety hazard. People charged with violent crimes are often ineligible for bail, regardless of citizenship. People charged with offenses like public drunkenness or trespassing are usually released, and told to show up to court in a month—that is, unless they are immigrants with a detainer against them, in which case they’ll probably spend that entire month in jail, at an enormous cost to the county budget, not to mention to the immigrants and their families.
So in Irving, Texas, where the county budget for 2010-11 faces a $20 million shortfall, the county should perhaps consider scaling back on the way it collaborates with ICE, and exactly how much it is willing to spend holding immigrants on detainers. And Camden, where recent layoffs have left the city with fewer police on the force than any time since 1949, ought to take a look at who exactly they are holding for ICE, and if that’s an essential part of their law enforcement budget.
Image: iStockphoto/helenecanada
How to Save Your Local Public Safety Budget
010 months ago
Earlier this month, the New York Times reported on the dire funding situation for law enforcement in Camden, New Jersey. “Callers to 911 who report things like home burglaries or car break-ins are asked to file a report over the phone or at police headquarters; officers rarely respond in person. “If it doesn’t need a gun and a badge at that location,” officers are not sent, the city’s police chief, J. Scott Thomson, said last week.”
Around the country, local budgets are making painful cuts, and fundamental public safety services like police and firefighters are getting hatcheted. Dallas, TX; Mesa, AZ; Lynnwood, WA; Oakland, CA, Tulsa, OK, and Norton, MA… The Police Executive Research Forum reported at the end of 2010 that more than half of all the police departments they surveyed are going through major cuts, to an average of 7% of their budgets.
At the same time, the Department of Homeland Security is putting more pressure on local law enforcement agencies and jails to help them enforce federal immigration laws. Immigration and Customs Enforcement runs many programs that depend on local jurisdictions holding immigrants in local jails, and the temporary detention of immigrants for the federal government can be a significant financial burden for cities and counties, according to a new analysis by the National Immigration Forum.
The way this happens seems at first to be technical and complicated, but is actually quite simple. When ICE learns that a local jail has a non-citizen in their custody (such as through the Secure Communities program, the Criminal Alien Program, the 287(g) Program, or some other informal collaboration between local police and ICE) ICE files a detainer, requesting that jail to hold the person for two extra days, so that ICE has the opportunity to come take custody of the person and put him or her into deportation proceedings. This may apply regardless of whether the immigrant is documented or undocumented. In fact, detainers have even been erroneously lodged against U.S. Citizens, over whom ICE has no jurisdiction.
Well, those two extra days in city jail cost the city money, which ICE does not reimburse. In New York City, where the cost of each person’s single day in jail is $170, those extra 48 hours for holding people on ICE detainers may cost more than $1.3 million per year.
In reality, the cost of detainers is far greater than the cost of just two days in jail, according to the Forum’s analysis. Detainers are widely misused, frequently resulting in prolonged unlawful detention far beyond 48 hours per person. An immigration detainer is not a warrant or a basis for arrest, but it is not uncommon for immigrants to be stopped by police and brought to a jail simply so that ICE can lodge a detainer against them. This practice results in immigrants being jailed without even being charged with a crime.
Immigrants facing criminal charges, both major and quite minor, are commonly denied bail due to a detainer. As a result, many immigrants who are not dangerous and would otherwise be released spend weeks in jail before their criminal trial. And jailing people is very expensive.
It’s worth emphasizing that this is not about serious criminals who are a public safety hazard. People charged with violent crimes are often ineligible for bail, regardless of citizenship. People charged with offenses like public drunkenness or trespassing are usually released, and told to show up to court in a month—that is, unless they are immigrants with a detainer against them, in which case they’ll probably spend that entire month in jail, at an enormous cost to the county budget, not to mention to the immigrants and their families.
So in Irving, Texas, where the county budget for 2010-11 faces a $20 million shortfall, the county should perhaps consider scaling back on the way it collaborates with ICE, and exactly how much it is willing to spend holding immigrants on detainers. And Camden, where recent layoffs have left the city with fewer police on the force than any time since 1949, ought to take a look at who exactly they are holding for ICE, and if that’s an essential part of their law enforcement budget.
Image: iStockphoto/helenecanada
New Report Describes Slowing Momentum for SB 1070-Style Laws
010 months ago
Momentum is slowing in the states for advocates of Arizona SB 1070-style legislation. Arizona’s pioneering approach to immigration law is looking to other states like the Donner party’s pioneering shortcut through the Great Salt Desert. While it is too early for opponents to declare victory, Arizona-style laws have so far been defeated in nine states.
A new report released last week from the National Immigration Forum takes a look at what has happened in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. The report, “In the States: Stepping into the Federal Void,” is an update to a report released in December, “Deficits, Lawsuits, Diminished Public Safety: Your State Can’t Afford SB 1070.” While SB 1070-style measures have not been ultimately put to rest in all of these states, the enthusiasm for enacting tough local enforcement laws has run in to the harsh fiscal realities states are experiencing.
The reversal of fortune for SB 1070-style legislation is also thanks in part due to the increasingly vocal opposition of business and law enforcement.
What has happened in Arizona is not good for business. According to estimates done for the Center for American Progress, cancelled meetings and conferences have already cost the state more than $150 million, and it is expected to lose another $250 million in lost conference business. If Arizona were to succeed in driving out all undocumented immigrants, the state’s economy would shrink by another $48 billion, and tax revenues would shrink by 10 percent.
In Indiana, two of the state’s largest employers—Eli Lilly and Cummins, Inc.—have come out against an SB 1070-style bill in that state, stating that it will hinder businesses from competing in the global market.
The complaints of law enforcement are both economic and substantive. Many agencies say that an SB 1070-style law will make it extremely difficult for police to carry out their primary duty, keeping the public safe. If police are required to round up immigrants, they will lose the trust they have built up in immigrant communities.
As El Paso’s Sheriff Richard Wiles put it,
“Police departments depend on trust, partnerships and a positive relationship with the communities we serve. I’m concerned that if forced into this immigration issue, we’re going to tear down the trust and respect and crime will rise in our cities. There’s no reason to go down that road.”
El Paso has a lot to lose should the community distrust its police force: Last year, the city had the lowest crime rate of any city in the U.S. with a population of a half million or more.
Police are also concerned about shrinking budgets and increasing responsibilities. Lincoln, Nebraska’s Police Chief Tom Casady is already concerned that his force is the smallest, per capita, in the state and is failing to keep up with Lincoln’s growth. Writing about Nebraska’s LB 48, he said, “I fail to see this as a good return on investment.”
Opponents of these experiments in state enforcement of federal laws are also concerned about the additional burden these laws will place on states already reeling from the Great Recession. In Kansas, Senate Vice President John Vratil (R) would rather wait the outcome of lawsuits pending against Arizona.
“Why would we go down the same road as Arizona until there’s a determination in the federal courts? It’s silly as far as I’m concerned. All we’re going to do is get sued.”
Even in states controlled by conservative legislatures and governorships, there are proponents and opponents of SB 1070-style laws. The debate puts on display a political battle going on within the Republican Party and among conservatives. On the one hand, there are those who would spare no expense to enforce immigration law. On the other, there are those who believe they were elected not to expand the role of government as would be required by state enforcement of federal immigration laws, but instead to cut the size of government. Given the deficits already faced by states, the immigration laws being considered will require more debt, more cuts in other programs, or more taxes.
There is also the battle between the short-term and long-term thinkers within the Party. The harsh rhetoric surrounding the debate over these immigration laws may motivate a certain element of the conservative base, but the cost is alienation of the fastest-growing segment of the electorate—Latino voters. Strategists concerned about the long-term prospects are concerned about the ability of Republican politicians to attract Latino voters, who look at a candidate’s position on immigration as a proxy for respect for their community. In the future, attracting the Latino vote will be key to winning national elections, as it already is in some key states.
Get the report, to read more about what is going on in the states.
Image by Flickr User wwarby.
New Report Describes Slowing Momentum for SB 1070-Style Laws
010 months ago
Momentum is slowing in the states for advocates of Arizona SB 1070-style legislation. Arizona’s pioneering approach to immigration law is looking to other states like the Donner party’s pioneering shortcut through the Great Salt Desert. While it is too early for opponents to declare victory, Arizona-style laws have so far been defeated in nine states.
A new report released last week from the National Immigration Forum takes a look at what has happened in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. The report, “In the States: Stepping into the Federal Void,” is an update to a report released in December, “Deficits, Lawsuits, Diminished Public Safety: Your State Can’t Afford SB 1070.” While SB 1070-style measures have not been ultimately put to rest in all of these states yet, the enthusiasm for enacting tough local enforcement laws has run in to the harsh fiscal realities states are experiencing.
The reversal of fortune for SB 1070-style legislation is also thanks in part due to the increasingly vocal opposition of business and law enforcement.
What has happened in Arizona is not good for business. According to estimates done for the Center for American Progress, cancelled meetings and conferences have already cost the state more than $150 million, and it is expected to lose another $250 million in lost conference business. If Arizona were to succeed in driving out all undocumented immigrants, the state’s economy would shrink by another $48 billion, and tax revenues would shrink by 10 percent.
In Indiana, two of the state’s largest employers—Eli Lilly and Cummins, Inc.—have come out against an SB 1070-style bill in that state, stating that it will hinder businesses from competing in the global market.
The complaints of law enforcement are both economic and substantive. Many agencies say that an SB 1070-style law will make it extremely difficult for police to carry out their primary duty, keeping the public safe. If police are required to round up immigrants, they will lose the trust they have built up in immigrant communities.
As El Paso’s Sheriff Richard Wiles put it,
“Police departments depend on trust, partnerships and a positive relationship with the communities we serve. I’m concerned that if forced into this immigration issue, we’re going to tear down the trust and respect and crime will rise in our cities. There’s no reason to go down that road.”
Police are also concerned about shrinking budgets and increasing responsibilities. Lincoln, Nebraska’s Police Chief Tom Casady is already concerned that his force is the smallest, per capita, in the state and is failing to keep up with Lincoln’s growth. Writing about Nebraska’s LB 48, he said, “I fail to see this as a good return on investment.”
Opponents of these experiments in state enforcement of federal laws are also concerned about the additional burden these laws will place on states already reeling from the Great Recession. In Kansas, Senate Vice President John Vratil (R) would rather wait the outcome of lawsuits pending against Arizona.
“Why would we go down the same road as Arizona until there’s a determination in the federal courts? It’s silly as far as I’m concerned. All we’re going to do is get sued.”
Even in states controlled by conservative legislatures and governorships, there are proponents and opponents of SB 1070-style laws. The debate puts on display a political battle going on within the Republican Party and among conservatives. On the one hand, there are those who would spare no expense to enforce immigration law. On the other, there are those who believe they were elected not to expand the role of government as would be required by state enforcement of federal immigration laws, but instead to cut the size of government. Given the deficits already faced by states, the immigration laws being considered will require more debt, more cuts in other programs, or more taxes.
There is also the battle between the short-term and long-term thinkers within the Party. The harsh rhetoric surrounding the debate over these immigration laws may motivate a certain element of the conservative base, but the cost is alienation of the fastest segment of the electorate—Latino voters. Strategists concerned about the long-term prospects are concerned about the ability of Republican politicians to attract Latino voter, who look at a candidate’s position on immigration as a proxy for respect for their community. In the future, attracting the Latino vote will be key to winning national elections, as it already is in some key states.
Get the report, to read more about what is going on in the states.
Image by Flickr User wwarby.
New Report Describes Slowing Momentum for SB 1070-Style Laws
010 months ago
Momentum is slowing in the states for advocates of Arizona SB 1070-style legislation. Arizona’s pioneering approach to immigration law is looking to other states like the Donner party’s pioneering shortcut through the Great Salt Desert. While it is too early for opponents to declare victory, Arizona-style laws have so far been defeated in nine states.
A new report released last week from the National Immigration Forum takes a look at what has happened in Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah. The report, “In the States: Stepping into the Federal Void,” is an update to a report released in December, “Deficits, Lawsuits, Diminished Public Safety: Your State Can’t Afford SB 1070.” While SB 1070-style measures have not been ultimately put to rest in all of these states, the enthusiasm for enacting tough local enforcement laws has run in to the harsh fiscal realities states are experiencing.
The reversal of fortune for SB 1070-style legislation is also thanks in part due to the increasingly vocal opposition of business and law enforcement.
What has happened in Arizona is not good for business. According to estimates done for the Center for American Progress, cancelled meetings and conferences have already cost the state more than $150 million, and it is expected to lose another $250 million in lost conference business. If Arizona were to succeed in driving out all undocumented immigrants, the state’s economy would shrink by another $48 billion, and tax revenues would shrink by 10 percent.
In Indiana, two of the state’s largest employers—Eli Lilly and Cummins, Inc.—have come out against an SB 1070-style bill in that state, stating that it will hinder businesses from competing in the global market.
The complaints of law enforcement are both economic and substantive. Many agencies say that an SB 1070-style law will make it extremely difficult for police to carry out their primary duty, keeping the public safe. If police are required to round up immigrants, they will lose the trust they have built up in immigrant communities.
As El Paso’s Sheriff Richard Wiles put it,
“Police departments depend on trust, partnerships and a positive relationship with the communities we serve. I’m concerned that if forced into this immigration issue, we’re going to tear down the trust and respect and crime will rise in our cities. There’s no reason to go down that road.”
El Paso has a lot to lose should the community distrust its police force: Last year, the city had the lowest crime rate of any city in the U.S. with a population of a half million or more.
Police are also concerned about shrinking budgets and increasing responsibilities. Lincoln, Nebraska’s Police Chief Tom Casady is already concerned that his force is the smallest, per capita, in the state and is failing to keep up with Lincoln’s growth. Writing about Nebraska’s LB 48, he said, “I fail to see this as a good return on investment.”
Opponents of these experiments in state enforcement of federal laws are also concerned about the additional burden these laws will place on states already reeling from the Great Recession. In Kansas, Senate Vice President John Vratil (R) would rather wait the outcome of lawsuits pending against Arizona.
“Why would we go down the same road as Arizona until there’s a determination in the federal courts? It’s silly as far as I’m concerned. All we’re going to do is get sued.”
Even in states controlled by conservative legislatures and governorships, there are proponents and opponents of SB 1070-style laws. The debate puts on display a political battle going on within the Republican Party and among conservatives. On the one hand, there are those who would spare no expense to enforce immigration law. On the other, there are those who believe they were elected not to expand the role of government as would be required by state enforcement of federal immigration laws, but instead to cut the size of government. Given the deficits already faced by states, the immigration laws being considered will require more debt, more cuts in other programs, or more taxes.
There is also the battle between the short-term and long-term thinkers within the Party. The harsh rhetoric surrounding the debate over these immigration laws may motivate a certain element of the conservative base, but the cost is alienation of the fastest-growing segment of the electorate—Latino voters. Strategists concerned about the long-term prospects are concerned about the ability of Republican politicians to attract Latino voters, who look at a candidate’s position on immigration as a proxy for respect for their community. In the future, attracting the Latino vote will be key to winning national elections, as it already is in some key states.
Get the report, to read more about what is going on in the states.
Image by Flickr User wwarby.