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
An Open Letter to the Tea Party
011 months ago
Ali Noorani was invited to speak on Border Security and Immigration Reform at the American Policy Summit of the Tea Party Patriots, on February 26, 2011. Joining him were Andresen Blom of the American Principles Project and Norman Adams of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy. Based on his remarks at the Summit, below is an open letter to the Tea Party:
The National Immigration Forum wants to end illegal immigration. Like every member of the Tea Party, we are frustrated by inaction by our federal government, and we worry about the direction of our great country.
A combination of politics, bureaucratic incompetence, and a failure to listen to common sense has stood in the way creating a national immigration strategy that meets our nation’s needs. The taxpayer, the small business owner, the family working hard to make ends meet, all of us, are watching our tax dollars disappear into an immigration money pit where federal waste, mismanagement and government intrusiveness are the standard operating procedure.
As a result, our deficit bankrupts our present and our future. Our neighbors struggle to find jobs while our economy sputters along. Meanwhile, our tradition of liberty is threatened by an archaic immigration system that is almost half a century old and cannot maintain the rule of law for the 21st century.
Instead of fostering the free market, supporting small businesses, rewarding good employers who play by the rules, and preserving the sanctity of the family, our immigration system fails to meet our nation’s needs and the vision and tradition of our forefathers.
· We want a secure border but Washington allows our tax dollars to be spent on gimmicks not solutions.
· We want a secure border, but Washington hasn’t created the right policies to prevent guns going south and drugs coming north.
· We train the best and brightest students in the world, and then our immigration system promptly sends them overseas to create companies that take American jobs.
· We encourage employers to create good paying jobs, but our immigration system allows unscrupulous employers to exploit workers of all backgrounds.
· We believe in family values, but our immigration system takes mothers from their children.
Today I write in the interests of developing smarter enforcement and smarter solutions that create a national immigration strategy in line with our values.
Let me begin here: The National Immigration Forum wants smarter immigration enforcement that keeps our nation and our communities secure, ensures our long term economic prosperity and honors America’s heritage as a nation of laws. We stand alongside sheriffs and mayors in recommending immigration policies and laws that increase public safety and prioritize scarce resources – our taxpayer dollars – towards stopping those who threaten to harm our communities and families. We have supported bi-partisan immigration reform bills that required serious measurements and accounting of border security.
Security benchmarks, identified in 2007, have been met. Yet our immigration system remains in need of repair. Here’s why:
Beginning in 1994, the federal government began to invest enormous resources into border security along the southwestern border. Since then, we have spent over $75 billion on border security and at least $50 billion on interior security. Even as we spent and continue to spend billions and billions of tax dollars the number of people here illegally grew from 4 million to nearly 12 million.
If our federal immigration system were a private enterprise, it would have gone out of business a long time ago. Clearly, enforcement alone has not solved and will not ever solve the problem; a different kind of solution is needed.
But, before we talk about what we need to do, let’s talk about what we have done:
· Border patrol has more than doubled its force on the Southwest border. Going from 8,580 in 2000 to over 17,500 agents in 2009.
· 1,200 National Guard troops patrol the southwest border, as well as thousands of federal law enforcement agents from nearly every federal law enforcement agency.
· There are over 649 miles of border fencing, 139 Border Patrol stations, 21 Border Enforcement Security Teams, and 37 Border Patrol checkpoints.
· On the lookout for unlawful traffic are electronic surveillance and communications equipment, including 10,000 ground sensors, as well as sensor towers, mobile surveillance systems, and thousands of cameras with infra-red night vision.
· A total of 290 aircraft are deployed daily for surveillance, along with mobile surveillance systems and remote video surveillance.
This massive outlay of resources continues in spite of the fact the border has seen fewer illegal crossings in 2010 than any year since 1972 – due in large part to a faltering economy.
While illegal crossings are lower than ever, threats still exist. Today we face powerful cartels that smuggle money, guns and drugs across the border, often preying on immigrants seeking a better life.
After examining Department of Justice data, the Texas Border Coalition found that the probability of a person involved in criminal activity crossing the border between the ports of entry being apprehended is 70 percent; but the probability of a person involved in criminal activity crossing at the ports of entry being apprehended is about 30 percent. This glaring difference exists despite overwhelming evidence that most criminal activity takes place at ports of entry. They estimated that 90% of illegal drugs enter the U.S. at ports of entry, which also serve as the conduit for the bulk of cash and guns being smuggled into Mexico.
For politicians in Washington, pictures of bridges and roads at ports of entry aren’t as exciting as pictures of fences and Border Patrol in the desert. As a result, our ports of entry have been neglected.
This misallocation of border resources has economic implications.
A 2006 study estimated that wait times at the border due to insufficient lanes, inspectors, and technology at ports of entry results in about $2 billion in lost economic output in the San Diego region alone, every year. Each additional 15 minutes of wait time at ports of entry represents an additional $1 billion loss in productivity and a loss of 134,000 jobs in the bi-national border region.
In summary, the border security benchmarks that Congress identified in 2007 as a prerequisite for an immigration overhaul have been met at the expense of security and trade at our ports of entry.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has broken every record for arrests, deportations, and worksite audits and just like the border, at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. Last year, more non-citizens were deported than ever before – almost 400,000 people, making for 1,100 people per day removed from our country. But, more than half of them had no criminal history.
Most American taxpayers would be stunned to learn that the Administration spends $23,000 to deport a single immigrant. Thus, removing 400,000 a year comes at an enormous social and fiscal cost to our country. Studies show it would cost $285 billion over 5 years to remove the entire undocumented population – without accounting for lost economic activity in cities and towns across the country. Just to hold immigrants in detention now costs the taxpayers an average of $122 per detainee per day, for a grand total of $2 billion a year—and this money is feeding a growing for-profit prison industry.
We should not be wasting enormous sums of our tax money detaining and deporting landscapers and dishwashers who want to pay taxes, learn English and contribute to their new home.
Spending our way out of illegal immigration is not sustainable. Our taxes will increase, and our government will find new ways to intrude in our lives in their effort enforce outdated immigration laws.
Now is the time to fix the underlying problem – the absurd laws that masquerade as an immigration “system.”
But Congress – whether it is led by Democrats or Republicans – has failed, time and again, to successfully grapple with the problem of our broken immigration system. If this Congress is serious about reigning in out of control Washington spending and trimming the deficit, they need take a different approach and create a national immigration strategy that:
· Creates a functional system for immigrants to go through and not around;
· Allows us to focus enforcement resources on threats to our safety and security.
· Allows small businesses to focus on creating jobs and rebuilding our economy, not forced to act as unfunded immigration enforcement agents electronically “patting down” each and every one of us.
· Requires those here illegally to pass a criminal background check, learn English, pay a penalty and register for legal status before waiting up to 15 years to become a citizen, saving taxpayers more than $4.5 billion per year along the way.
·
This kind of national immigration strategy would create $1.5 trillion in economic growth and output over 10 years (leading to over 750,000 jobs).
Meanwhile, the broken status quo will cost us $2.5 trillion over 10 years in lost growth. That $4 trillion swing makes for 4 trillion reasons why Democrats and Republicans need to stop the bickering and get to work on fixing our broken immigration system.
I close this letter with Article II, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, “The Congress shall have Power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
Our nation’s fiscal health, our free markets and our liberty depend on Congress coming together to fix our broken immigration system so, we have a uniform rule of naturalization that adheres to our nation’s values and moves us forward together.
The Tea Party, whose adherents love America and her liberty, have a home in the movement to reform our broken immigration system. Join us in creating a system that honors our great American tradition of the melting pot while staying true to the founders’ vision of America as a nation of laws.
An Open Letter to the Tea Party
011 months ago
Ali Noorani was invited to speak on Border Security and Immigration Reform at the American Policy Summit of the Tea Party Patriots, on February 26, 2011. Joining him were Andresen Blom of the American Principles Project and Norman Adams of Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy. Based on his remarks at the Summit, below is an open letter to the Tea Party:
The National Immigration Forum wants to end illegal immigration. Like every member of the Tea Party, we are frustrated by inaction by our federal government, and we worry about the direction of our great country.
A combination of politics, bureaucratic incompetence, and a failure to listen to common sense has stood in the way creating a national immigration strategy that meets our nation’s needs. The taxpayer, the small business owner, the family working hard to make ends meet, all of us, are watching our tax dollars disappear into an immigration money pit where federal waste, mismanagement and government intrusiveness are the standard operating procedure.
As a result, our deficit bankrupts our present and our future. Our neighbors struggle to find jobs while our economy sputters along. Meanwhile, our tradition of liberty is threatened by an archaic immigration system that is almost half a century old and cannot maintain the rule of law for the 21st century.
Instead of fostering the free market, supporting small businesses, rewarding good employers who play by the rules, and preserving the sanctity of the family, our immigration system fails to meet our nation’s needs and the vision and tradition of our forefathers.
· We want a secure border but Washington allows our tax dollars to be spent on gimmicks not solutions.
· We want a secure border, but Washington hasn’t created the right policies to prevent guns going south and drugs coming north.
· We train the best and brightest students in the world, and then our immigration system promptly sends them overseas to create companies that take American jobs.
· We encourage employers to create good paying jobs, but our immigration system allows unscrupulous employers to exploit workers of all backgrounds.
· We believe in family values, but our immigration system takes mothers from their children.
Today I write in the interests of developing smarter enforcement and smarter solutions that create a national immigration strategy in line with our values.
Let me begin here: The National Immigration Forum wants smarter immigration enforcement that keeps our nation and our communities secure, ensures our long term economic prosperity and honors America’s heritage as a nation of laws. We stand alongside sheriffs and mayors in recommending immigration policies and laws that increase public safety and prioritize scarce resources – our taxpayer dollars – towards stopping those who threaten to harm our communities and families. We have supported bi-partisan immigration reform bills that required serious measurements and accounting of border security.
Security benchmarks, identified in 2007, have been met. Yet our immigration system remains in need of repair. Here’s why:
Beginning in 1994, the federal government began to invest enormous resources into border security along the southwestern border. Since then, we have spent over $75 billion on border security and at least $50 billion on interior security. Even as we spent and continue to spend billions and billions of tax dollars the number of people here illegally grew from 4 million to nearly 12 million.
If our federal immigration system were a private enterprise, it would have gone out of business a long time ago. Clearly, enforcement alone has not solved and will not ever solve the problem; a different kind of solution is needed.
But, before we talk about what we need to do, let’s talk about what we have done:
· Border patrol has more than doubled its force on the Southwest border. Going from 8,580 in 2000 to over 17,500 agents in 2009.
· 1,200 National Guard troops patrol the southwest border, as well as thousands of federal law enforcement agents from nearly every federal law enforcement agency.
· There are over 649 miles of border fencing, 139 Border Patrol stations, 21 Border Enforcement Security Teams, and 37 Border Patrol checkpoints.
· On the lookout for unlawful traffic are electronic surveillance and communications equipment, including 10,000 ground sensors, as well as sensor towers, mobile surveillance systems, and thousands of cameras with infra-red night vision.
· A total of 290 aircraft are deployed daily for surveillance, along with mobile surveillance systems and remote video surveillance.
This massive outlay of resources continues in spite of the fact the border has seen fewer illegal crossings in 2010 than any year since 1972 – due in large part to a faltering economy.
While illegal crossings are lower than ever, threats still exist. Today we face powerful cartels that smuggle money, guns and drugs across the border, often preying on immigrants seeking a better life.
After examining Department of Justice data, the Texas Border Coalition found that the probability of a person involved in criminal activity crossing the border between the ports of entry being apprehended is 70 percent; but the probability of a person involved in criminal activity crossing at the ports of entry being apprehended is about 30 percent. This glaring difference exists despite overwhelming evidence that most criminal activity takes place at ports of entry. They estimated that 90% of illegal drugs enter the U.S. at ports of entry, which also serve as the conduit for the bulk of cash and guns being smuggled into Mexico.
For politicians in Washington, pictures of bridges and roads at ports of entry aren’t as exciting as pictures of fences and Border Patrol in the desert. As a result, our ports of entry have been neglected.
This misallocation of border resources has economic implications.
A 2006 study estimated that wait times at the border due to insufficient lanes, inspectors, and technology at ports of entry results in about $2 billion in lost economic output in the San Diego region alone, every year. Each additional 15 minutes of wait time at ports of entry represents an additional $1 billion loss in productivity and a loss of 134,000 jobs in the bi-national border region.
In summary, the border security benchmarks that Congress identified in 2007 as a prerequisite for an immigration overhaul have been met at the expense of security and trade at our ports of entry.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has broken every record for arrests, deportations, and worksite audits and just like the border, at an enormous cost to the taxpayer. Last year, more non-citizens were deported than ever before – almost 400,000 people, making for 1,100 people per day removed from our country. But, more than half of them had no criminal history.
Most American taxpayers would be stunned to learn that the Administration spends $23,000 to deport a single immigrant. Thus, removing 400,000 a year comes at an enormous social and fiscal cost to our country. Studies show it would cost $285 billion over 5 years to remove the entire undocumented population – without accounting for lost economic activity in cities and towns across the country. Just to hold immigrants in detention now costs the taxpayers an average of $122 per detainee per day, for a grand total of $2 billion a year—and this money is feeding a growing for-profit prison industry.
We should not be wasting enormous sums of our tax money detaining and deporting landscapers and dishwashers who want to pay taxes, learn English and contribute to their new home.
Spending our way out of illegal immigration is not sustainable. Our taxes will increase, and our government will find new ways to intrude in our lives in their effort enforce outdated immigration laws.
Now is the time to fix the underlying problem – the absurd laws that masquerade as an immigration “system.”
But Congress – whether it is led by Democrats or Republicans – has failed, time and again, to successfully grapple with the problem of our broken immigration system. If this Congress is serious about reigning in out of control Washington spending and trimming the deficit, they need take a different approach and create a national immigration strategy that:
· Creates a functional system for immigrants to go through and not around;
· Allows us to focus enforcement resources on threats to our safety and security.
· Allows small businesses to focus on creating jobs and rebuilding our economy, not forced to act as unfunded immigration enforcement agents electronically “patting down” each and every one of us.
· Requires those here illegally to pass a criminal background check, learn English, pay a penalty and register for legal status before waiting up to 15 years to become a citizen, saving taxpayers more than $4.5 billion per year along the way.
·
This kind of national immigration strategy would create $1.5 trillion in economic growth and output over 10 years (leading to over 750,000 jobs).
Meanwhile, the broken status quo will cost us $2.5 trillion over 10 years in lost growth. That $4 trillion swing makes for 4 trillion reasons why Democrats and Republicans need to stop the bickering and get to work on fixing our broken immigration system.
I close this letter with Article II, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, “The Congress shall have Power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
Our nation’s fiscal health, our free markets and our liberty depend on Congress coming together to fix our broken immigration system so, we have a uniform rule of naturalization that adheres to our nation’s values and moves us forward together.
The Tea Party, whose adherents love America and her liberty, have a home in the movement to reform our broken immigration system. Join us in creating a system that honors our great American tradition of the melting pot while staying true to the founders’ vision of America as a nation of laws.
Secure Communities: Do we Know Anything For Certain?
011 months ago
The roll out of Department of Homeland Security’s massive immigration enforcement program, “Secure Communities,” has been an Orwellian rollercoaster since its inception in late 2008.
Is it mandatory or not mandatory?
Does DHS even have the authority to make it mandatory?
Will things be different in 2013?
What choice do communities have in this process?
Does Secure Communities catch “dangerous criminals” or just immigrants? Does the program even distinguish between those?
Ongoing litigation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has brought a vast number of internal DHS documents to light. Unfortunately, that light really doesn’t illuminate the answers to many of these questions. Much like the public statements that DHS has made about the program, the agency’s internal documents and communications contradict themselves.
Let’s start with the few facts of which we can be fairly certain. Secure Communities operates by sending fingerprints taken by local law enforcement agents for comparison with federal immigration databases, in addition to the standard check against FBI criminal databases. If there is a match with prints in the immigration databases, ICE may respond by investigating the person’s status or pursuing immigration enforcement proceedings against him or her.
Opting out of the Secure Communities Program
Can a town or county or state decide they do not want to participate in Secure Communities?
Here the stories diverge considerably.
Originally, DHS promised that the program was entirely voluntary. In fact, facing criticism over the program, ICE detailed exactly how a jurisdiction could opt-out or delay enrollment in Secure Communities in a document called “Setting the Record Straight.” Furthermore, Secretary Napolitano, and Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote in a September 8, 2010 letter to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren that, “If a local law enforcement agency chooses not to be activated in the Secure Communities deployment plan, it will be the responsibility of that agency to notify its local ICE field office of suspected criminal aliens.”
But the following month, in October 2010, DHS reversed its position and claimed that no local jurisdiction was allowed to opt out of the program. “We don’t consider Secure Communities an opt in/opt out program,” Napolitano said. ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton stated that ICE would meet with localities, but agreements were between the state and the federal government.
DHS then stated in an internal memo that “opt-out” was being redefined to mean that a local jurisdiction could opt out of receiving the results from the database search, but not that the fingerprints would not be sent to ICE at all. (This position had been floated as early as November 2009, but was evidently not DHS’s final position until late 2010.) On November 5, 2010, ICE told officials from Arlington County, Virginia, that their only way out of Secure Communities was to not send any fingerprints to the FBI or check the criminal history or identity of anyone they arrest.
But even as DHS leadership was telling Arlington County that this was the only way out of Secure Communities, other states and counties were getting completely different messages. In a discussion of news articles about the new DHS position that Secure Communities is not optional, an unnamed ICE Regional Coordinator for Secure Communities wrote: “First, it isn’t precisely true – witness the fact that Chicago and Cook County IL have in fact opted out; and the fact that in New York State, we are required to ask each and every law enforcement organization in the state whether or not they wish to participate before we will be permitted to activate them. How does any of that square with the “no opt-out for locals”? Doesn’t.”
So is opting out technologically possible?
A mostly agreed-upon premise is that Secure Communities will be operational nation-wide by 2013. By that date, the federal government is merging its database searches under “Next Generation Identification.” By 2013, all federal criminal and immigration databases are supposed to be “interoperable,” which more or less means that any search of criminal databases will simultaneously search immigration databases. At that point, choosing not to send fingerprints to ICE may no longer be an option.
Currently, however, emails released by DHS under the FOIA show that it is technologically possible to prevent fingerprints taken at a local jail from going to ICE. The FBI division that conducts fingerprint matching can separate out the fingerprints originating from a single site (i.e. a single jail, even if other jails in the county participate in Secure Communities) and not send them to ICE databases. An email from August 23, 2010 stated, “Under our current infrastructure it is technically possible for a SC participating site (ORI) to be deactivated from the search of IDENT.”
However, jurisdictions asking to be taken out of the program have met significant resistance from ICE. While claiming that “no participating site has officially requested” to opt out, ICE was holding meetings with San Francisco, Arlington County, and others to try to pressure them to stop opposing the program.
DHS’s most recent position is that localities have no choice over participation in Secure Communities, because at the federal level DHS has agreed with the FBI to share the data. However, it is unclear whether DHS has authority to make that decision for any locality. Shouldn’t a city or county have control over who receives information on its residents? Why would that be up to DHS? ICE’s own legal research into the question admits that mandatory participation may be a matter for the courts to decide.
Why would a jurisdiction want to opt out?
Secure Communities is billed as a program to identify and deport dangerous “criminal aliens.” However, like many ICE programs, the results diverge dramatically from the stated intent. According to the data, Secure Communities has resulted in the deportation of more people with no criminal record than people who have committed serious or violent offenses.
Meanwhile, the consequence of Secure Communities is that any encounter with local public safety officers may trigger deportation proceedings. This merging of immigration and police work has a tremendous chilling effect: immigrants or even those with mixed status family members may decline to report crimes or refuse to be witnesses. Their hesitation is reinforced by experience—even victims of domestic violence have been arrested and placed in deportation proceedings as a result of seeking police protection. Jurisdictions where police have carefully cultivated the trust of immigrant communities understand that Secure Communities has the potential of undermining that trust. By contrast, in many communities that have activated Secure Communities, the program has raised racial profiling concerns, as local police may target immigrants and arrest them for minor violations as a pretext to bring them to jail and run their fingerprints through the database.
A California Assemblyman has the right idea. Tom Ammiano has introduced a bill in California that would not only require the program to be voluntary in the state, it would mandate additional safeguards against racial profiling, offer special protection to victims of domestic violence, and most importantly, share fingerprints with immigration officials after someone is actually convicted of a crime, not at the time of arrest.
Conclusion
Let’s recap, just so everything is clear, or at least the lack of clarity is clear.
DHS says Secure Communities is mandatory and there is no opt out.
But in some places they do let jurisdictions opt out.
DHS says they decide whether or not the program is mandatory.
But legally and constitutionally, it may not be DHS’s decision at all.
Opting out is technologically possible.
But by 2013, the government may have merged federal databases so that all fingerprint searches check immigration status.
Secure Communities is supposed to identify dangerous “criminal aliens.”
But so far it has largely captured traffic offenders and individuals without any criminal record.
Got that?
Image by Flickr user Exercise Tradewinds 2009
Secure Communities: Do we Know Anything For Certain?
011 months ago
The roll out of Department of Homeland Security’s massive immigration enforcement program, “Secure Communities,” has been an Orwellian rollercoaster since its inception in late 2008.
Is it mandatory or not mandatory?
Does DHS even have the authority to make it mandatory?
Will things be different in 2013?
What choice do communities have in this process?
Does Secure Communities catch “dangerous criminals” or just immigrants? Does the program even distinguish between those?
Ongoing litigation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has brought a vast number of internal DHS documents to light. Unfortunately, that light really doesn’t illuminate the answers to many of these questions. Much like the public statements that DHS has made about the program, the agency’s internal documents and communications contradict themselves.
Let’s start with the few facts of which we can be fairly certain. Secure Communities operates by sending fingerprints taken by local law enforcement agents for comparison with federal immigration databases, in addition to the standard check against FBI criminal databases. If there is a match with prints in the immigration databases, ICE may respond by investigating the person’s status or pursuing immigration enforcement proceedings against him or her.
Opting out of the Secure Communities Program
Can a town or county or state decide they do not want to participate in Secure Communities?
Here the stories diverge considerably.
Originally, DHS promised that the program was entirely voluntary. In fact, facing criticism over the program, ICE detailed exactly how a jurisdiction could opt-out or delay enrollment in Secure Communities in a document called “Setting the Record Straight.” Furthermore, Secretary Napolitano, and Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote in a September 8, 2010 letter to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren that, “If a local law enforcement agency chooses not to be activated in the Secure Communities deployment plan, it will be the responsibility of that agency to notify its local ICE field office of suspected criminal aliens.”
But the following month, in October 2010, DHS reversed its position and claimed that no local jurisdiction was allowed to opt out of the program. “We don’t consider Secure Communities an opt in/opt out program,” Napolitano said. ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton stated that ICE would meet with localities, but agreements were between the state and the federal government.
DHS then stated in an internal memo that “opt-out” was being redefined to mean that a local jurisdiction could opt out of receiving the results from the database search, but not that the fingerprints would not be sent to ICE at all. (This position had been floated as early as November 2009, but was evidently not DHS’s final position until late 2010.) On November 5, 2010, ICE told officials from Arlington County, Virginia, that their only way out of Secure Communities was to not send any fingerprints to the FBI or check the criminal history or identity of anyone they arrest.
But even as DHS leadership was telling Arlington County that this was the only way out of Secure Communities, other states and counties were getting completely different messages. In a discussion of news articles about the new DHS position that Secure Communities is not optional, an unnamed ICE Regional Coordinator for Secure Communities wrote: “First, it isn’t precisely true – witness the fact that Chicago and Cook County IL have in fact opted out; and the fact that in New York State, we are required to ask each and every law enforcement organization in the state whether or not they wish to participate before we will be permitted to activate them. How does any of that square with the “no opt-out for locals”? Doesn’t.”
So is opting out technologically possible?
A mostly agreed-upon premise is that Secure Communities will be operational nation-wide by 2013. By that date, the federal government is merging its database searches under “Next Generation Identification.” By 2013, all federal criminal and immigration databases are supposed to be “interoperable,” which more or less means that any search of criminal databases will simultaneously search immigration databases. At that point, choosing not to send fingerprints to ICE may no longer be an option.
Currently, however, emails released by DHS under the FOIA show that it is technologically possible to prevent fingerprints taken at a local jail from going to ICE. The FBI division that conducts fingerprint matching can separate out the fingerprints originating from a single site (i.e. a single jail, even if other jails in the county participate in Secure Communities) and not send them to ICE databases. An email from August 23, 2010 stated, “Under our current infrastructure it is technically possible for a SC participating site (ORI) to be deactivated from the search of IDENT.”
However, jurisdictions asking to be taken out of the program have met significant resistance from ICE. While claiming that “no participating site has officially requested” to opt out, ICE was holding meetings with San Francisco, Arlington County, and others to try to pressure them to stop opposing the program.
DHS’s most recent position is that localities have no choice over participation in Secure Communities, because at the federal level DHS has agreed with the FBI to share the data. However, it is unclear whether DHS has authority to make that decision for any locality. Shouldn’t a city or county have control over who receives information on its residents? Why would that be up to DHS? ICE’s own legal research into the question admits that mandatory participation may be a matter for the courts to decide.
Why would a jurisdiction want to opt out?
Secure Communities is billed as a program to identify and deport dangerous “criminal aliens.” However, like many ICE programs, the results diverge dramatically from the stated intent. According to the data, Secure Communities has resulted in the deportation of more people with no criminal record than people who have committed serious or violent offenses.
Meanwhile, the consequence of Secure Communities is that any encounter with local public safety officers may trigger deportation proceedings. This merging of immigration and police work has a tremendous chilling effect: immigrants or even those with mixed status family members may decline to report crimes or refuse to be witnesses. Their hesitation is reinforced by experience—even victims of domestic violence have been arrested and placed in deportation proceedings as a result of seeking police protection. Jurisdictions where police have carefully cultivated the trust of immigrant communities understand that Secure Communities has the potential of undermining that trust. By contrast, in many communities that have activated Secure Communities, the program has raised racial profiling concerns, as local police may target immigrants and arrest them for minor violations as a pretext to bring them to jail and run their fingerprints through the database.
A California Assemblyman has the right idea. Tom Ammiano has introduced a bill in California that would not only require the program to be voluntary in the state, it would mandate additional safeguards against racial profiling, offer special protection to victims of domestic violence, and most importantly, share fingerprints with immigration officials after someone is actually convicted of a crime, not at the time of arrest.
Conclusion
Let’s recap, just so everything is clear, or at least the lack of clarity is clear.
DHS says Secure Communities is mandatory and there is no opt out.
But in some places they do let jurisdictions opt out.
DHS says they decide whether or not the program is mandatory.
But legally and constitutionally, it may not be DHS’s decision at all.
Opting out is technologically possible.
But by 2013, the government may have merged federal databases so that all fingerprint searches check immigration status.
Secure Communities is supposed to identify dangerous “criminal aliens.”
But so far it has largely captured traffic offenders and individuals without any criminal record.
Got that?
Image by Flickr user Exercise Tradewinds 2009
Secure Communities: Do we Know Anything For Certain?
011 months ago
The roll out of Department of Homeland Security’s massive immigration enforcement program, “Secure Communities,” has been an Orwellian rollercoaster since its inception in late 2008.
Is it mandatory or not mandatory?
Does DHS even have the authority to make it mandatory?
Will things be different in 2013?
What choice do communities have in this process?
Does Secure Communities catch “dangerous criminals” or just immigrants? Does the program even distinguish between those?
Ongoing litigation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has brought a vast number of internal DHS documents to light. Unfortunately, that light really doesn’t illuminate the answers to many of these questions. Much like the public statements that DHS has made about the program, the agency’s internal documents and communications contradict themselves.
Let’s start with the few facts of which we can be fairly certain. Secure Communities operates by sending fingerprints taken by local law enforcement agents for comparison with federal immigration databases, in addition to the standard check against FBI criminal databases. If there is a match with prints in the immigration databases, ICE may respond by investigating the person’s status or pursuing immigration enforcement proceedings against him or her.
Opting out of the Secure Communities Program
Can a town or county or state decide they do not want to participate in Secure Communities?
Here the stories diverge considerably.
Originally, DHS promised that the program was entirely voluntary. In fact, facing criticism over the program, ICE detailed exactly how a jurisdiction could opt-out or delay enrollment in Secure Communities in a document called “Setting the Record Straight.” Furthermore, Secretary Napolitano, and Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich wrote in a September 8, 2010 letter to Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren that, “If a local law enforcement agency chooses not to be activated in the Secure Communities deployment plan, it will be the responsibility of that agency to notify its local ICE field office of suspected criminal aliens.”
But the following month, in October 2010, DHS reversed its position and claimed that no local jurisdiction was allowed to opt out of the program. “We don’t consider Secure Communities an opt in/opt out program,” Napolitano said. ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton stated that ICE would meet with localities, but agreements were between the state and the federal government.
DHS then stated in an internal memo that “opt-out” was being redefined to mean that a local jurisdiction could opt out of receiving the results from the database search, but not that the fingerprints would not be sent to ICE at all. (This position had been floated as early as November 2009, but was evidently not DHS’s final position until late 2010.) On November 5, 2010, ICE told officials from Arlington County, Virginia, that their only way out of Secure Communities was to not send any fingerprints to the FBI or check the criminal history or identity of anyone they arrest.
But even as DHS leadership was telling Arlington County that this was the only way out of Secure Communities, other states and counties were getting completely different messages. In a discussion of news articles about the new DHS position that Secure Communities is not optional, an unnamed ICE Regional Coordinator for Secure Communities wrote: “First, it isn’t precisely true – witness the fact that Chicago and Cook County IL have in fact opted out; and the fact that in New York State, we are required to ask each and every law enforcement organization in the state whether or not they wish to participate before we will be permitted to activate them. How does any of that square with the “no opt-out for locals”? Doesn’t.”
So is opting out technologically possible?
A mostly agreed-upon premise is that Secure Communities will be operational nation-wide by 2013. By that date, the federal government is merging its database searches under “Next Generation Identification.” By 2013, all federal criminal and immigration databases are supposed to be “interoperable,” which more or less means that any search of criminal databases will simultaneously search immigration databases. At that point, choosing not to send fingerprints to ICE may no longer be an option.
Currently, however, emails released by DHS under the FOIA show that it is technologically possible to prevent fingerprints taken at a local jail from going to ICE. The FBI division that conducts fingerprint matching can separate out the fingerprints originating from a single site (i.e. a single jail, even if other jails in the county participate in Secure Communities) and not send them to ICE databases. An email from August 23, 2010 stated, “Under our current infrastructure it is technically possible for a SC participating site (ORI) to be deactivated from the search of IDENT.”
However, jurisdictions asking to be taken out of the program have met significant resistance from ICE. While claiming that “no participating site has officially requested” to opt out, ICE was holding meetings with San Francisco, Arlington County, and others to try to pressure them to stop opposing the program.
DHS’s most recent position is that localities have no choice over participation in Secure Communities, because at the federal level DHS has agreed with the FBI to share the data. However, it is unclear whether DHS has authority to make that decision for any locality. Shouldn’t a city or county have control over who receives information on its residents? Why would that be up to DHS? ICE’s own legal research into the question admits that mandatory participation may be a matter for the courts to decide.
Why would a jurisdiction want to opt out?
Secure Communities is billed as a program to identify and deport dangerous “criminal aliens.” However, like many ICE programs, the results diverge dramatically from the stated intent. According to the data, Secure Communities has resulted in the deportation of more people with no criminal record than people who have committed serious or violent offenses.
Meanwhile, the consequence of Secure Communities is that any encounter with local public safety officers may trigger deportation proceedings. This merging of immigration and police work has a tremendous chilling effect: immigrants or even those with mixed status family members may decline to report crimes or refuse to be witnesses. Their hesitation is reinforced by experience—even victims of domestic violence have been arrested and placed in deportation proceedings as a result of seeking police protection. Jurisdictions where police have carefully cultivated the trust of immigrant communities understand that Secure Communities has the potential of undermining that trust. By contrast, in many communities that have activated Secure Communities, the program has raised racial profiling concerns, as local police may target immigrants and arrest them for minor violations as a pretext to bring them to jail and run their fingerprints through the database.
A California Assemblyman has the right idea. Tom Ammiano has introduced a bill in California that would not only require the program to be voluntary in the state, it would mandate additional safeguards against racial profiling, offer special protection to victims of domestic violence, and most importantly, share fingerprints with immigration officials after someone is actually convicted of a crime, not at the time of arrest.
Conclusion
Let’s recap, just so everything is clear, or at least the lack of clarity is clear.
DHS says Secure Communities is mandatory and there is no opt out.
But in some places they do let jurisdictions opt out.
DHS says they decide whether or not the program is mandatory.
But legally and constitutionally, it may not be DHS’s decision at all.
Opting out is technologically possible.
But by 2013, the government may have merged federal databases so that all fingerprint searches check immigration status.
Secure Communities is supposed to identify dangerous “criminal aliens.”
But so far it has largely captured traffic offenders and individuals without any criminal record.
Got that?
Image by Flickr user Exercise Tradewinds 2009
Enforcement Fantasies: Raids Will Not Solve Our Problems
011 months ago
This post was written by Forum intern Charles Gillig
It is telling that one of the first acts of the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), was to change the name of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law to the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. This change reflects a shift away from a focus on achieving comprehensive reform to one that pushes enforcement as the solution to our immigration woes, including what to do about the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
The Subcommittee held its initial hearing on January 26, titled, “ICE’s Workplace Enforcement: Up to the Job?” In the hearing, Republican subcommittee members criticized ICE’s current workplace enforcement strategy, which focuses on conducting so-called “I-9 audits,” and hinted at the need for more arrests of undocumented migrants. With the I-9 audit, ICE agents investigate businesses to see if the employers have properly determined whether all their employees can work legally in the U.S. Employers who hire undocumented workers and who fail to keep adequate I-9 records, face government fines anywhere between $100-1,000 for each unauthorized employee. Republicans do not belief that the focus on employers is a sufficient deterrent to illegal immigration.
In an attempt to defend the efficacy of the audits, ICE Deputy Director Kumar Kibble emphasized that ICE was “aggressively pursuing” employers who hired undocumented immigrants and that ICE had “record-breaking results” in the past fiscal year. In FY 2010 ICE set news marks for worksite enforcement investigations (2,746, up from the previous high of 1,191 in FY2008), arrests of employers for work-site violations (196, up from the previous high of 135 in 2008), and they shattered their marks for fines handed out to employers ($7 million up from $1 million in FY2009). Still, Kibble’s comments and numbers did not satisfy Republican members. Subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegy (R-CA)—perhaps not having paid attention to the testimony—said that ICE was “failing to enforce U.S. laws” and admonished the organization for allowing illegal immigrants to take American jobs. The solution professed by the Republican members: restart workplace immigrant raids. One Republican witness said that raids should be part of what he called “full spectrum enforcement”—a new name for the same old failed strategy of enforcement-only.
The fact is, raids are an expensive and inhumane way to tackle the problem of illegal immigration. They terrify undocumented and authorized workers alike, and can be devastating to a community. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) echoed this sentiment at the hearing, stating in reference to raids under the Bush administration that, “I was appalled at the raids.” She later underscored the point that raids do not solve the underlying fact that comprehensive immigration reform is ultimately necessary for optimal worksite enforcement.
Another problem with raids is that, particularly in industries heavily dependent on undocumented workers, they can have ripple effects that ultimately put more Americans out of work. For example, between 50% and 75% of the agricultural workforce is undocumented. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) mentioned a Department of Agriculture report concluding that every farm worker provides three jobs to Americans in related support businesses. This is just one example demonstrating that immigrants are critical sparkplugs to our economy. Why would the U.S. want these workers to live in daily fear of being torn away from their families in the middle of night in hostile and sometime violent raids?
Republicans want to use raids to get more undocumented workers out of the U.S., despite ICE having set a record for deportations in 2010, with over 393,000 people being removed from the country. This is not cheap. Deputy Director Kibble said these deportations cost ICE about $12,500 per person, but when all costs are tallied, deportation costs per person total approximately $23,000.
The new House Judiciary Subcommittee has the power and influence to make positive and necessary changes in our immigration policies. Unfortunately, Republican members appeared to use the Subcommittee’s first hearing to challenge ICE and the Obama Administration’s current worksite enforcement strategy as insufficient. In doing so, they forget that under previous administrations, a focus on raids got us nowhere closer to a solution to the nation’s immigration problems. As Rep. Lee stated well near the end of the hearing, ICE is simply doing the best it can with the resources provided by Congress. It is this nation’s lawmakers that must provide the overarching solution.
Enforcement Fantasies: Raids Will Not Solve Our Problems
011 months ago
This post was written by Forum intern Charles Gillig
It is telling that one of the first acts of the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), was to change the name of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law to the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement. This change reflects a shift away from a focus on achieving comprehensive reform to one that pushes enforcement as the solution to our immigration woes, including what to do about the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S.
The Subcommittee held its initial hearing on January 26, titled, “ICE’s Workplace Enforcement: Up to the Job?” In the hearing, Republican subcommittee members criticized ICE’s current workplace enforcement strategy, which focuses on conducting so-called “I-9 audits,” and hinted at the need for more arrests of undocumented migrants. With the I-9 audit, ICE agents investigate businesses to see if the employers have properly determined whether all their employees can work legally in the U.S. Employers who hire undocumented workers and who fail to keep adequate I-9 records, face government fines anywhere between $100-1,000 for each unauthorized employee. Republicans do not belief that the focus on employers is a sufficient deterrent to illegal immigration.
In an attempt to defend the efficacy of the audits, ICE Deputy Director Kumar Kibble emphasized that ICE was “aggressively pursuing” employers who hired undocumented immigrants and that ICE had “record-breaking results” in the past fiscal year. In FY 2010 ICE set news marks for worksite enforcement investigations (2,746, up from the previous high of 1,191 in FY2008), arrests of employers for work-site violations (196, up from the previous high of 135 in 2008), and they shattered their marks for fines handed out to employers ($7 million up from $1 million in FY2009). Still, Kibble’s comments and numbers did not satisfy Republican members. Subcommittee Chairman Elton Gallegy (R-CA)—perhaps not having paid attention to the testimony—said that ICE was “failing to enforce U.S. laws” and admonished the organization for allowing illegal immigrants to take American jobs. The solution professed by the Republican members: restart workplace immigrant raids. One Republican witness said that raids should be part of what he called “full spectrum enforcement”—a new name for the same old failed strategy of enforcement-only.
The fact is, raids are an expensive and inhumane way to tackle the problem of illegal immigration. They terrify undocumented and authorized workers alike, and can be devastating to a community. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) echoed this sentiment at the hearing, stating in reference to raids under the Bush administration that, “I was appalled at the raids.” She later underscored the point that raids do not solve the underlying fact that comprehensive immigration reform is ultimately necessary for optimal worksite enforcement.
Another problem with raids is that, particularly in industries heavily dependent on undocumented workers, they can have ripple effects that ultimately put more Americans out of work. For example, between 50% and 75% of the agricultural workforce is undocumented. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) mentioned a Department of Agriculture report concluding that every farm worker provides three jobs to Americans in related support businesses. This is just one example demonstrating that immigrants are critical sparkplugs to our economy. Why would the U.S. want these workers to live in daily fear of being torn away from their families in the middle of night in hostile and sometime violent raids?
Republicans want to use raids to get more undocumented workers out of the U.S., despite ICE having set a record for deportations in 2010, with over 393,000 people being removed from the country. This is not cheap. Deputy Director Kibble said these deportations cost ICE about $12,500 per person, but when all costs are tallied, deportation costs per person total approximately $23,000.
The new House Judiciary Subcommittee has the power and influence to make positive and necessary changes in our immigration policies. Unfortunately, Republican members appeared to use the Subcommittee’s first hearing to challenge ICE and the Obama Administration’s current worksite enforcement strategy as insufficient. In doing so, they forget that under previous administrations, a focus on raids got us nowhere closer to a solution to the nation’s immigration problems. As Rep. Lee stated well near the end of the hearing, ICE is simply doing the best it can with the resources provided by Congress. It is this nation’s lawmakers that must provide the overarching solution.
E-Verify without Reform: What it would Really Mean
012 months ago
by ImmPolitic Blog
in Uncategorized
On February 10, the House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement held a hearing on the E-Verify electronic work authorization verification system. The title of the hearing was “E-Verify- Preserving Jobs for American Workers,” and Republican members of the Subcommittee tried to portray the use of E-Verify as resulting in a simple equation: one unauthorized worker denied a job by E-Verify equals one job for an American worker.
It’s not that simple.
Some form of electronic work authorization verification system, if done right, might make sense in the context of broader reforms to the immigration system. That is not what the Subcommittee was considering yesterday. E-Verify is still in a pilot phase with approximately 3% of employers now using the system. Republicans on the Subcommittee want to see the mandatory use of the system nationwide.
The problem is that approximately 5% of the U.S. workforce is unauthorized to work legally. Without broader immigration reforms that include giving that large segment of the workforce the ability to work legally, the national implementation of E-Verify would lead to some perverse results.
While 5% of the U.S. workforce overall may be unauthorized to work, the distribution of unauthorized workers is by no means evenly distributed. According to the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform, the percentage of the agricultural workforce that is not authorized to work is not 5%, but more like 75%. In a letter submitted for the hearing record, the Coalition stated that there is no rational basis for believing that American workers will fill the slots of all of those unauthorized workers.
“Demographic trends mean fewer and fewer Americans seek the work…. The American workforce has become older, better educated, and more urban. It has chosen lifestyle and employment options other than field work on farms.”
Failure to fill farm work positions with American workers has not been for lack of effort. The statement gives several examples where government agencies, employer associations, and labor unions attempted to recruit U.S. workers to fill labor shortages on farms. In one example, from the late 1990’s,
“a multi-county welfare-to-farm-work program was launched in California’s Central Valley. Regional unemployment ran nine to 12 percent; in some localities, unemployment exceeded 20%. State and county agencies and grower associations collaborated to identify cropping patterns, labor needs, training, transportation, and other impediments. Out of over 100,000 prospective “welfare to work” placements, three individuals were successfully placed.”
So, if the agricultural sector were to suddenly lose 75% of its workforce, the reality would be the acceleration of a trend that, the Coalition notes, is already taking place: more of our food will be produced in other countries.
“Congress must understand that mandating enforcement without reform is to accept that other countries will control the very food supply that the latest dietary guidelines suggest should occupy half of our dinner plates.”
Of course, picking up and moving to another country will not be an option for all businesses so reliant on an undocumented workforce. Another consequence of a mandatory nationwide implementation of e-verify would likely be that more employers would pay workers off the books.
In 2008, the Congressional Budget Office prepared a cost estimate of the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007 (SAVE Act). CBO estimated that the Act would,
“[d]ecrease federal revenues by $17.3 billion over the 2009-2018 period. The decrease largely reflects the judgment that mandatory verification of employment eligibility through the E-Verify system would result in an increase in the number of undocumented workers being paid outside the tax system.”
The reality is, if we want to use E-Verify, or something like it, as an enforcement tool in our immigration system, that system will have to be overhauled first. Otherwise, what we will get is a greater dependence on an underground economy and on imports.
E-Verify without Reform: What it would Really Mean
012 months ago
by ImmPolitic Blog
in Uncategorized
On February 10, the House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement held a hearing on the E-Verify electronic work authorization verification system. The title of the hearing was “E-Verify- Preserving Jobs for American Workers,” and Republican members of the Subcommittee tried to portray the use of E-Verify as resulting in a simple equation: one unauthorized worker denied a job by E-Verify equals one job for an American worker.
It’s not that simple.
Some form of electronic work authorization verification system, if done right, might make sense in the context of broader reforms to the immigration system. That is not what the Subcommittee was considering yesterday. E-Verify is still in a pilot phase with approximately 11% of employers now using the system. Republicans on the Subcommittee want to see the mandatory use of the system nationwide.
The problem is that approximately 5% of the U.S. workforce is unauthorized to work legally. Without broader immigration reforms that include giving that large segment of the workforce the ability to work legally, the national implementation of E-Verify would lead to some perverse results.
While 5% of the U.S. workforce overall may be unauthorized to work, the distribution of unauthorized workers is by no means evenly distributed. According to the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform, the percentage of the agricultural workforce that is not authorized to work is not 5%, but more like 75%. In a letter submitted for the hearing record, the Coalition stated that there is no rational basis for believing that American workers will fill the slots of all of those unauthorized workers.
“Demographic trends mean fewer and fewer Americans seek the work…. The American workforce has become older, better educated, and more urban. It has chosen lifestyle and employment options other than field work on farms.”
Failure to fill farm work positions with American workers has not been for lack of effort. The statement gives several examples where government agencies, employer associations, and labor unions attempted to recruit U.S. workers to fill labor shortages on farms. In one example, from the late 1990’s,
“a multi-county welfare-to-farm-work program was launched in California’s Central Valley. Regional unemployment ran nine to 12 percent; in some localities, unemployment exceeded 20%. State and county agencies and grower associations collaborated to identify cropping patterns, labor needs, training, transportation, and other impediments. Out of over 100,000 prospective “welfare to work” placements, three individuals were successfully placed.”
So, if the agricultural sector were to suddenly lose 75% of its workforce, the reality would be the acceleration of a trend that, the Coalition notes, is already taking place: more of our food will be produced in other countries.
“Congress must understand that mandating enforcement without reform is to accept that other countries will control the very food supply that the latest dietary guidelines suggest should occupy half of our dinner plates.”
Of course, picking up and moving to another country will not be an option for all businesses so reliant on an undocumented workforce. Another consequence of a mandatory nationwide implementation of e-verify would likely be that more employers would pay workers off the books.
In 2008, the Congressional Budget Office prepared a cost estimate of the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007 (SAVE Act). CBO estimated that the Act would,
“[d]ecrease federal revenues by $17.3 billion over the 2009-2018 period. The decrease largely reflects the judgment that mandatory verification of employment eligibility through the E-Verify system would result in an increase in the number of undocumented workers being paid outside the tax system.”
The reality is, if we want to use E-Verify, or something like it, as an enforcement tool in our immigration system, that system will have to be overhauled first. Otherwise, what we will get is a greater dependence on an underground economy and on imports.
E-Verify without Reform: What it would Really Mean
012 months ago
On February 10, the House Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement held a hearing on the E-Verify electronic work authorization verification system. The title of the hearing was “E-Verify- Preserving Jobs for American Workers,” and Republican members of the Subcommittee tried to portray the use of E-Verify as resulting in a simple equation: one unauthorized worker denied a job by E-Verify equals one job for an American worker.
It’s not that simple.
Some form of electronic work authorization verification system, if done right, might make sense in the context of broader reforms to the immigration system. That is not what the Subcommittee was considering yesterday. E-Verify is still in a pilot phase with approximately 3% of employers now using the system. Republicans on the Subcommittee want to see the mandatory use of the system nationwide.
The problem is that approximately 5% of the U.S. workforce is unauthorized to work legally. Without broader immigration reforms that include giving that large segment of the workforce the ability to work legally, the national implementation of E-Verify would lead to some perverse results.
While 5% of the U.S. workforce overall may be unauthorized to work, the distribution of unauthorized workers is by no means evenly distributed. According to the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration Reform, the percentage of the agricultural workforce that is not authorized to work is not 5%, but more like 75%. In a letter submitted for the hearing record, the Coalition stated that there is no rational basis for believing that American workers will fill the slots of all of those unauthorized workers.
“Demographic trends mean fewer and fewer Americans seek the work…. The American workforce has become older, better educated, and more urban. It has chosen lifestyle and employment options other than field work on farms.”
Failure to fill farm work positions with American workers has not been for lack of effort. The statement gives several examples where government agencies, employer associations, and labor unions attempted to recruit U.S. workers to fill labor shortages on farms. In one example, from the late 1990’s,
“a multi-county welfare-to-farm-work program was launched in California’s Central Valley. Regional unemployment ran nine to 12 percent; in some localities, unemployment exceeded 20%. State and county agencies and grower associations collaborated to identify cropping patterns, labor needs, training, transportation, and other impediments. Out of over 100,000 prospective “welfare to work” placements, three individuals were successfully placed.”
So, if the agricultural sector were to suddenly lose 75% of its workforce, the reality would be the acceleration of a trend that, the Coalition notes, is already taking place: more of our food will be produced in other countries.
“Congress must understand that mandating enforcement without reform is to accept that other countries will control the very food supply that the latest dietary guidelines suggest should occupy half of our dinner plates.”
Of course, picking up and moving to another country will not be an option for all businesses so reliant on an undocumented workforce. Another consequence of a mandatory nationwide implementation of e-verify would likely be that more employers would pay workers off the books.
In 2008, the Congressional Budget Office prepared a cost estimate of the Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007 (SAVE Act). CBO estimated that the Act would,
“[d]ecrease federal revenues by $17.3 billion over the 2009-2018 period. The decrease largely reflects the judgment that mandatory verification of employment eligibility through the E-Verify system would result in an increase in the number of undocumented workers being paid outside the tax system.”
The reality is, if we want to use E-Verify, or something like it, as an enforcement tool in our immigration system, that system will have to be overhauled first. Otherwise, what we will get is a greater dependence on an underground economy and on imports.