Border Enforcement
Border Issues, Border Solutions
originally posted by Travis Packer for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 23rd
Yesterday, the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border, Maritime, and Global Counterterrorism held a hearing on Enhancing DHS’ Efforts to Disrupt Alien Smuggling across Our Borders. Witnesses from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and Terry Goddard, Attorney General for the State of Arizona all testified. Unfortunately, the hearing ended up being short on solutions and long on rhetoric.
The hearing followed the release of a GAO report, which asserted that the DHS could do a better job along the southwest border by “leveraging investigative resources.” Subcommittee Chairman Henry Cuellar (D-TX) echoed results of the study, and also asked for DHS to use more performance measures so that Congress could better follow DHS’ progress in securing the border. Cuellar also expounded on the strength and utility of Operation Streamline, a program which is not without its own problems.
Representative Candice Miller (R-MI) chose a different tack, choosing to ignore the report altogether. Instead, she tried to push Arizona AG Terry Goddard into saying that we should classify criminal immigrants crossing the border as “enemy combatants,” and not afford them the rights and protections normally given in our court system. Goddard disagreed, stating that he believed that our civilian court system was strong enough.
In rebuttal, Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) pointed out that we have never caught any known terrorists coming across the southern border. Sanchez also pushed back on the assertion many have made to justify Arizona law SB1070—that nothing has been done along the border—pointing out that in recent years the Border Patrol has grown from 4,000 to 20,000 agents, and that just this year ICE will be adding 160 additional agents along the southwest border. Clearly, money is not the issue along the border.
Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-NJ) attempted to get the committee back on track—berating fellow members for talking about issues other than trying to stop alien smuggling—and asked the witnesses if they had any ideas about how to stop alien smuggling across the border (to which they were mostly silent). Rep. Al Green (D-TX) focused on guns, asking the witnesses for ideas on how to stop guns and money flowing across the border. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) was quick to point on in her time that while violence on the Mexican side of the border is still up, violent crime rates in Arizona are actually down.
So what should be tackled next among the myriad issues mentioned in yesterday’s hearing? Clearly, advanced metrics are needed to assess the progress that has been made on securing the border. Major issues must be dealt with—how to stop gun smuggling, alien smuggling—and how to not only ensure that violence does not cross the border into the U.S., but also how to reduce this violence in the first place. Finally, as Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) pointed out, comprehensive immigration reform must be part of the package of solutions needed to solve these problems.
Photo by Deni
J.D. Hayworth Challenges Administration on Immigration Enforcement Just Weeks Before National Guard Deploys to Border
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 20th
Over the weekend, former Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth challenged the Obama Administration’s commitment to immigration enforcement—just weeks before the Administration is set to deploy 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico Border. On Monday, the Obama Administration announced that the National Guard will begin deployment on August 1, with more than 500 soldiers going to Arizona and the rest to New Mexico, California and Texas. The President has also requested that Congress appropriate $600 million in supplemental funds for “enhanced border protection and law-enforcement activities.”
Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain (R) in the Arizona GOP primary, is a notorious immigration hardliner who has been criticized by the Mayor of Phoenix as “being full of racism.” It’s quite a challenge on the part of Hayworth to be even more hawkish on border issues than Sen. McCain—who recently released a 10 point border security plan with fellow Arizona Senator Jon Kyl (R) and has recorded a television spot solely dedicated to “completing the danged fence”—but Hayworth has managed to do so. Campaign politics aside, challenging the Obama Administration on immigration enforcement—an issue that immigration advocates have criticized the President as being too heavy-handed on, in fact—just doesn’t make sense.
On CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday, Hayworth defended Arizona’s “show us your papers” law, SB 1070, and commented that the Obama administration supports “no enforcement” of immigration law:
It should come as no surprise that any number of people who advocate open borders and advocate no enforcement of the law, including this current administration, are trying to throw up these roadblocks.
Also on Sunday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, published an op-ed in The Arizona Republic highlighting the Administration’s progress on enforcement and border security:
Over the past year and a half, the Obama administration has pursued a new border-security strategy with an unprecedented sense of urgency, making historic investments in personnel, technology and infrastructure while combating the transnational criminal organizations that smuggle weapons, cash and people across the United States border.
Make no mistake: Despite what those looking to score political points may tell you, the numbers show we are moving in the right direction.
Last year, illegal crossings along the Southwest border were down 23 percent from the year before, to a fraction of their all-time high. Seizures of contraband rose significantly across the board in 2009. DHS seized 14 percent more illegal bulk cash, 29 percent more illegal weapons and 15 percent more illegal drugs than the year before. And, by all measurable standards, crime levels in U.S. border towns have remained flat for most of the last decade.
Meanwhile, in response to a firm date for National Guard deployment, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer criticized the President for not sending more troops or allocating “more resources” to the border. “While the announcement of more resources is welcomed, it does not appear to be enough,” said Gov. Jan Brewer. “We need the implementation of a federal plan to achieve victory over these brutal cartels and the porous nature of our open border.” Similarly, Sens. McCain and Kyl commented that while these additional border resources are “a step in the right direction,” a lot more still needs to be done—which no one would argue with. It’s called comprehensive immigration reform.
When it comes to immigration enforcement, it seems like the President just can’t win—either he’s doing too much to enforce “the laws on the books” or he’s not doing enough. The fact that deportations are up under President Obama doesn’t seem to matter to those who would rather score cheap political points rather than acknowledge the work on the border or any other enforcement benchmarks that DHS has met. Of course, for politicians like J.D. Hayworth, it may never be enough. This is, after all, the same man who actually advocated for a ban on legal immigration from Mexico. Not that Hayworth is concerned with things like credibility, but he might do himself a favor by acknowledging the reality that President Obama is spending enormous amounts of resources to enforce immigration law and secure the border.
Photo by Media Matters.
Arizona Senators Decry DOJ Lawsuit Yet Refuse to Support Immigration Reform
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 7th
Yesterday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona, challenging the state’s immigration enforcement law (SB 1070). The DOJ lawsuit—which seeks to stop the law from going into effect on July 29th—argues that Arizona’s law is unconstitutional since it claims state authority over federal immigration policy. While political opposition in Arizona to DOJ’s legal challenge has come from both parties, some of the most laughable comments have come from Arizona’s Republican Senators who have used the lawsuit as yet another opportunity to claim that the Obama administration has failed to do anything on immigration. Only Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) has been willing to engage the Democrats on immigration at all this year and even still, Sen. Graham back peddled after health care reform was passed. To date, ZERO Republicans are willing to step forward and play ball on an actual immigration reform bill—which makes the political finger-pointing from those unwilling to meet the President halfway all the more infuriating.
Shortly after the DOJ filed their lawsuit yesterday, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl were quick to issue the following statement decrying the federal government’s lack of action on immigration enforcement:
Moreover, the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law.
Attorney General Holder speaks of the ‘federal government’s responsibility’ to enforce immigration laws; but what are the people of Arizona left to do when the federal government fails in its responsibility?
The Obama Administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility.
This, by the way, is coming from the same senators who led the Republican charge for comprehensive immigration reform back in 2006 and 2007. Back then, Sen. McCain said, and I quote, “I believe the only way to truly secure our border and protect our nation is through the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform.” But where is Sens. McCain or Kyl’s support for reform now, especially after President Obama opened the door to Republican support for a reform effort? And does questioning the government’s commitment to border security after the President requested $600 million in additional border security spending to fund 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 160 additional ICE agents, and improved infrastructure along the Southwest Border really make sense?
The point is that the “federal government’s responsibility”—a government which Sens. McCain and Kyl are certainly a part of—to reform our broken immigration system is being thwarted by the same senators who complain that the government isn’t doing enough. Sure, it’s an election cycle at a time when “get tough” politics are popular and nevermind the fact that SB1070 doesn’t actually do anything to fight crime, but the glaring hypocrisy is a bit much. Meanwhile, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer—who claims Arizona is now under attack from the President in addition to violent Mexican drug cartels—is fundraising for legal funds to defend SB 1070 and vows to “oppose the President’s amnesty plan” (which she also refers to as a “path to citizenship”). Apparently, as an Arizona politician, you can have your cake and eat it too.
Photo by Politico Mafioso.
Experts Agree that Border is More Secure than Ever: Now What?
originally posted by Michele Waslin for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 29th
A new report on border security issued by Center for American Progress adds yet more evidence to the argument that the U.S. government is already doing plenty about border security. Brick by Brick: A Half-Decade of Immigration Enforcement and the Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform, written by Former DHS Assistant Secretary for Border and Transportation Security Policy Stewart Verdery, details the range of programs that have been implemented in the last five years and their impact on the border. The report cautions, however, that securing the border is an elusive goal, and without comprehensive immigration reform, we will never achieve the real objectives needed to end illegal immigration.
In a panel discussion highlighting the report, Verdery and others made it clear that “securing the border first” is an empty demand because the border is more secure than ever, immigration enforcement has increased dramatically, and comprehensive immigration reform is needed now. It is also clear that restrictionists and others on the “enforcement first” bandwagon have not been paying attention.
Verdery and fellow panelist DHS Principal Deputy General Counsel David Martin pointed out that the federal government has spent billions of dollars on border and interior enforcement over the last several years, and that “the enforcement capabilities and resources now available to law enforcement are considerably stronger than during the intense debates of the last decade.”
The failed 2007 comprehensive immigration reform bill included enforcement “benchmarks” that DHS would have to reach before other elements of the bill could be enacted. These benchmarks included:
- Establishing operational control of the Mexican border
- Expanding Border Patrol staffing
- Constructing strong physical and electronic border barriers
- Implementing a “catch and return” policy
- Deploying workplace enforcement tools
Verdery and the other panelists systematically listed all of the enforcement enhancements that have been put in place since then and demonstrated that all of these benchmarks have been met.
- The Secretary of DHS has established and demonstrated operational control; CBP’s budget and personnel has increased; apprehensions along the border have decreased.
- The Border Patrol has 20,000 full-time agents.
- At least 300 miles of vehicle barriers, 370 miles of fencing, and 105 ground-based radar and camera towers have been installed, and four unmanned aerial vehicles are in operation.
- DHS is detaining all removable immigrants apprehended at the border, except in certain humanitarian circumstances.
- The E-Verify system has grown exponentially, and employer audits have led to 2,069 audits targeting employers for hiring unauthorized workers.
Verdery also pointed to US-VISIT, the 287(g) conference, the Visa Security Program, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) and other enforcement initiatives that have expanded DHS’s immigration enforcement efforts and resources in the years since CIR failed.
The panelists concluded that it is imperative that we move forward with CIR; there are no more excuses. Panelist Ted Alden of the Council on Foreign Relations stated that “reform is being held hostage to an idea of border security that isn’t defined.” Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano has said that those opposed to CIR keep “moving the goalposts.” David Martin stated, “It is artificial to separate out border security and make it a condition for reform.”
Once again, those who call for “enforcement first” have been put on the spot. Will any amount of enforcement ever be enough to move them to the next step? Will they continue to move the goalposts? Or will they finally recognize that comprehensive immigration reform is ultimately about securing our borders?
Photo by ThreadedThoughts.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Falsely Claims “Most Illegal Immigrants” are “Drug Mules”
originally posted by Travis Packer for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 28th
Even as Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) remains hard at work to find the wrong solution for a mythical problem, she seems to have time to spread information and make statements so ludicrous that calling them falsehoods seems too lenient. At a Republican gubernatorial primary debate last week, Brewer criticized her opponent’s statement that many undocumented immigrants “are just trying to feed their family…they just want to work,” by calling majority of undocumented immigrants “drug mules.”
During the debate, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer stated:
We are a nation of laws. And they are coming across our border illegally. And the majority of them in my opinion and I think in the opinion of law enforcement is that they are not coming here to work. They are coming here and they’re bringing drugs. And they’re doing drop houses and they’re extorting people and they’re terrorizing the families. That is the truth, Matt. That is the truth…
To be clear, Brewer stated that the majority of immigrants are coming here to bring drugs, extort people, and terrorize families. The statement was so absurd and patently false that she attempted to walk it back in a later press release, but then proceeded to make it worse. Brewer released a press statement which lacked a single apologetic word, choosing to simply re-word her previous statement. Even noted border-hawk Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) disagreed with her statement (while supporting her actions in general). Brewer’s lack of remorse is almost as troubling as her penchant for ignoring reality.
E.J. Montini of the Arizona Republic had a more level-headed response: go talk to the Phoenix police department about what should be done.
Brewer correctly points out that Arizona has a problem with drug smuggling, drop houses, kidnapping and extortion. There is a special unit within the Phoenix Police Department fighting those crimes. For a column a while back I asked a Phoenix police spokesman what living in the world’s so-called “kidnapping capital” means for the average Phoenix resident.
He said, “We’re talking about drop houses where people who have used coyotes to get into the country may be held for ransom. And we’re talking about the kidnapping of smugglers and associates. I have no fear that my kids or grandkids will be victims. Or that E.J. Montini will be a victim.”
Even T.J. Bonner of the National Border Patrol Council commented that Brewer’s claims were “clearly not the case.” According to CNN:
Bonner said that some undocumented immigrants caught by border patrol agents have drugs on them, and that they sometimes blame pressure from the drug cartels. But, he said, those claims have little credibility because drug smugglers are typically transporting much larger quantities of drugs. And besides, he said, if what Brewer said were true, there would be many more prosecutions for drug smuggling. Brewer’s comments, Bonner said, don’t “comport with reality — that’s the nicest way to put it.”
Despite Brewer’s ignorant comments, the facts show that not only do immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens, but that crime rates have been falling in Arizona for years. It is sad, but perhaps unsurprising, that Brewer would make these comments in the wake of signing SB 1070, Arizona’s harsh new immigration law. It’s bad enough that Brewer ignored these facts when signing SB 1070 into law, but it’s worse that she continues to do so.
Secretary Napolitano Announces “Next Steps” for Southwest Border
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 23rd
Yesterday, President Obama sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally asking for $600 million in additional border security spending to fund 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 160 additional ICE agents, two unmanned aircraft systems, extra Border Patrol canine teams and improved infrastructure along the Southwest Border. In a tandem move today, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano announced several new DHS initiatives to bolster security along the Southwest border. Although Secretary Napolitano trumpeted DHS’s new border initiatives as well as past achievements, she also acknowledged that the border can never be hermetically sealed and that stalling immigration reform by highlighting border security issues is not the answer to our immigration problems.
At a Center for Strategic and International Studies panel discussion today, Secretary Napolitano laid out several new border security initiatives, including:
- New partnerships between DHS and state and local law enforcement, specifically the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which allows non-border local law enforcement to partner with other agencies at the border
- New information sharing capabilities between law enforcement on the border and DHS and DOJ information systems, improved fusion centers across the border and a new “suspicious activities” reporting program
- Improved technology (i.e. unmanned aircraft systems), more Border Patrol Agents and ICE investigators at the border and “Project Roadrunner,” a new partnership with the Office of National Drug Control Policy that reads license plates to target drug traffickers
- Expansion of the Joint Criminal Alien Removal Taskforce and the deployment of more ICE officers in an effort to prioritize dangerous criminal aliens in state and local jails
- Increased joint training programs with Mexican law enforcement agencies that focus on money laundering and human trafficking
While it may not be a coincidence that these new border initiatives come at a time when “securing the border” is playing a central role in the national immigration debate—both in mid-term election campaigning and as states (like Arizona, Nebraska, etc.) pass restrictive immigration measures—Secretary Napolitano herself admits that securing the border alone won’t fix our immigration problems.
We think these resources we’ve asked for matter because they will augment the efforts that have been underway over the past years and accelerated over the past 18 months. The plain fact of the matter is the border is as secure now as it’s ever been, but we know we can always do more. And that will always be the case. It’s a big border—1,960 miles across that Southwest border. It’s some of the roughest toughest geographical terrain in the world. The notion that you’re going to seal that border somehow is something that anybody who’s been involved in the actual “doing of law enforcement”—the front line work of law enforcement—would say that you’re never going to seal that border…recognizing also that there’s a lot of trade and commerce we want going back and forth. Mexico, for 22 of our states, is our number one or two trading partner. But [these measures] will make our border even more secure and we will keep evolving as indeed border threats keep evolving. But the notion that you’re going to somehow seal the border and only at that point will you discuss immigration reform, that is not an answer to the problem.
Similarly, local law enforcement realizes that enforcing federal immigration laws is a big problem—not only for want of scarce resources, but also because chasing non-violent immigrants erodes trust between police and the local community. Robert L. Davis, Chief of Police in San Jose and President of the Major Cities Chiefs Associations, points out that enforcing immigration laws is a matter of resource and priority:
Clearly what we would like to see in terms of local law enforcement, specifically from the Major Cities Chiefs Association representing the largest cities in the country, is comprehensive immigration reform. As the Secretary mentioned earlier, we’ll end up with 50 separate state laws which would be a huge problem. Again, keep in mind, local law enforcement across this country is being squeezed. We’re [San Jose] the 10th largest city in the country. We’re talking about cutting our patrol forces by 80% by August. What do you, as local community members, want local law enforcement and police to be doing? Do you want us focusing on robberies, sexual assaults, domestic violence, burglaries, and traffickers? Or do you want us to focus our resources on minor immigration violations?
The bottom line is that we can keep throwing money and resources at the border, but without immigration reform, as Secretary Napolitano and Chief Davis point out, we as a country are not going to solve our immigration problems. Yes, border security is and should be a priority for DHS, but “secure the borders first” as a solution to our immigration problems without reform makes for better politicking than it does policy.
Photo by Warriorwriter.
A Lopsided Approach to Border Violence Doesn’t Solve Anything
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 7th
During a debate of the defense authorization bill this week, Republican members of Congress are expected to push for the deployment of even more troops to the border. This is in addition to the 1,200 National Guard troops President Obama already requested to address border violence and the flow of drugs and guns across the border last month. However, while advocating for the allocation of more money and manpower to “secure the border” may make for good campaigning in an election year, experts find that beefing up the border actually does little to curb border violence. In fact, these “get tough” border initiatives—more troops, fencing and operations that target non-violent border crossers—pull valuable resources away from solving violent crimes.
Despite the increase in border patrol agents over the last decade, the flow of drugs and guns across the border continues to grow. According to David Shirk, Director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego:
The border patrol has doubled in size to 20,000 agents—up 15% from previous year and more than double a decade ago. There are also more than 3,000 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents, 300 National Guard troops (with 1,200 more on their way), and a significant surge in the number of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms personnel. However, border security advocates say that this is still not enough.
Indeed, the border-centric approach has encouraged drug trafficking organizations to evolve from relatively small scale, low-level operations in the 1980s into the highly sophisticated, heavily-armed criminal organizations that are today seriously undermining the Mexican state. The flow of drugs and immigrants continued practically unabated, despite these very costly investments in border security.
According to Jennifer Bernal of the Center for New American Security, rather than installing more fencing or deploying more troops, federal agencies should be coordinating with foreign governments:
Even as border patrolling has improved, the power of criminal organizations has grown. Crime rates in border cities are not skyrocketing as some claim, but high-profile incidents, such as striking murders and clashes with law enforcement, are on the rise. The most dangerous groups are the most sophisticated ones, and they know how to avoid enforcement hot spots.
Physical acts, such as installing fences or increasing patrols, will not do much to affect drug violence, or drug smuggling. What is needed along the border is a coordinated strategy among federal agencies and foreign governments—not incremental acts and feel-good deployments. Such a broad strategy would focus on reducing criminal groups’ ability to violently contest state authority, both by diminishing the sources of their proceeds (drugs) and their social base (through a mix of regional law enforcement and social programs).
Likewise, targeting non-violent border crossers with programs like Operation Streamline— a DHS program which mandates federal criminal prosecution and subsequent imprisonment of all persons caught crossing the border unlawfully—not only ties up the court system prosecuting non-violent immigration violators but diverts billions of dollars in the process—money and time that could be used to apprehend dangerous criminals. According to a report by Aarti Kholi of the Warren Institute at UC Berkeley:
Between 2002 and 2008, federal magistrate judges along the U.S.- Mexico border saw their misdemeanor immigration caseloads more than quadruple. Criminal prosecutions of petty immigration-related offenses increased by more than 330% in the border district courts, from 12,411 cases to 53,697.
Clearly, border violence is a serious issue facing the United States, but efforts to “secure the border” through bigger and longer fences, more boots on the ground and “get tough” initiatives make for better politics than they do policy. History has shown us that conflating non-violent border crossers and violent criminals doesn’t solve either problem. Until we start focusing on actual solutions that address drug cartels, gun smugglers and violent crime, history is doomed to repeat itself.
Photo by Auraelius.
When Does Border-First Become Border-Only?
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 4th
Yesterday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer met with President Obama to discuss immigration and border security. Gov. Brewer described the meeting as “cordial,” but neither the President nor the Governor discussed the Justice Department’s plan to move forward with a lawsuit against Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law—a law which President Obama has publicly criticized as “misguided.” They did, however, discuss specifics of the most recent round of border-first strategies (the President assured Brewer that he would send White House staff to Arizona in two weeks to further discuss beefing up the border). Although the President asked Gov. Brewer for help “in creating a bipartisan solution” to our immigration problems, Gov. Brewer was unwilling to play ball, which makes one wonder how far the President is willing to go on the border-first strategy without any promise of GOP support for comprehensive reform?
As he has in the past, the President advocated for a border security plan within the context of a larger immigration overhaul during his meeting yesterday. According to a White House press statement following the meeting:
As he did at the recent meeting with Senate Republicans, the President underscored that security measures alone won’t fix the broken borders, there needs to be comprehensive immigration reform that includes: lasting and dedicated resources by which to secure our borders and make our communities safer; holding unscrupulous employers accountable who hire workers illegally and exploit them and providing clear guidance for the many employers who want to play by the rules; and requiring those who have come here illegally to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and get right with the law.
The President also asked for Gov. Brewer’s help in garnering GOP support (i.e. Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl) for a comprehensive overhaul, but to no avail. Much like a wind-up toy, Gov. Brewer was unable to say anything other than “borders-first.”
When Brewer was asked whether she committed to building GOP support for a comprehensive overhaul, she replied, “No.”
While President Obama and Gov. Brewer agreed that “federal inaction on a comprehensive immigration overhaul is unacceptable,” she has done nothing to substantiate that notion. Meanwhile, Gov. Brewer admits that crime is down in Arizona (as well as other border towns), even though she has repeatedly claimed that her state is “under siege” from border crime. As the L.A. Times subtly points out, Gov. Brewer is a “Republican who is up for reelection.”
But the question remains, how much longer is President Obama willing to placate the supporters of a border-first strategy? Offering up more and more to the border-firsters, and gaining nothing in return for comprehensive immigration reform, may leave the President—and the country—with a border-only policy. Although border-first is what Gov. Brewer, Senator McCain, and Senator Kyl want, it isn’t what the public wants. According to a recent poll, “opinion research shows that rather than a newfound wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, most Americans support Arizona’s law as well as national comprehensive immigration reform,” which “is driven by a desire for action by Washington on a problem that has been left unattended for too long.” If President Obama is really worried about a “patchwork of different state immigration regulations around the country” instead of an immigration overhaul, why pour more money and resources into a border-only solution?
Photo by EdmondMeinfelder.
Trio of Republican Border Enforcement Amendments Fail
originally posted by Travis Packer for Immigration Impact [click here]
May 27th
Three Republican amendments to the Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 4899) failed this morning. The amendments, which included proposals to ramp up border security spending from Senators McCain (AZ), Kyl (AZ), and Cornyn (TX), failed to garner the necessary sixty votes needed for passage. The Supplemental Appropriations Act is a broader bill that funds the troop surge in Afghanistan as well as other national security measures.
Sen. John McCain introduced S. Amdt. 4214, which proposed to send 6,000 National Guard Troops to the border, five times what President Obama decided to send earlier this week after bowing under pressure. However, the amendment failed by a vote of 51-46, with only Sen. Voinovich (R-OH) crossing party lines to vote against the amendment. Before the vote, Sen. Schumer (D-NY) stated that sending 6,000 National Guard Troops to the border was “sort of throwing an enormous amount of money at the problem” without being “targeted and as effective as Obama’s plan.” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) was even harsher:
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), the chamber’s lone Latino senator, criticized the McCain plan as “militarizing the border” and the “definition of insanity,” because it continued the previous efforts at building up a troop presence even as the flow of illegal immigrants continued to flow in from Mexico. “It’s a recipe for failure,” Menendez said, arguing instead for a comprehensive immigration reform plan backed by Obama.
Sen. Jon Kyl introduced the second Republican border security amendment, S. Amdt. 4228, which would provide $200 million to fully fund Operation Streamline throughout the southwest border. Sen. Schumer stood to oppose the amendment, arguing that the $200 million coming from the job stimulus would be used to incarcerate illegal immigrants as opposed to putting the money into job creation for the other 48 states. Schumer also reiterated his support for a comprehensive immigration proposal, stating that such a proposal would be more effective than an enforcement-only approach. The amendment failed by a vote of 54-44, with no Republican senators crossing party lines to vote against the amendment.
Finally, Sen. John Cornyn proposed S. Amdt. 4202, which would provide more than $2.2 billion in funding for various programs along the border. The amendment requested funding equivalent to more than a third of ICE’s total budget for FY 2010. Included in the amendment was $151 million for 3,300 more detention beds, $334 million for more border patrol officers, $170 million for unmanned aircraft, and almost $800 million for more ICE personnel. Sen. Schumer called the Sen. Cornyn’s amendment the “least responsible” of the three amendments proposed. Other Senators agreed—the amendment failed by a vote of 54-43.
These amendments failed because of their attempts to throw good money after bad without addressing the needs of our broken immigration system. The U.S. government has tried for more than two decades to stamp out unauthorized immigration at the border without addressing and reforming the system which spurs the unauthorized immigration in the first place.
Photo by bombsite.
Straight from the Horse’s Mouth: Police Chiefs Blast Arizona Law (SB 1070)
May 27th
Yesterday, a delegation of police chiefs from across the country (Arizona included) met with Attorney General Eric Holder to deliver the message that enforcing Arizona’s law (SB 1070) will divert precious law enforcement resources away from fighting crimes and break down the trust that police have spent years cultivating with local communities. Attorney General Holder is considering filing a legal challenge against Arizona’s controversial law, which makes it a misdemeanor to fail to carry proper immigration documents and encourages police to determine a person’s immigration status. According to reports, Holder gave no indication when or if he would challenge the law, but said “there would be a decision coming soon on some of the federal issues associated with this [law].”
There are already a slew of pending lawsuits against Arizona’s new enforcement law—many of which claim that the law is an “impermissible encroachment into an area of exclusive federal authority and will interfere and conflict with the comprehensive federal immigration system,”—that is, enforcing federal immigration law is not the job of state and local police. In addition to the many who are worried about the potential for racial profiling, the police chiefs claim that Arizona’s law will not only make it more difficult to do their jobs, but also increase crime rates:
If that happens, “we will be unable to do our jobs,” said Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck. “Laws like this will actually increase crime, not decrease crime.”
The police chiefs also worry about the potential costs associated with SB 1070—the potential costs associated with implementation and the overall cost to the state:
The new law “puts Arizona law enforcement right in the middle” at a time when police budgets are already in crisis, said John Harris, president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police.
Although several other states are considering similar legislation, the police chiefs—who will actually be enforcing this law—remind us that SB 1070 is a symptom of a much larger problem. The problems with our immigration system are federal problems that warrant federal solutions—solutions that the same people in favor of SB 1070 actually support. While beefed-up enforcement measures—like SB 1070 or sending more troops to the border—might quell short-term tension over drug traffickers and crime at the border, it does nothing to address undocumented immigration or the larger problems within our immigration system.