Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Criminality
Anti-Immigrant Hysteria in Arizona Won’t End With the Primaries
01 year ago
The Republican Party primaries in Arizona may be over, but the anti-immigrant demagoguery upon which the winning candidates built their campaigns is unlikely to fade away anytime soon. Governor Jan Brewer and Senator John McCain both managed to reverse their declining political fortunes in large part by raising the phantom specter of immigrant violence—a cynical tactic they are likely to repeat in the midterm elections. For instance, both trumpeted the discredited claim that Phoenix is the number two kidnapping capital of the world after Mexico City, and portrayed their various and sundry proposals to “get tough” on unauthorized immigrants as sincere efforts to save Arizonans from kidnappers and other violent criminals.
What Brewer and McCain neglected to mention in their campaign rhetoric, however, is that unauthorized immigrants are the primary victims of the kidnappings that do occur. As Terry Greene Sterling describes in her book Illegal: Life and Death in Arizona’s Immigration War Zone, most of the kidnapping victims in Phoenix are unauthorized immigrants held for ransom by the smugglers (coyotes) they hire to bring them to the United States. These are “drop house” kidnappings in which “incoming migrants at the border are baited with low smuggling fares. Those low fares are ramped up by thousands of dollars once the migrants are held at gunpoint in a drop house.” Such “drop house” kidnappings are distinct from “home invasion” kidnappings, “in which kidnappers abduct rich individuals, like drug dealers or human smugglers, or their family members.”
Brewer and McCain are also apparently unaware of the fact that rates for both property crime and violent crime (including murder, assault, and rape) have fallen in Arizona in recent years, including in the state’s three largest cities: Phoenix, Tucson, and Mesa. Moreover, crime rates in Arizona border towns have remained flat for the past decade despite the surge in unauthorized immigration. And a 2008 report from the conservative Americas Majority Foundation found that crime rates in general are lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates, including Arizona.
The truth which Brewer and McCain seem so determined to ignore is that unauthorized immigrants have been driven into the waiting arms of both smugglers and kidnappers by more than a decade and a half of failed border-enforcement initiatives which have been implemented in the absence of immigration reform. Were Congress and the White House to actually reform our immigration system to match reality, unauthorized immigration would slow to a trickle, the market for people smugglers would dry up, and kidnappers would no longer have a large pool of vulnerable immigrants to hold for ransom.
Of course, were that to happen, politicians such as Brewer and McCain could no longer score political points by crowing about kidnapping without mentioning who is actually being kidnapped—or why. Given their successful use of such fear-mongering in the primaries, however, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Photo by plymouthlibrary.
New Data Shows ICE Fails to Focus on Serious Criminal Threats
01 year ago
In the past, IPC has reported on the 287(g) and Secure Communities programs and concerns that these partnerships between the federal and local governments have not succeeded in prioritizing serious criminals. New information sheds additional light on these programs and once again confirms that, despite pronouncements from ICE, they continue to identify, detain, and deport people who have not committed serious crimes and present no threat to our communities.
A new report from the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) examines the 287(g) program in Davidson County, TN. Between May 2006 and July 2007, the percentage of Hispanics arrested for driving without a license increased by more than 20% (from 23.3% to 49.4%) while the number of non-Hispanic defendants declined by 25%. Davidson County Sheriff Daron Hall’s 287(g) Two-Year Review shows that 98% of immigrants processed for deportation were from Latin America and 85% of those processed through 287(g) were misdemeanor arrests. Despite ICE’s statements that 287(g) is meant to target serious criminals, Sheriff Hall called the program a success because it had resulted in the apprehension of more than 5,300 undocumented immigrants, of which only 1.3% were gang members, none were suspected terrorists, and 60% had not been previously arrested in Davidson County or anywhere else in the U.S.
NCLR recounts the stories of several people who were not convicted of any crimes and posed no threat, but were processed and deported through 287(g):
On January 27, 2008, Noe Lopez was arrested for fishing without a license along the Cumberland River in Davidson County and taken to the Davidson County jail, where he was screened under 287(g). Despite the fact that he was never found guilty of any crime, he was nonetheless deported.
Jose Estrada was standing outside the building where he worked, waiting for his boss to arrive, when he was approached by police and asked for identification. Even after Jose produced his Individual Taxpayer Identification card and his boss arrived to verify his identity, he was charged with possessing a fake Social Security card and transported to the Davidson County jail. Although the charge was dismissed in court and he posed no credible threat to the community, Jose was process for deportation.
New data has also emerged on the Secure Communities program. ICE recently released documents in response to a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request from the National Day Laborer Organization Network (NDLON), the Center for Constitution Rights (CCR), and the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law. These documents show that:
- 79% of the people deported through Secure Communities are non-criminals or were picked up for lower level offenses, such as traffic offenses.
- According to ICE’s data, since the program was initiated, 28% of the people transferred to ICE custody have been non-criminals.
- Thus far, in FY2010, 32% of individuals transferred to ICE custody have been non-criminals.
The documents also include some interesting data from individual jurisdictions:
- Nationwide, an average of 26% of all Secure Communities deportations are of non-criminals.
- In Maricopa County, AZ, 54% of people deported through Secure Communities are non-criminals.
- Travis County, TX has the highest percentage of non-criminal deportations. A full 82% of Secure Communities deportations are of non-criminals.
Congress has mandated that ICE prioritize the deportation of immigrants who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety, and those with criminal histories. But time after time, ICE statistics show that immigrants who haven’t been convicted of any crimes or immigrants with misdemeanor arrests make up a large percentage of deportations. It doesn’t seem like a very good way for the federal government or local jurisdictions to be spending limited resources.
Photo by Meonomous
Poll Numbers Reveal that Most Border Residents Feel Safe
01 year ago
Passage of the $600 million border bill through the House of Representatives today is a clear indication that Congress is still more interested in throwing money at our broken immigration system rather than rolling up their sleeves and fixing it. Politicians, including President Obama, continue to respond to reports of border violence by upping the budget of DHS without hard facts, relying on media reports that the safety of U.S. citizens is at stake along the U.S.- Mexico border .
Yet, in stunning contrast today, the Border Network for Human Rights released the results of a poll conducted July 14-15 among residents who live along the U.S.–Mexico border. The poll revealed that among the 1,222 border residents surveyed, the overwhelmingly majority felt safe—in the communities such as Douglas, Nogales and Yuma, Arizona; El Centro and San Diego, California; Las Cruces, New Mexico, and four Texas border cities including Brownsville, El Paso, Laredo and McAllen.
Results from the poll shatter the national perception of border community safety. The report notes:
The overwhelming majority of respondents said they felt safe living in their border communities (67.1 percent), they felt their neighborhood was as safe as most neighborhoods in the United States (69.7 percent), and they felt safe going about their daily activities (walking and driving in their neighborhood: 87.5 percent; and allowing a child to play in a neighborhood park: 51.8 percent). Only 7.8 percent of respondents said they did not feel safe walking or driving in their neighborhood.
In Douglas, Ariz., 76.8 percent of respondents said they felt safe as they walked and drove in their neighborhood during their regular daily activities; in Nogales, they were 90 percent; and in Yuma, they were 94.5 percent.
The report ends with a set of policy recommendations which do not call for an end to all border enforcement, but rather a beginning for smarter enforcement policies—including a closer look at “the cost-effectiveness of border enforcement policies.” This review, in addition to getting a true sense of how those residents on the border actually feel about their safety and security, would be a good starting place for Congress. This poll reflects a side to the immigration debate that is being drowned out by the sensational rhetoric of a small but loud group of politicians running for reelection.
Photo by mkrigsman.
Hysterical “Tea Party” Rhetoric on Immigration is Devoid of Facts
01 year ago
The ever-hysterical Tea Party is now hysterical about unauthorized immigrants. In a frenzied email blast to its members, the Tea Party Nation warns that the Obama administration wants to grant “amnesty” to the millions of unauthorized immigrants in the United States, whom the Tea Party alleges have inflicted various “horrors” upon Americans by stealing their jobs and committing unspeakable crimes. Not surprisingly, the Tea Party Nation gets its facts completely wrong. As a litany of evidence-based reports have demonstrated, most native-born workers are not in competition with immigrants for the same jobs, and immigrants are less likely than the native-born to commit serious crimes, regardless of their legal status.
As a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) illustrates, native-born and foreign-born workers differ markedly in terms of the occupations in which they work, the amount of education they have, and the parts of the country in which they live. For instance, the report found that the top three occupations for immigrant workers in 2009 were construction and extraction; production; and building and grounds cleaning and maintenance. In contrast, the top three occupations for native-born workers were administrative support, management, and sales. Moreover, roughly 63 percent of immigrant workers lived in six states (California, New York, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and Illinois), while 66 percent of native-born workers lived elsewhere in the country.
The CBO report reinforces the findings of other, more detailed studies that immigrants and natives are filling different niches in the U.S. labor market and are not simply interchangeable. A series of reports by Rob Paral and Associates has demonstrated, for example, that immigration is not associated with high unemployment at the regional, state, or county levels; nor is it associated with high unemployment among minorities. In fact, as a study by the Economic Policy Institute points out, while immigrant “workers add to the supply of labor, they also consume goods and services, creating more jobs.” The end result is a bigger economy with more employment.
Also undermining the anti-immigrant rhetoric of the Tea Party is a century’s worth of evidence demonstrating that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform reached a similar conclusion in a 1994 report, as have academic researchers using data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Census; the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health; and the results of community studies in Chicago, San Diego, El Paso, and Miami. The problem of crime in the United States is not caused or even aggravated by immigrants.
By its very nature, Tea Party rhetoric is immune to evidence. It is about emotion, not fact. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that, when it comes to the subject of immigration, the Tea Party has no facts.
Photo by Caro Wallis.
Secretary Napolitano Announces “Next Steps” for Southwest Border
01 year ago
by Seth Hoy
in Border, Border Enforcement, Criminality, Department of Homeland Security, Deportation, Enforcement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Immigration Blog, Police Enforcement, Politics, President Obama, Reform, Secretary Napolitano, State and Local Immigration Law, Undocumented Immigration
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
01 year ago
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?
01 year ago
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.
Straight from the Horse’s Mouth: Police Chiefs Blast Arizona Law (SB 1070)
01 year ago
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.
Is Opting Out of the Secure Communities Program an Option?
01 year ago
The Department of Homeland Security has continued its effort to have the Secure Communities program up and running in all jails across the country. Secure Communities is a program designed to identify immigrants in U.S. jails who are deportable under immigration law. Under Secure Communities, participating jails submit arrestees’ fingerprints not only to criminal databases, but to immigration databases as well; allowing ICE access to information on individuals held in jails. Some jurisdictions, however, are seeking to opt out of the program—citing that Secure Communities conflicts with existing policies.
IPC and other organizations have documented the problems associated with the Secure Communities program: the failure to prioritize serious or violent criminals, the obstacles to community policing, the potential for racial profiling and pretextual arrests. According to ICE’s deployment plan, Secure Communities is already available in 169 jurisdictions in 20 states, and ICE continues to deploy it in additional locations.
Some jurisdictions, however, are beginning to question whether the program is right for them. Recently, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey sent a letter to the California Attorney General requesting that the state not share the city’s fingerprints with federal immigration authorities. San Francisco already has a policy of sharing information with ICE when the arrestee is charged with a felony. But Secure Communities would send the fingerprints of all arrestees (including US citizens) who are booked into jail regardless of the charges and regardless of the ultimate resolution of the case.
Earlier this month a bill was introduced in the Washington, D.C. City Council that would block Secure Communities from being implemented in the district. Bill sponsor Councilman Phil Mendelson stated, “The Metropolitan Police Department has its hands full dealing with violent crimes in the District, and the issue of immigration is not the MPD’s responsibility.”
It is likely that other cities and other law enforcement agencies will also oppose the Secure Communities program. However, the process for opting out remains somewhat murky. Unlike the 287(g) program, Secure Communities does not require a Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with local law-enforcement agencies. Rather, MOAs between DHS and state identification bureaus are necessary because it is the state that sends all fingerprints to federal agencies. California already has an MOA with DHS, so it is unclear how or if San Francisco could opt out. According to one report:
California ICE officials said the agency had an agreement with the state to check all fingerprints forwarded to the attorney general’s office. Jurisdictions could opt not to receive the results of the immigration status checks, but all fingerprint information would still be provided to ICE, said agency spokeswoman Lori Haley.
This also raises questions about whether local law-enforcement agencies may already be unknowingly submitting fingerprints to Secure Communities through the state agency.
Given ICE’s stated intention to eventually install the system in all state and local detention facilities nationwide, and given the fact that DHS signs MOAs with the states, it is unclear how those local jurisdictions that want to opt out will be able to do so. Thus Secure Communities raises serious questions about the relationship between federal and local law-enforcement agencies, and about a local community’s ability to weigh in on important decisions affecting the entire community.
Photo by Derek K. Miller.
Presidents Agree: Law Enforcement Must Focus on Drug Cartels, Guns and Smugglers, Not Migrants
01 year ago
President Calderón’s visit to the United States yesterday continues to highlight issues of immigration, border control and crime. Presidents Calderón and Obama made the important point that we should address, not conflate, these two important issues. Judging from President Obama’s remarks yesterday, he seems to understand that the horrific violence which currently afflicts our southern neighbor is a complex problem that requires a multi-faceted solution—that the violence is not about immigration but about the flow of guns, drugs and money across the borders. President Obama reaffirmed his administration’s commitment “to stem the southbound flow of American guns and money” and to develop “new approaches to reducing the demand for drugs in our country,” pledging to keep up law-enforcement pressure on the criminal gangs that “traffic in drugs, guns, and people.”
A notable aspect of President Obama’s remarks is that his discussion of violence in Mexico was separate and distinct from his discussion of comprehensive immigration reform and the need to create a pathway to legal status for unauthorized immigrants already living in the United States. The distinction reflects the fact that unauthorized immigrants are not the cause of the violence which plagues so many communities in Mexico. This distinction stands in marked contrast to the supporters of “get tough” anti-immigrant laws, such as Arizona’s SB 1070, who frequently cite scattered episodes of violence spilling over the border from Mexico as a justification for their legislation. But cracking down on unauthorized immigrants in the United States is not going to diminish violence in border communities because unauthorized immigrants aren’t the perpetrators, criminal cartels are.
In fact, unauthorized immigrants tend to be the victims of violence at the hands of unscrupulous smugglers who all too often hold them hostage in “safe houses” in Phoenix and other border cities until they pay whatever amount of money the smugglers demand. Ending this sort of violence involves not only cracking down on the human smugglers who inflict it, but drying up the flow of unauthorized immigrants by creating sufficient avenues for legal immigration that accommodate actual demand.
However, Obama’s rhetoric and his agencies’ actions may be at odds. Recent reports show that DHS prosecutions of drug and gun violations are down while low level immigration violators are being prosecuted at record levels. A Warren Institute report highlighted the impact of Operation Streamline (a program that focuses on prosecuting border crossers) on immigration enforcement highlights how increased focus on nonviolent border crossers has taken resources away from investigating smuggling operations. A TRAC report shows that federal immigration prosecutions rose to record levels during fiscal year 2009 and that a shift in priorities has created the largest number of federal immigration prosecutions of non-violent border crossers ever. The trade-off is while the federal government spends billions of dollars prosecuting non-violent immigration violators, more serious criminals involved in drugs, weapons, and organized crime face a lower probability of prosecution.
This seems like the opposite of what America should be doing. Our resources must be focused on the most dangerous criminals and the people running the smuggling cartels and not on first time border crossers. We need to ask whether increased numbers of deportations and prosecutions are really solving the problem, or whether we should focus on quality, not quantity, and spend critical resources on those who are creating the violence along the border.
Photo by womenofcaliber.
