Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Deportation
Romney Uses Restrictionist Code Words to Describe Immigration Policy
01 week ago
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney stole a page from the restrictionists’ playbook this week when he promoted the idea of “self-deportation” during a presidential debate. “If people don’t get work here,” Romney stated, “they’re going to self-deport to a place where they can get work.” Rather than initiate a constructive solution to our nation’s immigration problems, Romney is jumping in bed with immigration restrictionist groups who support policies that tear American families and communities apart, devastate local economies, and place unnecessary burdens on U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants.
Romney’s use of the term “self-deportation” is not at all surprising given his recent collaboration with Kris Kobach, the current Secretary of State of Kansas who continues to serve as chief legal counsel to the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI), an arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
Kobach, the self-professed author of several state and local immigration-control bills, advised Romney on immigration during his 2008 presidential bid and has long-promoted the strategy of “attrition through enforcement”— the immigration-control strategy to drive away the unauthorized population by making their lives so miserable that they will choose to “deport themselves” rather than remain in the U.S.
“Attrition through enforcement” laws—like Arizona’s SB1070 and Alabama’s HB56—were explicitly designed to interfere with the everyday activities of immigrants and go far beyond denying unauthorized immigrants work. These laws deny access to housing, school, work, and even water and electricity to anyone who can’t prove legal status. The laws’ supporters have made it clear that making people miserable and encouraging them to leave the state is the intended consequence of their policies.
It’s troubling that a serious Presidential candidate would adopt the code words of extremist immigration control organizations and propose that making people’s lives miserable so that they’ll leave is an acceptable policy goal. By using the term “self-deportation,” Romney is making it clear that he is on board with restrictionists groups’ strategy to force all unauthorized immigrants to leave the U.S., regardless of the time they have spent here, U.S. citizen family members, and their years of tax contributions.
Doesn’t this country deserves to hear more detailed and thoughtful approaches from politicians and policy makers—approaches that offer a way forward rather than divisive and punitive so-call “solutions” to unauthorized immigration?
Photo by Gage Skidmore.
It’s Time to Improve Noncitizens’ Access to Counsel
02 weeks ago
In the United States, most immigration decisions impacting noncitizens are made by immigration officials in informal proceedings far from a courtroom. While the right to an attorney (at the noncitizens’ own expense) in immigration court proceedings is widely recognized, the right to counsel in administrative settings outside of a courtroom is often overlooked or explicitly not recognized. As a result, many noncitizens are forced to navigate the immigration process alone. For those noncitizens that are represented, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) often restricts their access to their lawyers.
Without the assistance of an attorney well-versed in immigration law, noncitizens often lack the specialized knowledge needed to obtain a just outcome. And, given the serious consequences that can flow from DHS proceedings, the importance of meaningful access to counsel cannot be overstated. For example, a CBP official can quickly remove an individual from the United States without a hearing through “expedited removal,” based solely on information gathered during an inspection at the border. Questioning by ICE can lead to arrest, detention, initiation of removal proceedings, or removal. USCIS officers have the power to decide whether an applicant is entitled to lawful permanent residence, asylum, or naturalization based on statements made in an interview.
Over the past year, the American Immigration Council, along with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), has documented instances where the DHS immigration agencies—Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)—have deprived noncitizens of access to counsel. For example, ICE also has taken the position that there is no right to consult with a lawyer during an interrogation. Likewise, many CBP offices outright deny access to all lawyers.
The restrictions USCIS imposes generally have been less severe, but have included limitations on communication during interviews, such as restricting where a lawyer may sit during an interview, preventing lawyers from submitting documents relevant to their client’s case during an interview, and conducting interviews without an attorney present. And we have heard about situations before all three agencies, where officials actively discourage noncitizens from hiring lawyers or appearing with their lawyers in immigration proceedings.
In response to calls from the American Immigration Council, AILA and other advocates last week, USCIS issued immediate changes to its policies to help ensure a meaningful role for lawyers in the immigration process. There is, however, still much to be done.
The new guidance responds to some access concerns. For example, it provides that a lawyer generally may sit next to his or her client during an interview, may be permitted to submit relevant documents to the USCIS officer, and may raise objections to inappropriate lines of questioning. However, USCIS did not adopt all of the Council and AILA’s recommendations related to counsel, and limitations on communication remain.
While it remains to be seen how USCIS will implement its new guidance, USCIS’ adoption of certain recommendations by stakeholders and recognition of the importance of counsel in immigration proceedings is an important first step. ICE and CBP should take note of USCIS willingness to revisit its guidance regarding counsel and engage in similar dialogue with advocates and stakeholders.
Now is the time to offer comments to USCIS’ guidance with more detailed recommendations for improvements in noncitizens’ access to counsel.
Photo by Lane V. Erickson.
Holding the Obama Administration to Its Word on Prosecutorial Discretion
02 weeks ago
Signs that ICE is invested in the “Morton Memo” and subsequent guidance on prosecutorial discretion are beginning to show up at both ends of the legal spectrum. At one end, the New York Times reported yesterday that approximately one in six cases reviewed in a pilot program at the Denver immigration court may be indefinitely suspended. At the other end, a government attorney invoked ICE’s prosecutorial discretion policy during an argument this week before the Supreme Court. While both instances offer encouraging signs, they also demonstrate that the strength of the policy depends not on what’s been said in the past, but on how it will be implemented in the future.
In yesterday’s New York Times story, Corina Almeida, the senior ICE prosecutor in Denver, cogently explained why taking low-priority cases off immigration judges’ dockets provides systemic advantages for the system as a whole:
These cases free up others to move to the front of the line: the egregious offenders, those who thumb their noses at the system or commit fraud … If the only thing they did is enter illegally, they have established ties, they have U.S. citizen children, they are productive members of society, they have no criminal records, it makes prosecutors feel good when you know you can do something.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, the Supreme Court considered the cases of two of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) who entered the country as children but were placed in removal proceedings following subsequent criminal convictions. Both asked immigration judges to cancel their deportation orders, but each was found ineligible for such relief under federal immigration law—which requires applicants to be an LPR for at least five years and to have lived in the United States for at least seven years. To meet the eligibility requirements, the children argued that they should receive credit for time their parents spent in the United States—or in legal terms, that their parent’s status or residence be “imputed” to them for purposes of the five- and seven-year requirements.
Midway through the argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked the government’s attorney, Leondra Kruger, why “imputation” should be forbidden if the purpose of the law was to promote family unity and give LPRs with extensive histories in the United States a second chance. Kruger’s initial response was, in effect, that the law is the law, regardless of the humanitarian consequences that may result. But perhaps sensing some Justices’ discomfort with her response, Kruger followed up by saying:
[I]mmigration officials have the discretion not to bring removal proceedings in the first place, to terminate removal proceedings once they have begun, to defer action on the execution of a removal order. And current Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) guidance makes clear that a minor receives particular consideration within the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not prosecutorial discretion is something that should be exercised.
In other words, Kruger told the Court that it should not matter whether LPRs who entered the United States as children are unable to seek cancellation, because in sympathetic cases ICE can decline to seek deportation in the first place.
Of course, while the government’s assertion may be legally correct, it rests on the assumption that ICE will actually exercise prosecutorial discretion in a meaningful manner. While the initial report from the Denver pilot program is encouraging, the real question is how the prosecutorial discretion policy will be implemented on a national basis. As this week’s events demonstrate, the government cannot have it both ways. If it wants to trumpet prosecutorial discretion at the Supreme Court, it cannot fail to implement the policy in the field.
Photo by Dmitriy Shironosov.
DHS Begins Review of Deportation Cases, Issues Awaited Prosecutorial Discretion Guidelines
02 months ago
Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directed ICE attorneys to begin a review process of current immigration cases pending before immigration courts in order to close or dismiss those cases warranting prosecutorial discretion. The attorneys also received additional guidance on how to apply discretion in certain low priority cases. At the same time, DHS announced new training modules for all ICE field agents on prosecutorial discretion. The package of initiatives are a follow up to ICE Director John Morton’s June 17th memo which describes how, when, and why ICE officials should exercise prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases.
By reviewing these pending and incoming immigration cases—a process slated to last two months—DHS hopes to relieve some of the backlog and stop diverting resources from low priority cases and focus more attention on deporting high-priority criminals. There are currently 300,000 current cases pending before immigration courts.
To help immigration officers determine who is a low or high enforcement priority, DHS laid out a set of criteria in another memo. Those who are a high priority include national security risks, convicted felons, gang members, those guilty of immigration fraud, or those who have an egregious record of immigration violations. Those who are a low priority include:
- those in good standing with or veterans of the U.S. Coast Guard or Armed Forces, including spouses or children
- children who have been in the U.S. for more than five years and who are in school or have completed high school
- those who came to the U.S. before the age of 16, have been here for five years, completed high school and is pursing college
- those over the age of 65 who have been in the U.S. for more than 10 years
- victims of domestic abuse, human trafficking or other serious crimes
- LPRs (green card holders) who have been in the U.S. for 10 years or more and has committed a single, minor, non-violent offense
- those with serious mental conditions that require significant medical or detention resources
- those with long-term presence in the U.S., has an immediate U.S. citizen family member and has established compelling ties or made compelling contributions to the U.S.
In determining which cases should receive prosecutorial discretion, DHS requires attorneys to make a case by case determination of eligibility. In addition, no case can be closed or dismissed without first being vetted national security risks and must be approved by a supervising official at CBP, USCIS or ICE.
Although John Morton announced the contours of the discretion policy nearly six months ago, a recent survey by the American Immigration Lawyers Association and American Immigration Council recently found that similar immigration cases received different treatment in different parts of the country. In fact, many requests which seemed to squarely fit within the guidelines for prosecutorial discretion were summarily denied.
Hopefully, the new guidance and procedures will remind ICE field offices that the application of prosecutorial discretion in low-priority cases goes a long way in helping DHS make sure their resources are focused on their stated enforcement priorities—dangerous criminals who pose a that to public safety and national security.
Photo by zwola fasola.
Thousands of Children Stuck in Foster Care after Parents Deported, Report Finds
03 months ago
A report released this week reveals yet another devastating consequence of the enforcement-only approach to immigration—a startling number of children whose parents have been detained and deported are placed in foster care and face enormous barriers reuniting with their families. According to the Applied Research Center, 1 in 4 people deported in FY 2011 (nearly 100,000 people) left behind a U.S. citizen child. The report found that the odds of reuniting the families are so low that the parents “basically fall off the face of the earth when it comes to the child welfare system.” Sadly, because of the regular increase in the number of annual deportations, this number is expected to triple in the next five years.
The report, titled Shattered Families, found that:
- An estimated 5,100 children, currently living in foster care, have detained or deported parents. Nearly 15,000 more children are expected in the next five years.
- In the first six months of 2011, ICE deported 46,000 parents of U.S. citizen children, or 1 in 4 of all deportation cases.
- In areas where the local police act as immigration enforcement in collaboration with ICE, children in foster care were 29% more likely to have a detained or deported parent. The study found that Secure Communities has created “deportation hot spots” with increased numbers of children in foster care.
- Immigrant victims of domestic and gender-based violence are at a significantly greater risk of losing their children. 1 in 9 cases studied involved domestic violence.
The number of cases has flooded the child welfare system, all at the expense of U.S. tax payer. The U.S. reportedly spends $22 billion dollars on children in foster care annually, which averages to $40,000 per child— an unnecessary cost for children with able relatives. Yet, Child Protective Services (CPS) cannot place children with undocumented family members because they “could be deported at any time.” And because the average person detained is moved over 300 miles from their home before deportation proceedings, the chances of finding a parent for court hearings and reunification are slim.
While CPS is legally required to reunify children with able parents, immigrant children face enormous barriers. According to the report’s author, Seth Wessler, “there’s a limit to how long [Child Protective Services] will look for a parent. If the parent doesn’t speak English or doesn’t call their consulate, it actually makes is very easy for them to give up.” In some cases, once parental rights have been terminated, children are put up for adoption.
So what can federal, state and local governments do to protect families from separation? Implement policies that specifically protect children. The report recommends that Congress should create alternatives to detention for parents and allow them to participate “meaningfully” in dependency proceedings. DHS should amend the June 2011 memo to clarify that all parents of minor children should be granted discretionary relief with an emphasis on parents with children in foster care. State legislatures should institute “time-of-arrest” protocols for local law enforcement agencies so parents can decide who should take custody of their children.
Without these protections, thousands of children currently separated from their families—and thousands to come—will continue to languish in foster care. Is America, a country that prides itself on family values, really willing to let that happen?
Photo by Phototrope.
Redefining Criminality: Untangling DHS’s Record High Deportation Numbers
03 months ago
It was another record breaking year for deportations, with DHS logging 396,906 removals during Fiscal Year 2011. While the raw number is not in doubt, its meaning is far from clear. According to DHS, 55% of those removed (approximately 218,000) were “criminal aliens,” but the definition of “criminal” is overly broad. While DHS may tout this numbers as proof that it’s rooting out serious criminals only, it’s important to note that many of these “criminal” aliens have only minor convictions such as traffic offenses or entering the U.S. without a visa.
A similar challenge lies in analyzing the claim that 90.5% of those deported fall within ICE’s stated priorities, because immigrants with criminal convictions represent only one of those priorities. The others—recent border crossers and civil immigration violators (people who do not pose a threat and who have never been convicted of a crime)—represent the other two priority categories.
Understanding these distinctions helps in teasing out the more disturbing data buried within the criminal alien categories. According to DHS, 40% of criminal deportations were convicted under the four categories of homicide, sexual offenses, drug-related offenses, or driving under the influence (DUI). The other 60% of “convicted criminals” fall into other categories including immigration crimes and traffic crimes.
Because ICE categorizes criminal offenses so broadly, minor offenses can appear to be serious crimes. For example, drug-related crimes can include everything from dealing large amounts to simple possession; burglary can include a minor shoplifting offense. For a long time, immigrants who crossed the border illegally or re-entered the U.S. after being deported were simply deported; they were not prosecuted for a federal offense. However, prosecutions for illegal entry and reentry have increased dramatically in recent years (accounting for nearly half of all federal prosecutions filed). This means that the number of “criminal aliens” convicted of immigration offenses has increased as well.
While we don’t have the entire criminal conviction breakdown for FY2011, the FY2010 numbers are illustrative. In FY2010, the top three crime categories of “convicted criminal alien” deportations were 1) dangerous drugs, 2) immigration, 3) criminal traffic offenses. In fact, nearly 1/5 of all “criminal aliens” deported were convicted of immigration violations (predominantly illegal entry and reentry), and another 1/5 were convicted of traffic offenses, including driving without a license. It is likely that FY2011 numbers are similar.
These latest deportation statistics raise additional questions about how the administration is allocating its resources. States like Arizona and Alabama have passed laws that allow state and local police to arrest and convict immigrants for minor offenses and funnel them to ICE for deportation even though they pose no threat to the community. The 287(g) and Secure Communities programs similarly act to identify immigrants for deportation, regardless of the severity of their criminal history—or whether they have a criminal conviction at all.
Recent reports by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) show that the federal government is prosecuting more immigrants with illegal reentry, while prosecutions for other federal offenses, such as weapons-related offenses, have decreased. TRAC has also found that deportations of terrorists and threats to national security have actually decreased in recent years.
The real dilemma for DHS however, is how it plans to reconcile its criminal deportation statistics with its new initiatives on prosecutorial discretion. If the initiatives announced this summer are put in to place there should be at least a slight drop in deportations next year because some of these traffic offenders and other minor violators of the law may be able to establish that they merit deferred action or other grace. Moreover, if ICE declines to prosecute immigrants convicted under perverse state immigration laws, its numbers should decline even further.
DHS should be preparing people now for these changes. Rather than trumpet its record breaking number, DHS should attempt to explain just how it hopes to further refine its methods for catching those who truly pose a threat to our country and for exercising discretion towards those who do not. And Congress should remember that DHS is spending a significant chunk of its resources deporting traffic violators and other minor offenders and noncriminals—hardly a way to keep down expenses in an overstretched federal budget.
Photo by ICE.
Tell Me Again How Alabama’s Immigration Law is a “Victory for the State?”
04 months ago
Almost immediately after Judge Sharon Blackburn failed to enjoin key provisions of Alabama’s draconian immigration law (HB 56) last week, Alabamans began to feel the sting of the law’s harsh provisions. As immigrants leave the state, farmers, contractors, and homebuilders complain that labor shortages are and will continue to hurt their businesses. School administrators worry absent students will result in the loss of future funding. Immigrant rights groups fear the law will prevent victims from reporting crime to the police and pregnant women from going to the hospital. While Alabama Governor Robert Bentley hailed HB 56 as a “victory for the state,” the law’s intended and unintended consequences have proven to be anything but.
Supporters of Alabama’s restrictive law—which requires, among other things, police to demand proof of immigration status from those reasonably suspected to be here without documents—commented that the widespread fear in Alabama means the law is working. But tell that to local tomato farmer Chad Smith who said his family’s farms stands to lose as much as $150,000 this season with no one to pick tomatoes. Another farmer, Wayne Smith, added that there “might not even be a growing season next year.”
Bill Caton, president of Associated General Contractors of Alabama, said that estimates show that nearly one-fourth of the state’s commercial building work force has fled since Judge Blackburn’s ruling, leaving contractors, roofers and landscapers in the lurch. In Montgomery, landscape business owner Rick Pate said he lost two of his most experience legal workers whom he spent thousands training. In Tuscaloosa, where devastating tornadoes struck last April, many worry the lack of workers will hinder the town’s recovery efforts.
School administrators also worry that Alabama’s law will impact the state’s already cash-strapped school system, given that the law requires administrators to ask enrolling children about their legal status and that of their parents. According to Alabama’s Department of Education, 2,285 Hispanic students (of 34,000 Hispanic students state-wide) were absent from school on Monday.
According to Montgomery Public Schools Superintendent Barbara Thompson, a major dip in student enrollment could mean less state funding for schools:
The school system receives some funds from the state based on enrollment … Thompson said the system stands to lose money if absent students withdraw. Also, if absent students don’t show up in time for testing, the system could fail to meet participation requirements needed to make Adequate Yearly Progress [a federal accountability measure for schools.]
Aside from the impact on state business and schools, HB 56 is causing many people—documented and undocumented—to fear being racial profiled. Alabama’s police have already falsely arrested one legal resident whom they thought was here without authorization.
According to Montgomery educator, Lizzette Farsinejad, “[the law] is having an impact on children. Many have come to school fearful, many have cried,” she said. “A lot don’t understand why they are having to leave since they were born in the U.S.” Immigrant rights groups have also reported calls from immigrants worried about reporting crimes to police or pregnant women who fear going to the hospital.
Is this really the victory Governor Bentley was referring to?
While Alabama’s business leaders and school administrators struggle to find a way forward and the Department of Justice seeks an appeal of Judge Blackburn’s ruling, perhaps Alabama legislators should consider the real impact this law is having—not just on undocumented immigrants, but on Alabamans of every race, status, and profession.
Photo by KOMUnews.
Secretary Napolitano Acknowledges “Messaging Problem,” Dismisses Criticism of Key Enforcement Programs
04 months ago
In a speech at American University yesterday, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano complained that she was tired of criticism from the left and the right that accuse DHS of both blindly deporting undocumented immigrants and participating in attempts at amnesty through the use of prosecutorial discretion. Secretary Napolitano argued that both cannot be true, but that these conflicting criticisms signify the need for a “reality check” on the way we talk about immigration enforcement. Given the highly political attacks made on the Obama administration’s enforcement strategies in recent months—especially those made by restrictionist Rep. Lamar Smith—many are sympathetic to the need for a reality check. But that check must also include an honest look at all of DHS’s programs, even the problematic ones.
Secretary Napolitano bristled at criticism yesterday from across the political spectrum that not enough has been done to end deportations or improve the immigration system. In particular, she took subtle aim at the numerous critics of Secure Communities. While acknowledging that DHS had done a bad job messaging the program, and that it needed some tweaks, she dismissed much of the legitimate criticism of Secure Communities.
Despite the misleading commentary about this program, it has proven to be the single best tool at focusing our immigration enforcement resources on criminals and egregious immigration law violators.
Termination of this program would do nothing to decrease the amount of enforcement. It would only weaken public safety, and move the immigration enforcement system back towards the ad hoc approach where non-criminal aliens are more likely to be removed than criminals.
This attitude doesn’t bode well for the numerous recommendations made by the Interagency Task Force on Secure Communities that were forwarded to the Secretary by the Homeland Security Advisory Committee in September. Even more disturbing, the Secretary seemed to lump all criticism of DHS enforcement into the same category, equating critiquing DHS with diluting efforts to obtain immigration reform:
We can all agree that we need fair, consistent, and enforceable immigration laws that encourage the free flow of commerce, while respecting both security and the rights of individuals. We will continue to work toward that common goal.
But we can’t do it alone—which is why I am calling on advocates on all sides of this issue to work with us and the Congress on these issues, rather than attacking the system, or the people who work in it, as a whole.
In other words, leave DHS alone and focus on Congress.
In the face of the growing hysteria on the right over the use of recent prosecutorial discretion guidelines, it is understandable that the Secretary feels the need to defend her decisions and approach. In the process, however, she signaled that she considers critics of DHS who seek more generous policies to be equally hysterical for “attacking the system.”
This is a mistake if only because most of the groups pushing for reforms within DHS have also pushed for reform within Congress for years. Lumping all critics together may feel “safe” in that Napolitano can’t be accused of playing favorites by the restrictionists who dog her every step, but it clouds and confuses her message.
If DHS is really proud of its accomplishments, it should welcome additional critiques of how to improve the system. Instead, the Secretary’s speech signals that constructive criticism is an obstacle to reform.
Photo by CAP Action Fund.
Ten Years After 9/11, Is the U.S. Deporting Those Who Threaten to Do Us Harm?
04 months ago
This past weekend, the U.S. commemorated the ten-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Life and travel in the U.S. has changed in some significant ways over the past decade, and many observers have noted that immigration policy, in particular, has been deeply affected. The fact that the terrorists were foreign nationals that arrived legally in the U.S. on visas prompted action, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, stepped up enforcement along the border, additional scrutiny for visa applicants, and increased partnerships with state and local law enforcement agencies. But ten years later, is the U.S. actually deporting those who threaten to do us harm?
Immigration enforcement has been prioritized by both the Bush and Obama administrations and, not surprisingly, both administrations claimed to target enforcement efforts on terrorists and criminals. Very recently, the Obama administration has touted its emphasis on “criminal aliens” and increased its efforts to prioritize serious criminals and persons who pose a threat to national security or public safety. These announcements followed strong criticism from immigrant advocates across the country who noted that many immigrants with minor criminal histories or no criminal histories at all were being deported. Rather than focusing on terrorists and other serious threats, the U.S.’s post-9/11 immigration policies have cast an exceedingly wide net.
The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) has released a fascinating new analysis of deportations both prior to and after 9/11 and found that, despite the rhetoric, enforcement has not focused on terrorists or criminals. Immigration Enforcement Since 9/11: A Reality Check analyzes deportation data from the last 20 years and compares pre-9/11 deportations to post-9/11 deportations. Confirming what advocates had reported, while the overall number of deportations has increased, the actual numbers of deportations of terrorists, national security threats, and criminals have declined. At the same time, the number of people deported for civil immigration violations has increased sharply.
The numbers are shocking. Deportations have increased dramatically from 1.6 million in the decade before 9/11 to 2.3 million in the decade since. In the decade before 9/11, there were 88 deportations on terrorism grounds; in the decade since 9/11, there have been 37. In the decade before 9/11, there were 384 removals on “national security” grounds; in the last ten years there have been 360. Prior to 9/11, 22.8 percent of deportations were immigrants who had criminal violations; since 9/11 only 15.2 percent have had criminal violations.
In contrast, deportations for civil immigration violations have always been disproportionately high and have increased. Prior to 9/11, 75.7% of deportations were on immigration violations only; in the last ten years, the percentage has increased to 83.2 percent. Initially, the Obama administration did see measurable but very modest increases in the proportion of deportees with criminal violations, but TRAC documents show this proportion has decreased again in recent months.
In recent months and weeks, many have questioned whether the administration’s immigration enforcement policies have truly targeted the “worst of the worst.” TRAC’s latest report provides even more evidence that they have not.
Runaway Costs for Immigration Detention Do Not Add Up to Sensible Policies
05 months ago
BY JOSH BREISBLATT, IMMIGRATION POLICY FELLOW AT THE NATIONAL IMMIGRATION FORUM
At a time when we should be looking for ways to curb costs, some in Congress are actually attempting to spend more by expanding immigration enforcement programs. In May, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced H.R. 1932 titled, “Keep Our Communities Safe Act of 2011,” an act which would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to keep individuals in detention without a bond hearing before an immigration judge while they wait for a final resolution of their case. It would also authorize indefinite detention of those who have been ordered removed but cannot be deported. Aside from being bad immigration policy, Smith’s legislation would also increase an already bloated immigration detention budget. A new paper recently released by the National Immigration Forum examines just how much our immigration detention system currently costs taxpayers. The findings should raise some eyebrows.
The immigration detention system, operated by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), will cost more than $2 billion in Fiscal Year 2012 at the level the Administration requested. This amount provides ICE with funding to maintain its current detention capacity of 33,400 people in more than 250 facilities on any given night at an average cost of $5.5 million per day.
Incredibly, some in Congress think spending nearly $4,000 a minute to jail immigrants (most of whom have not committed any crimes) is not enough. If the current DHS appropriations bill (passed by the House for FY 2012) becomes law, the government’s budget for immigration detention and deportations will be $184 million more next year than it is this year—enough to jail 34,000 immigrants at any one time. This would continue a trend in which the number of detention beds has nearly doubled over the past seven years, from 18,000 in 2004 to the current capacity of 33,400.
The enormous cost of immigration detention might be justified if DHS was deporting more dangerous criminals, but this is not the case. Despite claims that ICE policy prioritizes the apprehension and detention of individuals convicted of serious criminal offenses, more than half of all immigrant detainees in 2009 and 2010 had no criminal records. Of those with any criminal history, nearly 20% were for minor traffic offenses.
There are, however, alternatives that could easily bring down the cost of detention—alternatives ranging in cost from as low as 30 cents up to 14 dollars a day per individual. For example, only 11% of detainees having committed what ICE considers violent crimes. If ICE detained only violent criminals, they could save more than $4.4 million dollars per night even using the most expensive alternative programs. This would result in an annual savings of over $1.6 billion—an 80% reduction in costs.
During a time of increased attention on fiscal accountability by the Federal Government, the amount we spend on immigration detention should be subjected to careful scrutiny. At the very least, ICE must reexamine and modify its current procedures, including reducing its overreliance on detention and maximizing its alternatives programs to take advantage of cost savings. Until it does, the numbers behind the current immigration detention system simply do not add up to sensible policy.
Photo by Truthout.org.