Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
John Morton
One Too Many: New York Times Highlights American Citizens Detained Under S-Comm
01 month ago
The New York Times today exposed a persistent problem with the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration enforcement programs: American citizens are being unlawfully detained for extended periods.
In the report, the Times told the story of Antonio Montejano, an American citizen born in Los Angeles who was arrested while holiday shopping with his family, including his young children. “After his young daughter begged for a $10 bottle of cologne,” he inadvertently dropped it into a bag of items he had already purchased. When he left the store, he was arrested for shoplifting.
Antonio should have been able to post bond quickly at the Santa Monica police station for a minor charge. Instead, he was held on an immigration detainer issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and transferred to the county jail despite a criminal court judge’s decision to let him go. He was not released until four days after his arrest.
Antonio was detained because of the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program. He was flagged by the system because he was mistakenly deported to Mexico in 1996 and his records were not corrected. But as the Times report indicates, U.S. citizens have been detained based on all sorts of flaws in the department’s databases.
“Unlike the federal criminal databases administered by the F.B.I., homeland security records include all immigration transactions, not just violations,” the article points out. “An immigrant who has always maintained legal status, including those who naturalized to become American citizens, can still trigger a fingerprint match.”
ICE issues detainers based on this incorrect information and local law enforcement officials therefore hold people for up to 48 additional hours.
Antonio said that despite his repeatedly telling police about his American citizenship, they did not believe him. ICE Director John Morton is quoted in the Times article as saying that all claims to U.S. citizenship receive “immediate and close attention.” That did not occur in Antonio’s case.
“Just because I made one mistake,” Antonio said, “I don’t think they should have done all those things to me.” He thinks the police doubted his citizenship because of how he looks: “I look Mexican 100 percent.”
Antonio is not alone. According to the Times, while there are no official statistics on the exact number of Americans held erroneously in immigration detention facilities, in one study 82 U.S. citizens were held from 2006 to 2008 at two immigration detention centers in Arizona, for periods as long as a year.
But even just one U.S. citizen wrongly swept up by S-Comm is one too many.
The ACLU has urged the Department of Homeland Security to stop Secure Communities across the country.
In the News:
- Homeland Security Today: Secure Communities Remains Under Fire From Opposite Sides
- Huffington Post: Democrats Say Secure Communities Needs More Safeguards Against Racial Profiling
Spanish Media:
- EFE News Service: El comité legislativo analiza los resultados del programa "Comunidades Seguras"
- La Opinion: Inseguridad de Comunidades Seguras http://www.impre.com/laopinion/noticias/2011/12/1/inseguridad-de-comunidades-seg-284898-1.html
Learn more about Secure Communities: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Senior Department of Homeland Security Officials Support the DREAM Act
01 year ago
Before the scheduled DREAM Act vote Saturday, top Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials hosted a press call on why the DREAM Act will enhance DHS’s ability to enforce immigration laws. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Deputy Commissioner David Aguilar were on the call, discussing the important role the DREAM Act would play in promoting public safety through smart and effective immigration enforcement, as well as the preparedness of the administration.
CBP Deputy Commissioner Aguilar addressed the DREAM Act from a border enforcement perspective, describing it as a “force multiplier” which would allow CBP to focus on criminal smuggling and other violence instead of minor children:
The border has never been as secure as it is today, but there is still a lot of work to be done. We are down by 72% on apprehensions. We have more border infrastructure than ever. The Border Patrol has doubled in size. We have a tremendous amount of support from ICE. We have joined forces with the government of Mexico. There are now a total of 52 [state and local] law enforcement agencies working in an integrated fashion [with the federal government] with a border focus in Arizona. ..We are looking at an additional 1000 agents this year with most being deployed in Arizona. Anything that would help mitigate cross border illegal activity would in and of itself be a force multiplier.
Officials outlined how the DREAM Act will actually make enforcing immigration laws easier for DHS as well as make our country safer. Because the DREAM Act reduces the number of individuals subject to removal, ICE will be able to focus its limited resources on serious criminals. The DREAM Act also rewards only those who come forward, show evidence of good behavior, pay a fee, undergo a background check, and complete high school as well as two years of college or military service. The DREAM Act does not reward illegal behavior, instead it provides incentive to come forward and be a model citizen, making our nation more secure in the process. ICE Director Morton stated:
The DREAM Act is entirely consistent with our policy focusing the limited resources of the government on border security, public safety and maintaining the integrity of the systems.
USCIS Director Alejandro Mayorkas also talked about how his department would handle a legalization program under the DREAM Act. USCIS is already adept at determining whether an immigrant is eligible for benefits under our law, and DREAM Act beneficiaries would be no different. Director Mayorkas assured the public that USCIS has been preparing for legalization, and used the example of the recent Haitian tragedy and subsequent USCIS response to demonstrate the agency’s readiness. While the Haitian population was smaller than the expected DREAM beneficiaries population, the agency also had less notice to prepare:
We as an agency will be prepared to administer the DREAM Act efficiently. We have systems improvements that will serve us well in serving new applicants…[and we would use] robust criminal and national security screening for those coming before us seeking benefits under the DREAM Act.
Finally, the officials stated that the DREAM Act is just plain good immigration policy which would benefit the U.S. The DREAM Act would allow the 65,000 undocumented students who graduate from high school each year to go to college, join the military, and otherwise pursue their dreams. These voices add to all of the other evidence that the DREAM Act is good policy–a recent UCLA study found that DREAM Act beneficiaries would earn between $1.4 and $3.6 trillion over the lifetimes, adding this money to our nation’s tax base. In the end, the DREAM act would be a great change for these young undocumented students as well as the U.S. society they want to start giving back to.
Photo by USCGPress
GOP Leaders Huff and Puff in Yet Another Letter to Napolitano about ICE Enforcement Priorities
01 year ago
Despite a record number of removals in fiscal year 2010, GOP Senators Sessions, Cornyn, Kyl, Grassley, Hatch, Coburn and Graham fired off yet another letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano yesterday, accusing the administration of a “lax approach” to immigration enforcement and “selectively enforcing” immigration laws. The letter, which cites a Houston Chronicle article quoting nearly 400 dismissed removal cases in Houston immigration courts in recent months, follows new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) priorities of pursuing serious criminals and a countrywide systematic review of certain immigration court cases. The conservative Senators complaint, however, is not new. In fact, it’s just the latest in a string of letters accusing the administration of everything from “de facto amnesty” to giving detainees an “overly-comfortable place to reside.” The senators, it seems, are out for more than a fair, functioning and prioritized immigration enforcement system.
In August, ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton issued a memo directing legal counsel to review and terminate certain immigration court cases where the immigrant also had an application pending in front of US Citizenship and Immigration Services—the logic being that if their status is pending, dismissing the court case would avoid duplicating resources and move people through the system faster. The new policy—which ICE estimates may benefit 7,000 people—would not apply to serious criminals convicted of aggravated felonies or two or more felonies. Sens. Grassley, Sessions, et al., however, call ICE’s priority criteria “arbitrary” and blithely question the Department’s “commitment to enforcement.”
The ICE directive, along with other recently announced detention and removal policies, raises serious questions about your Departments commitment to enforce the immigration laws. It appears that your Department is enforcing the law based on criteria it arbitrarily chose, with complete disregard for the enforcement laws created by Congress. The repercussions of this decision extend beyond removal proceedings, because it discourages officers from even initiating new removal proceedings if they believe the case ultimately will be dismissed based on the new directive.
ICE responded:
The idea that DHS is engaged in ’selective enforcement’ couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, this administration has fundamentally changed the way the federal government approaches immigration enforcement, doing more to keep criminal aliens who are threats to public safety—including murderers, rapists and child molesters—off our streets than ever before.
The idea of questioning the administration’s “commitment to enforcement” probably seems laughable to many immigration advocates, who continue to find that the Obama administration is obsessed with immigration enforcement—and see no real end in sight to enforcement-heavy strategies. In fiscal year 2010, for example, ICE boasted setting “a record for overall removals of illegal aliens”—392,000 removals nationwide, 195,000 of whom were convicted criminals. “The fiscal year 2010 statistics represent increases of more than 23,000 removals overall and 81,000 criminal removals compared to fiscal year 2008—a more than 70 percent increase in removal of criminal aliens from the previous administration.”
Furthermore, prioritizing serious criminals and streamlining immigration court cases is desperately needed. Just this week, Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) released their latest numbers on backlogged immigration cases. According to TRAC:
The number of cases awaiting resolution before the Immigration Courts reached a new all-time high of 261,083 by the end of September 2010. The case backlog has continued to grow — up 5.3 percent — since TRAC’s last report three months ago, and more than a third higher (40%) than levels at the end of FY 2008.
So if removals are up and apprehension levels are so high that the immigration courts are completely backlogged, what exactly do Senators Sessions, Cornyn, Kyl, Grassley, Hatch, Coburn and Graham mean when they question the administrations “commitment to enforcement?” Isn’t streamlining immigration cases to avoid wasting resources and duplicative processes a commitment to making our immigration system work?
Wringing hands and blowing smoke are always useful tactics of distraction, particularly when the facts don’t match the political point you want to make. The question is whether these Senators actually care about efficient and common sense enforcement of our laws, or would prefer to just play at blowing the Administration’s enforcement house down.
Photo by ashley rose.
Detention Reform Strikes Ire in the Heart of Senator Grassley
01 year ago
Earlier this week, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) wrote a misguided letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Secretary John Morton. The Senator complained to Secretary Morton about the possibility of ICE allowing low-risk detainees to wear recreational clothing, use the phone, and send emails. Grassley likened these to hotel amenities, complaining that they might reduce the deterrent effect that detention provides. But where was the Iowa Senator when it came to light that a detention facility guard was accused of sexually assaulting detainees? While it may be admirable that Senator Grassley is concerned about the use of taxpayer dollars, it is unconscionable that these fiscal issues worry him more than the safety and well-being of fellow humans.
Senator Grassley’s letter was inspired by an email leaked to the Houston Chronicle detailing detention reforms. The email detailed detention reforms in nine locations, all in facilities run by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). CCA is the same contractor who employed the guard accused of sexually assaulting detainees, and has faced criticism for their violation of ICE policies concerning the treatment and supervision of female detainees. While the Chronicle article does not mention the alleged sexual assault, it seems likely that many of these changes are being made in response to the alleged assault.
The email discussed 28 changes to the nine facilities, which may take anywhere from 30 days to six months to implement, according to ICE Senior Counselor Beth Gibson. The changes include:
- Allowing freedom of movement for low risk detainees, who will no longer be subject to lockdown or lights out, and will be given increased exercise time
- Allowing detainees to have visitors for as long as they want during the 12 hour window
- Increased attorney visitation space, access to email and phone
- Allowing detainees to wear recreational clothing
- Offering art classes, bingo, and continental breakfast on the weekends
Senator Grassley’s main worry seems to be that taxpayers want to finance detention and removal efforts, not these reforms. Of course, these changes are being made at no additional cost to ICE. Still worried about the costs of detention? Why not comment on the quotas set by ICE officials to detain more immigrants, regardless of severity of offense? Or, for the sake of comparison, perhaps the good Senator should take a look at our federal prisons, where horticulture and cosmetology classes are offered for some, and white-collar criminals may receive classes in accounting and business management. Instead, Senator Grassley decided to attack immigrant detainees, many of whom are refugees, asylum-seekers, and other non-violent offenders, usually detained because of low-level immigration violations. Even worse, many of the detainees are only awaiting a asylum or removal hearing, and are not likely to serve time once they receive their day in court.
The issue is not that Senator Grassley is concerned about the spending of taxpayer dollars—he certainly should be—but that he is directing his criticism in the wrong places for the wrong reasons. Reforming a system that has repeatedly failed to protect its detainees is a worthy use of taxpayer dollars, not to mention the plain, common-sense, right thing to do. Yet, the Senator only has time to pen a letter when detainees are given access to email, not when allegations of assault and or cover-ups of detainee deaths arise. The Senator clearly has a heart, it just appears to be two sizes too small.
Photo by PaulRevereRides
Razing Arizona: How Local, State and Federal Authorities are “Rooting Out” Arizona’s Immigration Problems
01 year ago
A perfect storm hit the state of Arizona this week. On Tuesday, the Arizona House passed SB1070—a bill which would compel local police officers to investigate people’s immigration status based on a “reasonable suspicion” he/she was in the country illegally. Two days later, Arizona residents witnessed local police descending onto their streets (along with hundreds of ICE and other federal enforcement agents) in a sweep of 52 people suspected to be part of a large-scale human-smuggling ring.
More than 800 law enforcement officers took part in what was dubbed “Operation in Plain Sight”—the result of a year-long investigation targeting transportation companies allegedly involved in smuggling unauthorized immigrants across the border. According to ICE, the agents and officers represented nine federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies resulting in a large and disproportionate show of force, as 54 suspects were taken into custody. Arrests were made in Phoenix, Tucson, Nogales, and Rio Rico, as well as in Nogales, Mexico. Those arrested were charged with serious crimes—including money laundering, alien smuggling, and conspiracy.
In all fairness, this operation focused on what DHS should be doing—finding dangerous criminals like human smugglers and putting them out of business. ICE reportedly tried to arrest only those listed in criminal indictments and did not try to increase the number of arrests by picking up bystanders, or “collaterals,” as ICE calls them. They cooperated with the Mexican government and stopped criminals who were harming people on both sides of the border. Smart enforcement should include targeting smugglers, traffickers, and other criminals who are taking advantage of a broken immigration system and creating a climate of violence and fear along the border.
However, the timing and tone-deafness of this action could not have been worse. ICE has a history of conducting raids just as state or local governments are contemplating critical immigration-related policies. At best, the action left the impression that ICE wants to influence those policy decisions; at worst ICE left the public with the impression that local law enforcement is the same thing as an ICE officer. The massive display of force, a 14-to-1 police to suspect ratio, shows a lopsided use of resources and further terrorizes an already fearful community. The fact that local police were involved made an already bad situation worse. With Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his posse hunting down immigrants in Maricopa County and a potential new law poised to expand this to police agencies statewide, the last thing the immigrant community (and the police who want to serve and protect them) needed was to see their local police officers standing side by side with ICE during such a large enforcement action.
In recent weeks, ICE has come under a great deal of fire for failing to focus resources on criminal threats. Leaked internal memos showed an agency in which external priorities and internal policies differed greatly. A report by the DHS Office of Inspector General on the 287(g) program illuminated the agency’s inability to supervise and manage an expanding program.
While this action was not supposed to be about local law enforcement or picking up border-crossers, it left an incredibly strong impression on these immigrant communities in Arizona. “Operation In Plain Sight” may have had the right intentions, but it’s hard to cheer on an agency who seems to only get it right about 1% of the time.
So-Called ‘Smart Enforcement’ Cuts Corners on Immigrants Rights
01 year ago
By Joan Friedland, Managing Attorney, National Immigration Law Center
In a March 29 meeting with immigration advocates that I attended, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) chief John Morton asked to be judged on ICE’s record, not on rumors. But that’s just why I’m concerned.
At a hastily called meeting following the leak of a memo setting quotas for non-criminal removals, Morton repudiated the February 2010 memo, but not earlier “performance standards” which set numbers for identifying and removing non-citizens in jails. He claimed that the law required him both to fill — not just have available — 33,400 detention beds a day and to implement the 287(g) program, a voluntary arrangement which shifts immigration enforcement authority to state and local police . This was a surprise to the advocates in the room, since the law authorizes, but does not require, ICE to fill detention beds or impose state and local agreements.
ICE appears to be implementing a “whatever it takes” approach to meeting its goal of deporting 400,000 non-citizens a year and detaining as many as possible. That approach doesn’t just apply to the “non-criminals” referred to in the February memo. ICE’s record regarding “criminal aliens” – who ICE claims are the priority for removals — is also suspect. Unfortunately, ICE’s multiple definitions of who’s a “criminal” and who’s an “alien” depend on whether they’re dealing with advocates or testifying before Congress.
In a letter sent to advocates after the meeting Morton emphasized that statistics involving “criminal aliens” in ICE’s removal refer to “aliens convicted of crimes.” However, that’s not the definition ICE uses in touting the success of programs like Secure Communities, when it muddies the water to include non-citizens who have only been arrested and not convicted.
ICE’s statistics label people as “criminal aliens,” no matter how minor the criminal offense was or when it occurred or the actual reason for the deportation. So, for example, an immigrant who is deported for the civil offense of unlawful presence but who had a conviction for a minor offense 10 years ago would count as a “criminal alien.” Even ICE’s claim to prioritize “most serious criminal offenses” is suspect. For instance, under the Secure Communities program, in which fingerprints of persons arrested by state and local law enforcement agencies are matched against DHS databases, ICE labels as Level One serious offenses any drug offense that could carry a sentence of more than a year (most drug offenses) and resisting an officer (often a misdemeanor).
ICE also bolsters its removal statistics by including stipulated orders of removal in its count. A stipulated order of removal is a stealthier and faster way of removing people who agree to be deported without even seeing a judge in order to avoid the threat of prolonged detention while their case is processed.
Morton claims that he must fill tens of thousands of beds every day, and that he must implement programs like 287(g) that bring tens of thousands of non-citizens into removal. This creates an incentive to channel people from the criminal justice system into the deportation system regardless of the level of criminal accusation, guilt or innocence, or whether an arrest was based on racial profiling
Mr. Morton is trying to manage the public relations nightmare created by the quota memo by saying that ICE will focus on deportation of serious criminals. But we know from experience that ICE doesn’t live up to the priorities it claims. All of the cards are stacked against immigrants in the fundamentally unfair legal system in which the agency operates.
Immigrants can be deported for aggravated felonies that are neither aggravated nor felonies; they have no right to a court-appointed lawyer, they can be detained without hope of release and can be transferred at ICE’s whim far from their lawyers, families and witnesses. Many have no right to see a judge or argue why they should be allowed to stay in the U.S. when they have families and lives here. This is the reality of immigration enforcement. We should not let Mr. Morton’s denials about quotas and his claims about who ICE is targeting mask a rules-turned-upside-down legal world.
Photo by BlueSquareThing
Tip of the ICEberg
01 year ago
The irony of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s acronym—ICE—has never been lost on anyone, including the agency itself. Shortly after its formation, posters appeared in government offices of an iceberg as big as the one that sunk the Titanic with the motto: ICE—What you see is just the tip of the iceberg. The idea was to emphasize just how much ICE did and how much of it went on quietly and behind the scenes.
Quietly and behind the scenes came back to haunt ICE with a vengeance this week. It began with last Friday’s Washington Post story of a leaked memo requiring ICE officers to boost deportations of non-criminal immigrants in order to fulfill quotas. Although ICE quickly backed away from the memo, the damage—in terms of broken families and broken promises—had already been done.
Next up, the New York Times broke the story that 30 Haitians evacuated to the United States by the government were languishing in detention because they had no authorization to come to the U.S.:
Almost at random, it seems, immigration jail was the ad hoc solution for these 30 survivors and for others still hidden in pockets of the nation’s sprawling detention network. Some of the 30 have already been transferred to more remote immigration jails without explanation.
Finally, the DHS Office of Inspector General issued a long-awaited report that offers a damning critique of the 287(g) program, confirming many of the criticisms levied against the program by community leaders, law enforcement officials, and immigration groups, including the Immigration Policy Center.
The report, The Performance of 287(g) Agreements, identifies numerous shortcomings that lead to abuse and mismanagement and raises serious questions about the wisdom of state and local immigration enforcement partnerships with ICE. The OIG found that the program was poorly managed and supervised, has no consistent guidelines for implementation, doesn’t track data necessary for evaluating the program, doesn’t have adequate outreach, and offers misleading and inaccurate information, among other things. Most importantly, the Inspector General determined that ICE fails to take action against law enforcement agencies that violate the terms of the agreement. Can you say Joe Arpaio, anyone?
In short, with ICE we really are only seeing the tip of the iceberg—and the more we see, the more disturbing it becomes. Law enforcement agencies create trust and safer communities through clear rules and transparency—items that ICE continues to lack, despite numerous political promises to improve performance.
There are already calls to scrap the 287(g) program, but it is unlikely that DHS will eliminate a program that has been a darling of conservative members of Congress. According to the OIG report, ICE has concurred in 32 of the 33 recommendations issued by the Inspector General. This means that the institutional emphasis will be on reform, not elimination of the program.
That’s a shame, as there is no evidence that 287(g) makes communities safer or improves our broken immigration system. In the rush to engage state and local law enforcement on federal immigration matters, ICE has created a program that lacks oversight, undermines community relations, and breeds mistrust. As proven time and time again, a deportation-driven strategy exacts a high toll on individuals and communities with little real impact in stopping illegal immigration
But this week demonstrates that the problems at ICE are not just tied to one particular program. The lack of oversight, the lack of transparency and openness, and the ability to hide behind “law enforcement sensitive” designations, are emblematic of an agency that can quietly go about its business of deporting people because no one is watching over them. Enacting comprehensive immigration reform will change that dynamic in many ways, but it won’t necessarily stop ICE from making the same mistakes. We all have to do that.
Among the many recommendations a group of immigration experts made to the Obama Transition Team was the creation of an ICE Ombudsman’s office. This would be a place where the public had a role and a say in how ICE conducts its business. Acting on that recommendation now would be a first step towards rebuilding trust in an agency that has lost its way.
Immigration Reform: The Not So Merry Go Round of Washington Politics
01 year ago
First, Republicans said they wouldn’t work with Democrats on immigration if health care passed—now they will. The Obama administration announced that immigration enforcement would target dangerous criminals only—but as it turns out, they aren’t. Senator Chuck Schumer said we’re moving forward on immigration, while his partner, Senator Lindsey Graham, insists that the President write a bill and take the lead first. Senator John McCain was a staunch immigrant supporter—that is, until he received political challenges from the right. Lou Dobbs hates immigrants—or does he? Immigration reform is dead, alive, dead, no alive. Our nation is facing a deficit and immigration reform could help fill the hole—but some feel that reform is too big a lift. If you aren’t studying the day-to-day actions of politicians and administration types in Washington, you can miss a lot. And if you are, it’s all a bit dizzying.
For a year, Senators Schumer and Graham have been thinking, talking and drafting ideas for a bill. After a year of pressure, they finally published an op-ed to show their progress—yet there is still no real legislation for other Senators to review and weigh in on. While immigration watchers anxiously await legislative language, it seems as if more time is being spent pointing fingers than moving forward. After weeks of threats from Graham that immigration reform will die if health care reform passes, GOP members report today that the Senate is prepared to move forward on bipartisan initiatives.
After many assurances from top administration officials that immigration enforcement would target employers and remove dangerous criminals only, memos written by ICE were leaked this week to reveal an agency more motivated by quotas than principles. The detailed memos were disavowed quickly by the agency, but only after they were revealed in the Washington Post.
Meanwhile, Senator McCain continues to turn his back on sensible immigration reform as he faces a challenge to his Senate seat from a right-leaning candidate—basically walking away from many years of commitment to the issue and becoming an enforcement-only supporter with the likes of extreme anti-immigrant activist Tom Tancredo. On the other hand, long-time immigrant basher Lou Dobbs continues to appear on Spanish language television to undo his reputation as one of the “most hated people within the Hispanic community”—claiming his positions have been misunderstood.
In the midst of this dizzying batch of news one constant exists that should be driving everyone to support immigration reform. For months, reformers have touted the economic benefits of legalizing millions of clandestine workers—so the U.S. can fully realize immigrants’ tax and consumer potential. During this same period columnists and political operatives bemoan the insurmountable deficit our country is building, while ignoring one smart and reasonable boost to our economy—legalization.
Ignoring the obvious is a well-honed political trait, but in the topsy turvy world of Washington politics there comes a point when you can’t ignore what has been staring you in the face all along. Dealing with comprehensive immigration reform now offers us a way to regain control of our immigration system, improve the economy and set the world (or at least a tiny part of it) back on its feet.
Photo by DenisGiles.
ICE Slip Up Casts Serious Doubt on Immigration Enforcement Strategy
01 year ago
Over the last week, there has been a great deal of outrage, confusion, and backtracking on the issue of who and how many people the U.S. government deports.
Faced with a great deal of criticism for Bush-style enforcement, the Administration announced last year that it would no longer be conducting large scale worksite raids, and that worksite enforcement would focus on employers. At the same time, the Administration also stated that it would shift the focus of enforcement to “criminal aliens”—the “worst of the worst.” Programs like Secure Communities, which identifies immigrants who are in local jails and are deportable, have helped to make that shift—at least in rhetoric (whether or not immigrants identified as criminals are really criminals is another post).
On March 18, 2010, ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton was in the hot seat testifying before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. Morton testified that ICE has achieved record numbers of deportations while focusing on identifying and removing “criminal aliens.” Ranking member Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) took issue with the fact that ICE is focused on criminals and asked why ICE wasn’t pursuing noncriminals. Rogers stated, “we cannot allow a preoccupation with criminal aliens to obscure other critical ICE missions.” For Rogers, prioritizing criminals seems to be getting in the way of deporting lots of people.
Then on Saturday, the Washington Post ran the headline, “ICE Officials Set Quotas to Deport More Illegal Immigrants.” James M. Chaparro, head of ICE detention and removal operations, issued a memo in February that stood in direct conflict with the Administration’s stated goals of prioritizing dangerous criminal aliens. The memo stated that ICE had set a quota of 400,000 deportations for the year without regard to whether those individuals were criminals or not, and laid out strategies for doing so. In other words, it’s not about keeping us safe, it’s about achieving big numbers.
Later on Saturday, ICE was forced to issue a statement which stated that Chaparro’s memo did not reflect their policies and was sent without proper authorization. Furthermore, ICE remains “strongly committed to carrying out [its] priorities to remove serious criminal offenders first and [they] definitely do not set quotas.”
How embarrassing for ICE to have such public disagreement within its ranks. As AILA attorney David Leopold wrote:
As the director of all ICE detention and removal operations, Chaparro is not simply someone who follows policy but a high level official who sets policy. The fact that his memo was sent more than a month ago without any apparent corrective action by Morton or Napolitano further undermines ICE and DHS’s credibility and capability to implement reforms announced in the fall.
Currently there are 10-11 million unauthorized immigrants, countless legal immigrants who are deportable because of our harsh laws and who knows how many employers breaking the law by employing unauthorized workers. In addition, there are smugglers, traffickers, people who manufacture and sell fake documents, and the many others who profit from a broken system. Until we have comprehensive immigration reform, ICE is going to be saddled with an enormous list of targets, and many people watching to see how they’re going to tackle it. If they want big numbers, they can achieve big numbers. But that won’t make us any safer or make the system any better. In any case the Administration and ICE have to figure out what their enforcement strategy is, articulate it clearly and consistently, and resist the urge to change it on a dime to please “enforcement-only” types who will never support comprehensive reform.
Photo by martanoz.
Committee Hearings on Visa Application Costs and Overstays Show Partisan Divide
01 year ago
This week, members of the House of Representatives held hearings dealing with visa application costs and visa overstays—and the partisan divide between Democrats and Republicans was as clear as ever. As Congress and immigration experts continued to debate the specifics of visa processing and overstays, the need for an entire immigration overhaul—an overhaul that would tackle these issues and others more directly and on a larger scale—became even more apparent.
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law held a hearing on U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and green card/citizenship application processing costs. The hearing marked a divide between most Republicans and Democrats on the committee, as Republican leaders were concerned about passing these costs on to taxpayers, and Democrats were more worried about green card and citizenship application costs becoming so high as to be prohibitive (the cost for a citizenship application rose from $90 in 1991 to $675 in 2007, far and above the rate of inflation). As it stands now, when an immigrant applies for a green card or for citizenship, they pay a processing fee which funds the cost of processing their application and the general overhead at USCIS.
Representative John Conyers (D-MI), Chair of the Judiciary Committee, attended the hearing for the sole purpose of expressing concern over visa costs and the rumor that there will be another fee raise soon. Conyers stated that the costs should be appropriated for (as opposed to funded by raising fees), asking “do you know how many people apply for citizenship and never can follow through because they can’t afford it? They’re otherwise qualified. And so I’m for putting these fees into the appropriations process.” Rep. Judy Chu agreed, comparing the fees for applying for citizenship or a green card to a poll tax.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS officials were also divided over readiness for processing new visa applicants if comprehensive immigration reform were passed. While USCIS director, Alejandro Mayorkas, believes USCIS is ready for these challenges—citing their handling of Haiti as an example of their preparedness—Frank Deffer cast doubt on that notion. Deffer, DHS Assistant Inspector General for Information Technology Audits, stated:
… the systems could not handle [12 million people] now. It’s something for Congress to consider that when they implement this they don’t have a date that’s too soon because it’s going to take a while to get these systems that are properly tested and they meet requirement and they do the job in place.
On Thursday, the House Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on the issue of visa overstays. Current estimates show that up to 40% of the current unauthorized population comes into the U.S. on a legitimate visa, which they later overstay. At issue was U.S. Exit, a program used to track who leaves the country after their visas finish, and theoretically provides information on visa overstays. The pilot for U.S. Exit finished in September, and DHS is currently reviewing the program but is unsure if it will be continued.
The witnesses in front of the committee provided many reasons for not continuing to fund U.S. Exit. At the forefront is the fact that DHS does not have the resources to go after every overstay. Rand Beers, undersecretary for National Programs at DHS, stated that DHS is only able to review 11% of visa overstays (once they are notified of a possible overstay), and only able to investigate 3% of these. Both Beers, ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton, and DHS Inspector General Richard Skinner stated that visa overstays are generally not a priority. Instead, DHS and ICE focus on “criminals, fugitives, and potential terrorists,” which presumably make up the 11% of overstays that are actually reviewed. Without an enormous influx of resources, this policy is unlikely to change.
Despite the costs to taxpayers, keeping visa application costs and processing fees down, at least to the level of inflation, is important. If the cost rises too high, it will prohibit many immigrants from ever applying for their green card and later citizenship. This issue also highlights the need for comprehensive immigration form, which will certainly implicate USCIS, its funding and the ability to process applications for green cards and for citizenship.
Photo by Nola