President Obama
It’s the Constitution, Governors! Why Playing Politics with the DOJ’s Lawsuit is a Bad Idea
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 12th
Republican and Democratic governors alike might need a tutorial on the concept of checks and balances, given the dismay they are expressing over the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona’s SB 1070. Democrats are purportedly worried that it will hurt their chances in tough state elections, while Republicans are calling the lawsuit hypocritical because the federal government is litigating instead of legislating immigration.
Let’s review. As the lawsuit very clearly and eloquently lays out, the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate immigration. The President and his executive branch carry out the laws (and are given the discretion regarding how to exercise them). And when the states pass laws that conflict with this scheme, the federal courts are the referee.
So when the executive branch determines that a state law fundamentally upsets this scheme—in other words, violates the Constitution—the government needs to act. Sorry that the timing stinks. Sorry that Congress hasn’t done its job. Sorry that this may not play out very well with some members of the public who don’t understand that maintaining checks and balances requires action. Sorry that this makes Arizona out to be the constitutional bully that its state legislature is trying so hard to be. But the federal government is defending its constitutional right to regulate immigration law.
You have to wonder if the critics have bothered to read United States v. Arizona, which unfolds like a primer on the structure of the federal/state relationship. The lawsuit is a crisp and detached analysis of federal constitutional obligations and responsibilities regarding immigration and a point by point analysis of the manner in which SB 1070 violates and undermines that scheme. Moreover, it makes the very compelling point that immigration is inherently a federal responsibility precisely because it engages many competing national interests:
In crafting federal immigration law and policy, Congress has necessarily taken into account multiple and often competing national interests. Assuring effective enforcement of the provisions against illegal migration and unlawful presence is a highly important interest, but is not the singular goal of the federal immigration laws. The laws also take into account other uniquely national interests, including facilitating trade and commerce, welcoming those foreign nationals who visit or immigrate lawfully and ensuring their fair and equitable treatment wherever they may reside, responding to humanitarian concerns at the global and individual levels; and otherwise ensuring that the e treatment of aliens present in our nation does not harm our foreign relations with the countries from which they come or jeopardize the treatment of U.S. citizens abroad.
The suit argues that by enacting S.B. 1070, Arizona “attempts to second guess federal policies and re-order federal priorities in the area of immigration enforcement and to directly regulate immigration and the conditions of an alien’s entry and presence in the Unites States despite the fact that these are federal domains.” The suit notes that Arizona explicitly acknowledges that the intent of the law is attrition through enforcement (code for make the laws so harsh that people leave the state) which means that it is not taking into account any of the other vital immigration priorities and, in the process, undermines the federal scheme enacted by Congress.
Of course, under this analysis, the federal government has to fight back. As Maryland governor Martin O’Malley noted:
The president doesn’t have control over some of the timing of things that happen. When those things arise, you can’t be too precious about what’s in it for your own personal political timing or even your party’s timing. When matters like this arise, I think the president has to take a principled stand.
Ironically, that principled stand essentially means defending Congress’s right to pass federal law, even when it can’t or won’t do it. Rather than criticizing the President for moving forward on a crucial constitutional issue, Democrats should be kicking themselves for failing to be brave enough to take the issue on. And Republicans should stop throwing firebombs and start working on immigration reform.
Photo by jamess.
Arizona Senators Decry DOJ Lawsuit Yet Refuse to Support Immigration Reform
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 7th
Yesterday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona, challenging the state’s immigration enforcement law (SB 1070). The DOJ lawsuit—which seeks to stop the law from going into effect on July 29th—argues that Arizona’s law is unconstitutional since it claims state authority over federal immigration policy. While political opposition in Arizona to DOJ’s legal challenge has come from both parties, some of the most laughable comments have come from Arizona’s Republican Senators who have used the lawsuit as yet another opportunity to claim that the Obama administration has failed to do anything on immigration. Only Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) has been willing to engage the Democrats on immigration at all this year and even still, Sen. Graham back peddled after health care reform was passed. To date, ZERO Republicans are willing to step forward and play ball on an actual immigration reform bill—which makes the political finger-pointing from those unwilling to meet the President halfway all the more infuriating.
Shortly after the DOJ filed their lawsuit yesterday, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl were quick to issue the following statement decrying the federal government’s lack of action on immigration enforcement:
Moreover, the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law.
Attorney General Holder speaks of the ‘federal government’s responsibility’ to enforce immigration laws; but what are the people of Arizona left to do when the federal government fails in its responsibility?
The Obama Administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility.
This, by the way, is coming from the same senators who led the Republican charge for comprehensive immigration reform back in 2006 and 2007. Back then, Sen. McCain said, and I quote, “I believe the only way to truly secure our border and protect our nation is through the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform.” But where is Sens. McCain or Kyl’s support for reform now, especially after President Obama opened the door to Republican support for a reform effort? And does questioning the government’s commitment to border security after the President requested $600 million in additional border security spending to fund 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 160 additional ICE agents, and improved infrastructure along the Southwest Border really make sense?
The point is that the “federal government’s responsibility”—a government which Sens. McCain and Kyl are certainly a part of—to reform our broken immigration system is being thwarted by the same senators who complain that the government isn’t doing enough. Sure, it’s an election cycle at a time when “get tough” politics are popular and nevermind the fact that SB1070 doesn’t actually do anything to fight crime, but the glaring hypocrisy is a bit much. Meanwhile, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer—who claims Arizona is now under attack from the President in addition to violent Mexican drug cartels—is fundraising for legal funds to defend SB 1070 and vows to “oppose the President’s amnesty plan” (which she also refers to as a “path to citizenship”). Apparently, as an Arizona politician, you can have your cake and eat it too.
Photo by Politico Mafioso.
President Obama Urges Republicans to Help Bridge Bipartisan Divide on Immigration
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jul 1st
Today, President Obama delivered his first major immigration speech at American University urging Republicans to put bipartisan and election politics aside and help Democrats fix our broken immigration system once and for all. With an audience of law enforcement, elected officials, and evangelical, business, labor, and community leaders, the President provided a framework for understanding the depth and complexity of the immigration issue—laying out the fundamental problems with our immigration system while highlighting the critical role immigrants have and continue to play in strengthening America. The President then asked Republican leadership to join his Administration’s efforts to step up, take responsibility and pass an immigration reform bill.
In today’s speech, the President made it clear that this Administration is ready to move forward. Action is needed, but he needs Republicans support.
Our task then is to make our national laws actually work – to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together.
The question now is whether we will have the courage and the political will to pass a bill through Congress, to finally get it done… I’m ready to move forward; the majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes. That is the political and mathematical reality. The only way to reduce the risk that this effort will again falter because of politics is if members of both parties are willing to take responsibility for solving this problem once and for all.
I believe we can put politics aside and finally have an immigration system that’s accountable. I believe we can appeal not to people’s fears but to their hopes, to their highest ideals, because that’s who we are as Americans.
Today’s speech follows back to back White House meetings this week with immigration advocates, faith groups, labor leaders and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. The speech also follows the President’s request for $600 million in additional border security spending to fund 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 160 additional ICE agents, and improved infrastructure along the Southwest Border. Although the President mentioned Arizona’s harsh immigration law, he did not comment on Department of Justice’s forthcoming legal challenge. The President did, however, reiterate that fixing the border alone is not a long term solution to our immigration problems.
Although today’s speech contained no new policy initiatives or a congressional timetable for reform, the President certainly made the case for why immigration is such an important issue. Now that the stage is set for a renewed and heightened reform effort, immigration advocates are waiting for the President to turn his words into action and show the same leadership moving immigration reform legislation forward that he showed today.
Photo by Peter Souza.
President Obama To Deliver Speech on Comprehensive Immigration Reform
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 29th
According to a White House press release, President Obama is expected to deliver remarks on “the need to fix our broken immigration system through comprehensive immigration reform” at the American University School of International Service on Thursday, July 1. Only time will tell whether it’s a call to arms, more lip service or remarks on a yet to be filed DOJ lawsuit against Arizona’s SB1070.
Yesterday, President Obama met with a handful of immigration advocates, faith groups and labor leaders to again reaffirm his bipartisan commitment to moving immigration reform. According to Rev. Sam Rodriguez, president of the evangelical National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference:
“The president reaffirmed his commitment to immigration reform,” Rev. Sam Rodriguez told POLITICO after the two-hour huddle. “We reaffirmed our commitment to supporting him, pushing back the Republican wall that has opposed immigration reform. The question is whether or not Republicans want to alienate for many generations the Hispanic electorate, the immigrant community and now possibly the faith family values community that currently supports immigration reform,” he said. “That’s the question that Mitch McConnell [and] Boehner need to answer.”
Stirring the Pot: Republican Senators Preempt Imaginary Action on Immigration
originally posted by Mary Giovagnoli for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 25th
Political hype and hypocrisy was on display this week in Washington as eight senators sent an oddly worded letter to President Obama demanding that he refrain from circumventing the will of Congress on immigration. The letter, signed by Senators Grassley, Vitter, Inhofe, Isakson, Chamblis, Bunning, Cochran, and Hatch, is filled with moral outrage, alleging some kind of secret conspiracy to get around Congress by granting deferred action to everyone in the United States illegally. (Deferred action is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion to refrain from removing someone from the United States).
The letter has also been linked to warnings from the restrictionist group Numbers USA, who claim that the president intends to grant “amnesty” to 12 to 18 million illegal aliens, even though by DHS’s own estimate there are no more than 10.8 million people here illegally in the U.S. These two items feed off one another, helping to perpetuate an urban legend of massive proportions—that somehow, with the stroke of a pen, the president can grant “amnesty.” How do rumors like this get started? Take a look at the language of the senators’ letter to see just how easy it is to manipulate public perception.
The letter begins with a preamble of rumors and assertions, designed to sound knowledgeable and well-informed, yet actually saying nothing. The senators begin:
We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States.
There’s a push? By whom? Certainly advocates have been begging the Administration for some type of relief—everything from a moratorium on deportations, to deferred action to anything that can stem the tide of suffering caused by our broken immigration system. Senators Lugar and Durbin have specifically asked the Administration to consider deferred action for students who would be eligible under the DREAM Act. But that’s a far cry from the massive contingency plan suggested by this statement, in which all 10.8 million people would somehow remain forever in the U.S. Notice, however, that the letter is deliberately vague about the “push.” This lets the senators continue on, with growing moral conviction, to their next statement:
We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come.
So now, it’s a given that this event will happen and it is the Administration who’s pushing. But even more importantly, the Administration is apparently planning to include people who might be eligible for benefits—but not for years and years. What does that even mean? Possibly, they are suggesting that any such program would drag on for years? Whatever the meaning, it definitely is meant to sound like something fishy is going on.
Now the letter turns to a legal assertion, still couched in language that lets the senators sound like they have been informed of some great problem:
We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.
And just how did they come to understand this? Was it from the Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina in which deferred action was granted to many individuals victimized by the storm? Or the Obama administration’s decision to grant deferred action to widows and orphans of U.S. citizens? While the numbers in both cases were far smaller, there have in fact been categorical determinations to use deferred action in the past. When does something become so unusual, emergent or humanitarian that the exercise of discretion through deferred action or parole becomes an important tool in the Executive branch’s ability to respond quickly to an actual humanitarian crisis? Many people would argue that we have reached a humanitarian crisis with immigration, brought on by Congress’s failure to act on this issue.
That’s why the next paragraph is particularly galling:
While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
Hmm. So they agree our immigration laws need to be fixed? That is why every single senator who signed this letter voted against S. 2611, the comprehensive immigration reform bill that actually passed the Senate in 2006, as well as voting against cloture not once, but twice in 2007. These senators are so committed to fixing our immigration laws that they weren’t even willing to take on the issue in 2007, instead using the procedural tactic of cloture (the motion to close debate and prepare to take a vote) to kill immigration reform. Nor have any of these senators seriously engaged the President, Sen. Schumer or Sen. Menendez who have all opened the door to conversation with Republicans on immigration.
So the failure to pass legislation has led to a crisis, and yet they don’t want anyone attempting to fix the crisis if Congress doesn’t? And, if they object to the use of Executive branch authority, does it matter whether the issue involves legal or illegal immigration? Instead, this paragraph simply allows them to use the words “illegal population” attempting to make it sound like Congress is protecting the nation’s interests, not the President.
The idea that any administration—Republican or Democratic—would defer the removal of all 10.8 million people living in the in the U.S. illegally is extremely far-fetched. The resources and tools needed to make something like this happen just aren’t there, especially because any kind of mass program like the one envisioned in this letter would essentially require a registration and reviewing process to determine who was actually qualified to remain. Absent legislative action, the financial resources needed to carry out something of this scope would be difficult to procure.
None of that matters, however, if you aren’t really interested in resolving the problem. While it’s much easier to scare people than it is to sit down with the President and find a solution, the American people are smart enough to discern political posturing from actual leadership.
Photo by obo-bobolina.
Secretary Napolitano Announces “Next Steps” for Southwest Border
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 23rd
Yesterday, President Obama sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally asking for $600 million in additional border security spending to fund 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents, 160 additional ICE agents, two unmanned aircraft systems, extra Border Patrol canine teams and improved infrastructure along the Southwest Border. In a tandem move today, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano announced several new DHS initiatives to bolster security along the Southwest border. Although Secretary Napolitano trumpeted DHS’s new border initiatives as well as past achievements, she also acknowledged that the border can never be hermetically sealed and that stalling immigration reform by highlighting border security issues is not the answer to our immigration problems.
At a Center for Strategic and International Studies panel discussion today, Secretary Napolitano laid out several new border security initiatives, including:
- New partnerships between DHS and state and local law enforcement, specifically the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which allows non-border local law enforcement to partner with other agencies at the border
- New information sharing capabilities between law enforcement on the border and DHS and DOJ information systems, improved fusion centers across the border and a new “suspicious activities” reporting program
- Improved technology (i.e. unmanned aircraft systems), more Border Patrol Agents and ICE investigators at the border and “Project Roadrunner,” a new partnership with the Office of National Drug Control Policy that reads license plates to target drug traffickers
- Expansion of the Joint Criminal Alien Removal Taskforce and the deployment of more ICE officers in an effort to prioritize dangerous criminal aliens in state and local jails
- Increased joint training programs with Mexican law enforcement agencies that focus on money laundering and human trafficking
While it may not be a coincidence that these new border initiatives come at a time when “securing the border” is playing a central role in the national immigration debate—both in mid-term election campaigning and as states (like Arizona, Nebraska, etc.) pass restrictive immigration measures—Secretary Napolitano herself admits that securing the border alone won’t fix our immigration problems.
We think these resources we’ve asked for matter because they will augment the efforts that have been underway over the past years and accelerated over the past 18 months. The plain fact of the matter is the border is as secure now as it’s ever been, but we know we can always do more. And that will always be the case. It’s a big border—1,960 miles across that Southwest border. It’s some of the roughest toughest geographical terrain in the world. The notion that you’re going to seal that border somehow is something that anybody who’s been involved in the actual “doing of law enforcement”—the front line work of law enforcement—would say that you’re never going to seal that border…recognizing also that there’s a lot of trade and commerce we want going back and forth. Mexico, for 22 of our states, is our number one or two trading partner. But [these measures] will make our border even more secure and we will keep evolving as indeed border threats keep evolving. But the notion that you’re going to somehow seal the border and only at that point will you discuss immigration reform, that is not an answer to the problem.
Similarly, local law enforcement realizes that enforcing federal immigration laws is a big problem—not only for want of scarce resources, but also because chasing non-violent immigrants erodes trust between police and the local community. Robert L. Davis, Chief of Police in San Jose and President of the Major Cities Chiefs Associations, points out that enforcing immigration laws is a matter of resource and priority:
Clearly what we would like to see in terms of local law enforcement, specifically from the Major Cities Chiefs Association representing the largest cities in the country, is comprehensive immigration reform. As the Secretary mentioned earlier, we’ll end up with 50 separate state laws which would be a huge problem. Again, keep in mind, local law enforcement across this country is being squeezed. We’re [San Jose] the 10th largest city in the country. We’re talking about cutting our patrol forces by 80% by August. What do you, as local community members, want local law enforcement and police to be doing? Do you want us focusing on robberies, sexual assaults, domestic violence, burglaries, and traffickers? Or do you want us to focus our resources on minor immigration violations?
The bottom line is that we can keep throwing money and resources at the border, but without immigration reform, as Secretary Napolitano and Chief Davis point out, we as a country are not going to solve our immigration problems. Yes, border security is and should be a priority for DHS, but “secure the borders first” as a solution to our immigration problems without reform makes for better politicking than it does policy.
Photo by Warriorwriter.
When Does Border-First Become Border-Only?
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Jun 4th
Yesterday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer met with President Obama to discuss immigration and border security. Gov. Brewer described the meeting as “cordial,” but neither the President nor the Governor discussed the Justice Department’s plan to move forward with a lawsuit against Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law—a law which President Obama has publicly criticized as “misguided.” They did, however, discuss specifics of the most recent round of border-first strategies (the President assured Brewer that he would send White House staff to Arizona in two weeks to further discuss beefing up the border). Although the President asked Gov. Brewer for help “in creating a bipartisan solution” to our immigration problems, Gov. Brewer was unwilling to play ball, which makes one wonder how far the President is willing to go on the border-first strategy without any promise of GOP support for comprehensive reform?
As he has in the past, the President advocated for a border security plan within the context of a larger immigration overhaul during his meeting yesterday. According to a White House press statement following the meeting:
As he did at the recent meeting with Senate Republicans, the President underscored that security measures alone won’t fix the broken borders, there needs to be comprehensive immigration reform that includes: lasting and dedicated resources by which to secure our borders and make our communities safer; holding unscrupulous employers accountable who hire workers illegally and exploit them and providing clear guidance for the many employers who want to play by the rules; and requiring those who have come here illegally to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and get right with the law.
The President also asked for Gov. Brewer’s help in garnering GOP support (i.e. Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl) for a comprehensive overhaul, but to no avail. Much like a wind-up toy, Gov. Brewer was unable to say anything other than “borders-first.”
When Brewer was asked whether she committed to building GOP support for a comprehensive overhaul, she replied, “No.”
While President Obama and Gov. Brewer agreed that “federal inaction on a comprehensive immigration overhaul is unacceptable,” she has done nothing to substantiate that notion. Meanwhile, Gov. Brewer admits that crime is down in Arizona (as well as other border towns), even though she has repeatedly claimed that her state is “under siege” from border crime. As the L.A. Times subtly points out, Gov. Brewer is a “Republican who is up for reelection.”
But the question remains, how much longer is President Obama willing to placate the supporters of a border-first strategy? Offering up more and more to the border-firsters, and gaining nothing in return for comprehensive immigration reform, may leave the President—and the country—with a border-only policy. Although border-first is what Gov. Brewer, Senator McCain, and Senator Kyl want, it isn’t what the public wants. According to a recent poll, “opinion research shows that rather than a newfound wave of anti-immigrant sentiment, most Americans support Arizona’s law as well as national comprehensive immigration reform,” which “is driven by a desire for action by Washington on a problem that has been left unattended for too long.” If President Obama is really worried about a “patchwork of different state immigration regulations around the country” instead of an immigration overhaul, why pour more money and resources into a border-only solution?
Photo by EdmondMeinfelder.
Straight from the Horse’s Mouth: Police Chiefs Blast Arizona Law (SB 1070)
May 27th
Yesterday, a delegation of police chiefs from across the country (Arizona included) met with Attorney General Eric Holder to deliver the message that enforcing Arizona’s law (SB 1070) will divert precious law enforcement resources away from fighting crimes and break down the trust that police have spent years cultivating with local communities. Attorney General Holder is considering filing a legal challenge against Arizona’s controversial law, which makes it a misdemeanor to fail to carry proper immigration documents and encourages police to determine a person’s immigration status. According to reports, Holder gave no indication when or if he would challenge the law, but said “there would be a decision coming soon on some of the federal issues associated with this [law].”
There are already a slew of pending lawsuits against Arizona’s new enforcement law—many of which claim that the law is an “impermissible encroachment into an area of exclusive federal authority and will interfere and conflict with the comprehensive federal immigration system,”—that is, enforcing federal immigration law is not the job of state and local police. In addition to the many who are worried about the potential for racial profiling, the police chiefs claim that Arizona’s law will not only make it more difficult to do their jobs, but also increase crime rates:
If that happens, “we will be unable to do our jobs,” said Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck. “Laws like this will actually increase crime, not decrease crime.”
The police chiefs also worry about the potential costs associated with SB 1070—the potential costs associated with implementation and the overall cost to the state:
The new law “puts Arizona law enforcement right in the middle” at a time when police budgets are already in crisis, said John Harris, president of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police.
Although several other states are considering similar legislation, the police chiefs—who will actually be enforcing this law—remind us that SB 1070 is a symptom of a much larger problem. The problems with our immigration system are federal problems that warrant federal solutions—solutions that the same people in favor of SB 1070 actually support. While beefed-up enforcement measures—like SB 1070 or sending more troops to the border—might quell short-term tension over drug traffickers and crime at the border, it does nothing to address undocumented immigration or the larger problems within our immigration system.
1,200 National Guard Troops to the Border: A Bargaining Chip or More Political Pandering?
May 26th
Yesterday, President Obama met with Senate Republicans to discuss, among other things, moving forward with comprehensive immigration reform. But what came out of the meeting was a letter to Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, requesting 1,200 troops to be sent to the U.S.-Mexican border and a $500 million request for additional border personnel and technology as part of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill. While the President’s intentions to address the real sources of violence and crime along the border—that is, drug cartels and gun traffickers, not immigrants—is duly noted, the President is being perceived as piling enforcement on enforcement and pandering to Republicans with no real forward movement on reform.
Following the meeting, President Obama was widely criticized from all sides. Immigration advocates and Senate Democrats were quick to jump on the President for kowtowing to Republicans without getting much in return while border-frenzied Republicans and restrictionists remarked that the President wasn’t doing enough.
According to Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, President Obama is letting Republicans control the conversation:
Giving in … on immigration sure has the same feel as when the administration caved and excluded unauthorized immigrants from the health care exchange following Rep. Joe Wilson’s [R-S.C.] rude outburst last year. It has the feel of the president’s recent embrace of offshore drilling, just weeks before the BP disaster struck … Give them what they want and hope they’ll play nice.
Similarly, Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) criticized the “Obama administration’s militarization of the border” as “submission to the political forces brought by the Republican Party.”
Meanwhile, Senator John McCain (whose recent 180 on immigration reform is chalked up to his senate battle with restrictionist J.D. Hayworth) complained that 1,200 troops were “simply not enough. We need 6,000.” In 2006, President Bush sent 6,000 National Guard members to the border to “step up security while the Border Patrol expanded its ranks,” but they were later withdrawn.
While President Obama acknowledged that an immigration overhaul is needed to fully address border issues, there wasn’t any movement on the reform front. Enforcement alone has never been a solution to our immigration problems. Throwing more money at the problem as the sole means of solving it is not only fiscally irresponsible, but also ineffective. Over the last two decades, the United States has spent billions of dollars on border enforcement while the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has roughly tripled from 1990 to 2008, from 3.5 million to 11.9 million.
So, if the President is using border enforcement as a bargaining chip for reform, just what exactly is he getting in return? Without a solid push from the White House or Republican sign-on, the President seems to be sending the message that “borders first” is his number one immigration priority. After years of failed “borders first” strategies, many Americans—especially Latino voters—are wondering just when the federal government is going to take that crucial second step.
Photo by The National Guard.
Presidents Agree: Law Enforcement Must Focus on Drug Cartels, Guns and Smugglers, Not Migrants
May 20th
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.
