Immigration Enforcement Partnership Program a Mess
In the immigration enforcement racket, you always have to be careful whom you partner with.
Towns and cities in Central California learned that lesson the hard way in the 1970s when a series of joint operations between local police departments and the Border Patrol yielded what you might call uneven results. U.S. immigration officials scooped up a bounty of illegal immigrants that they could deport. The localities got stuck with civil rights lawsuits filed by Mexican-Americans who got caught in the net. The consensus was towns and cities had gotten the short end of the stick.
Before long, city councils throughout the state had passed resolutions prohibiting police departments from cooperating with Border Patrol. It was the birth of so-called sanctuary cities, which have been a political football ever since.
Now the situation is reversed. There is still a partnership, but it’s often the locals that want to rekindle a relationship with the federal government so they help rid their communities of illegal immigrants by harassing anyone who fits the profile. And now, poetically, it’s the federal government — specifically, the Department of Homeland Security — that is in the back seat while local and state police do most of the driving.
The basis for this new relationship is something known as the 287 (g) program, which came about as a result of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The program allows local and state police to enforce federal immigration laws under certain conditions.
For instance, only designated officers are supposed to participate in the program, and only after they receive specialized training by sworn federal immigration agents. Once in the field, those officers are supposed to receive supervision by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to make sure they are properly using — and not abusing — their new power.
Speaking of abuse of power. Perhaps the most famous expellee from the 287 (g) program is none other than Joe Arpaio, America’s Most Ridiculous Sheriff. He was taken to the woodshed by John Morton, director of ICE, over allegations that the Maricopa Co. sheriff had resorted to racial profiling. Arpaio’s department maintained the power to check the immigration status of prisoners in the jail, but it lost the ability to make that determination in the street. Morton’s shootout with Arpaio seemed to set an early precedent that the federal government would be running the show.
That is no longer the case, according to a new report by the Washington, D.C.-based Migration Policy Institute. It seems a lot of local and state law enforcement agencies are running wild, and making up their own rules about whom to stop, interrogate, and arrest.
For instance, local sheriffs and county officials have wide discretion to decide whether to detain only those immigrants wanted for specific offenses or check the status of every immigrant with which police come into contact.
This isn’t how the partnership was meant to work.
For instance, ICE is supposed to set the priorities and direction. That agency has already decided that its enforcement priority in all of its operations is arresting and deporting illegal immigrants who had — in addition to the civil infraction of unlawfully entering the United States — also committed serious crimes such as robbery, rape, and assault. It’s a question of where you choose to allot scarce resources.
Either the local and state law enforcement agencies didn’t get the memo, or they got it and disregarded it. According to the report, about half of the immigrants who were detained for deportation under the 287 (g) program had committed only minor crimes or traffic violations. That much was predictable. The people who run local and state law enforcement agencies don’t care about the big picture of helping ICE get rid of so-called criminal aliens. They’re just as likely to want to get rid of all illegal immigrants as part of a quixotic mission to magically return their communities and neighborhoods to what they looked like 50 years ago.
And even though ICE is supposed to ensure that the 287 (g) program is implemented uniformly around the country, the report found that what individual law enforcement agencies did and how they did it varied widely from place to place. They’re making up their own rules — and, it seems, making them up as they go.
This story will continue. We’re just getting started. Expect more racial profiling. More trips to the woodshed. More lawsuits. The 287 (g) program is a complete mess, brought to us courtesy of a dysfunctional partnership that was cursed from the start.
Oh, poor author: cut the feigned indignance.
You’re for illegal immigration.
You’re against any limitations to legal immigration.
Your writings are feeble, confused attempts at agitprop.
You’d be a hit in Venezuela.
Rather obviously, anyone found here illegally must be deported, and also permanently denied legal entry. Navarette is a “professional hispanic” and cares nothing for law, order, decency or fairness. He has made his living for many years by boosting illegal hispanic immigration.
Reuben, we have a social contract in the USA. We are all to keep all the laws, all the time; or pay the penalty prescribed. Hispanic countries operate chaotically, more often than not, with the Bad Guys running the show, eg, the federale jefe of mexico hightailing it to the USA one step ahead of the hotly pursuing Zetas. Be assured that there are those of us who will not let that happen here.
If illegals attack me or mine they will wish they had only been deported.
For you to encourage lawbreaking is both sinful and disgraceful, as are your attempts to demean local and state law enforcement.
But I do want to thank you for one thing. I am on a diet and the very sight of your name acts as an appetite suppressant. If I read your stupid, lying article before supper every evening, I shall soon achieve my ideal weight. Gracias, cabronito.
As a (very LEGAL) Hispanic-American myself, let me assure you that many of us do NOT believe in the insanity of open borders.
I have friends and relatives in the land of my birth who have been trying for YEARS to immigrate to the US legally. When I read Navarette, I can hear him laughing at them for being such chumps and law-abiding squares. By constantly shilling for illegals, Navarette in effect spits on LEGAL immigration.
. . get off the “Racial profiling’ train, really. If you want to approve of illegal immigration just come out and say you don’t think we should protect our borders and quit this disingenuous stuff.
You know, this wouldn’t be such a problem if the Federal government had done it’s job and secured the border in the first place.
The immigration laws promoted and passed by the Johnson administration have finally fulfilled their intent. The country has an underclass split from the mainstream and guaranteeing the Democratic Party another group of ‘victims’ to vote for socialist policies. The billions of dollars of law enforcement spent to target the undocumented worker are a waste of resources. The simple law like Germany’s would target the employer and enabler with prison time, first offense, would solve the problem without spending a fortune, and would guarantee civil rights to all who live within the borders. Having a large illegal immigrant population guarantees extortion and corruption, and the poor of Mexico seeking a better life in the U.S. are the chief victims of this misguided policy.
emmaliza:
“Having a large illegal immigrant population guarantees extortion and corruption, and the poor of Mexico seeking a better life in the U.S. are the chief victims of this misguided policy.”
Followed very cosely by the citizen and legal immigrant poor of the U.S. seeking a better life in their own native or lawfully adopted land.
Navarette is a creole hypocrite…look at his photograph, there ain’t much Indian blood in him, and he doesn’t live in a barrio.
Reading between the lines and knowing the Hispanic caste system, he wants mesitizo campesino peons to come clean his house, cook his meals, and tend to his lawn and garden…just like his ancestors had.
That’s HIS trip.
Too bad that those of Navarette’s ilk are not more concerned with addressing why Mexico is such a shit-hole that her sons and daughters have to sneak into the US to make a living, (never was a nation with more natural resources and a more Christian people so pitilessly…and ineptly…governed), than they are with advancing the Zimbabweficiation of the United States.
We would be FAR better off if we could trade citizenship for 10,000 honest working Mexicans in exchange for stripping the citizenship from, and banishing for life, one Ruben Navarette, Jr.
What this gentleman above is trying to convince us of in his own subtle way is that there is nothing we can do to limit in any way those who wish to come here and even less we can do once they get here
“According to the report, about half of the immigrants who were detained for deportation under the 287 (g) program had committed only minor crimes or traffic violations. That much was predictable. The people who run local and state law enforcement agencies don’t care about the big picture of helping ICE get rid of so-called criminal aliens. They’re just as likely to want to get rid of all illegal immigrants as part of a quixotic mission to magically return their communities and neighborhoods to what they looked like 50 years ago.”
You are getting more and more outrageous and dishonest, Rubin.
Guess what? ALL illegals are deportable. Every single one, not just the ones who commit serious crimes. And as the nasty cherry on top, you once again go to your b*llshit race card, the “Leave it to Beaver” insult.
And then a load of codswallop on the origin and motivation behind “sanctuary cities.” Rubbish. Sanctuary cities were explicitly set up by left-wingers who believe, as you do, that there should be no immigration enforcement whatsoever.
From a representative sanctuary city resolution, Cambridge, MA:
Federal reimbursements ain’t in it.
Why can’t you fess up, Rubin? You oppose all immigration restrictions; you want6 completely open borders. Just bhe honest. There’s no need to run around telling porkies, or (much worse) hurling nasty insults at people who disagree with you
I have several basic problems with your outline.
The first is your indifference to the laws of the land with regard to immigration. You seem to consider a violation of the immigration laws as valid If and Only If the perpetrator, who has already broken the civil law by his illegal entrance, ALSO violates a criminal law.
That is a remarkable, mind-boggling, definition of ‘illegal immigration’. Essentially, you totally and utterly ignore the basic violation of illegal entrance. You are advocating throwing out the rules of immigration and of course, citizenship.
You reject the US laws of immigration and citizenship. You reject the sovereign right of a nation to enforce its borders and immigrants, visa entrants, all entrants.
For you, the only rule of law is criminal. Any and all people can come here without border restraint and can, even, violate any civic rule of law. The only violations are: criminal law.
This begs the question. IF your new type of immigrant to America is undefined as legal/illegal, then, how does this individual function as a citizen in this nation? Do they vote? Do they pay taxes? Do they get called up to war – and if so, where are their loyalties since they are not citizens of the US? Do the responsibility and duties of citizenship have no meaning for you?
What is the difference, to you, of an immigrant, a visa entrant, a tourist? With your outline, there seems to be no difference whatsoever! Therefore, how do you define citizenship?
Then, there is your invalid and insulting assumption that the reason the authorities who are supposed to deal with illegal entrants, actually do this, is because of ‘racism’ or ’50 years ago’. You have no evidence for this and it is quite arrogant – as well as ignorant – of you to make such a claim.
Again – you fail to define ‘citizenship’ and indeed seem to reject it; you fail to define ‘immigration’ and seem to reject it; you reject the civic rule of law; you reject national sovereignty. I’m not sure what you support since it seems to be so open as to be meaningless. I’ll ignore your insults about sheriffs and police for they are juvenile statements on your part – but I would like you to clear up my other questions.
I’d like to provide rebuttals to the inanities and illogical assertions in the Cambridge ‘sanctuary city’ provided, thanks to Bohemad:
1) WHEREAS: There are now approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States who have been systematically denied the opportunity enjoyed by past generations of immigrants to become legal permanent residents or citizens of this country; and
REBUTTAL: How have they been ‘systematically denied’ the opportunity? They never chose such an opportunity in the first place, choosing to reject it by crossing the border illegally.
WHEREAS: While borders have been closed off to people over the past two decades, they have been simultaneously opened up to trade and capital; and
REBUTTAL: This is an invalid analogy. There is no valid analogy between a person and an action by persons. ‘Trade’ and ‘capital’ (the symbol of trade) are actions carried out by people. You can certainly establish a trade agreement for THINGS and SERVICES for neither become citizens, pay taxes, use tax-based services etc. Furthermore, the trade agreement is legal, and sets up regulations and boundaries for the interaction.
WHEREAS: These same “free trade” economic policies have increased poverty and decreased opportunities for people to make a dignified living and support their families; and
REBUTTAL: Nonsense. Provide evidence that free trade has led to poverty and decreased opportunities. The reason for the increase in poverty and lack of opportunities rests with such states as Mexico which have deliberately fobbed off their lowest class of unskilled and uneducated on to the US – rather than providing the education, industrial, health, transportation and communication infrastructure to support this population within Mexico.
This deliberate expulsion of its unskilled class has greatly benefited Mexico who pay nothing for their upkeep and yet, the remaining poor in Mexico receive billions in money sent back for their support by their illegal relatives in the US. So – Mexico doesn’t have to support them!
WHEREAS: In 2005, record numbers of migrants seeking a means to support their families, with no alternative to migrate safely into the United States, perished in the desert along the US-Mexico border, while countless others lost their lives in the journey; and
REBUTTAL: Again, nonsense. There IS an alternative! Insist that your own country, Mexico, set up schools, roads, health care, allow industrial devt etc for this poorest level of the Mexican population so that they can find a ‘means to support their families’..within Mexico!!
WHEREAS: The migration experience has adverse emotional and psychological effects on families, who are kept apart for many years due to unjust immigration policies and backlogs in visa applications; and
REBUTTAL: Emotional hogwash. Don’t migrate illegally. And – pressure your own Mexican govt to look after its own population. Mexico is abusing the US taxpayer – fobbing off its unskilled and poorest class to the US taxpayer..and saving billions by not dealing with them within Mexico.
WHEREAS: Undocumented immigrants are especially vulnerable to workplace abuses and housing discrimination; and
REBUTTAL: Nonsense. So what? The ‘abuses’ are because they came illegally, do not speak and refuse to learn the language; and as illegals, have no legal rights. The solution? Come legally or don’t come.
WHEREAS: Current US immigration policy does not reflect our standards of what is just, humane and moral
REBUTTAL: More nonsense. Can you explain why the US immigration policy should ignore the difference between legal and illegal immigration? Why is it ‘just, humane and moral’ for the US taxpayer to pay not only for the common needs of citizens, but for those of non-citizens who pay no taxes and refuse to follow the laws of the land? How is this ‘moral’? Is it moral to open your borders to any and all who come – to effectively ignore the nature of citizenship and its responsibilities?
Are all ‘progressives’ this inane and illogical?
Mexican immigration officials and policies are much more effective, we should look at adopting them.
What? And give Navarrette a heart attack? You are cruel, sir, I say cruel.
Oops! Looks like Ruben suddenly realized that immigration enforcement IS a local issue…endorsed by the federal government (1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act). He doesn’t like the 287 (g) program and he’s squealing mad at the feds for invalidating the entire argument for overturning Arizona SB1079.
“the report found that what individual law enforcement agencies did and how they did it varied widely from place to place”.
Would this be like doing the job they were elected/hired to do?
sorry, rube, wrong again. . . . .America’s most ridiculous (dumbest) sheriff is none other than Dupnick from Minnesota. . . . can’t you even get something that simple right?
Ruben wants to let the swarms of locusts fatten themselves for a few generations on the fruits of civilization made possible by Anglo-Saxon America, gradually turning the place into an indistinguishable facsimile of the corrupt, impoverished Mexico they left behind. I guess after that it’s on to Canada, eh Ruben?
Boy did Rudyard Kipling ever know what he was talking about!
“They’re just as likely to want to get rid of all illegal immigrants as part of a quixotic mission to magically return their communities and neighborhoods to what they looked like 50 years ago.”
Ruben, your neighbors are not racists; they just don’t like you.
More lies from Navarrette. No local agancy deports anyone. 287(g) agencies only arrest and process the alien for ICE. ICE then manages the deportation process. If ICE did not want to deport an illegal alien, then ICE did not have to. However, the political cost of releasing so many illegal aliens is just not a price that Obama is willing to pay.
But in the end what Navarrette is angry about is that any of his countrymen are being deported. Navarrette is loyal to Mexico, first, last and always.