BY MELISSA KEANEY, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER

The misnamed Secure Communities program appears to be a nothing but smoke and mirrors—a federal program operating without adequate supervision or safeguards. The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) signature immigration enforcement program. The government documents NILC obtained show that ICE’s public statements about the Secure Communities program do not reflect what goes on behind closed doors.

ICE has always represented to the public that participation in Secure Communities is predicated on a formal agreement between ICE and each state. But in a December 2008 Secure Communities weekly report, ICE admits to negotiating with Pennsylvania to proceed with implementation without requiring the state to sign an agreement and without having notice of a database “hit” go to local agencies. Effectively this means that the program was secretly imposed in Pennsylvania and operated for months before local communities even became aware of it. ICE further notes in the weekly report that it will be pursuing this same approach in other states. And the stealth character of the operation is no insignificant detail. Though the program is going on its third year, ICE has never issued regulations or guidelines for its operation. Indeed, written agreements with the state serve as the only formalization of a program that entangles local police in immigration enforcement and endangers community safety.

According to ICE, the Secure Communities program was designed to catch undocumented immigrants who had committed serious crimes by fingerprinting all those who enter into jails equipped to cross-check prints with ICE databases. Yet, advocates’ fears that Secure Communities is little more than an immigrant-hunting program with a slick name have been proven all-too-justified. Three organizations recently obtained government documents revealing that over a quarter of immigrants caught up in the Secure Communities web have not been convicted of any crime at all.

Despite the documented problems with this program, ICE has stonewalled communities that want to safeguard their own best interests by not participating in Secure Communities. San Francisco, for example, has been compelled to take part despite Sheriff Hennessey’s concern that such a program will damage community safety. ICE’s claim that the program is voluntary is an empty promise.

Indeed, ICE continues to deploy Secure Communities at record pace, all the while remaining secretive about how the program operates. News that Secure Communities had been implemented in every county along the U.S./Mexico border was news even to jail operators in some of those counties.

ICE’s refusal to be transparent about Secure Communities chills meaningful public debate and raises serious concerns about the trajectory of immigration enforcement.

Ultimately, the Obama Administration should scrap the secretive and fatally flawed Secure Communities. We do not need another flawed program designed to work within a broken immigration system, especially not one that operates behind closed doors and without limitations. The public deserves a real solution, not more smoke and mirrors.

Photo by moominmolly.

Although anti-immigrant campaign platforms might help win a primary in a state like Arizona, supporters of harsh immigrant enforcement measures must still address the resulting economic fall out. Last week, the Arizona Governor’s Task Force on Tourism and Economic Vitality hired HMA Public Relations, a Phoenix-based marketing communications and public relations firm, to the tune of $100,000 to “develop a series of needs and goals for Arizona tourism in light of the controversy created by SB 1070”—and, boy, do they have their work cut out for them. Similarly, cities like Fremont, Nebraska—where an anti-immigrant ordinance passed in June—are also being forced to run damage control. Fremont’s City Council is currently considering a property tax increase proposal to help shoulder the projected legal fees resulting from the city’s restrictive immigration ordinance.

Perhaps HMA’s first order of business should be spinning a recent State Department report to the U.N.’s Human Rights Council which lists the federal government’s successful legal challenge to Arizona’s enforcement law as an effort to protect human rights. (Attempting to violate human rights, generally speaking, is probably not good for tourism.) Or maybe the firm should have a serious sit down with Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, who referred to the majority of undocumented immigrants as “drug mules” in an interview a few months back—rhetoric which doesn’t exactly scream “welcome to my state” either.

Even though a federal district judge enjoined the most controversial parts of SB 1070, Arizona’s reputation as an anti-immigrant state lingers as Arizona politicians continue to bash immigrants for political gain. With a growing list of economic boycotts, a declining housing market and a budget deficit of roughly $4.5 million, Arizona will continue to face the fiscal consequences of its “get tough on immigration” rhetoric. And that’s not even considering the estimated cost of implementing the law or the legal fees resulting from lawsuits, which could reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Sadly, Arizona’s not the only state running damage control on anti-immigrant measures.

The city of Fremont, Nebraska, recently sent a proposal for a property tax hike (an additional 18% for resident property owners) to the City Council in anticipation of defending the city’s immigration enforcement ordinance—an ordinance that will require businesses to verify employees’ immigration status and renters to apply for an occupancy license. City officials estimate the annual cost of defending the ordinance to be about $750,000. Similarly, Farmers Branch, Texas and Hazleton, Pennsylvania are facing costly litigation to defend their immigration laws, both in the millions of dollars.

Currently, 22 other states are considering enforcement measures similar to Arizona’s and many will, in all likelihood, face similar legal challenges and incur mounting legal fees. As politicians continue to take a “get tough on immigration” stance in the run up to midterm elections, voters may decide that their pocketbooks trump their politics when it comes to immigration.

Photo by star5112.

Last week, two separate branches of DHS released important evidence supporting the argument that our immigration laws are fundamentally broken. The Office of Immigration Statistics released its annual report on removal and return statistics, noting that removals in 2009 totaled 393,289—marking the seventh straight year of increase. Meanwhile, ICE released a memo directing legal counsel to review and terminate certain immigration court cases where the immigrant also had an application pending in front of USCIS. ICE estimates that approximately 17,000 people may benefit from this new policy. When you juxtapose the numbers, however—393,289 v. 17,000—it reminds you just how out of balance our immigration system has become.

First, the ICE memo. Assistant Secretary John Morton ordered his staff to commence a countrywide systematic review of whether certain cases in immigration court need to be there. By identifying cases in which an immigrant’s application for some form of status is pending in front of USCIS, ICE and USCIS can avoid duplicating resources by moving some people through the system faster and more efficiently. Morton’s memo appears to require that the individual immigrant be otherwise eligible for some sort of lasting legal status—including having an available visa number. If all goes according to plan, roughly 17,000 people may have their deportation cases terminated (closed, charges dismissed) before the immigration judge while their application is processed at USCIS.

From a lawyer’s perspective, this is a smart and common sense approach to maximizing government resources and reducing the strain on the immigration courts. It’s hardly an amnesty program—as the tiresome immigration restrictionists claim—given that these people are currently in line for some form of status, have an application pending, and a decent chance of getting it approved. Why would we want to clog an overburdened immigration court system with folks who don’t need to be there?

So these 17,000 aren’t even likely candidates for deportation. A good move, but hardly pushing the envelope. Yet, terminating cases such as these has been an ongoing battle between ICE and USCIS since DHS was formed back in 2003. If anything, the memo represents a victory for common sense, even if it does little to change the actual removal numbers. Far more people will likely end up in next year’s removal statistics, regardless of this new policy, because there simply isn’t relief available for most folks. And as long as apprehensions continue unabated, the number of removals is likely to increase.

And that’s where the 2009 removal statistics come in. While 393,289 people is a pretty big number, it represents a host of different removal practices and procedures. Over half (58%) of all removals last year were attributable to procedures that are essentially on autopilot—expedited removal and reinstatement of removal, which have been chugging along since 1997. Both are based on laws that give little discretion to the officer, so that once you encounter someone who fits into these categories, there is arguably little you can do to stop the train. While there are plenty of good arguments for reforming or refining these administrative removal procedures, they are part of a broader legislative debate that just isn’t happening.

The same goes for the other 42% (165,000 or so people) who were removed based on an immigration court order. We can only speculate about their circumstances—when and why they were apprehended, how long they were in the system—making it hard to know how many cases, if any, are attributable to current enforcement practices or priorities. Frankly, some people will be deported no matter what the policy. And even when comprehensive immigration reform is enacted, there will continue to be removals. So, the issue is not the fact that people are being removed, but that the system is so fundamentally stacked against most individuals that they have no chance to make themselves right with the immigration laws.

If you juxtapose the numbers represented by these two DHS documents—393,289 v. 17,000—you start to get a sense of how out of balance things are. Removals are high, opportunities for immediate relief are low. It is an imbalance that plays out across the system when Congress allocates another $600 million for border security but does nothing to eliminate legal immigration backlogs. Every time more money and attention is paid to one side of the scale, the deportation and removal side, the balance grows more off-kilter.

Photo by jstrak.

Today, both Democratic and Republican Florida state legislators joined leaders from the faith and civil rights communities in speaking out against proposed anti-immigrant legislation in Florida, calling the measure “sad,” “not right for Florida,” and “a violation of civil rights.” The bill, introduced this month by Florida Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate, Bill McCollum, goes beyond existing state law and would require law enforcement to check the immigration status of a suspected illegal immigrant when stopped during a violation. The bill, drafted with state Rep. Will Snyder, also allows judges to consider immigration status during bond setting and sentencing and requires Florida businesses to check their workers’ immigration status. McCollum’s immigration bill also requires immigrants to carry identification or face up to 20 days in jail. According to McCollum, Florida’s bill “offers more teeth” and goes “one step beyond” Arizona’s law, after which Florida’s bill was modeled.

Even after the a federal judge enjoined the most controversial provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070, McCollum claims the proposed immigration bill clarifies “reasonable suspicion” and is strengthened against “potential constitution challenges.” “I think Arizona is going to want this law,” McCollum said.

But today on a telephonic press conference organized by the Florida Immigrant Coalition, both Democratic and Republican Florida legislators—as well as faith and civil rights leaders—united in speaking out against the bill. State Rep. Jan Carlos Zapata, a Republican and member of the Florida Legislature Hispanic Caucus, said that immigration law should be handled by the federal government, not the state, and that there is a big difference between border security issues and immigration at large:

This bill is not right for Florida. This is a federal action and we should leave it as such. But we also need to keep pressure on the federal government to do just that. It’s also important to differentiate between border security issues and immigration. Unfortunately, harmful rhetoric has tied them into one. Arizona has faced drug gangs and violence along the border and their legislators have reacted to that. In Florida, we don’t have that problem. That issue shouldn’t be applied to Florida. It’s unfortunate that people are trying to take advantage of the emotional aspects of this issue.

State Rep. Gary Siplin, a Democrat, raised concerns over an anti-immigration bill’s negative impact on tourism, one of the largest economic drivers of Florida’s economy.

Our initial concern is the economic impact this legislation would have on our tourism. Haitians, Jamaicans and Puerto Ricans are concerned about their presence in America. And as always, we’re concerned about the civil rights of every American, even immigrants. We need to protect the civil rights of our citizens and our economy.

Mike Pheneger, a retired US Army Colonel and Board Chair of ACLU of Florida, called the law unconstitutional and promised a legal challenge to the proposed law if passed.

This bill is unconstitutional and unnecessary. It panders to our fears and worse instincts as a people. This bill violates the rights of people in Florida without documentation. The Constitution protects all people, not just citizens.

And in a recession, this bill will burden our state budget with legal fees. This bill violates equal protects and free speech of all people in US and Florida. The ACLU is prepared to take immediate legal action to enjoin enforcement until the courts have had a chance to rule.

Rev. Russell Meyer, Executive Director of the Florida Council of Churches, also pointed out that Florida’s proposed immigration law would make it “criminal behavior to help someone in need.”

The bipartisan opposition to Florida’s proposed anti-immigrant legislation is a rare example of those who actually prioritize policy over politics, that is, want real solutions to our immigration problems—federal solutions, as Republican state Rep. Jan Carlos Zapata pointed out—instead of more fodder for political platforms. Aside from draining an already dragging state economy, McCollum’s draconian immigration legislation clearly indicates that he cares more about immigration as a wedge issue than fixing a system so desperately in need of repair.

Photo by tantrum_dan.

The Office of Immigration Statistics released data on immigration enforcement actions in FY 2009 (October 1 through September 30). The report finds that:

• The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) apprehended 613,003 foreign nationals, compared to 791,568 in FY2008 and 960,756 in FY2007.

• Mexican nationals made up the largest percentage of apprehensions (86%), followed by Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, China, Brazil, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

Border Patrol:

• Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) was responsible for 91% of all apprehensions, and 97% of CBP apprehensions were along the Southwest border. The Tucson, AZ sector had 45% of all Southwest border apprehensions (241,667), followed by San Diego, CA (118,712); Rio Grande Valley, TX (60,992), Laredo, TX (40,571; El Centro, CA (33,520); and Del Rio, TX (17,082).
• Apprehensions by the Border Patrol decreased 23% between 2008 and 2009, which corresponds to lower immigration levels during the economic downturn.

Detention:

• ICE detained a record number of 383,524 foreign nationals in FY2009. Mexican nationals accounted for 63% of all detainees, but because they generally remain detained for short periods, they accounted for only 34% of detention bed days.

Removals:

• DHS removed a total of 393,289 persons in 2009, which is a 10% increase from the previous year and the 7th consecutive record high. 72% of removals were Mexicans (282,666). The next leading countries were Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and the Dominican Republic.
• 27% of all removals were “expedited removals,” meaning that the individuals were inadmissible because they didn’t have proper documents and were removed without a hearing before an immigration court.
• 580,000 persons were returned to their home countries without being placed in immigration proceedings. They are generally non-criminals who are apprehended at the border or port of entry and agree that their entry was illegal and waive their right to a hearing. 85% of returns were Mexican or Canadian immigrants.
• DHS removed 128,345 immigrants with criminal convictions, including traffic offenses. Those convicted of illegal drug activity, traffic offenses, and criminal immigration violations made up 61% of all criminal removals.

Today, after months of political wagering from both Republicans and Democrats, the Senate unanimously passed a $600 million dollar bill marked for border security which is now headed to President Obama’s desk for signature. While the sequence of events leading to this most recent capitulation to the enforcement-first crowd is a little dizzying, the bill’s unanimous passage was partly a product of a bluff called on the Senate floor. Although the substance of the bill could have been much worse, the mere fact that the only major immigration legislation passed thus far in the 111th Congress was another border bill shows how far we are from treating immigration as a serious issue, rather than a political game.

To recap: On August 5, in the last few hours before adjourning for recess, the Senate passed a state aid package. Claiming to call the Republican’s bluff (meaning that as much as they want more border security, Senate Republicans aren’t ever going to give the Democrats a victory on an immigration bill), Senate Democrats brought their version of a $600 million border bill to the floor—“fully funded” through fee increases to business visa categories. Instead of objecting, Senator McCain asked that he and Sen. Kyl be included as cosponsors of the bill. Senator Sessions came down to the floor to say that the bill isn’t enough, but a good start. In a Senate marked by the lack of unanimous consent, no one objected to the bill and it passed by a voice vote. The bill went back to the House for a vote mandated by jurisdictional funding issues, then back to the Senate where it was again passed by unanimous consent today.

Bluff called.

But governing isn’t about bluffing. In all of this heady back and forth and politicking and angling for election in November, the substantive issues of what must be done to fix our broken immigration system are once more lost. The irony is that some of the provisions in this mega-million border bill have strong bipartisan support—enhancing communications systems and creating forward operating bases for Border Patrol have long been championed by border legislators of both parties. For example, the bill:

• Provides more money for drug enforcement actions to ATF actually addressing some of the real problems along the border and, if used wisely, could help reduce trafficking and the flow of drugs and money back and forth along the border.

• Lacks some of the more controversial and questionable proposals such as funding for the fence or Operation Stonegarden (providing federal money to local law enforcement to conduct immigration enforcement).

• Provides more money to the judiciary and immigration courts, which is a sensible acknowledgment that you can’t increase enforcement and ignore the added costs of doing business for the judicial and administrative branches.

But any good that might come of this is likely to be cancelled out by the political points that anti-immigration folks will score with these actions. Immigration activists have come out swinging, accusing the Democrats of knuckling under and ignoring the strong public support for a more comprehensive answer. Political operatives continue to insist that it was essential for Democrats to have a vote on enforcement. Senator Reid’s decision to call for an immediate vote on the bill suggests that the politicians didn’t think they can have this hanging over their heads until September. In short, politicians have made a $600 million dollar investment in their political futures.

And the game continues. President Obama, Sen. Schumer and Sen. Reid have all issued statements claiming that this border security bill is a good first step towards securing comprehensive immigration reform. Yet true to form, Sens. Kyl and McCain, eyeing the cards on the table, claimed the bill, although welcomed, still wasn’t enough. It’s hard to imagine that this will be the last call for emergency funds on the border, as Congress loves to tell its constituents that they are being made safer by money well-spent on border security. This is the real bluff that needs to be called—the one Congress keeps using on all of us.

Photo by sbisson.

Today, Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) released a Border Security Proposal which would provide $600 million in offset funding for various border security provisions. The bill was a counter to a different border security bill proposed by Republican Arizona Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain, which would have gleaned its funding from the 2009 economic stimulus.

The Schumer-McCaskill bill proposes $175.9 million for the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents on the southwest border, $50 million for additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, $14 million for additional border fencing, $32 million for unmanned aerial vehicles, and funding for a number of other programs designed to secure the border and fight drug and gun smuggling.

Following the district court’s ruling enjoining the most controversial provisions of SB 1070 last week, some states are now deciding whether or not to move forward with their own version of Arizona’s immigration legislation—or are at least considering dumping the Arizona-style provisions that U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton temporarily halted. Currently, 22 states have introduced or are considering introducing similar legislation. State legislators are citing fear of costly lawsuits and a charged political environment in which restrictive immigration legislation might not pass as factors in their decision. The city of Fremont, Nebraska, for example, recently halted the enforcement of its enforcement legislation (which prohibits the hiring of or renting to undocumented immigrants) in the face of legal challenges from civil rights groups.

In Ohio, state representative Courtney Combs (R-Hamilton) is revising Ohio’s version of Arizona’s law to avoid potential lawsuits:

Filing an Arizona-style bill “would be wasting taxpayers’ money,” Combs says. “I think we need to make sure that we comply with what the federal courts come up with.”

Similarly, Idaho’s state senator, Robert Geddes, is editing out the enjoined provisions Judge Bolton halted last week:

“I don’t know that we would cut and paste exactly what Arizona has, based on what the judge has already ruled,” Geddes says. “That doesn’t help us much to engage in the same battle that Arizona has lost.”

In Fremont, Nebraska—where residents fought a two-year battle with the city to pass an ordinance that requires businesses to verify employees’ immigration status and renters to apply for an occupancy license—the city council recently delayed enforcement of the ordinance just days before it was scheduled to go into effect. City Council President, Scott Getzschman, cited scant city resources and legal challenges as reasons for the delayed enforcement:

“Given the size of our city, we will make a decision based on the best interest of the citizens of Fremont. As we evaluate legal challenges ahead, we need to look at our resources carefully,” Getzschman said.

Coming out of the recession, many states are facing budget deficits and cannot afford the hefty expenses and fees brought on by legal challenges. According to a report by Immigration Policy Center, Farmers Branch, Texas has already spent about $3.2 million to defend itself since September 2006, when it launched the first of three immigration ordinances. Similarly, Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s insurance carrier is asking a federal judge to rule that it is not responsible for nearly $2.4 million in attorney fees being sought by the plaintiffs who successfully challenged the city s Illegal Immigration Relief Act.

While some states will undoubtedly move forward with the introduction of new immigration enforcement measures, the district court’s ruling on SB 1070 is at least making other states pause and consider the large costs and political consequences associated with enforcing restrictive immigration laws. Whether or not state legislators realize that a patchwork of state immigration policy does nothing to actually solve immigration problems on a national scale remains to be seen.

Photo by Asbestos Bill.

Yesterday, Phoenix district court Judge Susan Bolton enjoined key provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB1070. The judge recognized that the federal government has primary authority over making and enforcing immigration law, and that while states have limited authority in this arena, they cannot interfere with federal enforcement or undermine federal priorities. The decision acknowledges the complex nature of immigration law and the harmful consequences of local police attempting to make immigration determinations. The judge also recognized the serious strain that the Arizona law would place on federal resources, which would detract from the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws in other states and target resources toward serious criminals.

Judge Bolton struck down the following provisions of SB 1070:

• Section 2(B): Required officers to check the immigration status of any person arrested, as well as check the immigration status if there was reasonable suspicion after a lawful stop or detention that the person was undocumented.

• Section 3: Made it a state misdemeanor for failure to carry an alien registration document, and made it a state crime to be unlawfully present in the United States.

• Part of Section 5: Made it a state misdemeanor for an unauthorized immigrant to apply for, solicit for, or perform work.

• Section 6 Amendment: Allowed officers to make warrantless arrests provided the officer has probable cause to believe that the person has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

The ruling left SB 1070, which goes into effect today, with the following provisions, among others, still intact:

• Section 2(G): An Arizona citizen may bring an action against any official or agency of Arizona that does not enforce federal immigration laws to the fullest extent, and pay a penalty of $1,000 to $5,000 for each day that the policy was in effect.

• Section 4: Makes it a felony to intentionally smuggle human beings for profit.

• Section 5: Makes it a misdemeanor to stop on a street and attempt to hire or pick up passengers for work at a different location if the vehicle blocks traffic. Also makes it a misdemeanor to be the person picked up in such a motor vehicle.

• Section 5: Makes it a misdemeanor for a person already in violation of a criminal offense to transport undocumented immigrants, conceal undocumented immigrants, or encourage undocumented immigrants to reside in the United States.

The provisions struck down by the judge do not prevent law enforcement from addressing the real threats to public safety in Arizona, like drug smuggling and violence. It’s about time the Governor returned focus and resources back to real remedies that will improve the lives of Arizonans instead of playing campaign politics with such an important issue.

Sadly, SB 1070 has always been more about politics than good policy. This was most evident immediately following Judge Bolton’s ruling when Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced her plans to appeal the decision and simultaneously used the opportunity to solicit donations for her re-election campaign. Similarly, Senator John McCain seized on the political opportunity by issuing a joint statement with Senator John Kyl decrying the decision:

We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling today and disagree with the court’s opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly ‘burden’ the enforcement of federal immigration law. “Instead of wasting tax payer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama Administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the Federal government has failed to take responsibility.” “After this decision, it’s even more important to implement our Ten Point Border Security plan to protect Arizonans and our country.”

The reality is that we are spending more money on border security than ever before, and violent crimes rates in Arizona have been falling for years. Arizonans, like most Americans, are understandably frustrated by our broken immigration system, but usurping federal immigration authority and pushing “attrition through enforcement” legislation isn’t going to solve anything. In fact, it only stands to interfere with community policing and identifying the true threats. Until we have bipartisan support on a real solution like comprehensive immigration reform, we’re going to continue to enforce ourselves in circles.

Photo by Jeffrey Kaye.

Today, a federal judge will begin to hear arguments on Arizona law SB1070. One of the problems with SB1070 is that it places the federal government in an impossible situation. While the proponents of SB1070 say that Arizona will help ICE enforce immigration laws, the fact is that it would impinge upon ICE’s ability to fulfill its mandate, set enforcement priorities, and allocate resources effectively. SB1070 would inundate DHS with requests to determine the immigration status of individuals police have arrested for suspicion of being unlawfully present. If ICE determines that the individual is indeed unlawfully present, ICE would be expected to take custody of him/her and place him/her in deportation proceedings. Today, IPC released a new fact check on how Arizona’s new law interferes with federal enforcement priorities.

Furthermore, through the 287(g) program, Secure Communities, and the Criminal Alien Program, ICE would screen all people booked into Arizona jails and convicted of crimes. ICE would then be expected to take custody of those immigrants charged with or convicted of these state crimes and place them in deportation proceedings.

In other words, Arizona would supply ICE with a huge number of people to deal with – most of them charged with or convicted of very minor offenses. While proponents of the law would say that this is the very purpose of the law, it actually strains ICE’s resources and harms their ability to prioritize the immigrants they target.

ICE already has its hands full, and it has developed enforcement priorities to help deal with its huge mandate. Currently there are 10-11 million unauthorized immigrants, countless legal immigrants who are deportable for serious and minor criminal offenses, and many employers breaking the law by employing unauthorized workers.

Congress has mandated that ICE prioritize the deportation of immigrants who pose a danger to national security or a risk to public safety, and those with criminal histories. So ICE principally targets immigrants engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage; immigrants convicted of crimes (with a particular emphasis on violent criminals, felons, and repeat offenders); gang members; and those subject to outstanding criminal warrants.

ICE has created a three-tiered priority system to allow them to evaluate each individual and take action on the highest priorities. Those immigrants charged with or convicted of serious crimes such as murder, rape, or kidnapping receive the highest priority, while immigrants charged with or convicted of less serious crimes are lower priority, and ICE takes action on them as their resources allow.

The crimes created by the Arizona law fall into the lowest priority. In essence, Arizona would be asking ICE to respond to all of Arizona’s requests and take custody of countless individuals who are not serious threats to the country and who have not committed serious crimes. This means that ICE would have fewer resources to deal with serious criminals, terrorists, and other priority individuals.

According to former INS Commissioner Doris Meissner:

[S]ince SB1070 does not, and cannot, distinguish among ICE-established priorities of targeted categories of aliens, Arizona’s verification requests would be likely to encompass those who have committed minor violations under Arizona law, and those simply suspected of such offenses – potentially at the expense of pursuing more serious criminal aliens, both in Arizona and in other states. Furthermore, SB1070 would not only conflict with federal priorities, but would also put Arizona in a position to dictate priorities for immigration enforcement to ICE and the federal government, which is contrary to our existing federal system. The effect would be to force ICE to respond to reports of civil immigration status violations over all other priorities, with the likely outcome of overwhelming carefully calibrated strategies for meeting federal statutory mandates within the bounds of budgetary constraints.

In other words, if Arizona’s intention was to “help” the federal government do its job, it has failed. SB1070 unfairly hijacks federal priorities and resources at the expense of our safety and security.

Photo by xomiele