In a recent White House meeting, President Obama and an eclectic group of administration officials, business and law enforcement leaders, former and current elected officials and other "stakeholders" discussed current prospects for comprehensive immigration reform, one of Obama's notable and still unfulfilled campaign promises.
According to official records of the gathering, big-city law enforcement leaders relayed their concerns that “without reform, enforcing federal immigration laws is a distraction from their important public safety and crime fighting mandates to keep their local communities safe.” In other words, using city and county resources to enforce outdated federal immigration laws compromises the ability of local police to do their jobs.
In the face of objections from both immigrant advocates and law enforcement experts, state legislatures across the country continue to consider Arizona-style laws that seek to involve local police in verifying immigrants’ citizenship status. And despite its failure to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, the Obama administration supports a host of programs explicitly designed to delegate immigration enforcement duties to local authorities.
287(g), the Criminal Alien Program and Secure Communities, three programs run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), leverage partnerships between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities to identify and eventually deport non-citizens. In a new report, The Cost of Failure: The Burden of Immigration Enforcement in America’s Cities, the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy argues that these programs impose staggering fiscal, public safety and civic costs on the nation’s cash-strapped cities.
After examining the impact of these partnerships in major cities, we find that local immigration enforcement programs are costly for city budgets and local economies struggling to close budget gaps and preserve core services. As cities spend limited resources jailing and detaining immigrants in service of federal immigration priorities, they receive inadequate support in return. For example, one Government Accountability Office survey indicated that 62 percent of 287(g) enrolled law enforcement agencies received zero funding from the federal government for operating the program.
In addition, the report shows how local immigration enforcement can be counterproductive to protecting public safety. Using police officers to perform immigration duties and enforce civil immigration laws diverts time and resources away from criminal investigations. Local enforcement also compromises police-community relations necessary to policing city streets. When immigrants fear that contact with local police could expose them to federal immigration authorities, they hesitate to come forward to police when they are victims or witnesses of crime.
ICE maintains that immigration enforcement at the federal and local levels focuses on “criminal aliens” and immigrants who pose a threat to our public safety and national security, but evidence from cities around the country indicates otherwise. Too often, local immigration enforcement results in the deportation of immigrants that are never convicted of any crime. Since 2008, the Secure Communities program alone has resulted in the removal of over 52,000 non-criminal immigrants from the country, according to ICE figures.
It’s encouraging that the Obama administration is committed to getting immigration reform back on the Congressional agenda. Though the best way to fix the system is through legislative action, Obama can still take the advice of law enforcement experts and end the costly involvement of local police in enforcing federal immigration laws in such desperate need of repair.
Follow Afton Branche on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AftonBrancheDMI
....But if they've been arrested for a crime, then the cities are already spending these resources to jail them anyway.
The only difference is that when Illegals are fingerprinted and booked, their prints are automatically sent to ICE, who then picks them up for deportation.
So, what's the big deal?
...Unless the Pro-Amnesty crowd thinks that illegals should get a free pass for the crimes they commit.
Mission largely accomplished.
The next goal is to convince Americans that they should have the same rights as those who got permission to come including the right to remain.
They shifted their tactics from name-calling anyone who disagrees with them to disrupting any legislative action that threatens to make them leave or deny them citizen privileges.
In Tucson AZ, Hispanic Students disrupted a School Board meeting because making Hispanic Studies an elective instead of a required course.
In Tallahassee Fla. foreign citizens blocked the entrance to the senate to demand a commitment from legislators that they would not support legislation similar to that of Arizona.
Immigration laws anywhere are to control population growth and allow the nation to know who is there. Presently America does not know how many foreign nationals are in the country and many want to keep us from knowing unless they're all offered citizenship.
Our immigration laws need some tweaking but we don't need to make citizens of untold millions of foreign nationals in order to know who is in our country.
There is a right way to immigrate to America.
Sneaking across the border and demanding citizenship is not it.
The total number of people living in the USA in 2008 per the Census Bureau was 304,059,724. During that year the Pew Center estimated there were 11,900,000 people illegally residing in the USA or 3.9% of the population.
For each person illegally residing in the USA there is at least one violation of the law taking place. More if you count Identity Fraud, Identity Theft, and other crimes people residing illegally in the USA commit in order to work. Thus the number of people violating our laws to live and work in the USA illegally in 2008 was greater than all violent and property crimes in the USA combined. So which is the larger problem? Crimes committed by those who reside illegally in the USA or crimes the very small percentage of the total population who are living illegally in the USA may not be reporting because of their status?
In our law crossing our border illegally is a violation of Criminal Law. Overstaying a visa is a violation of Civil Law. So let me make sure I understand this properly - This Author wants Police to avoid enforcing Criminal and Civil Law violations because she is afraid that it may hamper the enforcement of Criminal and Civil Law violations? That makes no sense.
Passing CIR requires the same or a bigger effort than passing health care reform. If Obama is not willing to make that effort in 2011, he must pass the torch to someone else in 2012.
CIR is going to be a much harder sell no matter who is holding the torch.
http://www.bop.gov/about/facts.jsp#2
Americans want the law enforced.. Obama won't enforce the law. That leaves the local authorities. And while Afton's reports tell her this and that, the bottom line is clear: the people want the law enforced and they are asking the local police to do that. Do the research on the cost of the illegal aliens, and it looks like it is a very good idea. Further, after years, and years, and years of trying to get the Feds to do the job they are supposed to do, if this is what it takes to get the job done, this is what is going to be done. Further again, there have been far, far to many efforts to do double deals on immigration. We want it straight and simple, but with E Verify and the Real I.D., what we need done, can be done and well.
No more baloney.. lets get it done.
There will be a tipping point and when it happens it won't be pretty. America can not stand limitless illegals crossing into the country, being born here. The US can try to control crime or take the cheap way out and let it run wild. In the end it will cost us even more.
First there is a big difference between someone a "wanted murder[er]" and someone whose "big" crime is crossing a border so they can watch your kids or mow your lawn. I would be very upset if they weren't arresting murderers (and it doesn't much matter if they were citizens or not). I don't think it is such a bad thing if they stop arresting nannies.
Second, this "us vs. them" rhetoric, where Americans who think breaking families or arresting high school kids is unnecessary are "siding with illegals" is really extreme. The question is do we want to live in a society based on harsh law enforcement, or if we can have a compassionate society.
Third, there is no "tipping point" (although scare tactics are useful to advocate extreme policies). We don't have to choose the extremes of jail and deportations and a lawless society.
Lots of Americans feel that a moderate solution which had people learn English, pay a fine and become a productive part of society is a far better option then the police state some people seem to want.
The FIRST crime is crossing the border. Then comes secondary crimes such as working illegaly in the country, driving without a license, driving without insurance, identity theft, tax evasion, illegal housing, etc. This does not include excessive crowding of ERs, roads, and schools.
So, by being compassionate with those that continuously violate our laws, that tells me that you want to ignore the negative aspects of illegal immigration and then try to tell us that by pointing out the facts it is a "scare tactic".
The solution is not to "pay a fine and become a productive member of society". That is a simplistic way of looking at a much bigger problem by puting a band-aid on it. If you give amnesty to 12M, that is a green light for the next 12M to come over and exploit the so-called "compassion" of the US. Who will pay for them?
I am willing to bet your compassion is limited to having them stay here, but not with you. How many families do you have living with you at this time?