Immigration Tutorial, Part 3
Home / Immigration / Immigration Tutorial, Part 3 /Enforcement and Border Security
There have been more than 1.9 million deportations during the current decade. In 2003, there were 445 workplace raids, while there were more than 5,000 such raids in 2008. In 2003, there were approximately 1,900 home enforcement raids, but there were 34,000 in 2008. This data is according to the Urban Institute’s Center on Labor, Human Services and Population. In March 2009, a panel of pro-immigrant experts criticized such raids by ICE as “harming hundreds of thousands of children,” most of whom they contended were U.S. citizens. In a report entitled Severing a Lifeline: The Neglect of Citizen Children in America’s Immigration Enforcement Policy it was stated, “Current immigration law and enforcement policy is marginalizing what it means for these children to be U.S. citizens.” The panel expressed hope that the Obama administration would enact laws to protect citizen children and give their parents a way to gain legal status.
Doris Meissner, who served as commissioner of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton administration and is currently with the Migration Policy Institute, indicated that the Dream Act was “the most promising” piece of legislation to help “citizen children.” The Dream Act, as proposed, would give illegal alien children who graduate from an American high school and have no criminal background an opportunity to attend college or serve in the military as a means of earning legal status. What Meissner does not say is that the Dream Act, if passed as proposed, would allow “children” between the ages of 12 and 35, who have entered the United States before the age of 16 and have been present in the United States for a minimum of five consecutive years prior to the passage of the Act, would become eligible provided they have “good moral character.” Additionally, there are some other disturbing features of the Dream Act if passed:
? If a person is eligible, apply for the DREAM Act (Since the legislation has not yet passed, there are no specific guidelines on how to apply)
? Once approved and granted Conditional Permanent Residency, the individual would have to do one of the following:
? Enroll in an institution of higher education in order to pursue a bachelor's degree or higher degree or
? Enlist in one of the branches of the United States Military
? Within 6 years of approval for conditional permanent residency, the individual must have completed at least two (2) years of one of the options outlined in the previous step
? Once 5 ½ years of the 6 years have passed, the individual will then be able to apply for Legal Permanent Residency (dropping the conditional part) and consequently will be able to apply for United States Citizenship
? Those who have already completed at least 2 years of college education towards a bachelor's degree or higher degree, will still have to wait the 5 ½ years in order to apply for Legal Permanent Residency even though you may have already obtained a degree.
? Students who do not complete the requirements will be disqualified .
ICE raids, coupled with local law enforcement under Section 287(g) of IIRIRA, have arrested thousands of illegal aliens. In October 2008, it was announced that ICE had arrested over 11,000 members or associates of “transnational gangs” operating inside the country. From June to September of that year, ICE agents had made nearly 1,800 arrests, with approximately 1,500 of the arrests being gang members or associates. Many of those arrested were members of the notoriously violent transnational gang MS-13.
Pro-illegal advocates, such as La Raza, Catholic Church leaders and others, have criticized workplace raids, home enforcement raids, and the use of local law enforcement. While President Obama asked Congress for a thirty percent funding increase for ICE’s Secure Community Program which identifies illegal aliens who are jail inmates, in July 2009 he criticized ICE raids as “terrorizing” American communities. Speaking at the National Council of La Raza national convention, Obama said:
The system isn’t working when 12 million people live in hiding, and hundreds of thousands cross our borders illegally each year; when companies hire undocumented immigrants instead of legal citizens to avoid paying overtime or to avoid a union; when communities are terrorized by ICE immigrant raids; when nursing mothers are torn from their babies; when children come home from school to find their parents missing; when people are detained without access to legal counsel.
Almost as if on cue, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under Napolitano, is taking steps to weaken the 287(g) provisions. A DHS task force reports that the 287(g) “should be limited to identifying illegal immigrants in state prisons and county jails and exclude any efforts to track them down outside of criminal investigations.” Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has gained national notoriety for his arrests of illegal aliens, has been accused of racial profiling and has been the subject of a Homeland Security ICE audit. ICE, apparently with Napolitano’s encouragement, will not renew the 287(g) agreement with Arpaio that authorizes Maricopa County officers to make arrests based on immigration status. For his part, Arpaio contends that Maricopa County will continue to arrest illegal aliens for immigration violations under other federal laws that exist.
Finally, there is the existence of “sanctuary cities.” These cities have either officially or unofficially adopted policies that ignore federal immigration laws.
Border Security:
Despite the continued crossing of illegal aliens and the ever increasing violence on the southern border, DHS has made little progress on building the two layers of reinforced fencing mandated in 2006. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as of October 31, 2008, DHS had built only 32 miles of the original 700 miles mandated by Congress. To further exacerbate the issue, a GAO official told CNSNews.com that he was not aware of plans to build any additional double-layer fencing. There are several factors involved in the delay, such as lawsuits filed by landowners against having the fence built and the U.S. Interior Department’s concern over environmental issues. Probably, the most important factor resulted from a Kay Bailey Hutchinson amendment in 2007 that facilitated loopholes in the 2006 mandate. The Hutchinson amendment reads:
Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), nothing in this paragraph shall require the Secretary of Homeland Security to install fencing, physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors in a particular location along the international border of the United States, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain operational control over the international border at such locations.
This plays right into the hands of Secretary Napolitano, who has always opposed the construction of a border fence. Napolitano has stated, “You show me a 50-foot wall and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder.”
To date, DHS has built three different types of fences along the border: 1) single-layer fences to stop pedestrians and vehicles; 2) double-layer fences to stop pedestrians and vehicles and 3) barriers designed to stop vehicles. The actual fences are eight to ten feet tall, while the vehicle barriers are merely small posts approximately three feet high. Clearly, the “vehicle fencing” is not going to stop anyone from physically crossing the border.
In usual government double-talk, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) spokesman said that the goal for FY 2010 was to increase from 815 to 894 the number of miles under “effective control.” So what is “effective control”? As defined by the CBP:
Border miles under effective control is when the appropriate mix of personnel, equipment, technology and tactical infrastructure has been deployed to reasonably ensure that when an attempted illegal entry is detected, the Border Patrol has the ability to identify, classify and respond to bring the attempted illegal entry to a satisfactory law enforcement resolution.
Several obvious problems exist. First, the 894-mile goal of CBP is out of the 8,607 miles for which the Border Patrol is responsible. There are almost 2,000 miles along the U.S.-Mexican border and about 4,000 miles along the U.S.-Canadian border; this does not even include the Alaska-Canadian border. Second, “effective control” is limited to when an attempted illegal entry is detected. What about when such attempts are not detected? Third, the CBP plans to relocate approximately 400 Border Patrol agents from the southern border to the U.S.-Canadian border, while only having a slight increase in the number of agents on the U.S.-Mexican border.
The results are clear. Despite the brave, dedicated and hard work of Border Patrol agents, our international borders remain porous!