House Divided Over Immigration Program

By Andrea Salazar

Republicans and Democrats in a House subcommittee butted heads over the effectiveness of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Secure Communities (S-Comm) program Wednesday amidst claims that the program promotes racial profiling.

ICE Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Gary Mead testified in front of the House Immigration Subcommittee, part of the House Judiciary Committee, assuring lawmakers that S-Comm is taking dangerous criminals off the streets.

“Secure Communities is smart, effective immigration enforcement,” Mead said. “It provides real time leads to the ICE criminal alien program, greatly reducing the likelihood that criminal aliens will be released from state and local custody back into the community.”

S-Comm — a program designed to identify criminal illegal immigrants in state and local custody — links information from local law enforcement with the FBI and ICE.  Therefore, when a person is arrested, local police send that person’s fingerprints to the FBI, which in turn shares the information with ICE to determine immigration status.

Proponents of the measure applauded the program, but said ICE’s “prosecutorial discretion” is allowing some criminals to go free because of the Obama administration’s decision to focus on deporting only illegal immigrants who have committed a crime.

“There’s no excuse for an illegal alien, who’s not supposed to be here in the first place, driving drunk on our roads and putting the lives of the people of my county in danger,” said Sheriff Sam Page of Rockingham County, N.C., in his written statement.

Instead, Julie Myers Wood, a former assistant secretary for ICE, recommended using the rapid repatriation program - a program that allows for the release of some  illegal immigrants considered non-violent, on the condition that they agree to leave the country, waive their appeal rights and agree not to return to the U.S.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), however, expressed concern over Secure Communities for incidents of racial profiling and sending into deportation proceedings undocumented immigrants who have not otherwise committed serious crimes.

“Everybody who I’ve talked to who has concerns about this program, doesn’t have a concern about having violent dangerous criminals removed,” Lofgren said. “There’s more commonality here than we might expect. Where we get into trouble is when it’s somebody who hasn’t committed an offense or they’re pulled over for a faulty tail light.”

Testifying in opposition to S-Comm, Arturo Venegas, a former police chief and an immigrant himself, said the program is damaging the relationship between law enforcement and the immigrant community because people are less likely to report crimes to police if there’s a chance that they could be deported.

“If you are an immigrant, and you are charged with a serious offense, or even a minor offense, you are ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and you will be referred for deportation,” Venegas said. “As an immigrant myself, and as an American citizen, I cannot support that differing standard.”

ICE plans to implement Secure Communities nationwide by 2013.

House Dems Heading To Alabama To Shed Light On Immigration Law

By Andrea Salazar

House Democrats will be visiting Alabama Nov. 21 to bring attention to the effects the state’s immigration law has had on the Latino community.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), a stark opponent of the Alabama law, considered the strictest immigration law in the country, is leading the effort. Acknowledging that he does not expect any immigration measure to make it to the House or Senate floors before the next election, the congressman said the Alabama visit is to raise awareness.

“The more light you shed on the abusive anti-immigrant law of Alabama, the more likelihood there is that you’re going to defeat it,” Gutierrez said at a news conference Thursday. “We’re going there to say that we came to listen and in listening also to ask you what it is you would like us to do as we return to the Congress of the United States.”

HB56, the Alabama immigration law, requires schools to find out students’ immigration status and calls on police to check a person’s status during stops or arrests if there’s “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country unlawfully.

Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) is welcoming her colleagues to Alabama and calling on her state to play the role it did during the civil rights movement.

“So many of the injustices that this nation has faced have been addressed on the ground in Alabama, and once again I believe that we in Alabama will lead the way with making sure we get a federal immigration policy and not a piecemeal state by state effort,” Sewell said.

Gutierrez emphasized that all visiting representatives would be spending their own money to pay for the trip. To that effect, Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas) said they were making the trip because immigration is an issue that affects everyone.

“If the law does not protect you today, it will not protect me tomorrow,” Gonzalez said. “We all have an interest in this.”

Pointing out that the author of the Arizona immigration law, Russell Pearce, was recalled in a special election this past month, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), warned politicians to take immigration seriously.

“That recall better be a harbinger for a lot of politicians that it’s time you took this issue of immigration in a serious way,” Grijalva said. “Look at comprehensive reform in a federal level and quit using people in their communities - Alabama, Arizona and others - as a whipping boy for a political advantage.”

Reps. Joe Baca (D-Calif.), Yvette D. Clarke (D-N.Y.), Al Green (D-Texas), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.) and Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) will join Gutierrez, Grijalva, Gonzalez and Sewell in Alabama on Monday where they will hold a field hearing and attend the launch of a campaign to repeal the Arizona immigration law.

Experts Find Little Evidence Connecting Drug, Human Smugglers

By Adrianna McGinley

Distinguished professors and researchers from Mexico, Arizona and California agreed Friday at a panel discussion hosted by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars that there is virtually no evidence linking the drug cartels with human smuggling from Mexico. 

Dr. Gabriella Sanchez, Senior Researcher at the University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, said that in a case study involving 66 known human smugglers in Arizona, she found no evidence connecting violent organized crime to human smuggling.

“There’s no indication or evidence of collaboration among criminal groups and smuggling activities,” Sanchez said. “Among the smugglers, there’s really no true interest in participating in other activities that while more profitable, will actually increase the risk of prosecution. This is especially the case of families with children.”

Sanchez also said she found no indication of ties to drug smuggling in her sample group. 

Erik Lee, Associate Director of the North American Center for Transborder Studies, emphasized that the panel was discussing human smuggling, which involves some degree of consent, not human trafficking, which involves force or coercion and where ties to violence and other organized crime may be more prominent.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Arizona Immigration Law

The Supreme Court heard arguments today over how large a role states can play in enforcing federal immigration laws. At issue is a 2007 Arizona law that revokes the business license of anyone found employing unauthorized aliens.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing Arizona business owners and backed by the Obama Administration, argue that Congress intended for immigration laws to be the same in all states, and that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) preempted almost all state efforts to impose penalties on businesses who hired unauthorized aliens.

Arizona says that IRCA contains an exception for state licensing laws and that states have historically been allowed to put whatever conditions they want on business licenses.

The Justices seemed hesitant to allow Arizona’s broad licensing power, with Justice Stephen Breyer several times pointing out that federal law carefully balances punishments for hiring illegal aliens against punishments for racial discrimination in hiring. Breyer suggested Arizona’s high penalty for hiring illegal aliens will force employers to avoid hiring anyone whose legal status might be questionable, leading to a racial hiring bias.

Justice Antonin Scalia seemed less concerned with the consequences, noting that states would probably not have felt the need to go this far if they thought the federal government were enforcing current immigration laws.

The Obama Administration’s lawyer, also arguing that Arizona had gone too far, suggested there was a difference between a state’s power to issue licenses and the power to revoke licenses. Solicitor General Neal Katyal also said that Arizona’s current licensing rules are very different from the rules Congress had in mind when IRCA was passed in 1986.

The court’s ruling, which will likely be handed down in spring or early summer, may have an effect on Arizona and other state laws on immigration, depending on how broadly the court decides to rule.

The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting.

Changing 14th Amendment Will Expand Bureaucracy, Warns Immigration Attorney

Altering the 14th amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship would expand bureaucracy and could create a complicated birth registry, according to Margaret Stock, an immigration attorney and adjunct professor of political science at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

“If a state birth certificate is no longer presumptive proof that  someone is an American then some government bureaucracy is going to have to make that decision,” Stock said during a briefing held Monday by the Libertarian CATO Institute. “It’s going to cost money, government agencies are going to get it wrong, so there’s going to be a lot of litigation, and were going to end up…with a National Birth Registry.”

The notion of altering the amendment as an attempt to stem the number of illegal immigrants coming to the United States has gained some traction within recent months, including from moderate Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)

“I’m looking at the laws that exist and see if it makes sense today,” Graham said in a July interview with Fox News. “Birthright citizenship doesn’t make so much sense when you understand the world as it is.”