Group Wants Federal Immigration Program Dismantled

An organization dedicated to promoting rights for immigrants says that a federal program designed to help state and local governments crack down on illegal immigration is not working.

The report put out by the National Council of La Raza, the largest Hispanic rights advocacy group in the U.S., concludes that the 287(g) program, a provision within the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows state and local law enforcement officials to enter into agreements to enforce federal immigration laws, is causing harm to Latino communities nationwide.

“The 287(g) program has been implemented without adequate training, oversight, transparency and accountability,” said La Raza official Elena Lacayo during a conference call with reporters on Thursday.

“The program should be terminated,” she added.

According to the report, the program has produced several unintended consequences, such as granting police unchecked authority to arrest nonviolent immigrants, and using race as a basis for doing so. Moreover, the report states that 287(g) “has led to a clear deterioration of the relationship between Hispanics and the police.”

As an alternative, La Raza and other like-minded organizations want Congress to prioritize passing comprehensive immigration reform that would include a pathway to citizenship for illegals currently in the U.S. However, since the failure of the McCain-Kennedy bill in 2007, efforts to pass legislation have largely stalled, with lawmakers and groups alike pressing for enhanced border control.

That could change now that the Senate has passed a bill aimed at tightening security along parts of the country’s southwest border. The $600 million measure, which the Senate passed today by taking a temporary break from its August recess, will send 1,500 Border Patrol agents to the region, and will fund two unmanned aerial drones as well as establish military-style bases along the border. Supporters, mostly Democrats, say the bill represents the bargaining chip they believe is necessary to get Republicans to negotiate with them on reform. Still, as of now there are no plans to scrap 287(g).

Since 1996, roughly 70 local police jurisdictions have become enrolled in the program. Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB 1070, grew largely out of the state’s participation in 287(g), which has also taken root in areas close to Washington. Prince William County, a suburb located just 20 miles south of DC, officially enrolled its police department in 287(g) in 2007. Prince William officials attribute reduced crime in their county to participation in the program.

““287(g) is one of the few bright spots in immigration enforcement,” said County Board Supervisor Corey Stewart (R). “I would credit [the program] with reducing Prince William County’s crime rate by 37% in the last two years,” he added.

Earlier this week, Stewart released draft legislation that if passed, would allow the state of Virginia to enforce federal immigration laws. Stewart’s bill is modeled after SB 1070, but avoids what he calls “legal pitfalls” that utimately gave a U.S. District Judge cause to enjoin certain parts of the Arizona law.

Arizona's Immigration Law: What's Left

Although U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put a hold on several of the more explosive provisions in Arizona’s controversial immigration law Wednesday, the rest of the legislation is now in effect. Included are several of the provisions not blocked by Bolton:

-Arizona residents will be allowed to bring legal action against any state official or agency that implements a policy that restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws. If guilty, the official or agency will pay a penalty of $1000-5000 for each day the policy is in place after the suit is filed.

-It will be illegal for day laborers to enter vehicles or for drivers to pick up day laborers if it impedes the flow of traffic.

-Employers will be expected to verify employees’ citizenship via an electronic program.

-State employees and supervisors who discover violations of the federal immigration law will be required to report them or face a misdemeanor.

-Knowingly transporting, hiring or harboring illegal aliens is a crime, as is encouraging or inducing an alien to enter the U.S. illegally.

-Vehicles used to transport illegal aliens can be impounded.

-Arizona residents applying for a federal public benefit will be required to present identification to confirm their citizenship. These forms of IDs include driver’s licenses, birth certificates or documents proving American Indian heritage. Residents will also be required to sign a sworn affidavit ensuring the legitimacy of the document under penalty of perjury.

-The Arizona bill sets up a Joint Border Advisory Committee within the state legislature intended to gather testimony on border security and issue a monthly report.

Arizona Lawmakers React to Court Decision

Philip Bunnell - Talk Radio News Service

Arizona lawmakers from both parties released statements in response to Judge Susan Bolton’s decision to curtail some of the more controversial provisions in the Arizona immigration bill, SB 1070.

Republican senators John McCain and Jon Kyl released a joint statement condemning the court’s decision. 

“We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling and disagree with the court’s opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly ‘burden’ the enforcement of federal immigration law,” the two senators said, “Instead of wasting taxpayer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona…Obama Administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state”

Rep. Ed Pastor (D-4th), on the other hand, was satisfied with the decision. 

“I am pleased with U.S. District Court Judge Bolton’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction that will prevent the core provisions of Senate Bill 1070 from taking effect,” said Pastor in a statement. “The implementation of these provisions would have seriously interfered with federal immigration enforcement causing irreparable harm to the people of Arizona.”

Congressman Jeff Flake (R-6th) said that it was “frustrating to have the federal government actively preventing states from addressing immigration enforcement, when the federal government has shown that it’s unwilling to address immigration reform on its own,” and that it is “going to take comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level to successfully address this issue.”

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-1st), while opposed to SB 1070, supported the attention that it brought to illegal immigration.  Kirkpatrick was rather pessimistic in her statement, concluding that, “there are no winners here – no matter what the courts ultimately decide, we will still have wasted millions of dollars and our borders will still not be secure.”

Congressman Harry Mitchell (D-5th) joined his collegues in harshly criticizing the Obama administration for suing Arizona, saying that “today’s ruling should not provide Washington any kind of excuse not to address the issue.  Arizonans are justifiably fed up with the federal government’s failure to secure the border and fix our broken immigration system, and are fed up with of all the political posturing and grandstanding on this issue.”

Federal Judge Stalls Controversial AZ Immigration Law

By Brandon Kosters - Talk Radio News Service

U.S District Judge Susan Bolton has blocked the controversial provisions of the Arizona immigration law, S.B. 1070. Bolton filed a preliminary injunction against the sections of the law which allowed Arizona police officers to check citizens’ immigration status and required immigrants to carry proof of citizenship with them at all times.

She said that the law could easily lead to wrongful imprisonment of legal residents and that it called for police to perform tasks and exercise authority reserved for the federal government.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is expected to appeal Bolton’s ruling and the case is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Proponents of the law claim that action must be taken to mitigate the incredibly large number of illegal immigrants in Arizona and that the state is simply taking action that the federal government has declined to take.

Opponents of the bill have said the law leads to racial profiling and hurts tourism to the area, particularly from Mexico.

Outspoken critics of the law include President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a prospective Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Arizona.