Friday, April 11, 2008

From 64,000 criminal deportations in '06 to 450,000 in '08?

Another positive swing of the pendelum known as federal immigration enforcement:

The U.S. Homeland Security department has launched an ambitious nationwide effort that would cost $2 billion to $3 billion a year to identify and deport the estimated 300,000 to 450,000 illegal immigrants locked up each year in jails and prisons.
That's a big step up from the announcement made by Julie Myers in January that ICE would deport 200,000 illegal criminals (heh, as opposed to the legal criminal) this year. And it's a quantum leap forward from the 95,000 removed in '07 and the 64,000 removed in '06.

Not everyone is celebrating:
Arnoldo Garcia, program coordinator for the National Network of Immigrant Refugee Rights, said the ICE effort could result in profiling of immigrants.

''They're wasting resources," said Garcia, whose group is based in California. ''And how are they going to verify the rights of those individuals who are jailed?"
It should be (though it's not) stunning that there exists opposition to removing convicted criminals from the US. The "profiling" charge doesn't even make sense, unless it is incarcerated prisoners--whose privacy is forfeited upon conviction and sentencing--that is at issue. Garcia's last sentence is even more baffling. I'm not sure what rights he's referring to, or what effect verifying them is supposed to have.

The point of excerpting the feeble criticism is to show that even the "jobs Americans won't do" and "family values" bromides can't be used here. There really are no grounds for opposition to this from any point of view claiming to have the US' well being at heart. Not in the criminal deportations, anyway, but another aspect of the announcement is problematic for the open borders side. ICE also plans to:
Increase the 287 (g) program, which trains state and local law enforcement officers to perform immigration duties.
The program essentially gives participating law enforcement agencies at the state and local levels the power to perform immigration enforcement functions. That ICE would favor an expansion of this program in an attempt to allay concerns that the agency is inept isn't surprising. An MoA, a few weeks of training and certification, and police are helping get the job done.

The only thing I don't like about the announcement is an "expansion" of early parole programs for non-violent inmates if they agree to deportation. Those behind bars for a non-felonious crime wouldn't be committing a felony (I don't think, unless that was stipulated as part of the early-release agreement) upon re-entry as immigrants who are convicted of felonies and then deported from the US do when they return [Actually, I was wrong about that--to re-enter the US after being forcibly deported is to commit a feloney. Thanks to John S Bolton for setting me straight].

We've seen time and time again that making it more difficult to live here illegally makes people less likely to live here illegally. Profound, I know. A full sentence followed by deportation is a tougher pill to swallow than immediate deportation alone is.


John S. Bolton said...

Returning illegally after having been once deported is a felony.
These numbers are already large enough to affect crime statistics. If they reached hundreds of thousands per year, that would be enough to affect wages and rents in the relevant barrios.
As you say, there is no pro-American rationale for allowing large numbers of foreign criminals to wander and depredate at will. We know that ethnoracial activists and agents of foreign interests have their own reasons to value the retention of such criminals. What about the others, though, isn't this a showing of a disinterested liking for freedom-for-aggression and a perverse valuing of openness to increase of aggression? Considerations of this kind cause me to wonder if some irreducible motivations which are not within the normal range of human interests, wouldn't be part of the explanation here.

Audacious Epigone said...


Thanks for clearing that up. I was under the wrong impression regarding reentry.