November 23, 2010
Washington D.C. - The DREAM Act - a popular proposal to provide legal status to undocumented youth who entered the U.S. as children, graduated from U.S. high schools, and attend college or enter the military - is the target of a smear campaign from anti-immigration hardliners. This tired effort to pit immigrants and native-born, whether they are workers or students, against one another is not only destructive, but has no basis in fact. Moreover, it ignores the economic benefits that come from legalizing a group of talented, hard-working individuals who want nothing more than to contribute to America and repay the country for the opportunities they've been given.
Research has shown that providing a legal status for young people who have a proven record of success in the United States would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. The U.S. military also needs the DREAM Act. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, Bill Carr, stated that the law would be "good for readiness" and would help to recruit "cream of the crop" students. The DREAM Act is part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.
Yet, despite the popular support and extensive data that should make passage of the DREAM Act a no-brainer, there are those who continue to spread half-truths. The Immigration Policy Center has compiled a fact check that breaks down typical myths about the DREAM Act.
To view the fact check, in its entirety see:
Dispelling DREAM Act Myths (IPC Fact Check, November 23, 2010)
The DREAM Act to be Revived in Congress
November 18, 2010
Washington, D.C. - Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he would introduce the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act as a stand alone bill during the lame duck session of Congress.
First introduced in 2001, the DREAM Act would address the plight of young immigrants who have been raised in the U.S. and managed to succeed despite the challenges of being brought here without proper documentation. The proposal would offer a path to legal status to those who have graduated from high school, stayed out of trouble, and plan to attend college or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years.
Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go on to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation: immigrants brought to the United States at a young age who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with second-generation Americans. These students are culturally American, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth. The vast majority are bicultural and fluent in English.
Research has shown that providing a legal status for young people who have a proven record of success in the United States would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. University presidents and educational associations, as well as military recruiters, business and religious leaders have added their voice to those calling for passage of the bill. The DREAM Act is even part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.
Unfortunately, immigration status and the associated barriers to higher education contribute to a higher-than-average high-school dropout rate. The DREAM Act would eliminate these barriers for many students, and its high-school graduation requirement would provide a powerful incentive for students who might otherwise drop out to stay in school and go on to college.
For research and resources on the DREAM Act visit IPC's resource page:
IPC DREAM Act Resource Page
Washington, D.C. - Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he would introduce the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act as a stand alone bill during the lame duck session of Congress.
First introduced in 2001, the DREAM Act would address the plight of young immigrants who have been raised in the U.S. and managed to succeed despite the challenges of being brought here without proper documentation. The proposal would offer a path to legal status to those who have graduated from high school, stayed out of trouble, and plan to attend college or serve in the U.S. military for at least two years.
Each year, approximately 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, many at the top of their classes, but cannot go on to college, join the military, work, or otherwise pursue their dreams. They belong to the 1.5 generation: immigrants brought to the United States at a young age who were largely raised in this country and therefore share much in common with second-generation Americans. These students are culturally American, growing up here and often having little attachment to their country of birth. The vast majority are bicultural and fluent in English.
Research has shown that providing a legal status for young people who have a proven record of success in the United States would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. University presidents and educational associations, as well as military recruiters, business and religious leaders have added their voice to those calling for passage of the bill. The DREAM Act is even part of the Department of Defense's 2010-2012 Strategic Plan to assist the military in its recruiting efforts.
Unfortunately, immigration status and the associated barriers to higher education contribute to a higher-than-average high-school dropout rate. The DREAM Act would eliminate these barriers for many students, and its high-school graduation requirement would provide a powerful incentive for students who might otherwise drop out to stay in school and go on to college.
For research and resources on the DREAM Act visit IPC's resource page:
IPC DREAM Act Resource Page
ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors That Undermine Them
November 9, 2010
Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases a special report examining ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors That Undermine Them, by Michele Waslin, Ph.D. The paper reviews the steps that ICE has taken in recent months to clarify its enforcement priorities and how those priorities are playing out nationally and in local communities.
"As part of its strategy to gain support for comprehensive immigration reform, the administration has continually touted its enforcement accomplishments. In fact, over the last two years, the Obama administration has committed itself to a full-court press to demonstrate how committed the administration is to removing criminals and others who remain in the country without proper documentation.They have continued to use the enforcement programs of the previous administration, including partnering with state and local law enforcement agencies to identify, detain, and deport immigrants. However, in doing so, they have lost the ability to fully control their own enforcement priorities and enforcement outcomes, and the results have demonstrated that the state and local partners are not necessarily committed to the same priorities."
To view the report, in its entirety see:
ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors that Undermine Them, by Michele Waslin, Ph.D. (IPC Special Report, November 9, 2010)
Washington D.C. - Today, the Immigration Policy Center releases a special report examining ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors That Undermine Them, by Michele Waslin, Ph.D. The paper reviews the steps that ICE has taken in recent months to clarify its enforcement priorities and how those priorities are playing out nationally and in local communities.
"As part of its strategy to gain support for comprehensive immigration reform, the administration has continually touted its enforcement accomplishments. In fact, over the last two years, the Obama administration has committed itself to a full-court press to demonstrate how committed the administration is to removing criminals and others who remain in the country without proper documentation.They have continued to use the enforcement programs of the previous administration, including partnering with state and local law enforcement agencies to identify, detain, and deport immigrants. However, in doing so, they have lost the ability to fully control their own enforcement priorities and enforcement outcomes, and the results have demonstrated that the state and local partners are not necessarily committed to the same priorities."
To view the report, in its entirety see:
ICE's Enforcement Priorities and the Factors that Undermine Them, by Michele Waslin, Ph.D. (IPC Special Report, November 9, 2010)
Special Edition: Immigration Detainers
Director's Corner
Special Edition: Immigration Detainers
This week we continue our Director's Corner series on DHS programs that operate at the state and local level by focusing on immigration detainers. Like Secure Communities (the focus of last week's edition) immigration detainers impact immigration practitioners and their clients because they often result in detention and initiation of removal proceedings. If you have clients or case examples affected by state and local initiatives (like Secure Communities or detainers) please see the Take Action below to contact AILA.
What are Immigration Detainers?
An immigration detainer is a tool used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to identify potentially removable individuals who are in criminal custody nationwide.
The detainer is a non-binding request from ICE to another law enforcement agency (LEA) - such as a state or local jail - for notification that an individual is scheduled to be released from local custody and is intended to provide ICE a window within which to make timely arrangements to assume custody of that individual. In effect, the detainers authorizes the LEA to continue holding the individual for an additional 48 hours after their release from criminal custody - that is, after the individual has posted bond, completed a criminal sentence, or had the case against them dismissed.
At the end of the 48-hour period, the detainer expires. If ICE has not taken custody of the individual the LEA is required to release them.
How Does ICE Identify Individuals That May be Subject to a Detainer?
In recent years, the use of detainers has expanded greatly as they have become the linchpin of programs such as 287(g), Secure Communities, and the Criminal Alien Program which increasingly intertwine the state criminal justice systems with federal immigration enforcement.
Depending on the degree of cooperation between local jails and ICE, a detainer is issued in a number of ways. In jails where ICE agents are present, ICE agents may use booking information or other information provided by local officials to make decisions about whom to interview and whether to issue a detainer. If the jail has a 287(g) agreement with ICE, deputized local law enforcement officers work with ICE to interview arrestees and issue detainers. In the case of Secure Communities, an individual's fingerprints are run at booking through both the FBI and immigration databases. A detainer is issued if ICE believes the individual is removable from the U.S.
In cases where the jail has no formal partnership with ICE, a detainer can still issued if local officials contact ICE with information about persons they believe to be foreign-born - often based on booking information or simply because they look or sound "foreign."
What's wrong with Immigration Detainers?
Detainers Are Widely Misunderstood by LEAs
Misunderstandings about the nature of detainers are rampant among LEAs, particularly concerning the 48-hour limit for lawfully holding someone on a detainer. Frequently LEA officers hold individuals far beyond the 48-hour time limit. Yet detainees have little recourse when they are detained unlawfully; they languish in detention until ICE comes to pick them up, weeks or months after the detainer expired. Furthermore, LEAs often misunderstand, or are misinformed by ICE about, the meaning of a detainer, regarding it as a requirement to maintain custody, rather than a request.
Prolonged Detention for Immigrants
A detainer often affects a person’s ability to be released on bail pending criminal charges. Generally, criminal defendants with less serious charges are allowed to return to their communities before trial if they post bail. However, when ICE issues a detainer, some courts consider the detainer an adverse factor when determining a bail amount or whether to set bail at all. Other times, a judge may set bail, but the sheriff's office will refuse to accept bail from anyone with an ICE detainer. As a result, immigrants with minor, non-violent offenses, who otherwise would have been released from custody, spend months in jail waiting for the criminal charges against them to be resolved.
Detainer Policy Isn't in Sync with ICE Enforcement Priorities
In June, ICE issued a memo on its enforcement priorities, focusing on immigrants who have been convicted of serious crimes. In contradiction to its own stated policies, ICE continues to issue detainers pre-trial and without regard to the seriousness of the criminal offense for which the alleged non-citizen, and sometimes U.S. citizen, was arrested.
ICE Request for Comment on Detainer Policy
On August 1, 2010, ICE issued draft guidance policy which aimed to provide additional guidance on detainer issuance but which unfortunately did not address many of AILA's larger concerns with detainers policy. AILA and other organizations issued comments identify several major problems with the proposed guidance.
For more information, read the draft guidance policy and AILA comments.
Stay tuned. Same Pulse Time. Same Pulse Channel.
Loren Crippin
Advocacy Associate
Special Contributor to the Director's Corner
Giving Facts a Fighting Chance: A GuideAnswers to the Toughest Immigration Questions
October 12, 2010
Washington, D.C. - In heated, election-year politics, the facts often take a back seat to campaign rhetoric - particularly when it comes to immigration. In an effort to defend the facts and provide basic answers to the most commonly asked questions, the Immigration Policy Center releases: Giving Facts a Fighting Chance: Answers to the Toughest Immigration Questions.
This comprehensive Q&A guide reviews the most current research available, debunks myths, and answers some of the most common immigration-related questions, including those about worksite enforcement, border security, birthright citizenship, access to public benefits, immigrants and crime, immigrant integration, the economic impacts of immigration, and more.
To view the guide in its entirety, see:
Giving Facts a Fighting Chance: Answers to the Toughest Immigration Questions (IPC Guide, October 12, 2010)
Washington, D.C. - In heated, election-year politics, the facts often take a back seat to campaign rhetoric - particularly when it comes to immigration. In an effort to defend the facts and provide basic answers to the most commonly asked questions, the Immigration Policy Center releases: Giving Facts a Fighting Chance: Answers to the Toughest Immigration Questions.
This comprehensive Q&A guide reviews the most current research available, debunks myths, and answers some of the most common immigration-related questions, including those about worksite enforcement, border security, birthright citizenship, access to public benefits, immigrants and crime, immigrant integration, the economic impacts of immigration, and more.
To view the guide in its entirety, see:
Giving Facts a Fighting Chance: Answers to the Toughest Immigration Questions (IPC Guide, October 12, 2010)
Touting the Record
10/07/2010, 1:57 pm
by Victor Nieblas Pradis, AILA Secretary
Yesterday, the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano and the director of ICE, John Morton proudly announced they had broken a record—in fiscal year 2010, the Obama Administration deported 392,000 immigrants. That’s good news for those who claim Obama does not enforce the nation’s dysfunctional immigration laws. But, statistics and numbers do not tell the entire story.
Everyone agrees that we need to protect the American public. And the Administration has correctly made removing dangerous criminals a top priority. Yet, only half of those removed—more than 195,000—were convicted criminals. And there is no way to know whether they were priority cases—Terrorists and dangerous criminals—or simply folks who had been deported for some long ago youthful indiscretion. The rest of the deportees–197,000 people–had committed no crimes and were otherwise likely law abiding, hard working folks. The government’s big statistic leaves me wondering how many of them were mothers and fathers forced to leave American families.
ICE programs like Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), aimed at detaining noncitizen criminals, might look good on paper but don’t necessarily stand up to close scrutiny. Both programs have drawn criticism because they are susceptible to abuse. Critics argue they lack safeguards against racial profiling or related abuses.. The Administration stated Wednesday that no racial profiling will occur because the Secure Communities program screens everybody who gets fingerprinted regardless of race. Yet, this claim does not account for the fact that an individual’s immigration history can be checked regardless of whether he or she is ever charged with an offense. The obvious danger is that an arrest may easily become a pretext for a quick check on a person’s immigration status creating a very real danger that people who look or sound “foreign”– including US citizens – will be subjected to racial profiling.
The CAP program has resulted in Latinos suffering increased rates of arrests for petty offenses. A report on the CAP program discovered that implementation of the CAP program in Irving, Texas coincided with a spike in the arrests of Latinos for petty crimes. See Trevor Gardner II and Aarti Kohli, The C.A.P. Effect: Racial Profiling in the ICE Criminal Alien Program (The Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity, Sept. 2009). The report concluded that there is compelling evidence that the CAP program “tacitly encourages local police to arrest Hispanics for petty offenses.” The report also noted that ICE is not following the program’s congressional mandate to focus resources on the deportation of immigrants with serious criminal histories.
In Florida the most recent ICE data shows that in Broward and St. Lucie counties over 51 percent of Secure Communities deportations are of non-criminals. All 67 Florida counties became party to Secure Communities as of June 2010. See, ICE, Secure Communities: Setting the Record Straight. In Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 54 percent of deportations are of non-criminals. In Harris County, Texas, 1,880 of the roughly 8,000 illegal immigrants removed through the program were counted as aggravated felons, about 5,500 had convictions for lesser crimes and 620 had no criminal history. See Susan Caroll, All Texas counties join ICE immigrant checks. Yet, the Harris County Texas Sheriff failed to mention this at yesterday’s press conference. In Webb County, Texas, 53 percent of individuals deported pursuant to Secure Communities had no criminal record. In Maricopa County, Arizona it was 54 percent. In Pima County, Arizona, it was 51%. See, ICE, Setting the Record Straight. Yet, Wednesday’s announcement continues to boast that Secure Communities as a program that successfully targets serious criminal aliens. This is simply not the case.
The bottom line is that Secure Communities has created “insecure communities” where people live in fear and families have been separated due to minor driving violations. Addressing this concern, the Administration stated in yesterday’s announcement, “unfortunately families do get separated in the immigration process.” What about America’s commitment to “family values”? Where is the humanity in this process? Numbers and statistics do not tell the whole story.
Some communities have requested to opt-out of the Secure Communities program to maintain their strong relationships with the community. In a recent letter Secretary Napolitano assured Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren that a community not wishing to participate in the Secure Communities program could opt out. Yet, in Wednesday’s announcement Secretary Napolitano stated, “we do not view this as an opt-in, opt out program.”
Thus, while the higher deportation numbers are offered to underscore the Administration’s enforcement efforts, we need to ask whether, in the absence of a comprehensive fix to our dysfunctional immigration system, it is also smart enforcement. Who has been deported? Are we removing undocumented youngsters whose only offense is to dream? Are we deporting future soliders and scholars? Are we deporting mothers and fathers who support American families? Are we forcibly separating mothers from small children? Are we deporting the Nikki Diaz Santillan’s of our country who work tirelessly to make our businesses and families prosper while receiving no reward for their efforts?
If these are the people we are deporting, then there is nothing to tout about.
I fear that by the time we get around to reaching a solution countless American families will have been separated and destroyed. I for one hope that the Administraion’s next announcement of record breaking immigration news will be that it has kept its promise to the American people to fix our badly broken immigration system.
Now that would be something to tout about.
by Victor Nieblas Pradis, AILA Secretary
Yesterday, the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano and the director of ICE, John Morton proudly announced they had broken a record—in fiscal year 2010, the Obama Administration deported 392,000 immigrants. That’s good news for those who claim Obama does not enforce the nation’s dysfunctional immigration laws. But, statistics and numbers do not tell the entire story.
Everyone agrees that we need to protect the American public. And the Administration has correctly made removing dangerous criminals a top priority. Yet, only half of those removed—more than 195,000—were convicted criminals. And there is no way to know whether they were priority cases—Terrorists and dangerous criminals—or simply folks who had been deported for some long ago youthful indiscretion. The rest of the deportees–197,000 people–had committed no crimes and were otherwise likely law abiding, hard working folks. The government’s big statistic leaves me wondering how many of them were mothers and fathers forced to leave American families.
ICE programs like Secure Communities and the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), aimed at detaining noncitizen criminals, might look good on paper but don’t necessarily stand up to close scrutiny. Both programs have drawn criticism because they are susceptible to abuse. Critics argue they lack safeguards against racial profiling or related abuses.. The Administration stated Wednesday that no racial profiling will occur because the Secure Communities program screens everybody who gets fingerprinted regardless of race. Yet, this claim does not account for the fact that an individual’s immigration history can be checked regardless of whether he or she is ever charged with an offense. The obvious danger is that an arrest may easily become a pretext for a quick check on a person’s immigration status creating a very real danger that people who look or sound “foreign”– including US citizens – will be subjected to racial profiling.
The CAP program has resulted in Latinos suffering increased rates of arrests for petty offenses. A report on the CAP program discovered that implementation of the CAP program in Irving, Texas coincided with a spike in the arrests of Latinos for petty crimes. See Trevor Gardner II and Aarti Kohli, The C.A.P. Effect: Racial Profiling in the ICE Criminal Alien Program (The Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity and Diversity, Sept. 2009). The report concluded that there is compelling evidence that the CAP program “tacitly encourages local police to arrest Hispanics for petty offenses.” The report also noted that ICE is not following the program’s congressional mandate to focus resources on the deportation of immigrants with serious criminal histories.
In Florida the most recent ICE data shows that in Broward and St. Lucie counties over 51 percent of Secure Communities deportations are of non-criminals. All 67 Florida counties became party to Secure Communities as of June 2010. See, ICE, Secure Communities: Setting the Record Straight. In Suffolk County, Massachusetts, 54 percent of deportations are of non-criminals. In Harris County, Texas, 1,880 of the roughly 8,000 illegal immigrants removed through the program were counted as aggravated felons, about 5,500 had convictions for lesser crimes and 620 had no criminal history. See Susan Caroll, All Texas counties join ICE immigrant checks. Yet, the Harris County Texas Sheriff failed to mention this at yesterday’s press conference. In Webb County, Texas, 53 percent of individuals deported pursuant to Secure Communities had no criminal record. In Maricopa County, Arizona it was 54 percent. In Pima County, Arizona, it was 51%. See, ICE, Setting the Record Straight. Yet, Wednesday’s announcement continues to boast that Secure Communities as a program that successfully targets serious criminal aliens. This is simply not the case.
The bottom line is that Secure Communities has created “insecure communities” where people live in fear and families have been separated due to minor driving violations. Addressing this concern, the Administration stated in yesterday’s announcement, “unfortunately families do get separated in the immigration process.” What about America’s commitment to “family values”? Where is the humanity in this process? Numbers and statistics do not tell the whole story.
Some communities have requested to opt-out of the Secure Communities program to maintain their strong relationships with the community. In a recent letter Secretary Napolitano assured Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren that a community not wishing to participate in the Secure Communities program could opt out. Yet, in Wednesday’s announcement Secretary Napolitano stated, “we do not view this as an opt-in, opt out program.”
Thus, while the higher deportation numbers are offered to underscore the Administration’s enforcement efforts, we need to ask whether, in the absence of a comprehensive fix to our dysfunctional immigration system, it is also smart enforcement. Who has been deported? Are we removing undocumented youngsters whose only offense is to dream? Are we deporting future soliders and scholars? Are we deporting mothers and fathers who support American families? Are we forcibly separating mothers from small children? Are we deporting the Nikki Diaz Santillan’s of our country who work tirelessly to make our businesses and families prosper while receiving no reward for their efforts?
If these are the people we are deporting, then there is nothing to tout about.
I fear that by the time we get around to reaching a solution countless American families will have been separated and destroyed. I for one hope that the Administraion’s next announcement of record breaking immigration news will be that it has kept its promise to the American people to fix our badly broken immigration system.
Now that would be something to tout about.
The American Immigration Council Addresses Problems with Draft Immigration Detainer Policy
October 5, 2010
Washington D.C. - The American Immigration Council has joined a number of organizations in formally commenting on a proposed detainer policy issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Detainers are requests from ICE to local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) to hold people - whom they suspect may be in the country illegally or who may be deportable for other reasons - so they can be transferred into ICE's custody. There has been much criticism about how ICE uses detainers, and the use of detainers has expanded over time with enforcement programs like 287(g), Secure Communities, and the Criminal Alien Program. To address the criticisms, ICE developed new draft guidelines on the issuance of detainers.
The Immigration Council acknowledges ICE's attempt to ameliorate its detainer policies and is grateful for the opportunity to comment. However, the comments identify several major problems with the proposed guidance, including:
- The proposed guidelines do not reflect ICE's stated enforcement priorities. In July, ICE issued a memo on its enforcement priorities, focusing on immigrants with serious criminal histories. ICE's proposed detainer guidelines contradict those priorities. Although ICE claims to target convicted criminals who pose a threat to public safety, the proposed guidance would allow ICE to issue detainers against people arrested for minor offenses and suspects charged with crimes but not convicted.
- The guidance does not address the continuing confusion about detainers. Many LEAs mistakenly believe that detainers require them to detain people until ICE assumes custody. In fact, a detainer is merely a request, not a requirement. Moreover, federal regulations clearly state that detainers permit LEAs to hold people for no more than 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays) after their release from local custody. Because LEAs regularly violate this rule, they unlawfully detain people who then languish in detention with little recourse. The proposed guidelines contain no provisions to educate LEAs about detainers and do not require ICE to educate detained people about their rights or their ability to challenge a detainer.
Getting detainer policy right is important because ICE detainers have severe consequences for people being held in jails. Apart from the concerns raised above, detainers impact whether people are granted bail, the amount of bail, and their ability to have legal representation and a fair hearing in their criminal cases. Communities also incur significant costs for the extended incarceration of people subject to ICE detainers. Though ICE should be commended for formalizing a written detainer policy, the draft guidance leaves the most challenging issues unresolved.
To view American Immigration Council's comments in their entirety, see:
Comments on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Draft Detainer Policy (Legal Action Center, October 1, 2010)
For more information on immigration detainers, see:
Immigration Detainers: A Comprehensive Look (Immigration Policy Center Fact Check, February 17, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)