Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Consequences of Enforcement Without Reform

By Think Progress Staff, Think Progress. Posted June 4, 2008.


The mechanisms of immigration law enforcement violate the due process and basic human rights of immigrants.
Advertisement

The public debate on immigration reform in the United States has tended to focus on a narrow set of factors: a porous border between the U.S. and Mexico, the large number of undocumented immigrants inside the United States, and the politics of comprehensive reform versus border security. Hidden beneath the surface of these debates, however, is a shadowy world of law enforcement mechanisms that not only exacerbate the immigration problem in the country, but also violate the due process and basic human rights of immigrants who get caught up in a "system of neglect" that can at times result in unnecessary death. These problems often begin at the front lines of enforcement. Last month, federal agents conducted the "biggest immigration raid in U.S. history" that nabbed nearly 400 workers at a meat-packing plant in Iowa. While most of the people arrested have been sentenced, "not one company official as yet faces any charges -- something critics say is typical of a federal government that is tough on employees but easy on owners." In fact, such raids tend to reinforce the Bush administration's public relations campaign designed to present the facade that "the federal government is cracking down on illegal immigration." As Frank Sharry, executive director of the immigration-reform group America's Voice, noted, "[T]hose who think enforcement is the answer can't seriously believe the 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. can be arrested and deported."

Operation Streamline

Last November, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that "the days of treating employers who violate [immigration] laws by giving them the equivalent of a corporate parking ticket -- those days are gone. It's now felonies, jail time, fines, and forfeitures." But throughout 2007, just two percent of illegal immigration related arrests "involved criminal charges against those who hired the workers." In fact, the federal government's focus on employees rather than employers has "increased criminal prosecutions of immigration violators to record levels in part by filing minor charges against virtually every person caught illegally crossing some stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border." Piloted in 2005, "Operation Streamline," as the program is known, "requires that virtually everyone caught illegally crossing segments of the border be charged with at least a misdemeanor immigration count and jailed until they are brought to court and, if convicted, eventually deported." However, last February, Streamline cases outnumbered all other Department of Justice prosecutions combined. The program is "swamping federal courthouses" and "distorting the functions of law enforcement and the courts" as sex crimes, drug cases, murders, assault, and other crimes increasingly are ignored. "We're concerned about the misdirection of resources," said Heather Williams, first assistant to the federal public defender of Arizona, adding "this is taking on a life of its own."

'Better Care in the Dog Pound'

Since 2003, "when the Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] agency was created, 83 deaths reportedly have been linked to detention sites run by ICE or by private contractors and local governments." The ICE detention infrastructure holds more than 300,000 detainees per year and recent crackdowns have fueled a dramatic expansion, nearly doubling the number of beds (33,000) since 2004. A recent investigation of ICE detention centers by the Washington Post "found a hidden world of flawed medical judgments, faulty administrative practices, neglectful guards, ill-trained technicians, sloppy record-keeping, lost medical files and dangerous staff shortages." Detainees who are physically sick or mentally ill are caught up in ICE's "system of neglect" where "[t]hey are locked in a world of slow care, poor care and no care, with panic and cover-ups among employees watching it happen." One detainee, Yusif Osman, a native of Ghana, died in his cell of heart failure. It's likely his death resulted from poor record keeping and neglect. Doctors who reviewed Osman's case said "he might have lived had he received timely treatment, perhaps as basic as an aspirin." One nurse at an Arizona detention facility -- who quit because of "scary medicine" practices -- concluded that "dogs get better care in the dog pound."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: rights, immigration, reform, smuggling, enforecement

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Immigration! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Deja Vu
Posted by: countingdaisies on Jun 4, 2008 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seems like we have read this before . . . many times before.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You dont complain Posted by: Mexitli
Increased what??
Posted by: Baal_Labs on Jun 5, 2008 4:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" The "[i]ncreased corruption is linked, in part, to tougher enforcement, driving smugglers to recruit federal employees as accomplices."

Huh?!? Increased enforcement of laws leads to increased crime??

So we could end rape and robbery in our time by firing all the police? Great!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Increased what?? Posted by: desidid
Who On This Line Has Ever
Posted by: desidid on Jun 5, 2008 6:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
been opposed to employer sanctions? In fact, that might be one of the only places where there seems to be total agreement. The problem I see moving forward would come if and when the government actually began to sanction 15 to 20% of the employers, then these stories would bemoan the loss of jobs for illegal immigrants. I see no win until we have a national immigration policy for every nation. One where every conceivable group is taken into account from low wage earners, to high tech, to refugees, to women facing mutilation. This current argument is narrowly focused and disingenuous because we aren't talking about a policy which is inclusive of anyone wishing to come, we are speaking only to the issue of Hispanics. That this doesn't seem like a racist policy, a treaty in effect, is myopic obfuscation of the facts on the ground.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

South Carolina's New Immigration Laws
Posted by: desidid on Jun 6, 2008 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
actually give natives the ability to sue an employer if they can prove they were replaced by an illegal immigrant. This may not be as difficult as it first appears. I worked in a barn where a young Black man came looking for the open groom's position we had. The assistant trainer stopped him before he finished his sentence and said, "No the position has been filled." That was a lie, not only was the one groom job not filled we needed two. They were both eventually filled by illegal immigrants. The other assistant called him on his apparent bias, his response was "We have enough of them (2 Blacks) here already. That job had probably 33 illegal immigrants working. Another time I wanted to apply for a job as an information rep. at Hialeah racetrack in Fl., and my friend, who was an illegal immigrant from England, spoke with the boss on my behalf. She told me her boss said they didn't hire Blacks to work in front of the house positions, but apparently hiring someone without legal authority to work was just fine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: South Carolina's New Immigration Laws Posted by: republicanwriter