Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Lock, Stock, And Two Smoking Barrels

Well, closer to two squibs. The Migration Policy Institute and the Immigration Policy Institute have both come out with attacks on the 287(g) and Secure Communities programs, respectively. Both are communist run immigration think tanks dedicated to over-runing America will aliens, both legal and illegal. Neither refer to illegal aliens, but to the immigrant community in their recent screeds against cooperation between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on one hand and State and local law enforcement agencies on the other hand.
The interesting part of their separate, but indistinct, publications, was that their conclusions appear to have been ghost written by the same person...perhaps they, like Barak Hussein Obama, hired Bill Ayers.
First, the conclusions of the 287(g) study by the MPI: Delegation and Divergence: A Study of 287(g) State and Local Immigration Enforcement (Sorry, full quotation, you have to read it for yourself as the Reds at MPI locked the copy function from their pdf. Apparenlty they don't want anyone quoting from this document. Given how inaccurate it was, that is not surprising.)
But read it and compare their seven recommendations to the eight from The Immigration Policy Center's THE SECURE COMMUNITIES PROGRAM: UNANSWERED QUESTIONS AND CONTINUING CONCERNS:

1.ICE must reinforce its commitment to prioritize those immigrants who have been convicted of egregious felony offenses, or who truly pose a threat to the community, by issuing strict guidelines that include:•Secure Communities should not be focused on individuals convicted of non‐felony offenses.•Secure Communities screening should take place upon conviction, not during the pre‐conviction stage.

2.DHS should clarify that an immigration detainer is not the equivalent of a criminal arrest warrant or criminal detainer, and is simply a non‐mandatory request that police maintain custody of an individual for a maximum of 48 hours to facilitate DHS’s picking that person up. DHS should clarify that the local jail is not authorized to detain the subject for a period exceeding 48 hours, excluding weekends and holidays.

3.ICE should be required to issue reports to Congress on a regular basis, with statistics on the crimes for which identified non‐citizens are arrested, the disposition of each underlying criminal case, and the nationality and ethnicity of identified non‐citizens. Jurisdictions participating in Secure Communities should be required to report their arrest and identification statistics to ICE supervisors for oversight and management purposes.


4.Congress should request that the GAO or another neutral agency conduct an audit of the Secure Communities program. The report should contain an assessment of Secure Communities goals and objectives, performance measures, supervision and oversight, data tracking, and reporting mechanisms. It is important that officials overseeing the Secure Communities program review the GAO report on 287(g) and make every effort to ensure that this vast new national program be properly defined, documented, evaluated, and supervised. Given the documented shortcomings of the 287(g) and CAP programs, mechanisms should be put into place on the front end, and not delayed until another damaging report is issued on the failures of Secure Communities.

5.The public should receive consistent information about the operation of Secure Communities. Public outreach, community meetings, and information‐sharing should be a central element of program implementation.


6.All jurisdictions participating in Secure Communities should receive training on civil rights and illegal racial or other profiling.

7.DHS must create and implement a strong complaint and redress mechanism for individuals who believe they have been wrongly arrested, detained, or otherwise mistreated under the Secure Communities program.

8.Before expanding Secure Communities to a jurisdiction, DHS should consider the direct and indirect effects that the program could have on public safety and community policing in that jurisdiction. Secure Communities should also ensure that any jurisdiction has the option to refuse to participate in the program, and that local authorities be given instructions for opting out.

Of course, the purpose of both reports was to constrict, limit, and prohibit immigration enforcement by State and local law enforcement agencies as the purpose of both the MPI and IPC were to aid, abet and assist illegal aliens in entering and remaining in the United States in service of the Democrat and Communist parties. They are in fact conjoined organizations that have the same goal of destroying the United States.
We need not go further than the first recommendations of both reports: That ICE stop using 287(g) and Secure Communities for the arrest, detention and removal of illegal aliens except those aliens previously convicted of serious felonies:
First the MPI:

1. Adop a post-conviction policy ofr 287(g) enforcmeent programs. Accordingly, state [sic] and local 287(g) officers place would [sic] detainers on noncitizens only after their conviction for Level 1 and 2 offenses, unless they meet one of the other conditions listed above. In addition, there should be a strong presumption against issuing detainers on those convicted for Level 3 and traffic violations. [Editors note: Nationals of the United States are not citizens and are not aliens. Persons in the United States are either citizens or nationals or aliens. Aliens are subject to the Immigration and Nationality Act, citizens and nationals are not. American nationals are generally those born in American Samoa and the Swains Islands. This inaccurate use of terms is another problem with both of these reports. It should use aliens when refering to any person not a citizen or national.]

And the IPC:

1.ICE must reinforce its commitment to prioritize those immigrants who have been convicted of egregious felony offenses, or who truly pose a threat to the community, by issuing strict guidelines that include:

•Secure Communities should not be focused on individuals convicted of non‐felony offenses.
•Secure Communities screening should take place upon conviction, not during the pre‐conviction stage.

Recommendations from both are soley designed to limit and restrict the number of illegal aliens detained by ICE, nothing more, nothing less. Too many illegal aliens are being identified, arrested and removed by 287(g) and Secure Communities and that does not sit well with either the MPI or IPC.
The next identical recommendation is the following:
MPI:

7. Promote real dialogue between ICE field offices and the local communities. ICE offices should engage in direct community outreadch, including regular...meetings with stakeholer groups and other key constituencies to explain how the program operates. These meetings could be organized through the types of steering committees envision in the original agreements for many 287(g) jurisdictions and referred to in the revised 2009 tiemplate. The steering committees should be broadly constituted forums for public input, not limited to ICE and law enforcement agencies. ICE should also hold open forums or informal comment periods before signing new agreements and renewing existing ones. Given the public a formal role at these different stages of the process would improve teh accountability and public perception of the program and address potential community costs (such as increased fear of law enforcement).

And IPC:

8. Before expanding Secure Communities to a jurisdiction, DHS should consider the direct and indirect effects that the program could have on public safety and community policing in that jurisdiction. Secure Communities should also ensure that any jurisdiction has the option to refuse to participate in the program, and that local authorities be given instructions for opting out.

Different words, but identical motive and sentiment; there is fear among illegal aliens that they may be identified and arrested. That is what it boils down to. The only people who should fear law enforcement are those who have committed a crime.
In fact, the MPI goes further and demands that illegal aliens, "the immigrant community" be consulted with and have a veto over the expansion of 287(g):

5...New 287(g) agreements should not be initiated in jurisdictions believed to have few serious offenders, even when local leaders approach ICE with interests in teh program. ICE should also involve key stakeholders , including local police chiefs and representatives of the immigrant community, in decisions regarding when and where to initiate new agreements. [Ed. Note: There is that word again, "stakeholders." Besides the immigration bar, the only other stakeholder is the illegal alien "community." ]

And that is echoed by the IPC:

8. Before expanding Secure Communities to a jurisdiction, DHS should consider the direct and indirect effects that the program could have on public safety and community policing in that jurisdiction. Secure Communities should also ensure that any jurisdiction has the option to refuse to participate in the program, and that local authorities be given instructions for opting out.

Clearly the recommendations are to give illegal aliens veto over any enforcement activity. Of note the MPI also would prohibit a local community from initiating 287(g), but would allow a community to veto 287(g). Another attempt to restrict the enforcement of Federal law. It also gives police chiefs veto over 287(g) by name, but does not mention sheriffs. Why? Because as the MPI report notes:

State and local jurisdictions elect to sign 287(g) agreements for a variety of reasons, and these reason usually reflect state [sic.] or local political pressures. In all of our study sites, sheriffs and other elected officials promoted 287(g) participation. Appointed law enforcement officers generally did not.

And, of course, no leftist propoganda piece is complete without reference to civil rights, racial profiling and gathering data on those arrested. As if we don't know that most illegal aliens are not white.
The MPI:

Work with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate accusations of racial and ethnic profilign in 287(g) jurisdictions...DOJ and ICE should require jurisdictiosn participtaing in the program to provide race and ethnicity data on traffic stops and other poice encounters as ewll as on arrests, criminal charges, and prosecutorial and judicial disposition of 287(g) arrests...

The IPC:

6. All jurisdictions participating in Secure Communities should receive training on civil rights and illegal racial or other profiling.

Obviously, any gathering of racial and ethnicity data will reveal the painfully obvious, most illegal aliens are not white. Except for Polish and Irish illegal immigration, non-whites will dominate the statistics. There is no point in gathering the obvious, except to provide the basis for lawsuits that will result in further restrictions on questioning, detaining, arresting, and deporting illegal aliens.
So, there we have it, much ado about the painfully obvious: Illegal aliens are mostly non-white, leftists don't want illegal aliens arrested and deported, and leftist groups are all on the same page, waging war against immigration enforcement.
The good news is now we have their plan for the next few years on record and combine it with ICE's planned administrative amnesty and you know what will be happening in 2011. The only question is what Congress will do about this lawlessness in the Executive?

No comments: