Friday, October 19, 2012

ICE Scaling Back 287(g) Program » Immigration Impact

ICE Scaling Back 287(g) Program » Immigration Impact

Oct 19

ICE Scaling Back 287(g) Program

The 287(g) program has been controversial and criticized for years, and immigrant advocates have demanded that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) terminate the program.  Section 287(g) of the INA allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to enter into agreements that delegate immigration powers to local police, but only through negotiated agreements, documented in Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs).    The task force model deputizes police to enforce immigration laws in the course of their regular activities on the streets, and the jail model places deputized police officers within jails.  A recent development raises questions about the future of the program.

Critics of the 287(g) program have argued that it is not effective, does not target serious criminals, harms community policing efforts, and leads to racial profiling.
ICE recently sent letters to all jurisdictions that have 287(g) partnerships informing them that their Memoranda of Understandings (MOAs) – which expired on September 30 –  have been extended through December 31, 2012.  Additionally, ICE stated that they are phasing out the 287(g) task force models because they “have proven to be a less efficient means of identifying priority individuals subject to removal compared to other enforcement programs.” It is unclear whether task force models will be ended after December 31, or whether a more gradual phasing out is planned.   It is also unknown when and how jail model agreements will be renegotiated. For example, Sheriff Adrian Garcia of Harris County, TX is reportedly asking ICE to make specific changes to its MOA before signing off on a new agreement.  It is unclear whether ICE plans to make any modifications to some or all of the MOAs.
Apparently ICE is phasing out the task force model in favor of Secure Communities, which is already activated in most jurisdictions across the country.  ICE spokeswoman Danielle Bennett stated, “The Secure Communities screening process, coupled with federal officers, is more consistent, efficient and cost effective in identifying and removing criminal and other priority aliens.”
While the two programs are very different, Secure Communities and the task force model can be seen as redundant.  All persons booked into jails have their fingerprints run against immigration databases, regardless of whether the arresting officer was a deputized 287(g) officer or not.  On the other hand, the 287(g) jail model can work in combination with Secure Communities.  287(g) officers can follow up when someone receives a Secure Communities database hit, and can issue a detainer or a Notice to Appear, initiating deportation proceedings.  Even if there is no database hit, 287(g) jail officers can interview persons they believe to be noncitizens and initiate immigration enforcement if appropriate.
However, there are still many problems with the 287(g) jail model. Critics of the 287(g) program have argued that it is not effective, does not target serious criminals, harms community policing efforts, and leads to racial profiling.  ICE recently terminated a 287(g) program in Alamance County, NC after the Department of Justice completed a two year investigation and concluded that the sheriff’s office racially profiled Latinos.  Both the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) have found serious problems with the program and have made numerous recommendations, all of which have not been complied with yet.
he 287(g) program – the jail and the task force models — remains highly problematic, and many organizations are calling for it to be terminated entirely.  While ICE continues to have difficulty sticking to its own priorities, the problems are enhanced when immigration enforcement is outsourced to local law enforcement agencies.  Given the evidence of racial profiling and civil rights violations, and the harm to community relations and community safety that 287(g) can create, it is definitely time for ICE to make a decision about the continuation of the program.
 14 2

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Immigration Enforcement and the Fugitive Slave Acts: Exploring Their Similarities by Karla McKanders :: SSRN

Immigration Enforcement and the Fugitive Slave Acts: Exploring Their Similarities by Karla McKanders :: SSRN

Immigration Enforcement and the Fugitive Slave Acts: Exploring Their Similarities

Karla Mari McKanders

University of Tennessee College of Law

October 9, 2012

Catholic Law Review, Vol. 61.4, No. 1, 2012, Forthcoming

Two seemingly different federal enforcement systems that affect the movement of unskilled workers — the 1793 and 1850 Fugitive Slave Acts and current state immigration enforcement policies — have remarkable similarities. Both systems are political stories that are demonstrative of the failure of federalism. The federal government’s current failure to enforce immigration laws has encouraged state and local governments to pass their own laws. Alabama and Arizona have enacted far-reaching laws, which are similar to the federal Immigration and Nationality Act § 287(g) programs. Both have been challenged on constitutional preemption and equal protection grounds. Recent scholarship has focused mainly on whether the state and local actions are constitutionally preempted. Current scholarship has overlooked ways the federal government has previously utilized state and local entities to enforce federal laws that govern individual rights. To date, legal scholars have not engaged in this comparison. This article challenges the notion of the Fugitive Slave Acts’ irrelevance in this context by examining in detail the similarities of both systems and the results that are produced when the federal government is provided with unfettered discretion to abrogate individual rights.

The article proceeds in three parts. Part I provides an overview of the implementation and enforcement of the Constitution’s Fugitive Slave Clause and the 1793 and 1850 Fugitive Slave Acts. This Part also explores the implementation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the evisceration of the Fugitive Slave Acts when subsequent immigration laws refused to recognize equal protection rights for immigrants. Part II explores the reverse immigration-federalism story in which states and localities are enacting immigration legislation against the backdrop of federal inaction. Part III explores how both the Fugitive Slave Acts and current immigration enforcement laws create outsiders by failing to protect individual liberty rights. The article concludes with broad doctrinal lessons on immigration federalism and demonstrates how the law and legal actors can perpetuate norms that facilitate the creation of tiered personhood.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 28
Keywords: immigration, fugitive slave act, equal protection, immigration enforcement
Accepted Paper Series